eHam

eHam Forums => Digital => Topic started by: NN4F on February 10, 2013, 08:11:26 PM



Title: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: NN4F on February 10, 2013, 08:11:26 PM
Hello,

In the past few months, several hams that are in groups that I frequent have received OO notices for "Bad Practices" on JT65

I'm one of SC's Asst. Section Managers and I'm putting together a file that we are working on, if you have received an OO notice, I know you may not want to make it public, so if you would email me at paul@nn4f.com, with the reason for the note and the OO that issued the note, I can add it to our complaint....

I will not make your details public unless you specify....

Thanks, Paul - NN4F
paul@nn4f.com


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: W6UV on February 10, 2013, 10:22:00 PM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: NK7Z on February 10, 2013, 11:30:09 PM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?
There was quite a hoopla here about some folks getting OO notes due to what appeared to be overdive to the OO.  There was some question as to if the OO had things set up correctly, or if the sinal was actually bad...  Not sure who was right...  I suspect this is related.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: NN4F on February 11, 2013, 07:44:39 AM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?

One is over modualated signals, but the measurement is being conducted using just the waterfall in JT65-HF, in spectrum lab, the "over modulated" signals are fine, and we have completed a whole host of tests to prove this..

Then the other is not ID'g at the end of transmission when sending "LOTW 73 TU" or such in free txt, even though the CW ID is turned on... I have gotten 54 reports of this overnight all from the same OO


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: VE3FMC on February 11, 2013, 08:16:18 AM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?

One is over modualated signals, but the measurement is being conducted using just the waterfall in JT65-HF, in spectrum lab, the "over modulated" signals are fine, and we have completed a whole host of tests to prove this..

Then the other is not ID'g at the end of transmission when sending "LOTW 73 TU" or such in free txt, even though the CW ID is turned on... I have gotten 54 reports of this overnight all from the same OO

54 reports from the same OO in one night? That OO needs to get a life. If all he has to do with his time is cit around and try to bust JT65 ops then seriously he needs a life.  ::)

Damn glad your OO's can not send us reports.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: NN4F on February 11, 2013, 09:07:06 AM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?

One is over modualated signals, but the measurement is being conducted using just the waterfall in JT65-HF, in spectrum lab, the "over modulated" signals are fine, and we have completed a whole host of tests to prove this..

Then the other is not ID'g at the end of transmission when sending "LOTW 73 TU" or such in free txt, even though the CW ID is turned on... I have gotten 54 reports of this overnight all from the same OO

54 reports from the same OO in one night? That OO needs to get a life. If all he has to do with his time is cit around and try to bust JT65 ops then seriously he needs a life.  ::)

Damn glad your OO's can not send us reports.

No I asked for reports from anyone who had received reports, and I had 54 emails, he didn't do 54 over night.. :)


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: W5DQ on February 11, 2013, 10:12:35 AM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?

One is over modualated signals, but the measurement is being conducted using just the waterfall in JT65-HF, in spectrum lab, the "over modulated" signals are fine, and we have completed a whole host of tests to prove this..

Then the other is not ID'g at the end of transmission when sending "LOTW 73 TU" or such in free txt, even though the CW ID is turned on... I have gotten 54 reports of this overnight all from the same OO

Sounds like another OO that can't copy CW. Read a post about that a while back on another forum. OO was sending out 'slips' to those using CW for IDing at the end of a handover while using phone in a roundtable. The OO apparently could not copy the CW IDs so he had a ball sending out reports.

Many times I see stations that are very loud and have a big bright waterfall trace. Their signal is clean, just very strong. I suspect it could be considered overmodulated by someone less experienced with JT65 ops?

Gene W5DQ


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: VE3FMC on February 11, 2013, 11:38:22 AM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?

One is over modualated signals, but the measurement is being conducted using just the waterfall in JT65-HF, in spectrum lab, the "over modulated" signals are fine, and we have completed a whole host of tests to prove this..

Then the other is not ID'g at the end of transmission when sending "LOTW 73 TU" or such in free txt, even though the CW ID is turned on... I have gotten 54 reports of this overnight all from the same OO

Well in my JT65 software is the CW ID is checked off then it is sending my call at the end of the typed in text. I agree with Gene, the OO can't copy CW.

I have also seen some pretty solid and strong JT65 signals on the waterfall and had no trouble decoding them so those signals were not "over modulated" as the OO thinks they are. They are just strong signals due to propagation.

As I said before, I think the OO in this case needs to get a life, or another hobby.  ::)


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: KB2HSH on February 14, 2013, 06:45:34 PM
What are these bad practices of which you speak?

One is over modualated signals, but the measurement is being conducted using just the waterfall in JT65-HF, in spectrum lab, the "over modulated" signals are fine, and we have completed a whole host of tests to prove this..

Then the other is not ID'g at the end of transmission when sending "LOTW 73 TU" or such in free txt, even though the CW ID is turned on... I have gotten 54 reports of this overnight all from the same OO

Well in my JT65 software is the CW ID is checked off then it is sending my call at the end of the typed in text. I agree with Gene, the OO can't copy CW.

I have also seen some pretty solid and strong JT65 signals on the waterfall and had no trouble decoding them so those signals were not "over modulated" as the OO thinks they are. They are just strong signals due to propagation.

As I said before, I think the OO in this case needs to get a life, or another hobby.  ::)

Have to agree with you there.  I use(d) JT65 quite a bit when I had my Yaesu...and TRUST ME...I don't run more than 5 watts when using this mode.  I'll be back on JT65 this wknd from my new apartment.  While the rational side of me would be honestly concerned about getting an OO slip, my ghetto side would be ready for a "road trip"...especially if I've done nothing wrong.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: KB2HSH on February 14, 2013, 07:01:56 PM
...and is this "alpha-hotel" a brand spankin' new ham/OO?


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: WA6MJE on February 14, 2013, 07:48:50 PM
I was amazed to learn that there was such as thing as an OO, and had to even look that one up on Google.  I was then amazed that the ARRL would take it upon themselves to appoint their own police force.  I was even more amazed that the ARRL police force would exert jurisdiction over even non ARRL members.  The "ghetto" in me also gets somewhat rankled over this concept.  The OO ought to mind their own business and keep their comments to themselves.  I am an ARRL member, but if I ever got an OO confrontation the first thing I would do is cancel my membership.   This entire thread was upsetting to now consider that there is a police force monitoring all the ham bands for infractions.  The ARRL appoints these OO's to rat out whomever they do not like.  The ARRL says "The OO program serves as the first line of "eyes and ears" for the FCC."  I have been a ham for 55 years and never knew there was an OO program looking over my shoulder.  It seems a little like Big Brother to me.

And at the same time there are well known HF jammers, the Los Angeles area repeaters are full of unlicensed users, the language on those repeaters is profane, the are many CB operators working kilowatts, there are sellers on Ebay selling illegal amplifiers, and there are open and notorious violations every where you look.  You do not need to have a on OO police force to find them.  BUT, the OO force instead wants to worry about the signal pattern of a legal JT-65 HF licensed operator instead!

I agree with the comments above -- "GET A LIFE."


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: AF5FH on February 15, 2013, 08:59:46 AM
I was amazed to learn that there was such as thing as an OO, and had to even look that one up on Google.  I was then amazed that the ARRL would take it upon themselves to appoint their own police force.  I was even more amazed that the ARRL police force would exert jurisdiction over even non ARRL members.  The "ghetto" in me also gets somewhat rankled over this concept.  The OO ought to mind their own business and keep their comments to themselves.  I am an ARRL member, but if I ever got an OO confrontation the first thing I would do is cancel my membership.   This entire thread was upsetting to now consider that there is a police force monitoring all the ham bands for infractions.  The ARRL appoints these OO's to rat out whomever they do not like.  The ARRL says "The OO program serves as the first line of "eyes and ears" for the FCC."  I have been a ham for 55 years and never knew there was an OO program looking over my shoulder.  It seems a little like Big Brother to me.

My opinion is different. When I first operated psk31, I used a cheap interface between computer and rig. An OO sent me a postcard saying "your signal is broad". I did some checking, and found out that the OO was right. The cheap interface went in the trash, and I now use a SignaLink USB.  Problem solved, with help from the OO.

I think the OO program is a good idea. Of course, it only works when folks are trying to following the rules. Sending a postcard to someone who is deliberately jamming, transmitting profane language, using illegal amplifiers, isn't going to work. Those deliberate law breakers will need the government (FCC) showing up at their door with a court order to stop them.

And of course, with any volunteer program (like the OO program), there will be some OO that make mistakes, and need some "feedback" to improve. Sounds like NN4F is trying to help with this, which I think is a good thing.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: AA4PB on February 15, 2013, 09:49:15 AM
The OO program has been around for a very long time. It was intended to provide a "service" for hams, letting you know that you have a potential problem before you get a "pink slip" from the FCC. Unlike the FCC violation notice, the OO notice is not something that you have to respond to officially. The OOs don't have any "jurisdition" over anyone, ARRL member or not. They are not the ARRL's police force, they are volunteers trying to help by keeping you from getting a violation notice from the FCC.

Think of the OO notice somewhat like a warning that you have a tail light out. You don't have to do anything about it but you may find yourself in court paying a fine if you continue to drive that way.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: WN2C on February 15, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
When I was getting back on the air in 96', I was using a Drake TR-4C.  Had picked it up at a hamfest that day.  Didn't have a dummy load or a second receive around so I got on the air to make a contact.  During the contact my RST was 591.  Bad ac on the signal as the caps in the power supply were bad.  I sent my thanks, 73 and signed off.  A few days later I got an OO notice in the mail.  Found the guys email and sent him a thank you also.  I could have gotten a pink slip from the FCC and possibly a fine, tho not likely. I would much rather have the OO slip.
And to all those that are OO's...thank you...for you provide a service above and beyond.

Rick wn2c


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: VE3FMC on February 16, 2013, 06:37:44 AM
I was amazed to learn that there was such as thing as an OO, and had to even look that one up on Google.  I was then amazed that the ARRL would take it upon themselves to appoint their own police force.  I was even more amazed that the ARRL police force would exert jurisdiction over even non ARRL members.  The "ghetto" in me also gets somewhat rankled over this concept.  The OO ought to mind their own business and keep their comments to themselves.  I am an ARRL member, but if I ever got an OO confrontation the first thing I would do is cancel my membership.   This entire thread was upsetting to now consider that there is a police force monitoring all the ham bands for infractions.  The ARRL appoints these OO's to rat out whomever they do not like.  The ARRL says "The OO program serves as the first line of "eyes and ears" for the FCC."  I have been a ham for 55 years and never knew there was an OO program looking over my shoulder.  It seems a little like Big Brother to me.

My opinion is different. When I first operated psk31, I used a cheap interface between computer and rig. An OO sent me a postcard saying "your signal is broad". I did some checking, and found out that the OO was right. The cheap interface went in the trash, and I now use a SignaLink USB.  Problem solved, with help from the OO.

I think the OO program is a good idea. Of course, it only works when folks are trying to following the rules. Sending a postcard to someone who is deliberately jamming, transmitting profane language, using illegal amplifiers, isn't going to work. Those deliberate law breakers will need the government (FCC) showing up at their door with a court order to stop them.

And of course, with any volunteer program (like the OO program), there will be some OO that make mistakes, and need some "feedback" to improve. Sounds like NN4F is trying to help with this, which I think is a good thing.

You do not need an OO to tell you that your signal is wide. Someone operating PSK31 will tell you that. The problem is when an operator tells someone on the air that their signal is wide the one being told usually gets bent out of shape.

Same thing goes when someone tells someone else that their audio is terrible. They get bent out of shape instead of taking the advice and finding out what is wrong. Most of us do not run around telling others they have bad audio unless it is true. I do not need an OO to tell me that! (not that I have that problem on phone or digital)

But if an OO can not copy the CW id at the end of a JT65 transmission he/she should not be an OO.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: AA4PB on February 16, 2013, 07:16:48 AM
"The problem is when an operator tells someone on the air that their signal is wide the one being told usually gets bent out of shape"

It sounds here like many respond the same way when an OO tells them too. On the one hand you say that other ops are reluctant to tell someone if their signal is too wide and on the other you don't want an OO to tell you.

I think the common sense thing to do is to check out your signal by running some tests to see if the OO was correct. In any case, drop him a card (or e-mail) thanking him for his time and telling him what you found.

"But if an OO can not copy the CW id at the end of a JT65 transmission he/she should not be an OO"

That may be but since there is no longer a CW requirement it's going to be harder and harder to find people who can copy CW. There may be a day when nobody at the FCC monitoring sites can copy CW either.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: N5TMC on February 16, 2013, 09:07:18 AM
I don't know about the rest . I don't see the problem that seems to going on . I do know this .....

Laura Smith from the FCC recently attended the Orlando Convention and the Georgia Section Manager spoke with her and wrote this later in his section newsletter.  “Laura Smith, FCC Council for Enforcement spoke at the ARRL Forum. She talked about the necessity of self-enforcement for hams and that it takes two to get into a confrontation. You treat me and I treat you as we wish ourselves to be treated; and take a breath, relax, and don’t take yourself so seriously. She used her ten-year old daughter who was present. Question: “What do you do when you meet someone for the first time?” Answer: “Say ‘Hello’ and tell my name. “ (We must identify every 10 minutes.) “What do you do when someone is mean or says bad things to you?” Answer: “Leave and go tell an adult”. Etc. So from “out of the mouths of the babes” we should already know the answers. When the topic came to the Amateur Auxiliary (Official Observers) she became even more emphatic about her reliance and the FCC’s reliance on them. They are extremely important and she has an ear for them. Someone mentioned the occasional abuse that the “OO” receives which she acknowledged and forcefully said that (underline) if you ever, ever threaten an “OO” she will literally put you on her list and will monitor you in detail for the rest of her career. “You really would much rather get a note from an OO than from me”, she says. The OO is there to help you prevent that note


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: W1ITT on February 17, 2013, 08:59:08 AM
It's obvious that the FCC's budget cuts have limited enforcement operations in recent years, so the OO system (Amateur Auxiliary) has the potential to serve well as the "self policing" component of the Amateur Service.
I have occasionally tried to determine what, if any, specific qualifications are required to be appointed as an OO.  I gather that ARRL Section Managers make those appointments.  (It's not clear to me whether appointments are available to non-ARRL members...).  It would be interesting to know if any special endorsements are necessary to monitor complex digital signals, for example.  Anyone with a stopwatch can count 10-minute ID violations, if that is of interest, but evaluating digital signals requires more complex understanding of transmit problems, as well as possible errors induced by receiver configurations.  And I suspect that most OOs, not being independently wealthy, attempt to do this without benefit of professional grade spectrum analysis equipment.  Caution is advised.
How much credence does Laura's Enforcement Bureau give to the technical conclusions of these well meaning, but apparently unvetted Observers?    I know it's not an easy job, but it needs to be done correctly...and with technical rigor.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: AF5FH on February 17, 2013, 09:02:39 AM

You do not need an OO to tell you that your signal is wide. Someone operating PSK31 will tell you that. The problem is when an operator tells someone on the air that their signal is wide the one being told usually gets bent out of shape.


In my case, I did not know there was an issue with my previous interface until I got the postcard from the OO. I made about 270 QSO with the previous interface, many of those with psk31, lots of "599" reports.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: AA4PB on February 17, 2013, 09:55:57 AM
I'm sure the FCC is not taking any legal action based upon technical analysis made by an OO. In serious rule violation cases the FCC may enlist the cooperation of OOs in monitoring, making recordings, etc. but they aren't going to revoke a license or issue a fine based solely on an OO's report.

The primary function of the OO is to let you know of a potential problem so that you can correct it BEFORE you get a violation notice from the FCC.

Some people are making way too many assumptions about the OO program.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: N4CR on February 17, 2013, 09:42:39 PM
In my case, I did not know there was an issue with my previous interface until I got the postcard from the OO. I made about 270 QSO with the previous interface, many of those with psk31, lots of "599" reports.

And that is because 270 operators didn't tell you that your signal was wide. "You're 59" and move on rather than saying "It looks like you have distortion on your signal" or "Your signal is covering 450 hz in bandwidth".

Sure, you (figuratively) may blame it on the first person that tells you that. But when it comes from everyone you contact, you might just start to suspect it's something in your gear.

When I see a wide signal on PSK, I tell them. If I can't tell them, I look up their call and send them an email with a picture of their signal. Most of the time they respond that they had no idea, nobody told them.

Tell the truth. If they can't handle it, that's their problem. It certainly shouldn't take 270 qso's to find out.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: K1DA on February 20, 2013, 09:39:15 AM
I suggest all "OOs" check to see that their noise blankers are off. 


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: N1KTJ on February 22, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
N4CR - very interesting fair interpretation.  But life in the RF is not fair.  There are way too many bullies out there, hiding under distance, and quick contact.  Bullies that will say there is nothing wrong with their RF, and to go pound sand, as a first comment.  Am getting more and more shocked how various folks feel that being a bully is okay.  Its a brave new world of OO monitoring. 

Is there is no civility?; to just try to educate and be educated, and recognize differences of opinion might have about four different answers.

1)  What was actually said
2)  What you think you said.
3)  What was actually heard
4)  What you think you heard.

All are different.  All are valid.  Those that think they have all four versions nailed down should not be trusted.  Hope this make sense to those who care.  Listen and respect each other FIRST, and wait a day to see if their is still an issue that should be reported, or should be responded to.  Would hope the OO listens and respects an articulate response back.     


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: N4CR on February 26, 2013, 02:39:42 PM
N4CR - very interesting fair interpretation.  But life in the RF is not fair.  There are way too many bullies out there, hiding under distance, and quick contact.  Bullies that will say there is nothing wrong with their RF, and to go pound sand, as a first comment.  Am getting more and more shocked how various folks feel that being a bully is okay.  Its a brave new world of OO monitoring. 

Is there is no civility?

Well, it's true that a lot of schoolyard bullies grew up but never stopped being bullies. We've all encountered them. Once I identify an adult bully, I make every attempt to put them out of my life and I guard how I let them influence me.

I try to be diplomatic and relay facts in a polite way. I have enough qso's under my belt, understand my equipment well enough and have enough test equipment to feel I'm on relatively firm ground. If they take it badly, I did my small part and I did it as diplomatically as I could. Then I move on. I don't argue about it.

We should notice when the Emperor doesn't have any clothes on and if nobody tells him out of fear of being beheaded then he just runs around naked forever.

Even if 1 out of 25 did some kind of diplomatic notice, soon the guy might get the message. But 270 qso's before someone tells you your signal should be put in prison is not a proportional response to the problem.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: KO3D on March 01, 2013, 05:45:05 AM
I think this "OO"'s time would be better spent looking into 14.313. I'll probably get a notice now since I dare to question the mighty ARRL.

What are these bad practices of which you speak?

One is over modualated signals, but the measurement is being conducted using just the waterfall in JT65-HF, in spectrum lab, the "over modulated" signals are fine, and we have completed a whole host of tests to prove this..

Then the other is not ID'g at the end of transmission when sending "LOTW 73 TU" or such in free txt, even though the CW ID is turned on... I have gotten 54 reports of this overnight all from the same OO


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: AC4BB on March 21, 2013, 09:21:04 PM
   Most" OO's" are great. You have a few that go overboard all of the time. Those are the ones that need to be weeded out.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: KO3D on April 03, 2013, 09:32:20 AM
The OOs should worry about what's happening on 14.313 and 75m phone before they start examining JT-65 signals. The fact that they seem to be using the JT-65HF waterfall for the analysis is comical. Since you would have to be broadcasting fast-scan porn on the ham bands to get the FCC's attention these days, I don't see the purpose for the OO program, except to give an old guy something to do during the Pat Boone bath tub ads while he watches The Rifleman reruns.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: W5WSS on April 06, 2013, 10:54:29 AM
Ko3d hehe. ;D


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: N0YXB on April 06, 2013, 03:47:08 PM
The OOs should worry about what's happening on 14.313 and 75m phone before they start examining JT-65 signals. The fact that they seem to be using the JT-65HF waterfall for the analysis is comical. Since you would have to be broadcasting fast-scan porn on the ham bands to get the FCC's attention these days, I don't see the purpose for the OO program, except to give an old guy something to do during the Pat Boone bath tub ads while he watches The Rifleman reruns.

You are apparently unaware of amateur radio's self policing heritage?  I'm not defending the OO in this case, but that doesn't mean the entire program is without its purpose.


Title: RE: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users
Post by: AD9DX on April 07, 2013, 05:12:59 PM
The OOs should worry about what's happening on 14.313 and 75m phone before they start examining JT-65 signals. The fact that they seem to be using the JT-65HF waterfall for the analysis is comical. Since you would have to be broadcasting fast-scan porn on the ham bands to get the FCC's attention these days, I don't see the purpose for the OO program, except to give an old guy something to do during the Pat Boone bath tub ads while he watches The Rifleman reruns.

You are apparently unaware of amateur radio's self policing heritage?  I'm not defending the OO in this case, but that doesn't mean the entire program is without its purpose.

I don't think KO3D is complaining about the self policing, rather the nature of the policing.  While there are a ton of really bad practices that are going on, the OOs are picking on guys who are using a narrow bandwidth mode typically running under 50w.