eHam

eHam Forums => Misc => Topic started by: KU4UV on June 01, 2010, 11:05:16 PM



Title: Repeater Police
Post by: KU4UV on June 01, 2010, 11:05:16 PM
O.K. so I'm listening to one of the 10 meter repeaters out of upstate New York earlier this evening.  There is a QSO in progress between two men, when one of the participants says, "The first personal on this end is (Bob)."  Another ham immediately breaks into the conversation, without I.D.ing and says, "You don't use "personal" on ham radio."  Well, this starts about a 20 minute argument over C.B. talk, repeater rights, protocol, etc.  I copied down some of the callsigns, just don't really want to post them here.  The guy that said, "The first personal here is," made the argument that only the repeater owner should be the one to make the call as to what terms can be used on the repeater.  I know that it sounds pretty tacky and geeky to say, "the first personal here is" when you can just say, "the name here is," but it is also rather rude to interrupt a QSO like that.  This happened on the K2QH repeater, if I have the callsign correctly.  The first two participants in the QSO eventually just signed off, clearly annoyed with the repeater cop.  Anyway, good image of ham radio operators displayed this afternoon for all monitoring the repeater to hear.  I used to listen to 10 meter repeaters on my brother's scanner when I was back in middle school, and that is one of the reasons why I wanted to get my ham license, so I could work the world on 10 meters.  I'm sure glad I never heard anything like what I did earlier this evening.  How petty.

73,
KU4UV


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: KE3WD on June 02, 2010, 08:04:26 PM
What, nobody started playing music recordings on the damn thing as well? 

You sure that was NY? 



Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: K6LHA on June 02, 2010, 09:12:16 PM
O.K. so I'm listening to one of the 10 meter repeaters out of upstate New York earlier this evening.  There is a QSO in progress between two men, when one of the participants says, "The first personal on this end is (Bob)."  Another ham immediately breaks into the conversation, without I.D.ing and says, "You don't use "personal" on ham radio."  Well, this starts about a 20 minute argument over C.B. talk, repeater rights, protocol, etc.   ...    ...

First time I could get a decent loading on 20m to a rain gutter (vertical hadn't arrived yet) with my IC-746Pro, I did a local contact on low power (746Pro has a control for that).  Inadvertently used roger that instead of the "official approved roger" and got broken into and lectured...by someone not identifying themselves.

I would have dismissed it as some kind of singular power-freak making authority noises but I got two like it again a few months later...not using any CB lingo.  Problem was that individual identified himself by call so I went on landline courtesy of QRZ lookup and asked him WTF is going on with him?  Lot of waffling and back-pedaling on landline, but Mr. Authority on the radio.  Not a good thing but I've heard others lecturing, breaking in and interrupting comfortable rag-chews and casual conversations by still others enjoying themselves.

I went to just turning on my Scanner and monitoring VHF bands and haven't heard any repeater police in action.

I've only been talking on radios for 57 years now, one 7 different radio services' bands including the "no band" of DoD contracts not subject to FCC regulation.  I don't see the alleged need of absolutely correct professional amateur protocol in a hobby activity.

73, Len K6LHA


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: N2EY on June 05, 2010, 08:29:30 AM
when one of the participants says, "The first personal on this end is (Bob)."  Another ham immediately breaks into the conversation, without I.D.ing and says, "You don't use "personal" on ham radio." ..... The guy that said, "The first personal here is," made the argument that only the repeater owner should be the one to make the call as to what terms can be used on the repeater.  I know that it sounds pretty tacky and geeky to say, "the first personal here is" when you can just say, "the name here is," but it is also rather rude to interrupt a QSO like that.....How petty.

The person who said the repeater owner has control is mostly right.

Repeater owners and their designated control operators have not only the right but the responsibility to see that the behavior of all who use their machines is in accordance with FCC rules and good amateur practice. IOW, if somebody doesn't follow FCC rules (say, by failing to ID as required), the repeater owner(s) and control ops are supposed to do something about it.

Repeater owners also have the right to simply deny use of their machines to anyone, for any reason.

And it's just plain rude to bust into a QSO where no specific FCC rules are being violated, and there's no emergency.

That said, there's another issue involved: "Good amateur practice".

Using cb terms such as "first personal" rather than "name" isn't good amateur practice. A lot of things that aren't specifically spelled out in the rules aren't good amateur practice either.

The question is, how does someone point out such things in a way that isn't rude? Arguing and insulting isn't the way, of course. But at the same time, if there are no standards, things will go downhill over time.

Just look what happened to 11 meter cb. Started out as a well-behaved law-abiding service in the late 1950s, but over time things changed until there was practically no compliance with FCC rules.

For example, "handle" used to be a common term that simply meant "name". But in cb parlance, "handle" came to mean "a pseudonym invented by the user, used instead of a callsign, to prevent FCC identification when rules are being violated". Which is a completely different thing!

By the 1970s, those few who tried to follow FCC rules on cb found themselves crowded out.

So how do we prevent that happening in amateur radio?

I think one method is to set a good example. There are well-established amateur standards that we can all learn and use.

Another method is to not respond, in a subtle way. For example:

A: "The first personal here is Bob"

B: "Sorry, missed that."

A: "The first personal here is Bob"

B: "Who is Bob?"

A: "Me! My *name* is Bob!

B: "Oh! OK Bob, thanks - wasn't sure what you meant.....my name is Jack...."

Of course some folks will take offense no matter what you do. Best to just ignore them.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: WB2WIK on June 05, 2010, 03:18:29 PM
When someone tells me "the first personal here is..." I generally turn the dial and look for someone else to talk to.

Not worth the debate, it's all silly.

But what horrible operating practice that is!


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: N2EY on June 06, 2010, 06:18:34 AM
When someone tells me "the first personal here is..." I generally turn the dial and look for someone else to talk to.

Not worth the debate, it's all silly.

But what horrible operating practice that is!

The problem is that at least some folks think "first personal" is *good* operating practice!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: AA4PB on June 06, 2010, 10:38:01 AM
"Repeater owners also have the right to simply deny use of their machines to anyone, for any reason"

They can deny use by turning off the repeater or using a CTCSS tone but they can't keep you from transmitting legally on the input frequency. While it may not be the best use, using the term "first personal" is NOT illegal. The guy who gives him a lecture without IDing his station however IS operating illegally.


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: K6LHA on June 06, 2010, 05:02:13 PM
When someone tells me "the first personal here is..." I generally turn the dial and look for someone else to talk to.

Not worth the debate, it's all silly.

But what horrible operating practice that is!

The problem is that at least some folks think "first personal" is *good* operating practice!

Why does that enrage you two?

Could it be that your consider yourself too good than other federally licensed radio amateurs?

Len K6LHA


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: N2EY on June 06, 2010, 07:04:31 PM
"Repeater owners also have the right to simply deny use of their machines to anyone, for any reason"

They can deny use by turning off the repeater or using a CTCSS tone but they can't keep you from transmitting legally on the input frequency. While it may not be the best use, using the term "first personal" is NOT illegal. The guy who gives him a lecture without IDing his station however IS operating illegally.


Yes, repeater owners can deny use of their repeaters by various access methods and by simply turning them off.

IANAL, but IMHO, intentionally transmitting on the input or output frequencies of a coordinated repeater may not be legal, if it causes harmful interference to users of the machine. 

While no one in amateur radio "owns" a frequency, FCC has consistently ruled that coordinated repeaters have priority over uncoordinated ones if harmful interference results. It's therefore logical to conclude that FCC would consider simplex operation the same way if and only if harmful interference resulted.

I agree that the cited unidentified operation is a rules violation. No reason for it.

"First personal" isn't illegal, but it's just not good amateur practice. Why not just say "name"? Why use four syllables and an obscure cb term when one syllable that everyone understands will do a better job of conveying the information?

73 de Jim, N2EY 


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: N5YPJ on June 06, 2010, 08:54:21 PM
When I departed from CB I remember was the term "handle" being used but not first personal - in fact had I heard someone use that term it would have taken a bit to figure out what was meant. It's definitely not terminology to use in a contest situation. Nowadays I hear folks on the ham band use "handle" somewhat "the handle here is..". We have our own terminology why use another? Sort of like international phonetics, it's made up so if we use the IP correctly everyone everywhere cal write out what we are saying despite the language o pronunciation. I don't believe in repeater or DX police unless someone is making a total disaster of the frequency but good operating practice should always prevail including the police IDing themselves.


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: K0BG on June 07, 2010, 07:21:57 AM
Exceptio probat regulam de rebus non exceptis. 


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: AA4HA on June 07, 2010, 08:39:47 AM
Inadvertently used roger that instead of the "official approved roger" and got broken into and lectured...by someone not identifying themselves.
I would have dismissed it as some kind of singular power-freak making authority noises but I got two like it again a few months later...not using any CB lingo.  Problem was that individual identified himself by call so I went on landline courtesy of QRZ lookup and asked him WTF is going on with him?  Lot of waffling and back-pedaling on landline, but Mr. Authority on the radio.

The OP was obviously a self-appointed protector of purity and an advocate of radio eugenics. Instead of getting involved in a contact they elected to sit on the sidelines to throw rotting vegetables at the crowd. When the hobby is further reduced to the ten folks who think just like them it will be in it's pure state again.

And we wonder why some folks get a license but are seldom heard on the air.

Tisha Hayes


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: W7ETA on June 07, 2010, 02:02:22 PM
I often wonder what the second and third personals are if an OP has a first personal?

The other interesting term is from the UK--sir name?

Fortunately, I still enjoy a complaint posting about some one else complaining.

73
Bob


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: N2HBX on June 09, 2010, 06:18:55 PM
When I departed from CB I remember was the term "handle" being used but not first personal - in fact had I heard someone use that term it would have taken a bit to figure out what was meant. It's definitely not terminology to use in a contest situation. Nowadays I hear folks on the ham band use "handle" somewhat "the handle here is..". We have our own terminology why use another? Sort of like international phonetics, it's made up so if we use the IP correctly everyone everywhere cal write out what we are saying despite the language o pronunciation. I don't believe in repeater or DX police unless someone is making a total disaster of the frequency but good operating practice should always prevail including the police IDing themselves.

"First personal" was used mostly by sideband operators to distinguish themselves as "higher class" operators than their handle-equipped good buddies on AM.

73,
Larry, N2HBX


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: AB7KT on June 11, 2010, 08:45:46 AM
When someone tells me "the first personal here is..." I generally turn the dial and look for someone else to talk to.

Not worth the debate, it's all silly.

But what horrible operating practice that is!


I agree but also take it one step further.  I don't actually transmit on repeaters very often, but I sometimes listen. If I even HEAR someone say "first personal" I either shut off the radio or hit the scan button. And yes, I do think I am better than someone using the term "first personal".


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: K1CJS on June 12, 2010, 07:02:11 AM
When I departed from CB I remember was the term "handle" being used but not first personal - in fact had I heard someone use that term it would have taken a bit to figure out what was meant....... Nowadays I hear folks on the ham band use "handle" somewhat "the handle here is..". We have our own terminology why use another?......

If I remember correctly, the term 'handle' was used by ham operators years ago, and was hyjacked by the 11 meter crowd.  THAT made it distastful to ham operators who stopped using it except for a few holdouts.

I agree with the people who dislike the 'frequency police' and their often done habit of correcting others--while breaking the rules themselves.


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: KH6AQ on June 12, 2010, 10:17:14 AM
Ask the repeater police if as children they were hall monitors.


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: K6LHA on June 12, 2010, 12:37:16 PM
If I remember correctly, the term 'handle' was used by ham operators years ago, and was hyjacked by the 11 meter crowd.  THAT made it distastful to ham operators who stopped using it except for a few holdouts.

Etymologically, the word "handle" was in use in parts of the USA before 1900, particularly towards the sunbelt states.  CB on 11m wasn't allocated until 1958.

73, Len K6LHA


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: KI4SDY on June 14, 2010, 06:40:17 PM
Who the heck cares? These people need to get a life! ::)


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: AB7KT on June 14, 2010, 08:05:59 PM
Who cares ?

Appearently you do since you took the time to read the thread and post a comment about it. And, obviously everybody else who posted a comment cares about it.

If you truely don't care but never the less read the thread and posted a comment about it, let's think about who needs to get a life.


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: N7RCF on June 17, 2010, 08:33:18 AM
Recently, I was listening to a QSO on our club repeater between two of our newest hams. One is 10 the other is 14 and had just received their tickets. I was smiling as I was listening and proud of them. Just then, a self appointed repeater cop breaks into their QSO and tells them to STOP using “over” at the end of a transmission. “That’s CB talk and we don’t allow that kind of thing here”. He then told them that at the end of a transmission, they should say QSL? And the other party should confirm by saying QSL.
These two very intelligent young men have not let such things bother them and are very active on our repeater. As for the repeater cop, after demanding that people say QSL? he has been asked if he is wanting a QSL card  :D


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: N2EY on June 17, 2010, 10:11:17 AM
Recently, I was listening to a QSO on our club repeater between two of our newest hams. One is 10 the other is 14 and had just received their tickets. I was smiling as I was listening and proud of them. Just then, a self appointed repeater cop breaks into their QSO and tells them to STOP using “over” at the end of a transmission. “That’s CB talk and we don’t allow that kind of thing here”. He then told them that at the end of a transmission, they should say QSL? And the other party should confirm by saying QSL.
These two very intelligent young men have not let such things bother them and are very active on our repeater. As for the repeater cop, after demanding that people say QSL? he has been asked if he is wanting a QSL card  :D

The repeater cop had it exactly backwards.


Title: RE: Repeater Police
Post by: W3LK on June 17, 2010, 02:15:00 PM
Recently, I was listening to a QSO on our club repeater between two of our newest hams. One is 10 the other is 14 and had just received their tickets. I was smiling as I was listening and proud of them. Just then, a self appointed repeater cop breaks into their QSO and tells them to STOP using “over” at the end of a transmission. “That’s CB talk and we don’t allow that kind of thing here”. He then told them that at the end of a transmission, they should say QSL? And the other party should confirm by saying QSL.
These two very intelligent young men have not let such things bother them and are very active on our repeater. As for the repeater cop, after demanding that people say QSL? he has been asked if he is wanting a QSL card  :D

Another ignoramus who doesn't know nearly as much as he thinks he does - especially about voice communications protocols.