ARRL says " Interference is A-OK ! "

[N5PVL]

Link (http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2007/05/01/1/)

WinLid apologist K1ZZ defends WinLink interference, says it's perfectly OK to QRM your fellow hams.

Stop by at WinLink-Watch (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/) if you disagree with Sumner's theory that interfering with your fellow amateurs is A-OK, and would like to do something about it.

K1ZZ managed to miss a few important points that will come back to bite him and his arrogant anti-ham WinLink cronies. Join us at WinLink-Watch in taking active steps to preserve this fine hobby, and the concept of decent, responsible operating procedure. - Now under direct attack by the ARRL.

[k5jat]

I'd say that any QRM that involves a) not listening before transmitting and b) taking up a massive amount of bandwidth is both willful and malicious.

They really expect us to swallow this stuff? I find it hard to believe Sumner is a HAM at all....

73, Jay KE5NRH

[N5LRZ]

Pssst PVL...

You want to try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of ham operators who so maliciously interefere willingly with each other for contact points on that most infamous of all gatherings known as "FIELD DAY".

Yea right like everyone is going to line up X kcs away from each other like so many little trained apes.

You are soooo full of it some times its funny.

[k6jpd]

seems that the arrl has really changed it's tune lately, this is an excerpt from it's 1998 position: http://209.85.165.104/search?....3&gl=us (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:zZZj1YEkyUgJ:www.arrl.org/announce/declreq.pdf+97.101(a)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

"Band planning is not a novel concept; it has long been used as a means to accommodatethe disparate needs of individual users and clubs while minimizing interference to others.
It is accomplished through a process in which representatives of all parties interested in using particular frequency bands for particular purposes coordinate those interests in a fair and open manner"


did you notice the second paragraph?

[N5LRZ]

Re...k6jpd

However...

Gentlemens agrements that do 'Not' have the binding force of codified law AND, repeat this important 'And', actively enforcemed are completely worthless.

For any law to be of any worth or value it must BOTH be Codified into Law and actively/routinely enforced.

Gentlemens agreements are neither.

[k6jpd]

agree 100%. i was commenting about the change in the arrl's #stance concerning "fair and open manner'.

in fact this arrl proposal was turned down by the FCC

they were attempting to make the arrl band plan compliance MANDITORY (under 97.101(a).
once it was codified into law, #they could then change it(the arrl band plan) to suit their desires with out any opposition...... and then cite 97.101(a) for legal support.

[N5PVL]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #Anybody surprised to see the ARRL shill come out to agree with K1ZZ, that it's perfectly OK to QRM your fellow hams?

Glad I'm not an ARRL shill - a job that just keeps getting tougher and tougher as the ARRL 'leadership' makes it increasingly obvious that they wouldn't know the spirit of amateur radio if it were to come up and bite them on the ass.

I suppose everybody understands that Newington will continue to be LID CENTRAL for just as long as we US amateurs tolerate this embarrassing situation. - When enough of us make it plain that it will not be tolerated, those employees will have to go, and new ones hired that can demonstrate some measure of both love and respect for the hobby and hobbyists that the ARRL exists to serve.

Arrogant Lids? - No thanks, not at ARRL HQ!

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 01 2007,07:37)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #Anybody surprised to see the ARRL shill come out to agree with K1ZZ, that it's perfectly OK to QRM your fellow hams?

Glad I'm not an ARRL shill - a job that just keeps getting tougher and tougher as the ARRL 'leadership' makes it increasingly obvious that they wouldn't know the spirit of amateur radio if it were to come up and bite them on the ass.

I suppose everybody understands that Newington will continue to be LID CENTRAL for just as long as we US amateurs tolerate this embarrassing situation. - When enough of us make it plain that it will not be tolerated, those employees will have to go, and new ones hired that can demonstrate some measure of both love and respect for the hobby and hobbyists that the ARRL exists to serve.

Arrogant Lids? - No thanks, not at ARRL HQ!
Why is it that someone who comes out contrary to your position is now an "ARRL shill"?

What is is that you're saying? That your position is so obviously right and correct that anyone who is not with you must be a stooge for the organization you appear to hate so much?

[And before you rant away at me again based on a one sentence out of context excerpt... I happen to agree with your basic premise, or what at least appears to be your basic premise, that deliberate interference is not 'OK' -- but considering your bias, I prefer to confirm these allegations from an independant third party]

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ April 30 2007,06:30)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 01 2007,07:37)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #Anybody surprised to see the ARRL shill come out to agree with K1ZZ, that it's perfectly OK to QRM your fellow hams?

Glad I'm not an ARRL shill - a job that just keeps getting tougher and tougher as the ARRL 'leadership' makes it increasingly obvious that they wouldn't know the spirit of amateur radio if it were to come up and bite them on the ass.

I suppose everybody understands that Newington will continue to be LID CENTRAL for just as long as we US amateurs tolerate this embarrassing situation. - When enough of us make it plain that it will not be tolerated, those employees will have to go, and new ones hired that can demonstrate some measure of both love and respect for the hobby and hobbyists that the ARRL exists to serve.

Arrogant Lids? - No thanks, not at ARRL HQ!
Why is it that someone who comes out contrary to your position is now an "ARRL shill"?

What is is that you're saying? #That your position is so obviously right and correct that anyone who is not with you must be a stooge for the organization you appear to hate so much?

[And before you rant away at me again based on a one sentence out of context excerpt... I happen to agree with your basic premise, or what at least appears to be your basic premise, that deliberate interference is not 'OK' -- but considering your bias, I prefer to confirm these allegations from an independant third party]
Careful what you say here on the Zed http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Charles has Clouthttp://www.americanchemical.net/products/Clout%2023.jpg

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (N5LRZ @ May 01 2007,04:19)]Re...k6jpd

However...

Gentlemens agrements that do 'Not' have the binding force of codified law AND, repeat this important 'And', actively enforcemed are completely worthless.

For any law to be of any worth or value it must BOTH be Codified into Law and actively/routinely enforced.

Gentlemens agreements are neither.
Absolutely. "Gentleman's Agreements" (including band plans) are ONLY kept by Gentlemen (and Ladies.)

[ky5u]

Here's one for your blog, Charles.... Here's your digital for you ARRL!

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (N5LRZ @ May 01 2007,06:19)]Re...k6jpd

However...

Gentlemens agrements that do 'Not' have the binding force of codified law AND, repeat this important 'And', actively enforcemed are completely worthless.

For any law to be of any worth or value it must BOTH be Codified into Law and actively/routinely enforced.

Gentlemens agreements are neither.
And yet it was the same ARRL who had a full on 5 year old hissy fit when the FCC broached the subject of "codifying" allowable bandwidth not 20 years ago.

What's changed?

Ooooh, Ooooh, I know, I know.
The ARRL sellout to WinLink and SCS is what changed.

They can't force their darling new protocol and proprietary hardware on hams, which fly in the face of the gentleman's agreements, tradition, and good amateur practice, without using the FCC to do the dirty work.

Can't baffle them with your bull****, regulate them into submission.

[KD6NIG]

Gentlemen's agreements require one major thing:

That every single person affected is a Gentleman.

Which, obviously from what we've seen lately from the ARRL, applies to everyone but Winlinkers. How dare any of us step outside the proper paramaters, but some are better than others and should be exempt.

Its good to see though, honestly. The picture they paint just gets clearer and clearer every day, doesn't it. They have an obvious goal.

[K8YZK]

There is going to be unintentional interference no matter, what happens. I listen, ask if freq is clear, and then make a call, but I have also been told the freq is busy. Do I continue, nope, I say sorry and move and start all over again or look for someone else calling CQ.

However with the winlink/pactoriii group it is like they feel they have the right to start up anytime/anywhere, and tough sh** to any ongoing QSO's in its way.

I am not against winlink/PactorIII perse, as another mode to use, I do have a problem with it when it QRM's on going communications, and is not a open protocol. I also have a problem it being used as a defacto commerical system to pass emails for some boater who is to cheap to use a regular email system for boaters/RV'ers.

I guess this horse called ARRL likes to change it's color's to fit it's needs, not necessarily for the betterment of the ham radio community.
Kurt

[N5LRZ]

Re Arch guy...

I have nothing against forcing someone to do something using the force of law. All I care is that the legal procedures in adopting the laws are followed.

RE KD6NIG

I never signed any gentlemens agreement. I follow and obey the FCC Rules and regs NOT any gentlemens agreements.

Now IF the FCC regs says I can send my digi at a certain place I will do so regardless of any gentlemens agreements. If and when the FCC decides to say OK this is the new limit then so be it.

If a person does not like the RULES and REG as put forth by the FCC they have Two Options:

A)Change them
B)Turn in your license to the FCC for voluntary revocation--you can turn in your license you do of course know.

[N5LRZ]

RE AG4YO....

That watch time just might be completely correct. Time is broken down into smaller units than mere seconds. Nanoseconds for example are used in computers and other modern application.

Thus your statement is inaccurate. The time shown could very well be 11:30:40 as shown. The watch just did not put the ":" on the dislpay.

[K0RGR]

Unbelievable -

How you can twist that editorial into something demonic is absolutely incredible.

ARRL Editorial: "bad stuff happens - let's not kill each other over it"

How you can turn that into part of a great conspiracy is unimaginable.

Your chorus is singing off key today, too.

And yes, I'm an ARRL shill and proud of it.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ May 01 2007,10:47)]Unbelievable -

How you can twist that editorial into something demonic is absolutely incredible.

ARRL Editorial: "bad stuff happens - let's not kill each other over it"

How you can turn that into part of a great conspiracy is unimaginable.

Your chorus is singing off key today, too.

And yes, I'm an ARRL shill and proud of it.
I think the phrase that bothers everyone is this one:

Quote[/b] ]
A common misconception is that the FCC rules require amateurs to avoid transmitting if doing so would cause any interference to ongoing communication.


So if it's truly a misconception, why should *I* bother listening before I transmit? I'm asking this from an individual standpoint.

Am I legally required to listen before transmitting, and to not transmit if the frequency is in use?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd really like an answer...

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,13:00)]I think the phrase that bothers everyone is this one:

Quote[/b] ]
A common misconception is that the FCC rules require amateurs to avoid transmitting if doing so would cause any interference to ongoing communication.


So if it's truly a misconception, why should *I* bother listening before I transmit? I'm asking this from an individual standpoint.

Am I legally required to listen before transmitting, and to not transmit if the frequency is in use?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd really like an answer...
It is sort of like the BPL thing, harmful interference. If you tune around the bands, you will often hear multiple QSOs on the same frequency. While there is some interference, it is not sufficient for either of the QSOs to be impeded. There is also the phrase in the rules about malicious and intentional interference. That gets action while incidental or unintentional interference does not.

So I think he's saying that it is unreasonable in crowded bands to expect 100% interference free QSOs and as long as the existing QSO is not impeded, it would not be actionable if another QSO were to attempt to share the frequency.

Now what I would do. if I can hear a QSO loudly chances are pretty good they will hear me and we would interfere with each other so I would not attempt to start a QSO where I can hear one already in progress. But I have held QSOs on 75M with friends less than 200 miles away using 100W or less while in the background I can hear stations in 5-land engaged in QSO. We hear each other weakly but the mutual interference is not a real issue. If the interference became an issue, we would simply work it out and one or both QSOs would move a bit to solve the problem.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[KC4RAN]

#
Quote[/b] ]It is sort of like the BPL thing, harmful interference. #If you tune around the bands, you will often hear multiple QSOs on the same frequency. #While there is some interference, it is not sufficient for either of the QSOs to be impeded. #There is also the phrase in the rules about malicious and intentional interference. #That gets action while incidental or unintentional interference does not.


Is it incidental or unintentional if your transmitting system, as designed, has no capability to determine if the frequency is in use?

This is the disturbing trend. Situation...

QRMer: "Sorry, I didn't know the frequency is in use"
JoeHam: "Why not?"

Is an aceptable answer "Because I didn't listen first?" ... This implies that you have the capability to listen first, but chose not to.

How about "Because my system design doesn't lend itself to monitoring for frequency activity before transmit"... do we then give it a pass, because it's poorly designed?!?

Quote[/b] ]
So I think he's saying that it is unreasonable in crowded bands to expect 100% interference free QSOs and as long as the existing QSO is not impeded, it would not be actionable if another QSO were to attempt to share the frequency.


QSOs that are crashed-upon by Pactor III typically either don't survive or find a way to move somewhere else. The victim has to move. There is no sharing, since there is no option to do so.


Quote[/b] ]
If the interference became an issue, we would simply work it out and one or both QSOs would move a bit to solve the problem.


What do you do when the 'intruding party' just doesn't care? Just doesn't listen?

That's the point of this article, guys.


There's a new system out there, and instead of complaining to the FCC, we're going to pre-educate you that some interference is OK, is acceptable. Instead of getting upset at the (insert mode here) that just crashed you... just move. Don't worry, be happy. La la la.

"These are not the QRMs you're looking for"

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,13:00)]Quote[/b] ]
A common misconception is that the FCC rules require amateurs to avoid transmitting if doing so would cause any interference to ongoing communication.




This isn't a rhetorical question. I'd really like an answer...
There are a great many issues with which we should be tasking Herr Sumner, but this thread is as lame as they get. No intelligent reading of the article can result in the conclusion that the ARRL -- or Sumner (and despite what many ((including the illustrious Mr S)) may believe, Sumner is NOT the ARRL) is taking a stance that "interference is A-OK." The source of the thread speaks volumes more than does the article.

Sumner's point is that all interference may not be intentional interference, and that we all need to apply a modicum of restraint (something wholly out of keeping with the tenor of this thread) before leaping to the conclusion that being interfered with is the result of some nefarious scheme and demands a retributive response.

Again, there are a great many things about which legitimate complaints may be lodged, both against Sumner and against the League.

This ain't one of them.

Quote[/b] ]So if it's truly a misconception, why should *I* bother listening before I transmit? I'm asking this from an individual standpoint.


Because to do otherwise is counter to the proper operation of a station, not to mention a simple courtesy that is one that you would have all others do should you being on the air.

Quote[/b] ]Am I legally required to listen before transmitting, and to not transmit if the frequency is in use?


You are "legally required" to avoid causing intentional interference. If simple listening is all that it takes to do so, then such would seem to be prudent, whether or not it is "mandatory," right? That, after all, was Sumner's point.

I can't believe anyone would take this thread seriously. I am continually surprised, and I wonder if trolls did live under bridges that any of you ever made it home from school. Too many of you guys can't have any fingers left. It would seem to me that by the age of twelve, all of them should have been sacrificed to some stupid test of a firecracker, hot stove, chainsaw, bolt cutter, paper shear, woodstove, log splitter... I tire; the examples are endless.



http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ May 01 2007,11:18)]There is also the phrase in the rules about malicious and intentional interference. #That gets action while incidental or unintentional interference does not.
That seems to be the crux of the problem: what constitutes "malicious" and "unintentional" interference?

Interference caused by PACTOR robots might not fit the strict definition of malicious but a case can be made for such QRM being intentional.

The robot is parked on a particular frequency and operates automatically without regard to ongoing activity on the frequency. #That fits the definition of intentional.

The FCC obviously doesn't want to open that can of worms and neither does the ARRL.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ May 01 2007,11:35)]Sumner's point is that all interference may not be intentional interference, and that we all need to apply a modicum of restraint (something wholly out of keeping with the tenor of this thread) before leaping to the conclusion that being interfered with is the result of some nefarious scheme and demands a retributive response.
Assuming there was a regulatory change coming that might start co-mingling stations that historically have listened before transmitting with newcomer stations that typically don't ...

and assuming that you knew there was going to be a big uproar, and that your goal was to keep the FCC complaints about the "deaf stations" to a minimum...

would it not be a prudent measure to use your 'advertising' ability to go ahead and get the message out that "Life can't be QRM-free, so get over it"?


If *I* have to listen before *I* transmit, why doesn't a robot station?

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ May 01 2007,13:37)]Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ May 01 2007,11:18)]There is also the phrase in the rules about malicious and intentional interference. #That gets action while incidental or unintentional interference does not.
That seems to be the crux of the problem: what constitutes "malicious" and "unintentional" interference?

Interference caused by PACTOR robots might not fit the strict definition of malicious but a case can be made for such QRM being intentional.

The robot is parked on a particular frequency and operates automatically without regard to ongoing activity on the frequency. #That fits the definition of intentional.

The FCC obviously doesn't want to open that can of worms and neither does the ARRL.
Which is the primary reason I feel all automatically responding stations need to operate in a specified segment and all live at both ends operations be conducted outside that segment. If you are a live operator and go into the automatic station segment, you are just asking for trouble. Let the robots duke it out amongst themselves.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ May 01 2007,13:37)]Interference caused by PACTOR robots might not fit the strict definition of malicious but a case can be made for such QRM being intentional.

The robot is parked on a particular frequency and operates automatically without regard to ongoing activity on the frequency. #That fits the definition of intentional.

The FCC obviously doesn't want to open that can of worms and neither does the ARRL.
Au contraire. A robot has no intent. Only a live operator can have intent. Now if you park a robot station on a frequency known to be in use by a regular net and your robot cannot detect a frequency in use and avoid responding to a query, you might be able to successfully argue the robot station owner chose that frequency with the intent of interfering with the net. That may be difficult to actually prove if the operator does not admit to knowing about the net's operation on the frequency chosen.

I know the frequencies of a few nets but I do not know what frequencies NTS-D uses for it's nets for example and until recently, did not even know there was an NTS-D and I have been licensed since 1965!

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[KC4RAN]

Albert,

Also don't forget the environment that was supposed to be surrounding this editorial. Because of print requirements, I'm absolutely certain this was written before RM-11306 was withdrawn, and was probably written well before the decision was made to withdraw it.

When this was written, it *should have* been published right around the time when the FCC either just published or was about to publish the resultant orders from RM-11306. The editorial was meant as a pre-emptive salve on the "oh my word, they're putting THEM in here with ME?" worries.

Here's the editorial that basically says that if someone or something QRMs you, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's not even necessarily illegal... you were just 'misinformed'.

Don't you love how lately, the entire amateur community outside of Newington is misinformed or has misconceptions?



Misinformed,
KC4RAN

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ May 01 2007,13:50)]Which is the primary reason I feel all automatically responding stations need to operate in a specified segment and all live at both ends operations be conducted outside that segment.
An eminently wise recommendation, and it is one that we all should be sending to the ARRL as a fundamental requirement to be included in ANY petition they intend to file, whether a reprise of that which now lies (hopefully) moribund or another variant.

The worrisome issue is that of the two tracks -- a potential surge in HF operators and the impending return of increasing propagation -- portend a contentious future without exacerbating it by permitting widespread robot ops.

For once in my lifetime I can support segregation without shame.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[K4GUN]

Maybe its my newbie ignorance, but I really don't see the conntection between the article and this discussion. To me, the article just says "use common sense, don't be a jerk and take it easy." I get that. That's advice I can live with. Life isn't perfect and HF communications are a lot less perfect that life so I'll just do my best to minimize negative impacts on others and I'll live with unintended problems caused by others.

Some here seem to take the above view as an endorsement of Winlink and the associated QRM. I can certainly see valid objections to Winlink, but I really don't see how that is connected to the article in question.

So... since this topic isnt really about the linked article, let me ask a couple of questions about Winlink. Keep in mind that I'm a rookie and I'm genuinely just trying to figure out what this is. Do I understand correctly that this system blindly broadcasts on phone and CW frequencies without first checking to see if the frequency is in use? If so, how long do these communications last? Are we talking about a few seconds or several minutes at a time? Is there any way to speed up the transmit speed so as to minimize the harmful interference?

I guess I'm just trying to figure out why there is so much venom directed at this system.

[NN3W]

Why is it that, to me, this editorial seems to relate more to the issue of exclusivisity of certain net operations, than the issue of Winlink, Pactor III, or some other digitized moded of communication???

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,14:02)]Albert,

Also don't forget the environment that was supposed to be surrounding this editorial. Because of print requirements, I'm absolutely certain this was written before RM-11306 was withdrawn, and was probably written well before the decision was made to withdraw it.

When this was written, it *should have* been published right around the time when the FCC either just published or was about to publish the resultant orders from RM-11306. The editorial was meant as a pre-emptive salve on the "oh my word, they're putting THEM in here with ME?" worries.

Here's the editorial that basically says that if someone or something QRMs you, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's not even necessarily illegal... you were just 'misinformed'.

Don't you love how lately, the entire amateur community outside of Newington is misinformed or has misconceptions?



Misinformed,
KC4RAN
I don't agree with your timing. I would put Sumner's editorial at about the time of the Notice, perhaps even as late as that of the March recission of most of the petition's HF content. The lead times for editorial content of that nature are not so great.

In fact, since I think Sumner was traveling at the time, it may even have been done back in January and had the object of the potential influx of new "no-code" masses in mind. In any event, the editorial itself is certainly a mild reminder that would be topical at any time.

At some point, we all must try to stop wallowing in the aftermath of RM-11306 and begin to move forward. If the ARRL does plan to submit a new petition we must be prepared to offer whatever guidance for that effort we can.

The simple reality, like it or hate it, is that WinLink will still have a place on our bands. There have been myriad opportunities for the FCC to have made judgments about its legality over the past few years, if not before, and the fact that they have not ruled it out must be seen to rule it in.

Our goal, therefore, should be to stop bitching and moaning about it and seek ways to make sure that it remains well enough controlled that everyone else can use the bands to the extent possible without interference from it, and, at the same time, offer it a sanctuary in which it can ply whatever role the FCC deems legal without interference from us.

If you look at Sumner's editorial in such a light, and not simply try to find fault with everything he does or has done (life, after all, is but four score and a few http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), it is not such a bad message at all.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ May 01 2007,14:19)]Why is it that, to me, this editorial seems to relate more to the issue of exclusivisity of certain net operations, than the issue of Winlink, Pactor III, or some other digitized moded of communication???
Perhaps because it probably WASN'T about WinLink or PacTOR.

You're probably the kind of guy who can walk through a graveyard at night and NOT look over his shoulder.

[N5PVL]

And the fact that the ARRL is promoting the worst QRM mills in the hobby's history ( by volume of QSO's crashed ) has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Riiiiiight! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KE5FRF]

Oh, this is plain silly.

It doesn't matter that the robot has no intent. If a ham owns the Pactor robot, he is responsible for its transmission. We can't excuse interference from a non-living device because it doesn't have a conscience. If my dog attacks the mail-man as he walks up my sidewalk and maims him, I am responsible for the behavior of the dog. If my cat plops his toosh on my straight key, and throws a CW carrier for hours on end, certainly I had no intention to interfere, but I am negligent in leaving my equipment in such a state. If it happens once, then it can't be construed as malicious or intentional. If it is an everyday thing, then there can be no other conclusion than irresponsibility on my part. I am required as an operator to take precautions to prevent such from happening. The FCC won't give me a pass because I blamed the cat! Therefore, the same can be said of anyone operating a Pactor robot station. If it is realized that the robot is ill equipped to detect an ongoing QSO, and if interference is the rule rather than the exception, then the operator of such station is not taking responsibility for his equipment, and blaming the proverbial "cat" is not the right answer.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (N5LRZ @ May 01 2007,10:38)]RE KD6NIG

I never signed any gentlemens agreement. I follow and obey the FCC Rules and regs NOT any gentlemens agreements.

Now IF the FCC regs says I can send my digi at a certain place I will do so regardless of any gentlemens agreements. If and when the FCC decides to say OK this is the new limit then so be it.

If a person does not like the RULES and REG as put forth by the FCC they have Two Options:

A)Change them
B)Turn in your license to the FCC for voluntary revocation--you can turn in your license you do of course know.
Ok, so what you're saying, is that unless the FCC says it, it means nothing.

So the next time a kilocycle cop tells me I'm not operating in the bandplan, I can tell them that if the FCC doesn't say it, it doesn't mean it.

Thanks for the tip http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ May 01 2007,12:20)]I don't agree with your timing. I would put Sumner's editorial at about the time of the Notice, perhaps even as late as that of the March recission of most of the petition's HF content. The lead times for editorial content of that nature are not so great.

In fact, since I think Sumner was traveling at the time, it may even have been done back in January and had the object of the potential influx of new "no-code" masses in mind. #In any event, the editorial itself is certainly a mild reminder that would be topical at any time.

At some point, we all must try to stop wallowing in the aftermath of RM-11306 and begin to move forward. If the ARRL does plan to submit a new petition we must be prepared to offer whatever guidance for that effort we can.

The simple reality, like it or hate it, is that WinLink will still have a place on our bands. There have been myriad opportunities for the FCC to have made judgments about its legality over the past few years, if not before, and the fact that they have not ruled it out must be seen to rule it in.

Our goal, therefore, should be to stop bitching and moaning about it and seek ways to make sure that it remains well enough controlled that everyone else can use the bands to the extent possible without interference from it, and, at the same time, offer it a sanctuary in which it can ply whatever role the FCC deems legal without interference from us.

If you look at Sumner's editorial in such a light, and not simply try to find fault with everything he does or has done (life, after all, is but four score and a few # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif # ), it is not such a bad message at all.
I'm more referring to when the article was supposed to *hit the masses*, which is this month. When it was written, RM-11306 was still on track, and the FCC would probably have put out an order as early as late April or possibly sometime in May.

Nice timing for an editorial that basically says "QRM is OK."

Which is more likely...

A) Sumner, out of the randomness of the editorial column brainstorming process, just so happened to decide to write an article on QRM, and how we should all just get along... And the obvious question is "Get along... instead of...?" - So what's the point, the goal of the article?

B) Sumner, seeing RM-11306 is about to become 'rule', and how the bands a few months from 'now' ('now' being pre-RM-11306-withdrawal timelines) are going to be more jumbled, more chaotic due to mode mixing, and a *TON* of complaints that are going to come up because of "that squealing and hissing that's walking all over our weekly net"... decided to write a pre-emptive strike article to put the idea out there that "some" QRM is unavoidable, to make the masses think that there's nothing wrong with a robot station coming up on top of you... because, after all... it's a 'misconception' that we're supposed to listen before transmitting.

Which situation do you think is more likely?



If you had to read the article and give a one or two sentence summary of what Sumner's trying to say, what would it be?

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ May 01 2007,11:58)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ May 01 2007,13:37)]Interference caused by PACTOR robots might not fit the strict definition of malicious but a case can be made for such QRM being intentional.

The robot is parked on a particular frequency and operates automatically without regard to ongoing activity on the frequency. That fits the definition of intentional.

The FCC obviously doesn't want to open that can of worms and neither does the ARRL.
Au contraire. A robot has no intent. Only a live operator can have intent. Now if you park a robot station on a frequency known to be in use by a regular net and your robot cannot detect a frequency in use and avoid responding to a query, you might be able to successfully argue the robot station owner chose that frequency with the intent of interfering with the net. That may be difficult to actually prove if the operator does not admit to knowing about the net's operation on the frequency chosen.

I know the frequencies of a few nets but I do not know what frequencies NTS-D uses for it's nets for example and until recently, did not even know there was an NTS-D and I have been licensed since 1965!

73,
Mike WA3KYY
True, a robot might not have intent, but it's "owner" might... And while not intentional, interference from a robot MIGHT be considered malicious.
If a robot were set up to operate on 14.300 MHz, the owner of the station MIGHT not intend to interfere with the Maritime Service Net, but would in fact do so. "I didn't intend" to interfere with the net would be a lame excuse.
At best, the robots need to be confined to their own little corner. Then, if they interfere with EACH OTHER, let the owners fight it out amoungst themselves, and yell "Interference!"

[WA9SVD]

QUOTE (from the editorial:)
"A common misconception is that the FCC rules require amateurs to avoid transmitting if doing so would cause any interference to ongoing communication. Minimizing interference by, for example, asking if a frequency is in use before calling CQ, is a courtesy we owe to one another and is certainly part of the "good amateur practice" required by Section 97.101(a)." Unquote.
===============

Arrogant? It seems to ME, that operating so as to cause interference to ongoing communication IS intentional, and thus malicious. I don't see the FCC rules saying only a LOT of interference is considered intentional or malicious, or the amount of interference has to completely obliterate ongoing communications to be considered harmful. But now it seems the ARRL (or at least Mr. Sumner) is redefining "interference" and adding that the "SOLE PURPOSE" of a transmission has to be to disrupt copmmunication in order for it to be considered intentional and/or mlicious.

(I guess I should fire up a 1500 Watt transmitter tomorrow, and call CQ on top of W1AW's transmission. After all, it's not my sole purpose, or even intention to interfere with the ARRL station: I'll just be looking for a nice rag chew, and any interference will be incidental. Oh, I'll just skip the courtesy of asking if the frequency is already in use. After all, it's not REQUIRED by the FCC rules.)

And while no frequency belongs to any one station, and we ARE all considered equal in that respect, it's also a matter of first come, first served. Even nets are supposed to shift frequency if there's already a QSO in progress on "their" frequency. Or is that now an extinct concept?

[w8znx]

N5PVL
is once agn astride Rozinante
lance in hand

no matter that
Sancho tells him they are windmills

he is out to do battle with winlink/giants

where in Mr Sumner's editorial
is there one word about winlink

if you spent most of your time
on 75 meters fone

would think the editorial
was aimed at phone ops
that hang on to and guard a freq
like they own it

if you hung out at the low end
of 20 cw you would think it
was about all the qrm caused by
pile ups on rare dx stations

if you were a 40 meter qrp op you might
think about all the radio teletype qrm
around the old 40 meter qrp calling freq

ive lost count
how many time qrp to qrp contacts
ive been in, # have been
wiped off 40 meters
by high pwr radioteletype stations

maybe they did not hear us
maybe they did not care

thats life

how many of us
learned as a kid novice ops
in the 50s and 60s
trying to survive 40 meter novice band

if you can't stand qrm
get another hobby
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ( i know its a service )

Mac

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ May 01 2007,13:26)]QUOTE (from the editorial:)
"A common misconception is that the FCC rules require amateurs to avoid transmitting if doing so would cause any interference to ongoing communication. Minimizing interference by, for example, asking if a frequency is in use before calling CQ, is a courtesy we owe to one another and is certainly part of the "good amateur practice" required by Section 97.101(a)." Unquote.
§ 97.3 Definitions.
(a) The definitions of terms used in part 97 are:
(22) 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.

§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Just what in these regulations doesn't Mr. Sumner understand. I do understand that some interference may not be willfull but it needs to be defined.

If propagation is such that my fifth order IMD products or opposite sideband or suppressed carrier causes a 20 over S9 signal somewhere that I do not expect, especially at 100 watts, then the interference is NOT willfull. It can still be harmful and one could ask if I followed good amateur practice by using only the power needed for my transmission.

However, if I don't listen, or worse don't care, and begin transmitting where my "main" signal falls within the passband of another conversation, then there is WILLFULL interference.

Mr. Sumner is again being a winlink shill and is trying his best to justify winlink's definition of "semi-automatic control" rather than admitting that winlink's operation uses "semi-automatic operation". This is one issue that needs to be watched carefully.

Winlink is trying to do its best to justify that the calling station is in CONTROL of the responding automatic station and therefore the automatic station can not cause willfull harmful interference because the calling station can't necessarily hear an ongoing qso. They are trying to negate the "hidden transmitter" effect by coming up with a horse's ass definition that will let them off the hook for interference. The recent threads about identifying stations that cause interference and subsequent FCC complaints probably have them frightened that this could jeapordize their operation.

Jim
WA0LYK

[KC9JIQ]

Quote[/b] (K8YZK @ May 01 2007,10:34)]There is going to be unintentional interference no matter, what happens. I listen, ask if freq is clear, and then make a call, but I have also been told the freq is busy. Do I continue, nope, I say sorry and move and start all over again or look for someone else calling CQ.

However with the winlink/pactoriii group it is like they feel they have the right to start up anytime/anywhere, and tough sh** to any ongoing QSO's in its way.

I am not against winlink/PactorIII perse, as another mode to use, I do have a problem with it when it QRM's on going communications, and is not a open protocol. I also have a problem it being used as a defacto commerical system to pass emails for some boater who is to cheap to use a regular email system for boaters/RV'ers.

I guess this horse called ARRL likes to change it's color's to fit it's needs, not necessarily for the betterment of the ham radio community.
Kurt
NOBODY OWNS A FREQUENCY, SO TELL THAT TO THE OF'S ON 75!!!

and if somone is QRMing you, unintentional of course, just move up or down on the dial, problem solved.


every HF band should be like 160.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,14:57)]Nice timing for an editorial that basically says "QRM is OK."
That's not what the editorial said. If that is what you read out of it, I suggest a remedial reading course. Or, faster yet, simply read Mac's post above.

[K4GUN]

§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Here's what I find interesting. The rule is not willful and malicious. Its willful or malicious. Mal intent is not required if the interference is willful.

Now, about "willful"... if you know if could cause interference but you don't make any effort to make sure and you transmit anyway, wouldn't that make your actions willful?

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that seems pretty simple. So simple, that it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. Is Winlink that bad to other communication methods? Would a reasonable person call it "willful interference"? I tried to ask this before but didn't get an answer.

[N5PVL]

K4GUN asks:
Quote[/b] ]
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that seems pretty simple. #So simple, that it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. #Is Winlink that bad to other communication methods? #Would a reasonable person call it "willful interference"? #I tried to ask this before but didn't get an answer.

To see how WL2K operation affects other hams, study these screenshots of a WinLink QRM Mill (http://www.uspacket.org/pqrm.htm) trashing out several QSO's at one time.

This is how WinLink is bad to other communications.

Now, to see the "willful interference" part, imagine the interference you have been shown happening many times a day, for several years. - This is in fact the case, and not just on the frequency shown.

For more information, stop by at Winlink-Watch (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/) and look over the images and info there. At WinLink-Watch, a standardized method for monitoring, recording and reporting WL2K interference is being developed.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ May 01 2007,15:50)]§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
# # # #with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Here's what I find interesting. #The rule is not willful and malicious. #Its willful or malicious. #Mal intent is not required if the interference is willful. #

Now, about "willful"... if you know if could cause interference but you don't make any effort to make sure and you transmit anyway, wouldn't that make your actions willful? #

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that seems pretty simple. #So simple, that it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. #Is Winlink that bad to other communication methods? #Would a reasonable person call it "willful interference"? #I tried to ask this before but didn't get an answer.
Willful and malicious... hrm, that's a very legal definition, and I just don't know.

To answer your question as to whether Winlink is truly as bad as people say, I invite you to make your own decision. The list of Winlink PMBO frequencies is posted somewhere, or I'm sure you could Google for it (I don't have it handy). I'd say spin the VFO over and listen for a while.

I still haven't gotten a clear answer on this question from anyone though... Regardless of 'best amateur practice' gentlemen's agreements, from a legal only standpoint (and that doesn't have to just be limited to this small bit of Part 97 if you can find something that applies)...

Is it legal for me, as an individual, to operate in such a fashion that I do not, ever, check to see if the frequency is in use. If someone makes a complaint about me, and if my defense is "I chose not to listen first"... is that a sufficient defense? I'm not being malicious about it, from a textbook definition, I guess I simply don't care if it's already in use. I'm not out looking to QRM anyone in particular, I'm just Joe Blow who spins the dial, wherever it lands within the appropriate subbands, I start transmitting, regardless of the existing 'state' of the frequency.

If I did this on top of the 3905 nets, or any net, or an emergency net, or whatever... am I operating legally?

I'm trying to determine if there's a legal difference between an unattended station keying up over 'whoever' and a manned station keying up over the same 'whoever'.

Is there? I just don't know, at this point...

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ May 01 2007,15:50)]§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Here's what I find interesting. The rule is not willful and malicious. Its willful or malicious. Mal intent is not required if the interference is willful.

Now, about "willful"... if you know if could cause interference but you don't make any effort to make sure and you transmit anyway, wouldn't that make your actions willful?

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that seems pretty simple. So simple, that it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. Is Winlink that bad to other communication methods? Would a reasonable person call it "willful interference"? I tried to ask this before but didn't get an answer.
§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.


Some one more knowledgable in sentence diagramming please correct me if I'm wrong, but I see this as saying:

1) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with any radio communication or signal.

2) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Number one is the worst, meaning to cause a total breakdown in the passing of intelligence either momentary or completely.

Number two is next worse, meaning to cause problems in the passing of intelligence.

Number two would seem to contradict what Mr. Sumner stated!

Jim
WA0LYK

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ May 01 2007,19:08)][§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with
Here the intent is key...

Quote[/b] ]or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

...here I thnk the unintentional interference comes into play.

All interference is prohibited under the Rules. Clearly intentional ("malicious" seems superfluous since intentional interference would hardly seem to be otherwise) would be the worse of the two, but I think the intent of the Rule is reinforce that any interference is illegal and to be avoided.

I did not read Sumner's editorial as a justification for any interference or to minimize the problems. I took it in the same vein as Mac's post somewhere above: Interference is an unfortunate part of what we do and we should not become so fixated that we blow a gasket and cause a bigger problem.

I am of the view that the genesis of this comment was not WinLink or RM-11306 or any of those issues; I believe he had the possible swift growth of new HF phone and digital ops suddenly intermingling and clashing with all the OFs who have staked out proprietary claims on various net frequencies and crowding into narrow digital alleys such as that around 14070, which can become extremely dense.

I am not known to be a defender of Herr Sumner, but I think on this thread he is getting a bum rap.

Edit: I think the phraseology of the FCC Rule is very poor and leads readily to misunderstanding (an understatement given this thread). "Interfere with" and "cause interference to" are virtually identical concepts and the turn of phrase seems excessive.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ May 01 2007,17:44)]I am of the view that the genesis of this comment was not WinLink or RM-11306 or any of those issues; I believe he had the possible swift growth of new HF phone and digital ops suddenly intermingling and clashing with all the OFs who have staked out proprietary claims on various net frequencies and crowding into narrow digital alleys such as that around 14070, which can become extremely dense.
I am not quite so believing as you. I have read too much stuff from winlink supporters and their administrators trying to convince folks that their pmbo's shouldn't be held to the interference standards because the "calling" station controls the interference problems. Consequently, the term semi-automatic control.

Although they may also intend the same interpretation as you, never forget that somewhere down the line, they may very well use it to justify automatic station interference.

Jim
WA0LYK

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ May 01 2007,18:07)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ May 01 2007,17:44)]I am of the view that the genesis of this comment was not WinLink or RM-11306 or any of those issues; I believe he had the possible swift growth of new HF phone and digital ops suddenly intermingling and clashing with all the OFs who have staked out proprietary claims on various net frequencies and crowding into narrow digital alleys such as that around 14070, which can become extremely dense.
I am not quite so believing as you. #I have read too much stuff from winlink supporters and their administrators trying to convince folks that their pmbo's shouldn't be held to the interference standards because the "calling" station controls the interference problems. #Consequently, the term semi-automatic control.

Although they may also intend the same interpretation as you, never forget that somewhere down the line, they may very well use it to justify automatic station interference. #

Jim
WA0LYK
So I guess the key phrase is...

"Do not attribute to 'malicious intent' that which can be explained by 'poor design'" ?

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,18:31)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ May 01 2007,18:07)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ May 01 2007,17:44)]I am of the view that the genesis of this comment was not WinLink or RM-11306 or any of those issues; I believe he had the possible swift growth of new HF phone and digital ops suddenly intermingling and clashing with all the OFs who have staked out proprietary claims on various net frequencies and crowding into narrow digital alleys such as that around 14070, which can become extremely dense.
I am not quite so believing as you. I have read too much stuff from winlink supporters and their administrators trying to convince folks that their pmbo's shouldn't be held to the interference standards because the "calling" station controls the interference problems. Consequently, the term semi-automatic control.

Although they may also intend the same interpretation as you, never forget that somewhere down the line, they may very well use it to justify automatic station interference.

Jim
WA0LYK
So I guess the key phrase is...

"Do not attribute to 'malicious intent' that which can be explained by 'poor design'" ?
Malicious defines intent, i.e. doing it on purpose with the intent to interrupt that particular communications. Willfull however, is a better fit since it means, "I don't care if interference happens, I'll do it anyway!".

Jim
WA0LYK

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ April 30 2007,20:39)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,18:31)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ May 01 2007,18:07)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ May 01 2007,17:44)]I am of the view that the genesis of this comment was not WinLink or RM-11306 or any of those issues; I believe he had the possible swift growth of new HF phone and digital ops suddenly intermingling and clashing with all the OFs who have staked out proprietary claims on various net frequencies and crowding into narrow digital alleys such as that around 14070, which can become extremely dense.
I am not quite so believing as you. #I have read too much stuff from winlink supporters and their administrators trying to convince folks that their pmbo's shouldn't be held to the interference standards because the "calling" station controls the interference problems. #Consequently, the term semi-automatic control.

Although they may also intend the same interpretation as you, never forget that somewhere down the line, they may very well use it to justify automatic station interference. #

Jim
WA0LYK
So I guess the key phrase is...

"Do not attribute to 'malicious intent' that which can be explained by 'poor design'" #?
Malicious defines intent, i.e. doing it on purpose with the intent to interrupt that particular communications. #Willfull however, is a better fit since it means, "I don't care if interference happens, I'll do it anyway!".

Jim
WA0LYK
Well hell ,Jim thats been going on with HF for years now #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
You and I and about half the people who read these forums know that.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ May 01 2007,09:53)]Quote[/b] (N5LRZ @ May 01 2007,06:19)]Re...k6jpd

However...

Gentlemen's agreements that do 'Not' have the binding force of codified law AND, repeat this important 'And', actively enforced are completely worthless.

For any law to be of any worth or value it must BOTH be Codified into Law and actively/routinely enforced.

Gentlemen's agreements are neither.
And yet it was the same ARRL who had a full on 5 year old hissy fit when the FCC broached the subject of "codifying" allowable bandwidth not 20 years ago.

What's changed?

Ooooh, Ooooh, I know, I know.
The ARRL sellout to WinLink and SCS is what changed.

They can't force their darling new protocol and proprietary hardware on hams, which fly in the face of the gentleman's agreements, tradition, and good amateur practice, without using the FCC to do the dirty work.

Can't baffle them with your bull****, regulate them into submission.
Wow... sounds about right.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (w8znx @ May 01 2007,08:42)]N5PVL
is once agn astride Rozinante
lance in hand

no matter that
Sancho tells him they are windmills

he is out to do battle with winlink/giants

where in Mr Sumner's editorial
is there one word about winlink

if you spent most of your time
on 75 meters fone

would think the editorial
was aimed at phone ops
that hang on to and guard a freq
like they own it

if you hung out at the low end
of 20 cw you would think it
was about all the qrm caused by
pile ups on rare dx stations

if you were a 40 meter qrp op you might
think about all the radio teletype qrm
around the old 40 meter qrp calling freq

ive lost count
how many time qrp to qrp contacts
ive been in, # have been
wiped off 40 meters
by high pwr radioteletype stations

maybe they did not hear us
maybe they did not care

thats life

how many of us
learned as a kid novice ops
in the 50s and 60s
trying to survive 40 meter novice band

if you can't stand qrm
get another hobby
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ( i know its a service )

Mac
Mac there does not have to be any word in Sumners letter that says winlink..

Winlink is just any other mode.. A piss poor one when used by LIDS. And as he says QRM will happen... But its not intentional or Malisous.. Sorry WL2K Is by way of piss poor operators. see below..

However we all know what piss poor neighbors Winlink is..

And when a Winliker drops in on top of an ongoing QSO.. Because they are too lazy or unwilling to llisten firrst and their hardware is stupidly unable to do same.. That makes the QRM intentional and malisous..

PERIOD...
We are not stupid... We know unitentional QRM happens a lot on the Hams Bands.. But WL2K again when used by LIDS is nothing but a noise source..


73 Jerry N9LYA

[NN4RH]

I'm one of those who also got the sense from the article that it was going a step beyond just saying that accidental inteference will happen sometimes, get over it.

I think what the editorial is really grasping at is creating a new kind of interference that is somewhere between accidental and intentional, something I'd call "negligent interference".

"Negligent interference" would be the result of just not checking if the frequency is in use - i.e. operator negligence. It's not "willful" or "malicious" in the sense that someone does hear that a frequency is in use and says to himself, "I will now fire up my rig for the purpose of intentionally interfering with that ongoing QSO and/or with full knowledge that I will be interfering".

It's a loophole. There is no FCC rule against anything like "negligent interference".

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ May 01 2007,23:46)]I'm one of those who also got the sense from the article that it was going a step beyond just saying that accidental inteference will happen sometimes, get over it.

I think what the editorial is really grasping at is creating a new kind of interference that is somewhere between accidental and intentional, something I'd call "negligent interference".

"Negligent interference" would be the result of just not checking if the frequency is in use - i.e. operator negligence. It's not "willful" or "malicious" in the sense that someone does hear that a frequency is in use and says to himself, "I will now fire up my rig for the purpose of intentionally interfering with that ongoing QSO and/or with full knowledge that I will be interfering".

It's a loophole. There is no FCC rule against anything like "negligent interference".
Hum...

OK... Negligent inteference.. Will be yet another way to seperate the Good Operators from the LIDS...

I guess Amateur Radio has come down to.. Who has the biggest badded AMP... Loudest Signal and most noise makers... I guess it is becomming CB Land after all..

Endorsed by the ARRL's Dave Sumner...


73 Jerry

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ May 02 2007,06:46)]It's a loophole. There is no FCC rule against anything like "negligent interference".
If you think about it a bit more, I think you can see that it is not so much a "loophole" as a reflection of the reality of shared bands and human nature.

One could make the case that "negligent interference" (to use your term) could cover every instance of interference that was not either "intentional" or "malicious," even including that which is purely accidental.

I believe, had the editorial been written by Moseson and appeared in CQ, it would not be inspiring nearly as much comment and exegetical flights of fancy as it is. Perhaps Sumner has earned this level of scrutiny (there IS evidence to support that thesis), but I still believe in this case he is more sinned against than sinning.

[N5PVL]

To begin transmitting in any mode without making a reasonable effort to see if you might be interfering with other signals is an act of willful interference.

To clarify: If I am gifted with a 2kw CW transmitter, pick a spot on the HF bands and start transmitting without bothering to turn on a receiver and listen first. - This would be a willful act that, when it results in interference with another radio signal, can only be characterized as willful interference.

If you just don't care, the interference you may cause will always be willful interference unless you do it repeatedly, in which case the word malicious is more accurate in describing your behavior.

WinLink servers qualify as malicious due to the simple fact that they have been aware of the fact that they interfere with other signals regularly, and yet they continue to operate in this way for months and years. After months and years of operating in a fashion that the operator knows will interfere, the word 'willful' is no longer adequate and 'malicious' comes into play as the most accurate description of what is taking place.

How about an WL2K server that has been precisely centered up on top of an ongoing HF Packet network for years, follwing it around the automated sub-band as the Packet net moved around that narrow slice of spectrum, trying to escape the hammering ARQ interference?

That's ongoing malicious interference, my fellow amateurs, from WinLink2000 server WB0TAX and, of course, his customers (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/wb0tax.htm).

- And this is but one of many instances of WL2K interference and it's anti-ham nature.

My personal feeling is that in light of this, anybody who apologizes for, advocates, or seeks to perpetuate the ARRL/WinLink behavior associated with this outrage are beneath contempt - both as amateurs and as individuals.

We most certainly do not need to have this kind of trash infesting the ARRL headquarters at Newington. - Nothing could be less appropriate than to have ARRL HQ occupied by an ingrown clique of Lid employees. - As is the sad case today.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 02 2007,07:50)]My personal feeling is that in light of this, anybody who apologizes for, advocates, or seeks to perpetuate the ARRL/WinLink behavior associated with this outrage are beneath contempt - both as amateurs and as individuals.

We most certainly do not need to have this kind of trash infesting the ARRL headquarters at Newington. - Nothing could be less appropriate than to have ARRL HQ occupied by an ingrown clique of Lid employees. - As is the sad case today.
OK, so mark me beneath contempt... or just plain stupid... because I can't, for the life of me, find any reference to WinLink at all in that editorial.

Granted, my public school education didn't leave me with much in the way of reading comprehension, but doesn't the editorial say, at its root, "interference will happen sometimes on crowded bands, don't automatically assume it's malicious or intentional if it happens to you, and oh, by the way, you OFs on 75 meters, get over it if someone is having a QSO on 'your' frequency, because it's not yours in the first place."

While the ARRL has pulled some bonehead stunts lately, and there's every reason to maintain a high level of vigilance, an editorial that simply reflects on the realities of life on HF hardly calls for executing the messenger.

[n5rfx]

From the The ARRL Letter Vol. 23, No. 10 March 5, 2004 (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/04/0305/)
Hollingsworth issues interference reminder
Quote[/b] ]Hollingsworth issues interference reminder: FCC Special Counsel for Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth says no Amateur Radio stations are exempt from the requirement to avoid unnecessarily interfering with ongoing communications. "It is very important for all stations, including automated ones, to realize that they are responsible for any interference caused when they come on top of existing communications," Hollingsworth said in response to a recent inquiry. 'There are no exemptions for automated stations." FCC Part 97 <http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/> Amateur Service rules generally address interference with other communications in §97.101(d): "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal." An amateur had written to Hollingsworth alleging that what appear to be automated PACTOR stations routinely start transmitting atop PSK31 QSOs on 40 and 30 meters. The amateur also contacted one of the PACTOR stations in an effort to "dialogue about it not just complain." Hollingsworth expressed the hope that all involved could work things out. He also points out that stations responding to automated interrogations are equally responsible for not causing interference. "It doesn't mean the frequency is clear merely because they were interrogated by another station," he told ARRL this week. "It's a two-way responsibility."

That explanation seems pretty clear, and describes the only reasonable way to avoid interference.

K1ZZQuote[/b] ]A common misconception is that the FCC rules require amateurs to avoid transmitting if doing so would cause any interference to ongoing communication.
There are different levels of interference and differing modulation types suffer differently from each type of interference. CW and analog phone are the most robust when it comes to handling the most severe types of interference. Digital modes run the gamut from being very robust, to not being very robust at all. Some digital modes (MT63) can have interference right on top of them and still function well. Others like DRM are very much affected by even the slightest interference.

I agree with those in this thread who believe that unattended operation on HF without some sort of mechanism to insure compliance with the FCC rules is contrary to accepted operating standards.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[N5PVL]

KE4UWL says:
Quote[/b] ]
OK, so mark me beneath contempt... or just plain stupid... because I can't, for the life of me, find any reference to WinLink at all in that editorial.

Nobody asked you to.

Several other participants here are having no trouble at all seeing the irony in a missive on the inevitability of interference by a person whose personal agenda at ARRL HQ has brought on and perpetuated massive, large-scale interference issues within the hobby. - Mr. Sumner and his WL2K pals are the worst Lids ( by volume of signals interfered with ) around - bar none - and they have been for years.

So you don't 'get it', but others do.

[kh6ty]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 02 2007,05:50)]To begin transmitting in any mode without making a reasonable effort to see if you might be interfering with other signals is an act of willful interference.
§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
# # # #with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

From the dictionary:

A "willful" act is one done intentionally, as distinguished from an act done carelessly or inadvertently.

I think that if you do not hear a signal or do not even listen for a signal , you cannot intentionally (i.e. "willfully") interfere with that signal, within the strict meaning of the code.

Transmitting without listening first is probably covered by the "good amateur practice" in the regulations, which may have been been included in an attempt to prevent over-regulation, but still encourage a cooperative effort in the use of shared #bands, which are definitely too small to handle the crush of operators during a contest.

Whether or not transmitting without listening first is actually in violation of the regulations can probably only be decided on a case-by-case basis in a court of law.

If a DXpedition station calls CQ and a hundred stations immediately try to contact him, who is to say was first on the frequency? We only know that the station called back is the one who stood out, not necessarily the first on.

ARRL "may" have an agenda to favor Winlink Email robots over all other communications, since ARRL and Winlink are now in bed together, but I have my doubts that it was the thrust of Sumner's editorial, although Winlink has used the argument escessively in an attempt to justify the very abnormally high level of QRM to existing communications by their robot army.

The benefit of all this discussion has been to understand the problem and why it occurs, as a guide to changes in the regulations resulting from additional understanding and more experience.

Even the FCC themselves recognized the potential QRM problem from automatic operations and confined those activities to the subbands. However, ARRL pushed for the loophole for the fictitious "semi-automatic" station as long as the bandwidth was less than 500 Hz, by promising that automatic operation could be discontinued if necessary and the the radio amateur community would come up with unique solutions to the QRM problem. Of course, we all know now that neither of these every happened, and is unlikely ever to happen now that ARRL is a bedfellow of Winlink.

Did Sumner say, "Interference is A-OK? I don't think so. He merely points out that it is inevitable on a crowded band.

What I do not agree with is his statement that it is OK to transmit if it would cause interference to ongoing communication. I submit that it definitely is not! The operator has two choices - find a clear frequency, or wait until one becomes clear. It may only become clear for a short time, but, except during contests where the "loudest" or clearest signal will be replied to (or the most desired location), the principle is to find a way not to interfere with ongoing communication. Who is to say if an act is "willful" or not? This is a perfect example of a "loophole" that cannot practically be challenged.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 02 2007,08:53)]Several other participants here are having no trouble at all seeing the irony in a missive on the inevitability of interference by a person whose personal agenda at ARRL HQ has brought on and perpetuated massive, large-scale interference issues within the hobby. - Mr. Sumner and his WL2K pals are the worst Lids ( by volume of signals interfered with ) around - bar none - and they have been for years.

So you don't 'get it', but others do.
I guess you're right. Everything out of Newington has its basis in WL2K advocacy. Even the emails I exchanged with the membership dept. recently probably were veiled propaganda for WL2K. How silly of me to miss reading between the lines.

This whole thing is getting beyond ridiculous extremism, with some of you guys jumping at shadows.

Sometimes, though, a cigar is just a cigar.

[n9lya]

Hi Dave...
How have you been? Hope all is fine...
I think we would all be less sensitive to the ARRL/WL2K/SCS Orgy.. If it were not for the long history of conversations between us as a group and individuals with our division directors, the ARRL President, EOC, Section Managers, and the WL2K Group...

My favorite saying.. Goes like this...

Past History Dictates..... "............."


73 Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Skipnet Member
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section
Member ARRL
SPAR
HARDS
HHHC

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (n9lya @ May 02 2007,13:55)]Hi Dave...
How have you been? Hope all is fine...
I think we would all be less sensitive to the ARRL/WL2K/SCS Orgy.. If it were not for the long history of conversations between us as a group and individuals with our division directors, the ARRL President, EOC, Section Managers, and the WL2K Group...

My favorite saying.. Goes like this...

Past History Dictates..... "............."


73 Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Skipnet Member
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section
Member ARRL
SPAR
HARDS
HHHC
Hey Jerry...

Doin' good here, thanks...

I know there's a long history on this whole thing, and that some of the folks involved have been less than forthcoming.

My only point was that not everything they do is to further WL2K and/or SCS, but to read some of the posts in this thread, some believe it *is* all they do in Newington all day... sit around and rub their hands together thinking about all the money they'll make. I believe they do that some, but I also don't think it's all that ever happens up there.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ May 01 2007,15:30)]Oh, this is plain silly.

It doesn't matter that the robot has no intent. If a ham owns the Pactor robot, he is responsible for its transmission. We can't excuse interference from a non-living device because it doesn't have a conscience. If my dog attacks the mail-man as he walks up my sidewalk and maims him, I am responsible for the behavior of the dog. If my cat plops his toosh on my straight key, and throws a CW carrier for hours on end, certainly I had no intention to interfere, but I am negligent in leaving my equipment in such a state. If it happens once, then it can't be construed as malicious or intentional. If it is an everyday thing, then there can be no other conclusion than irresponsibility on my part. I am required as an operator to take precautions to prevent such from happening. The FCC won't give me a pass because I blamed the cat! Therefore, the same can be said of anyone operating a Pactor robot station. If it is realized that the robot is ill equipped to detect an ongoing QSO, and if interference is the rule rather than the exception, then the operator of such station is not taking responsibility for his equipment, and blaming the proverbial "cat" is not the right answer.
Excellent observation. This is the reason why these robot winlink stations need to be taken off the air or use a better mode instead of the spectrum hogging pactor 1,2, or 3. It is kinda funny that 50 some odd packet operators can all fit into one frequency but the pactor bots have to spread out all over the band. Why can they not use one freq like Packet? This would eliminate a lot of problems with them coming up all over the band. Why can't winlink use a more friendly mode? I will tell you why, SCS has gotten these guys to buy into their modems and they bascially control it.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ May 01 2007,16:26)]# #And while no frequency belongs to any one station, and we ARE all considered equal in that respect, it's also a matter of first come, first served. #Even nets are supposed to shift frequency if there's already a QSO in progress on "their" frequency. #Or is that now an extinct concept?
Apparently it is extinct to the winlink crowd.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ May 01 2007,18:10)]NOBODY OWNS A FREQUENCY, SO TELL THAT TO THE OF'S ON 75!!!

and if somone is QRMing you, unintentional of course, just move up or down on the dial, problem solved.


every HF band should be like 160.
Tell that to K1MAN. He thought he owned a freq and look what it got him. The FCC refused to renew his license.

[N5LRZ]

Re kc7gnm

I was not aware that they had refused to renew. I will have to check the ARRL web pg to look that up.

But the K guy went beyond the lines and directly dared the BOSS aka the FCC directly with continual and deliberate violations AFTER the FCC ordered him to stop.

So there is a difference between getting the FCC Pizzed off and getting a mere lowly ham op pizzed off. Tick off a lowly ham and a complaint is filed which may mean something or nothing will happen. Tick off the FCC aka THE BOSS and watch how the wheels of the regulations grind ya down till they delete you.

[k6jpd]

the spin doctors are at work.

§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

this really has 2 parts.
part #1: No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with any radio communication or signal

part #2: No amateur operator shall cause interference to any radio communication or signal


winstink fits both statements.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,18:15)]Quote[/b] (k4gun @ May 01 2007,15:50)]§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Here's what I find interesting. The rule is not willful and malicious. Its willful or malicious. Mal intent is not required if the interference is willful.

Now, about "willful"... if you know if could cause interference but you don't make any effort to make sure and you transmit anyway, wouldn't that make your actions willful?

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that seems pretty simple. So simple, that it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. Is Winlink that bad to other communication methods? Would a reasonable person call it "willful interference"? I tried to ask this before but didn't get an answer.
Willful and malicious... hrm, that's a very legal definition, and I just don't know.

To answer your question as to whether Winlink is truly as bad as people say, I invite you to make your own decision. The list of Winlink PMBO frequencies is posted somewhere, or I'm sure you could Google for it (I don't have it handy). I'd say spin the VFO over and listen for a while.

I still haven't gotten a clear answer on this question from anyone though... Regardless of 'best amateur practice' gentlemen's agreements, from a legal only standpoint (and that doesn't have to just be limited to this small bit of Part 97 if you can find something that applies)...

Is it legal for me, as an individual, to operate in such a fashion that I do not, ever, check to see if the frequency is in use. If someone makes a complaint about me, and if my defense is "I chose not to listen first"... is that a sufficient defense? I'm not being malicious about it, from a textbook definition, I guess I simply don't care if it's already in use. I'm not out looking to QRM anyone in particular, I'm just Joe Blow who spins the dial, wherever it lands within the appropriate subbands, I start transmitting, regardless of the existing 'state' of the frequency.

If I did this on top of the 3905 nets, or any net, or an emergency net, or whatever... am I operating legally?

I'm trying to determine if there's a legal difference between an unattended station keying up over 'whoever' and a manned station keying up over the same 'whoever'.

Is there? I just don't know, at this point...
I don't think there is a difference.

Take a look at the FCC enforcement actions. The record is replete with people being cited for interfering with or jamming ongoing communications of all sorts and all frequencies.

I would define "willful" the same way you would. Just firing up wherever the VFO lands irregardless of whether the frequency is in use and contrary to the stated regulation. I'd further define "malicious" as doing it more than once.

It seems to me that the only way the WinLink droids can keep from running afoul of the regs is to keep them segregated from everybody else in their own little, and I emphasize the word little, slice of spectrum.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ May 02 2007,16:31)]It seems to me that the only way the WinLink droids can keep from running afoul of the regs is to keep them segregated from everybody else in their own little, and I emphasize the word little, slice of spectrum.
Words of wisdom.

Of course, wisdom may not go recognized walking among some of the throng on this thread, for wisdom was never its purpose.

Bet if I had a few dozen little bald, dolls that looked like they had gas and a handful of needles, I could make a bundle. Do you ever wonder if Sumner has a dog? Someone must like him.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[w8znx]

winlink, black helicopters, winlink, cfr, winlink,
cia mind control, winlink, the Masons, winlink,
skull and bones, winlink, ARRL, winlink, worldbank,
winlink, red army troops in Canada, winlink,


yes i can see it now

I will be in the backyard filling sand bags
for the bunker

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ May 02 2007,14:31)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,18:15)]Quote[/b] (k4gun @ May 01 2007,15:50)]§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
# # # #with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Here's what I find interesting. #The rule is not willful and malicious. #Its willful or malicious. #Mal intent is not required if the interference is willful. #

Now, about "willful"... if you know if could cause interference but you don't make any effort to make sure and you transmit anyway, wouldn't that make your actions willful? #

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that seems pretty simple. #So simple, that it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. #Is Winlink that bad to other communication methods? #Would a reasonable person call it "willful interference"? #I tried to ask this before but didn't get an answer.
Willful and malicious... hrm, that's a very legal definition, and I just don't know.

To answer your question as to whether Winlink is truly as bad as people say, I invite you to make your own decision. The list of Winlink PMBO frequencies is posted somewhere, or I'm sure you could Google for it (I don't have it handy). I'd say spin the VFO over and listen for a while.

I still haven't gotten a clear answer on this question from anyone though... #Regardless of 'best amateur practice' gentlemen's agreements, from a legal only standpoint (and that doesn't have to just be limited to this small bit of Part 97 if you can find something that applies)...

Is it legal for me, as an individual, to operate in such a fashion that I do not, ever, check to see if the frequency is in use. If someone makes a complaint about me, and if my defense is "I chose not to listen first"... is that a sufficient defense? I'm not being malicious about it, from a textbook definition, I guess I simply don't care if it's already in use. I'm not out looking to QRM anyone in particular, I'm just Joe Blow who spins the dial, wherever it lands within the appropriate subbands, I start transmitting, regardless of the existing 'state' of the frequency.

If I did this on top of the 3905 nets, or any net, or an emergency net, or whatever... am I operating legally?

I'm trying to determine if there's a legal difference between an unattended station keying up over 'whoever' and a manned station keying up over the same 'whoever'.

Is there? I just don't know, at this point...
I don't think there is a difference.

Take a look at the FCC enforcement actions. The record is replete with people being cited for interfering with or jamming ongoing communications of all sorts and all frequencies.

I would define "willful" the same way you would. Just firing up wherever the VFO lands irregardless of whether the frequency is in use and contrary to the stated regulation. I'd further define "malicious" as doing it more than once.

It seems to me that the only way the WinLink droids can keep from running afoul of the regs is to keep them segregated from everybody else in their own little, and I emphasize the word little, slice of spectrum.
But doesn't that actually reward them for either their choice to or inability to follow the rules with regards to QRM?

I guess it's old-fashioned to expect everyone to follow the same set of rules http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[N5PVL]

On two frequencies that I am familiar with, WL2K activity has suddenly reduced in the last week or so.

Has this been true elsewhere, or are these insulated icodents?

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ May 02 2007,07:20)]Quote[/b] (n9lya @ May 02 2007,13:55)]Hi Dave...
How have you been? Hope all is fine...
I think we would all be less sensitive to the ARRL/WL2K/SCS Orgy.. If it were not for the long history of conversations between us as a group and individuals with our division directors, the ARRL President, EOC, Section Managers, and the WL2K Group...

My favorite saying.. Goes like this...

Past History Dictates..... "............."


73 Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Skipnet Member
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section
Member ARRL
SPAR
HARDS
HHHC
Hey Jerry...

Doin' good here, thanks...

I know there's a long history on this whole thing, and that some of the folks involved have been less than forthcoming.

My only point was that not everything they do is to further WL2K and/or SCS, but to read some of the posts in this thread, some believe it *is* all they do in Newington all day... sit around and rub their hands together thinking about all the money they'll make. # I believe they do that some, but I also don't think it's all that ever happens up there.
Hi Dave...

I do not believe it is "ALL" they think about... But I do believe they are very much overly obsessed with WL2K/$$$/SCS and Politics..

Yes they do some good.. They have too.. Or they would have no members..

So I am thinking they think about it as much as an teenage/adult male fanticsizes about sex. 200+ times a day..

But that is just my opinion of the whole thing..

See if they wanted cooperation the whole thing would have been dealt with, a lot less behind closed doors... Deceit/Secrecy/BS is their method of the day...

73 Jerry

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] ]§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.



The 'or' makes is illegal to cause interference period as I read it.

Wording like this is fodder for attorneys. #Does 'willfully or maliciously' apply to the part of the sentence after the 'or' or not?

Obviously, I don't think it does. #I do know how to find out though.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 02 2007,20:39)]On two frequencies that I am familiar with, WL2K activity has suddenly reduced in the last week or so.

Has this been true elsewhere, or are these insulated icodents?
Not on 14.105 packet. I was on there yesteday doing some packet and some idiot winlink lid came up right on top of my QSO and totally destroyed it. Wasn't quick enough to switch to MixW to catch the moron lid's call but could see how much bandwidth the idiot was using. It was taking up the whole packet freq making it worthless to use at the time.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (N5LRZ @ May 02 2007,16:34)]Re kc7gnm

I was not aware that they had refused to renew. #I will have to check the ARRL web pg to look that up. #

But the K guy went beyond the lines and directly dared the BOSS aka the FCC directly with continual and deliberate violations AFTER the FCC ordered him to stop. #

So there is a difference between getting the FCC Pizzed off and getting a mere lowly ham op pizzed off. #Tick off a lowly ham and a complaint is filed which may mean something or nothing will happen. #Tick off the FCC aka THE BOSS and watch how the wheels of the regulations grind ya down till they delete you.
Yes they sure did. At least we haven't been hearing his drivel on the air anymore.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 02 2007,17:51)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ May 02 2007,14:31)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ May 01 2007,18:15)]Quote[/b] (k4gun @ May 01 2007,15:50)]§ 97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.

Here's what I find interesting. The rule is not willful and malicious. Its willful or malicious. Mal intent is not required if the interference is willful.

Now, about "willful"... if you know if could cause interference but you don't make any effort to make sure and you transmit anyway, wouldn't that make your actions willful?

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but that seems pretty simple. So simple, that it makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. Is Winlink that bad to other communication methods? Would a reasonable person call it "willful interference"? I tried to ask this before but didn't get an answer.
Willful and malicious... hrm, that's a very legal definition, and I just don't know.

To answer your question as to whether Winlink is truly as bad as people say, I invite you to make your own decision. The list of Winlink PMBO frequencies is posted somewhere, or I'm sure you could Google for it (I don't have it handy). I'd say spin the VFO over and listen for a while.

I still haven't gotten a clear answer on this question from anyone though... Regardless of 'best amateur practice' gentlemen's agreements, from a legal only standpoint (and that doesn't have to just be limited to this small bit of Part 97 if you can find something that applies)...

Is it legal for me, as an individual, to operate in such a fashion that I do not, ever, check to see if the frequency is in use. If someone makes a complaint about me, and if my defense is "I chose not to listen first"... is that a sufficient defense? I'm not being malicious about it, from a textbook definition, I guess I simply don't care if it's already in use. I'm not out looking to QRM anyone in particular, I'm just Joe Blow who spins the dial, wherever it lands within the appropriate subbands, I start transmitting, regardless of the existing 'state' of the frequency.

If I did this on top of the 3905 nets, or any net, or an emergency net, or whatever... am I operating legally?

I'm trying to determine if there's a legal difference between an unattended station keying up over 'whoever' and a manned station keying up over the same 'whoever'.

Is there? I just don't know, at this point...
I don't think there is a difference.

Take a look at the FCC enforcement actions. The record is replete with people being cited for interfering with or jamming ongoing communications of all sorts and all frequencies.

I would define "willful" the same way you would. Just firing up wherever the VFO lands irregardless of whether the frequency is in use and contrary to the stated regulation. I'd further define "malicious" as doing it more than once.

It seems to me that the only way the WinLink droids can keep from running afoul of the regs is to keep them segregated from everybody else in their own little, and I emphasize the word little, slice of spectrum.
But doesn't that actually reward them for either their choice to or inability to follow the rules with regards to QRM?

I guess it's old-fashioned to expect everyone to follow the same set of rules http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Possibly, but all I really care about right now is making sure we don't see these QRM mills scattered up and down the bands which this particular petition would have allowed.

We do need to have a conversation about the legality, spectral efficiency, or efficacy of Pactor III in it's use as an HF email client on HF but the time to do that is before anything gets codified in regulation.

Personally, I think there were, and continue to be, some serious issues concerning P III which should have been addressed before it was ever allowed on the bands.

I'm still amazed and flabbergasted.

How did the work of the ad hoc digital committee morph itself into a petition to regulate the bands by bandwidth rather than mode?

That's one little factoid that keeps getting lost in the discussion. From what I've gleaned, and Skip can correct me if I'm wrong, the committee was to do long range use planning for digital modes, not to come up with a way to legalize P III anywhere in the bands.

Instead of asking for more segregated bandwidth in the already existing digital sub bands, or ask for modest expansion of the digibands for growth they try to make wholesale changes to the very structure of our HF bands.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ May 03 2007,02:17)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 02 2007,20:39)]On two frequencies that I am familiar with, WL2K activity has suddenly reduced in the last week or so.

Has this been true elsewhere, or are these insulated icodents?
Not on 14.105 packet. I was on there yesteday doing some packet and some idiot winlink lid came up right on top of my QSO and totally destroyed it. Wasn't quick enough to switch to MixW to catch the moron lid's call but could see how much bandwidth the idiot was using. It was taking up the whole packet freq making it worthless to use at the time.
How true... Yes WINLINK 2 K is still killing NET105 Charles.. Been meaning to get with you .. But you know I am working 16/7 and only see whats up for brief periods of time.. Lunch early morning and evenings.. But during those time WL2K has without concern killed plenty A QSO... I also have heard this from some of the other OPS on 105...

I have noted the QRM on our Skipnets 14.098 etc have lightened up a tad...

I hope our Shutdown will be done by late May.. I will then have a two week vaction.. A few days will be spent with your help tweaking my WINLINK_WATCH Setup...

73 Jerry N9LYA

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (kc7gnm @ May 03 2007,09:17)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 02 2007,20:39)]On two frequencies that I am familiar with, WL2K activity has suddenly reduced in the last week or so.

Has this been true elsewhere, or are these insulated icodents?
Not on 14.105 packet. I was on there yesteday doing some packet and some idiot winlink lid came up right on top of my QSO and totally destroyed it. Wasn't quick enough to switch to MixW to catch the moron lid's call but could see how much bandwidth the idiot was using. It was taking up the whole packet freq making it worthless to use at the time.
If you are using MixW for HF Packet ( Highly recommended ) then it is possible to monitor the same frequency in PACTOR I mode - as you QSO in Packet mode.

To do this, get set up for operating Packet, then right-click the waterfall display on top of your Packet cursor. When the little menu pops up, choose "New RX Window" and a new window will pop up that is also in Packet mode.

At this point, you should be copying Packets in both windows, but you can only QSO from the program's main text window.

Now, right click inside the new RX(1) text window and hover the cursor over "Mode" to see the mode list. Choose PACTOR.

Now you can QSO in Packet while continuously monitoring on the same frequency for PACTOR transmissions.

( Note that this works just as well with PSK31, MFSK, HELL, etc.. - This is not just for Packet QSO's getting crashed. )

When you get tromped on by a WinLink2000 station:

* Press the computer's "PRINTSCREEN" key to capture the screen to the computer's clipboard.

* Go to the "FILE" menu, hover the cursor over "Sound", and choose "Save last 20 seconds of audio".

Now, after your QSO is finished and you have time on your hands, you can open up a paint program and paste your screenshot in there, where you can save it as a JPEG or whatever.

The screenshot will show your ongoing QSO being invaded by the PACTOR signal, on the waterfall display. If you are fortunate, the callsign of the interfering station will be in the RX(1) window along with the callsign of the WL2K server he was calling - repeatedly.

The MixW status line at the bottom of the image will show the time, date, and mode you were in when your QSO was crashed.

Between the image, your own notes, and the sound recording, you should have enough information for a report to the FCC.

For more information, stop by at WinLink-Watch (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/) and see a sample (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/report001.htm) of what I am talking about.

[N5PVL]

N9LYA says:
Quote[/b] ]
I hope our Shutdown will be done by late May.. I will then have a two week vaction.. A few days will be spent with your help tweaking my WINLINK_WATCH Setup...

That sounds great, Jerry! - In the mean-time, I'll haunt the 105 net whenever I get a chance and see what the callsigns of the interfering stations are, for a start.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 03 2007,10:53)]If you are using MixW for HF Packet ( Highly recommended ) then it is possible to monitor the same frequency in PACTOR I mode - as you QSO in Packet mode.

To do this, get set up for operating Packet, then right-click the waterfall display on top of your Packet cursor. When the little menu pops up, choose "New RX Window" and a new window will pop up that is also in Packet mode.

At this point, you should be copying Packets in both windows, but you can only QSO from the program's main text window.

Now, right click inside the new RX(1) text window and hover the cursor over "Mode" to see the mode list. Choose PACTOR.

Now you can QSO in Packet while continuously monitoring on the same frequency for PACTOR transmissions.

( Note that this works just as well with PSK31, MFSK, HELL, etc.. - This is not just for Packet QSO's getting crashed. )

When you get tromped on by a WinLink2000 station:

* Press the computer's "PRINTSCREEN" key to capture the screen to the computer's clipboard.

* Go to the "FILE" menu, hover the cursor over "Sound", and choose "Save last 20 seconds of audio".

Now, after your QSO is finished and you have time on your hands, you can open up a paint program and paste your screenshot in there, where you can save it as a JPEG or whatever.

The screenshot will show your ongoing QSO being invaded by the PACTOR signal, on the waterfall display. If you are fortunate, the callsign of the interfering station will be in the RX(1) window along with the callsign of the WL2K server he was calling - repeatedly.

The MixW status line at the bottom of the image will show the time, date, and mode you were in when your QSO was crashed.

Between the image, your own notes, and the sound recording, you should have enough information for a report to the FCC.

For more information, stop by at WinLink-Watch (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/) and see a sample (http://www.uspacket.org/ww/report001.htm) of what I am talking about.
Well I have a KAM Plus that I use for packet so I don't use mixW for packet. Yesterday when I was being intefered with I didn't have mixW installed but installed it right after the inteference stopped. I plan on using mixW just to monitor (Not transmit with). I like my Kam better than the soundcard packet. I have my audio split between my KAM and the computer so I can monitor what is going on the band. Next time I will be prepared to submit an inteference complaint against the idiot lid.

[N5PVL]

That sounds like it ought to work fine, Greg.

I've been monitoring 14.105 this afternoon and have seen three QSO's crashed in as many hours. Lots of beacon activity, but not many connects out there today.

[kc7gnm]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ May 03 2007,16:51)]That sounds like it ought to work fine, Greg.

I've been monitoring 14.105 this afternoon and have seen three QSO's crashed in as many hours. Lots of beacon activity, but not many connects out there today.
Ok here is a picture of a pactor idiot crashing a QSO I was having with N1NGN. We were talking fine until this one lid got right on the right edge of us and we timed out finally.

[kc7gnm]

Ok here is the full image.

http://www.ke7ipw.org/pactor.jpg

[KC4RAN]

ARRL says it's OK, and then K4CJX says it's OK for Winlink to cause interference.

What a week...