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: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users  (Read 13712 times)
NN4F
Member

Posts: 50




Ignore
« 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
Logged
W6UV
Member

Posts: 536




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2013, 10:22:00 PM »

What are these bad practices of which you speak?
Logged
NK7Z
Member

Posts: 734


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 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.
Logged

Thanks,
Dave
For reviews and setups see: http://www.nk7z.net
NN4F
Member

Posts: 50




Ignore
« Reply #3 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
Logged
VE3FMC
Member

Posts: 983


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 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.  Roll Eyes

Damn glad your OO's can not send us reports.
Logged
NN4F
Member

Posts: 50




Ignore
« Reply #5 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.  Roll Eyes

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.. Smiley
Logged
W5DQ
Member

Posts: 1209


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 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
Logged

Gene W5DQ
Ridgecrest, CA - DM15dp
www.radioroom.org
VE3FMC
Member

Posts: 983


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 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.  Roll Eyes
Logged
KB2HSH
Member

Posts: 216


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #8 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.  Roll Eyes

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.
Logged
KB2HSH
Member

Posts: 216


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2013, 07:01:56 PM »

...and is this "alpha-hotel" a brand spankin' new ham/OO?
Logged
WA6MJE
Member

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #10 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."
Logged
AF5FH
Member

Posts: 31




Ignore
« Reply #11 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.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 09:05:26 AM by AF5FH » Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12672




Ignore
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
WN2C
Member

Posts: 429




Ignore
« Reply #13 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
Logged
VE3FMC
Member

Posts: 983


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!