Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CB on 10m What to do?  (Read 9322 times)
K0ZN
Member

Posts: 1536




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2012, 09:01:35 PM »

AC5UP:

I appreciate your attempt at being an amateur communications law attorney, but I stand by my position.  Just because I CHOOSE to operate legally and properly on a frequency that an ILLEGAL, unauthorized station is on, does not constitute "malicious" interference.

Please quote me the FCC section and paragraph that says ILLEGAL, UNauthorized stations, operating in violation of the Communications Act, have rights that are superior to licensed stations........

One of the key premises of Law is the "reasonable man theory".....suggest you look into that.

It would be nice if you knew as much about this subject as you think you do.

--  K0ZN
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 09:08:06 PM by K0ZN » Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4391




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2012, 02:19:17 AM »

Actually, Tom, the way I read the RRs, any station in distress or responding to a station in distress can go anywhere. A station in distress can even legally use spark transmission! But I do agree with you.
Logged
AC5UP
Member

Posts: 3825




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2012, 08:08:19 AM »

It would be nice if you knew as much about this subject as you think you do.

I second the notion! Excellent suggestion!

How so? Let's examine the logic used by yourself and W8JI by starting with the original question by M5AEO:
Quote
"Yesterday afternoon I was tuning around 10m and there were no stations on except a very strong FM signal on 28,450Mhz.  Within a couple of seconds I realized it was a CB station.  I didn't really know what to do, so I tuned up my antenna for a few minutes, which made him furious but didn't get rid of him."

Notice how the alleged CB'er created no interference with M5AEO and was the only signal heard on an otherwise empty band. And, as stated, M5AEO wasn't sure what to do about this alleged unlicensed signal within an amateur allocation, so he QRM'd the offending station. As the British say: Brilliant! Not only are we to assume that M5AEO has a keen sense of when a signal is legal, but we also find that M5AEO feels obligated to do something about an alleged interloper... Despite not knowing what to do.    (D'oh!)

This is what I call a Keystone Kop scenario. We also note the alleged infiltrator did not move back to the CB band and the exercise ended in failure.   (D'oh! x 2)

Bottom Line: M5AEO willfully interfered with another station based on an assumption about their legality.

For all I know this is perfectly acceptable behavior for an M5 station, but for those of us regulated by the FCC the answer to the question is a Part 97 slam-dunk no brainer:
Quote
97.101 (d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Not much wiggle room in the word "any". Until... W8JI looks up the Part 97 definition of "interference" to find:
Quote
(23) Harmful interference. Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations.

Then, in a brilliant exhibition of logical gymnastics worthy of London 2012, W8JI goes on to assert that since the FCC definition of interference mentions only a service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations.... We can assume, infer, imply, speculate, claim, declare that what the FCC really meant to say is that a service NOT operating in accordance (etc) is fair game for interference. No standing, no rights, no protection, you get the idea.

If that's what the FCC meant, why didn't they say so?

When I first saw the quote it reminded me of the old LORAN protection policy for the bottom end of 160, and that some allocations are shared with other services, like 60 Meters is today.

If W8JI is correct in his analysis, why doesn't 97.101(d) read something like: " ...or cause interference to any LICENSED radio communication or signal "

The FCC could clear up any vagueness about harmful interference with the addition of one word. But they haven't. Perhaps because prohibiting ANY willful or malicious interference created by an amateur station not only precludes the VFO Vigilantes from getting out of hand, but it's also good operating procedure.

Anyone care to argue against that?

Assuming that whenever something isn't specifically mentioned it's open season for pot-shot speculation is not the fast lane to enlightenment, but when that's all you have to work with...
Logged

Never change a password on a Friday                
N4NYY
Member

Posts: 4742




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2012, 08:34:23 AM »

What too much looking into this. I still ragchew on CB for a couple ham friends because we are about 12 miles apart. We get people once in a while that will start breaking and annoy us. We simply ignore them. After they realize that no one is paying attention, they move on. Many of these QRMer really wipe my friends out, with S7+ signals. If they only knew I could not hear my friends, then they would just continue.

Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4391




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2012, 08:39:08 AM »

'5UP,

With respect, I think you are missing the point.

Firstly, a station in 10m or any other band where the amateur service is a primary service and who is not an amateur or amateur satellite station and is not occupied in distress traffic is not, in the terms of the international Radio Regulations protected from interference. Even if it is licenced under RR4.4, it is not protected from interference from the primary service users of the band operating outside the jurisdiction of the country doing the licencing.

Secondly, the FCC can protect such operation from interference from US amateurs if they so desire. Other Administrations do not, and unless intruders into bands where the amateur service is primary are chased away, more and more intruders will be encouraged to come into the amateur bands.

Thirdly (and I have no clue as to the answer) how many intruders into primary amateur bands has the FCC through the State Department officially complained  to their Administrations about? Germany and the UK do quite frequently.

Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5885




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2012, 08:48:38 AM »

Yesterday afternoon I was tuning around 10m and there were no stations on except a very strong FM signal on 28,450Mhz.  Within a couple of seconds I realized it was a CB station.  I didn't really know what to do, so I tuned up my antenna for a few minutes, which made him furious but didn't get rid of him.  Obviously I couldn't explain to him that he was on the wrong band as I would have been comunicating with an unlicenced station, which is against the terms of my licence.  What should I do next time he's on?

First, do not even attempt to even tell him he's on a frequency he shouldn't be on.  If you did so, you would be breaking the rules.

If you want to, make a recording of the person and send it to the FCC and/or the ARRL with complete details of the day, time and frequency that the infraction occured on.  If the other station keeps on using the frequency, make other recordings--the more the better--again with the day, time and frequency each infraction occured on.  BTW, the FCC prefers a CD with that info, and make sure they can tell one infraction from the next.

That will be enough to get someone, an Official Observer--or even an FCC listening post--to listen in.  If it keeps happening, they WILL track down the offender and fine him.  Don't hold your breath for that to happen, but it just may.  Remember, every CBer that intrudes on the ham bands that has been caught has had attention drawn to them by a ham willing to listen and report.  73!
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5885




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2012, 08:57:56 AM »

AC5UP,  K0ZN is correct.  A licensed station operating legally is not, in any way, causing malicious interference to a station operating illegally in a band they have no right to operate in--not even if they transmit right over that illegal station.  The illegal station has no right to be there, and no right to claim 'interference'. 
Logged
AC5UP
Member

Posts: 3825




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2012, 09:15:58 AM »

With respect, I think you are missing the point.

Firstly, a station in 10m or any other band where the amateur service is a primary service and who is not an amateur or amateur satellite station and is not occupied in distress traffic is not, in the terms of the international Radio Regulations protected from interference. Even if it is licenced under RR4.4, it is not protected from interference from the primary service users of the band operating outside the jurisdiction of the country doing the licencing.

In the example given by M5AEO the band was dead and only one strong signal was heard. At the risk of speculating, would that imply the signal was local in origin and international regulations were not involved? Further... Since you operate in the same environment, is it considered good operating practice in the UK to interfere with a station you believe is operating in an allocation they are not licensed for? If someone did, would they be obligated to ID themselves at the top & bottom of their "test" transmission as required of US amateurs? If they did, would that be like responding to the interloper? You know: "Hey, douchebag, this is M5AEO --- (QRM, QRM, QRM) --- M5AEO clear". And... Since M5AEO failed to QRT the alleged interloper via QRM, what would be your best advice if and when a similar situation arises in the future?

Like.............. If we know what doesn't work, need it be repeated?

Secondly, the FCC can protect such operation from interference from US amateurs if they so desire. Other Administrations do not, and unless intruders into bands where the amateur service is primary are chased away, more and more intruders will be encouraged to come into the amateur bands.

I've been licensed for 17 years and following the hobby since the mid 60's... Used to buy QST and '73 magazine regularly and can assure you the same bootlegger argument has been used ad nauseum since before I became aware of the service and will probably be used long after I'm gone. It's bullsnot. The occurrence of intruders in the HF bands has been relatively constant over the past 50 years and the only reason 10 Meters is more prone to unlicensed operation is the plethora of "export" CB radios readily available on-line and at truck stops in the US.

Most Bubba's who drop the coin for a plug & play trick radio prefer the CB / Freeband frequencies anyway... Because they're far more likely to find someone to talk to below 28 MHz than above.

If I haven't made it clear enough, my perspective is strictly as a US licensee and I'm fully aware that other regulatory agencies may operate with other rules. I'm also aware, as N4NYY has mentioned, QRM'ing is rarely effective on the CB or amateur bands. IMHO I think it's exceptionally poor form.
Logged

Never change a password on a Friday                
AC5UP
Member

Posts: 3825




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2012, 09:20:25 AM »

AC5UP,  K0ZN is correct.  A licensed station operating legally is not, in any way, causing malicious interference to a station operating illegally in a band they have no right to operate in--not even if they transmit right over that illegal station.  The illegal station has no right to be there, and no right to claim 'interference'. 

If you have any cite from the FCC that says that, SPECIFICALLY, I'd like to see it. We know licensed operation is protected from interference, but that does not imply an (alleged) unlicensed signal is QRM bait. As quoted, FCC Part 97.101(d) makes no distinction.

BTW: Why would a UK station like M5AEO report a CB'er to the FCC or ARRL ?
Logged

Never change a password on a Friday                
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5885




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2012, 09:30:06 AM »

If you have any cite from the FCC that says that, SPECIFICALLY, I'd like to see it. We know licensed operation is protected from interference, but that does not imply an (alleged) unlicensed signal is QRM bait. As quoted, FCC Part 97.101(d) makes no distinction.

BTW: Why would a UK station like M5AEO report a CB'er to the FCC or ARRL ?

You've got a point about a foreign station reporting to the FCC/ARRL, but if that station heard evidence that the offending station WAS a US station, why shouldn't they.  If, of course, the station is in their own country, they should report it to the authorities in their country.

Now, about the other--anybody who goes looking for unlicensed station operating illegally just to transmit over them and intefere with them ought to go looking for a life.  But you ought to consider that the illegally operating station has no right AT ALL to be on that frequency.  If they have no right at all, they don't belong there at all, and can't legally claim they were interfered with, now can they?
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9304


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2012, 10:03:55 AM »

If you have any cite from the FCC that says that, SPECIFICALLY, I'd like to see it. We know licensed operation is protected from interference, but that does not imply an (alleged) unlicensed signal is QRM bait. As quoted, FCC Part 97.101(d) makes no distinction.

BTW: Why would a UK station like M5AEO report a CB'er to the FCC or ARRL ?

Harmful interference is defined by the FCC as interference with a station AUTHORIZED to operate and following rules, specifically:

Quote
(23) Harmful interference. Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations.

Let me highlight key words, for those who will not read carefully:

(23) Harmful interference. Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations.

A pirate or unlicensed station is not a Radiocommunication service, as defined by the FCC. Also, even if the station is licensed, it is not operating in accordance with regulations when out-of-band. As such, they have no protection.

Ignoring someone intentionally attracting attention by acting up is entirely different than ignoring someone intentionally trying to use a "clear frequency" that is illegal.

In the case of someone just operating to get attention, giving them attention can encourage their bad behavior. For example, a Ham swearing is probably doing so just to attract attention. If someone starts that, I just politely tell them I don't it is good behavior, and I leave. The last thing to do is to jam them. They want attention.

When I hear pirate CB operators on 11 meters, I make it a point to use that frequency. By avoiding them, and allowing unfettered communications, we generally make the problem worse. They are getting exactly what they want, a clear channel.
It's silly to move away and let them have a clear spot.

73 Tom
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4391




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2012, 10:53:02 AM »

'CJS,

I thionk the point you are missing is that IF we don't do something about them, it encourages them to keep intruding.

Which is why we used to have go at the 'woodpecker' (the Russian OTH radar) - effectively, too!

On your argument, the IARU (Intruder Watch) is a waste of time, even though it has had some very good  and effective results.
Logged
W0BTU
Member

Posts: 1577


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2012, 11:01:21 AM »

When I hear pirate CB operators on 11 meters, I make it a point to use that frequency. By avoiding them, and allowing unfettered communications, we generally make the problem worse. They are getting exactly what they want, a clear channel.
It's silly to move away and let them have a clear spot.

Although I don't make a point of doing that, last time we sent G E T  L O S T around 28.1, the illegal stations did.  Grin
Logged

G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4391




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2012, 03:12:02 PM »

Lets remember with intruders.....

QRMing them does work. It even persuaded Radio Pakistan to move from 7010 kHz back in the late 50s. (I've been licenced for 49 years this year and a listener since 1956) It worked on the 'Woodpecker' and it works on the CB intruders.

Not acceptable?

So we shouldn't accept the Russian Navy RTTY on 14127?  Like hell we should. Give them QRM and make the b******s move! Same with truckers and Moscow taxis in 10 metres. And any other intruder.

There is a story, possibly apochryphal, that in the early 1980s, the RAN (Royal Australian Navy) complained to ACMA (the Australian administration) about QRM from amateurs in the 18 MHz band. Turned out that they had not been informed that 18068 to 18168 kHz had become a 'Amateur service primary' band at WRC '79. Without the QRM, they would still be there....



Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5885




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2012, 04:09:59 AM »

'CJS,

I thionk the point you are missing is that IF we don't do something about them, it encourages them to keep intruding.

Which is why we used to have go at the 'woodpecker' (the Russian OTH radar) - effectively, too!

On your argument, the IARU (Intruder Watch) is a waste of time, even though it has had some very good  and effective results.

I think you misunderstood me.  I didn't say 'do nothing.'  Nor did I say that you shouldn't be able to transmit over them.  What I did say is that hams who go and look for these lawbreakers JUST TO transmit over them ought to get a life.  IOW, if that is all a ham is going to do, he's either got no friends--or too much time on his hands.  73!
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!