Tennesee Steel Haulers

[K4KWH]

This is posted #in order that all of us may see what is going on with the 10 Meter thieves! #This is what we need to do to make an impact on our bands and to show the evolutionary regressives that we will fight to prevent their presence on our frequencies! # I saw on Google when I typed in "Truckers and 10 Meters" a thread entitled, "'Hammies want us off 10 Meters". #This implies that these mental midgets believe that "Ah've got a rah't to tawk on them thar channels cuz ah was 'bawn' a 'Mer-kin thar. #Ah don' need no lah-sense to use them 'frekensies' thar, tah fer?" # Some of them DO know that what they are doing is against the law. Some of them believe that FCC won't act, even approve of their presence (the 'new' channel 19)! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

We need #about 5 of these each week to begin to make an impact! #I know you get tired of reading me harping about this, but I do-not-want-to-share for free something for which I had to WORK with these (censored) people. #Sure, they are often far away from your position. #But, after all, they ARE SOMEWHERE, right? #So we need to BE somewhere to catch them! Like the gentleman from Dallas, NC was below. He informed me that he was about to exit from the interstate and was scanning 10 Meters. #Suddenly, this huge echo-ey, trucky-sounding voice, says, "How 'boucha little car wid that big antanner, whut kind of a reddio yuh got in thar?" #He simply used one of those little voice modules #that has so many bytes of memory to quickly record the truck's info. #The truck never knew that he was caught!

I am hearing a lot more activity on the lower end of 10 and that is a GOOD thing. #Some of us say there's NO illicit activity on 10 Meters. #Stop and think: #If you are in Anaheim and someone is using a 2 Meter rig in Ann Arbor, Mi for HUNTING ducks, can you HEAR them? Not likely. #Does it, then, mean that the illegal use of 2 Meters is not happening just because #you aren't hearing it? #NO! THAT is happening in MI as well, and Riley nailed some of them recently. #Know how they got caught? #BECAUSE HAMS GOT OUT THERE AND MONITORED THEIR OUTLAW ACTIVITIES, DOCUMENTED IT, AND REPORTED IT! Worse, the unlicensed radios were being provided by a licensed HAM, likely with that prevailing chicken band attitude that anything goes! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #The only way "anything goes" is, WE don't put a stop to it! #

**************************************












#1

# # # # # # # # # # #FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #Enforcement Bureau

# # # # # # # # # # # #Spectrum Enforcement Division

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # 1270 Fairfield Road

# # # # # # # # # # Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325-7245

#VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

#June 1, 2007

#Tennessee Steel Haulers

#P. O. Box 78189

#Nashville, TN 37207-8189

#SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE - UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION

#Case #EB-2007-3048

#Dear Sir:

#Information before the Commission indicates that one of your drivers has
#been operating radio equipment without a license on 28.085 MHz and causing
#interference to licensed stations in the Ten Meter Amateur Band.

#The driver was observed operating unlicensed on May 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM on
#Interstate 85, near exit 17, in Gastonia, NC.

#Please advise your drivers that operation of radio transmitting equipment
#without a license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act
#of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject them to fine
#or imprisonment, as well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio
#transmitting equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for
#your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to
#$10,000.

#You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.

#Sincerely,

#W. Riley Hollingsworth

#Special Counsel

#cc: FCC South Central Regional Director

#Facsimile to 615-271-2364

#- 2 -


73 #

From: ARRL website

[WA9SVD]

The only problem I have with that is the FCC needs some "TEETH." A warning is too mild, more needs to be done. And should another trucker for the same company be caught, the company should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting a federal offense," and slapped with a hefty fine. None of these "for the unteenth time, we're warning you" notices.

[ka0gkt]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ June 30 2007,11:52)]The only problem I have with that is the FCC needs some "TEETH." #A warning is too mild, more needs to be done. #And should another trucker for the same company be caught, the company should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting a federal offense," #and slapped with a hefty fine. #None of these "for the unteenth time, we're warning you" notices.
Yep. I'm all for the in reim seizure of the radio equipment, the vehicle from which the radio equipment is operated and the cargo carried by such vehicle. Furthermore, since fines in excess of $1,000 are involved, the driver of said vehicle shall be taken away to the local lock-up in handcuffs. The owner of the truck may petition for the return of his/her property, and the owner of the cargo may sue the transportation company for the value of the siezed merchandise. The FCC may augment its apropriations through the sale at public auction of the siezed vehicles and cargo.

Go get-em Riley!

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve

[K4KWH]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ June 30 2007,11:52)]The only problem I have with that is the FCC needs some "TEETH." #A warning is too mild, more needs to be done. #And should another trucker for the same company be caught, the company should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting a federal offense," #and slapped with a hefty fine. #None of these "for the unteenth time, we're warning you" notices.
But THAT goes right back to the crux of the matter. #We CAN'T FORCE "teeth" into it---unless WE show the POLI-ticians in Washington that there IS a problem! Unless WE show these trough-feeders that there is a problem, we will continue to complain, complain, complain and nothing gets DONE! Meantime the problem gets WORSE!
Once we generate enough #complaints that RILEY can take up the line to SHOW them the problem, THEN we will have leverage and CAUSE for them to act. If they don't KNOW there's a problem, then, to them, it's not a problem.


"more should be done". #THAT is what I am trying to cause by stirring up the issue---getting MORE Amateurs involved in nailing these clowns. I know for a FACT from talking to Riley via email AND phone that those "weak" warning notices actually do MORE than we are giving them credit for! #The companies are law-abiding companies who have to deal with myriads of regulations and Federal issues all the time. #They know that the Feds will deal with them harshly if they ignore a problem.
S0! #When a warning letter is received by a company, they DO take the matter very seriously! #Riley then, once the company contacts him, explains the violation then "suggests" the company puts out a memo making the installation of "10 Meter 'Amateur' Radios" against company policy. #They will readily do this! #They don't WANT any additional hassles. And RH states that they are VERY cooperative in this. #Now, if a company #continues to allow drivers to operate illegally, then there are other steps that can be taken. If they have a prohibition in place and a driver keeps using his illegal radio, THEN he will get FIRED! # Cheetah Transportation fired a driver in 2002 when they got a letter.. # This is probably WHY you haven't seen letters issued to the SAME company twice. #The companies had the outlaw radios jerked OUT of their trucks!!!!!!!

"A warning is too mild, more needs to be done." #Of COURSE, more, much more, needs to be done!!!!! #ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #But the "doing" is up to US if we want it done!!!! #That is R E A L I T Y! #Only when WE
show that WE are concerned enough, we are aggravated enough, MAD enough at these knuckle-dragging (censoreds), will action #be taken!!!! #Certain officials would LOVE to BAN the export radios, but this is a political potato, as well. #Only when WE show that there is a significant number of outlaws filching our bands will this happen! The proponents of "export" radios will be doing their all to prevent any #ban! #WE have to tip the scales! #WE know that regressives are on 10 Meters, #We know there's a problem! #The FCC POLI-ticians don't know!

So long as we 'have a problem" while only complaining about what someone ELSE isn't doing, we will CONTINUE to have a "problem". IF we aren't willing to do something ourselves, we might as well invite the b-----ds in our house,"Here. #Go ahead and use MY station on them thar 10 Meter channels thar!" #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

73

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ June 30 2007,12:45)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ June 30 2007,11:52)]The only problem I have with that is the FCC needs some "TEETH." #A warning is too mild, more needs to be done. #And should another trucker for the same company be caught, the company should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting a federal offense," #and slapped with a hefty fine. #None of these "for the unteenth time, we're warning you" notices.
Yep. #I'm all for the in reim seizure of the radio equipment, the vehicle from which the radio equipment is operated and the cargo carried by such vehicle. #Furthermore, since fines in excess of $1,000 are involved, the driver of said vehicle shall be taken away to the local lock-up in handcuffs. #The owner of the truck may petition for the return of his/her property, and the owner of the cargo may sue the transportation company for the value of the siezed merchandise. #The FCC may augment its apropriations through the sale at public auction of the siezed vehicles and cargo.

Go get-em Riley!

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve
Hello.

That is almost like the drug laws.
The only trouble with the drug laws is that if any drugs are found in an automobile, the car can be taken.
So, the valet parking your car drops his roach.
A few months later, traffic stop, a drug dog goes nuts, and your car goes into the impound.
And, at the rate it is going, operation of ANY Amateur Radios will soon be banned from all CMV's.
The Insurance carriers are looking at this and are already writing policies that have that stipulation.
And, as was pointed out, this does not happen more than once.
I am going back into trucking.
Part of the conditions of my employment is that I not operate any Amateur Radio equipment while at actually on the job.
It would seem that although I submitted my license to my prior employer, I was nevertheless terminated for this reason.
I only found out about this a few weeks ago.
This was on my DAC report.
http://www.usis.com/commerc....tro.htm (http://www.usis.com/commercialservices/transportation/transportation_intro.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Investigations_Services
The TSA has no issues whatsoever with CB, GMRS, and CAP Radio but is not happy with my use of Amateur Radio, in part due to the issues that some hams have with trucks.
And, unless ISIS and TSA say everything is fine, I do not roll.
As it was explained to me by the safety director "Everything has changed since 9/11".

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
" A valet drops his roach . A FEW MONTHS later the drug dog goes nuts, "

I dont let the inside of MY vehicle go even more than a week or two before it gets thoroughly cleaned out ( by me ) , plus I do have a question --- "what is a valet ? " I do my OWN parking, usually in the less crowded area of any parking lot ( fewer door dents from other non - caring people )...plus the extra walking distance helps keep my heart / lungs healthy so I can post more / faster .

Plus I live a illgeal drug free life and dont have to worry about the cops finding a roach in my vehicle, or a beer bottle cap ...AND I am very picky about WHO rides IN my vehicle in the passenger side, some relatives do not even qualify . ...and NO ONE drives my vehicle but me, even at the oil change place.

You folks that let just any one drive or sit in your vehicles usually reep the other results.

The cops know which ones to check, they are not as dumb as you might wish that they were. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,10:57)]Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ June 30 2007,12:45)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ June 30 2007,11:52)]The only problem I have with that is the FCC needs some "TEETH." #A warning is too mild, more needs to be done. #And should another trucker for the same company be caught, the company should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting a federal offense," #and slapped with a hefty fine. #None of these "for the unteenth time, we're warning you" notices.
Yep. #I'm all for the in reim seizure of the radio equipment, the vehicle from which the radio equipment is operated and the cargo carried by such vehicle. #Furthermore, since fines in excess of $1,000 are involved, the driver of said vehicle shall be taken away to the local lock-up in handcuffs. #The owner of the truck may petition for the return of his/her property, and the owner of the cargo may sue the transportation company for the value of the siezed merchandise. #The FCC may augment its apropriations through the sale at public auction of the siezed vehicles and cargo.

Go get-em Riley!

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve
Hello.

That is almost like the drug laws.
The only trouble with the drug laws is that if any drugs are found in an automobile, the car can be taken.
So, the valet parking your car drops his roach.
A few months later, traffic stop, a drug dog goes nuts, and your car goes into the impound.
And, at the rate it is going, operation of ANY Amateur Radios will soon be banned from all CMV's.
The Insurance carriers are looking at this and are already writing policies that have that stipulation.
And, as was pointed out, this does not happen more than once.
I am going back into trucking.
Part of the conditions of my employment is that I not operate any Amateur Radio equipment while at actually on the job.
It would seem that although I submitted my license to my prior employer, I was nevertheless terminated for this reason.
I only found out about this a few weeks ago.
This was on my DAC report.
http://www.usis.com/commerc....tro.htm (http://www.usis.com/commercialservices/transportation/transportation_intro.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Investigations_Services
The TSA has no issues whatsoever with CB, GMRS, and CAP Radio but is not happy with my use of Amateur Radio, in part due to the issues that some hams have with trucks.
And, unless ISIS and TSA say everything is fine, I do not roll.
As it was explained to me by the safety director "Everything has changed since 9/11".
Ya know what? find a different job. If your employers make rules and regulations - you must follow them or find a different job. If you violate those rules - you will probably get fired.

Obviously, your previous employer didn't care at all if you had a license - only that you were using a ham radio which was against the rules.

You should know how important a clean DAC is to your field of work. Messing it up is only YOUR fault - not other hams or the system. Either follow rules or get into trouble. It's as simple as that. And anyone worried about someone finding roach clips in their vehicle is suspect to me anyway. That is one stupid example and story.

I'm not attacking you - just making a point which is breaking the rules will get your into trouble - no matter who made the rules, who enforces the rules, or who you are. If they decide amateur radio is banned from all commercial vehicles, then there won't be many freebanders on 10 anymore - truckers at least. And this is what we are trying to accomplish here - NOT too concerned about your use of radio in your truck. Work for a company that allows licensed radio operation and punishes the ones that violate the laws. That's one way around it. Unfortunately, I doubt that a large trucking company has the ability to watch over every truck and every driver - so rather than come here and pleed your case, try pleeding to all the other truckers out there operating illegally to stop. It might help YOUR situation someday. It definitely will help the 10 meter situation some day.

Your fellow hams are not the problem here - it's your fellow truckers who are the problem.

Steve

[K4KWH]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,14:57)]The TSA has no issues whatsoever with CB, GMRS, and CAP Radio but is not happy with my use of Amateur Radio, in part due to the issues that some hams have with trucks.
And, unless ISIS and TSA say everything is fine, I do not roll.
As it was explained to me by the safety director "Everything has changed since 9/11".n (quote)
Well, I don't know what issues hams have with "trucks". but I do know that the 10 Meter band is being literally stolen from us by those who have done nothing to earn that privilege and that the illegal operators are causing interference to the licensed users. #The majority of those illegal users happen to be truckers. It doesn't mean that ALL trucks are bad or every trucker is out there using an "export" radio on 10 Meters! #I also know that there is NO perfect solution that pleases everybody. Somebody is always penalized.
However, there IS a problem that must be addressed. What would you/we/me want to be done: ignore it? #Hope it goes away? (It won't) Invite the illegals to just help themselves?

I don't know of a perfect solution. #On the companies side, it may be that Amateur Radio is regarded as a "toy", a distraction----even a safety problem. It would depend on the company's attitude and how they regard diversions. #In my company, we had a published General Conduct Rule that stated (roughly): #"Attention to duty is required. Employees must not engage in any extra activities that infringe on the safety of themselves or other employees, nor may they participate in outside activities that compete with the duties at hand, create a distraction, or conflict with company objectives or assigned duties. You are required to devote your entire attention to your assignments". #In your particular case, it may be that the company feels that Amateur Radio is a "recreational" activity that could distract from your duties or compete for your attention. #The CB, GMRS, FRS, etc to them may be regarded as "business" radio and directly pertains to moving freight and expediting loads, (finding consignees, etc)

WE, OTH, cannot afford to ignore this invasion into our frequencies! #That is, unless you are prepared to share
15 Meters with them! ##http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

73

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ June 30 2007,17:52)]And, unless ISIS and TSA say everything is fine, I do not roll.
As it was explained to me by the safety director "Everything has changed since 9/11".
Ya know what? #find a different job. #If your employers make rules and regulations - you must follow them or find a different job. #If you violate those rules - you will probably get fired.

Obviously, your previous employer didn't care at all if you had a license - only that you were using a ham radio which was against the rules.

You should know how important a clean DAC is to your field of work. #Messing it up is only YOUR fault - not other hams or the system. #Either follow rules or get into trouble. #It's as simple as that. #And anyone worried about someone finding roach clips in their vehicle is suspect to me anyway. #That is one stupid example and story.

I'm not attacking you - just making a point which is breaking the rules will get your into trouble - no matter who made the rules, who enforces the rules, or who you are. #If they decide amateur radio is banned from all commercial vehicles, then there won't be many freebanders on 10 anymore - truckers at least. #And this is what we are trying to accomplish here - NOT too concerned about your use of radio in your truck. #Work for a company that allows licensed radio operation and punishes the ones that violate the laws. #That's one way around it. #Unfortunately, I doubt that a large trucking company has the ability to watch over every truck and every driver - so rather than come here and pleed your case, try pleeding to all the other truckers out there operating illegally to stop. #It might help YOUR situation someday. #It definitely will help the 10 meter situation some day.

Your fellow hams are not the problem here - it's your fellow truckers who are the problem.

Steve[/QUOTE]
Hello.

At the time there was no issue of Amateur Radio, now there is.
DAC is now ISIS, and they also look at the national security aspect of this.
So, between the national security issues and the insurance companies, there are NO companies in Texas who want this.
I have since gotten the safety director to write a letter explaining what had happened and that the 3 public at large complaints are in fact one issue, but I had to find out about it first.
Bottom line, I now advise ALL big truck drivers,
DO NOT PUT AN AMATEUR RADIO UNIT IN YOUR TRUCK!.
Do Not Allow a HOBBY to cause you to have trouble with your emplyment.
Ham radio and trucking do not mix.

[N2NKW]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,21:46)]Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ June 30 2007,17:52)]And, unless ISIS and TSA say everything is fine, I do not roll.
As it was explained to me by the safety director "Everything has changed since 9/11".
Ya know what? find a different job. If your employers make rules and regulations - you must follow them or find a different job. If you violate those rules - you will probably get fired.

Obviously, your previous employer didn't care at all if you had a license - only that you were using a ham radio which was against the rules.

You should know how important a clean DAC is to your field of work. Messing it up is only YOUR fault - not other hams or the system. Either follow rules or get into trouble. It's as simple as that. And anyone worried about someone finding roach clips in their vehicle is suspect to me anyway. That is one stupid example and story.

I'm not attacking you - just making a point which is breaking the rules will get your into trouble - no matter who made the rules, who enforces the rules, or who you are. If they decide amateur radio is banned from all commercial vehicles, then there won't be many freebanders on 10 anymore - truckers at least. And this is what we are trying to accomplish here - NOT too concerned about your use of radio in your truck. Work for a company that allows licensed radio operation and punishes the ones that violate the laws. That's one way around it. Unfortunately, I doubt that a large trucking company has the ability to watch over every truck and every driver - so rather than come here and pleed your case, try pleeding to all the other truckers out there operating illegally to stop. It might help YOUR situation someday. It definitely will help the 10 meter situation some day.

Your fellow hams are not the problem here - it's your fellow truckers who are the problem.

Steve
Hello.

At the time there was no issue of Amateur Radio, now there is.
DAC is now ISIS, and they also look at the national security aspect of this.
So, between the national security issues and the insurance companies, there are NO companies in Texas who want this.
I have since gotten the safety director to write a letter explaining what had happened and that the 3 public at large complaints are in fact one issue, but I had to find out about it first.
Bottom line, I now advise ALL big truck drivers,
DO NOT PUT AN AMATEUR RADIO UNIT IN YOUR TRUCK!.
Do Not Allow a HOBBY to cause you to have trouble with your emplyment.
Ham radio and trucking do not mix.[/QUOTE]
Blah Blah Blah. I think you are just mad cuz the company caught you running a linear when the company policy states no linears.

The TSA has no issues at all with amateur radio, Nor does homeland security or any of the other security alphabet soup types out there. The only folks who might even have a tad bit of a problem is the cellphone haters..and the law makers in most cases make exceptions for ham radio.

Quote[/b] ]As it was explained to me by the safety director "Everything has changed since 9/11".
I think that is just your company giving you a "reason" for them not to allow radio in the truck. I am fairly certain that your "company" has not received any communications from anyone about ham radios and trucks.

Just another ignorant posting trying to stir crap up with truckers and hams IMHO. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[wv6z]

Well for a change it wasn’t all fun and jovial chatter about single handedly devastating London, or black helicopters or any of the other usual verbal diarrhea.

[al2n]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,14:57)]Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ June 30 2007,12:45)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ June 30 2007,11:52)]The only problem I have with that is the FCC needs some "TEETH." A warning is too mild, more needs to be done. And should another trucker for the same company be caught, the company should be held responsible for "aiding and abetting a federal offense," and slapped with a hefty fine. None of these "for the unteenth time, we're warning you" notices.
Yep. I'm all for the in reim seizure of the radio equipment, the vehicle from which the radio equipment is operated and the cargo carried by such vehicle. Furthermore, since fines in excess of $1,000 are involved, the driver of said vehicle shall be taken away to the local lock-up in handcuffs. The owner of the truck may petition for the return of his/her property, and the owner of the cargo may sue the transportation company for the value of the siezed merchandise. The FCC may augment its apropriations through the sale at public auction of the siezed vehicles and cargo.

Go get-em Riley!

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve
Hello.

That is almost like the drug laws.
The only trouble with the drug laws is that if any drugs are found in an automobile, the car can be taken.
So, the valet parking your car drops his roach.
A few months later, traffic stop, a drug dog goes nuts, and your car goes into the impound.
And, at the rate it is going, operation of ANY Amateur Radios will soon be banned from all CMV's.
The Insurance carriers are looking at this and are already writing policies that have that stipulation.
And, as was pointed out, this does not happen more than once.
I am going back into trucking.
Part of the conditions of my employment is that I not operate any Amateur Radio equipment while at actually on the job.
It would seem that although I submitted my license to my prior employer, I was nevertheless terminated for this reason.
I only found out about this a few weeks ago.
This was on my DAC report.
http://www.usis.com/commerc....tro.htm (http://www.usis.com/commercialservices/transportation/transportation_intro.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Investigations_Services
The TSA has no issues whatsoever with CB, GMRS, and CAP Radio but is not happy with my use of Amateur Radio, in part due to the issues that some hams have with trucks.
And, unless ISIS and TSA say everything is fine, I do not roll.
As it was explained to me by the safety director "Everything has changed since 9/11".
Don't worry, the TSA will be more interested in your plans to level London than they are about the 10M rig in your truck.

Terrorist threats are against the law.

[ka5piu]

Hello.

To make this clear, I was not terminated by the trucking company, I just got a bit burned out by OTR driving.
And, next point, there was never an issue of a linear, the company will have far less of an issue about this.
The trouble started with me and CW or SSB on 28.385 MHz to be precise.
I did not find out about exactly what the issues were until I decided again to run intrastate.
And, the real issue was that some false reports were done to the transportation hotline, the TSA hotline to be exact.
I also have the DOT inspection report where a ham had called the Texas motor carrier section and followed me for over 100 miles.
The first thing Mr. POed ham does is tear off the antenna.
After he was restrained, I showed the DPS radioman that the CB antenna was connected to the CB, 3.9 watts carrier and the radio, a cobra 29, was totally factory stock, no changes whatsoever.
The other radio, a TS-430, was strapped into the rear of the passenger seat and was operated on a preprogrammed memory and on USB.
The guy than argues that I have only a novice ticket, and thus no voice, only CW.
This was a bunch that is very well known in the San Antonio area.
The FCC finally went after some of them.
http://www2.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2006/0317.html
One guy who I had trouble with, an ex-ham, lost his ticket, blew his brains out last week.
Now, I am not saying the the Amateur community is all bad, there are quite a few very good people.
What I am saying is this, if this almost viglante effort, go after anybody with a ham rig, without careful study of the facts, people who are not in violation are going to have trouble.
The new employer is now aware of the situation.
The only thing that was asked of me? leave my hobby at home.
In fact, I was told that I could have a linear and CB radio if that is what I wanted.
Do your research and you will find the the FCC field office in Houston has worked with me to resolve this issue, very good people who will do anything to right a wrong.
The FCC itself has said that this is not the first time something like this has happened in San Antonio.
I now have GMRS repeaters in both Houston and San Antonio, on very good sites, to get me off Amateur Radio.
Everybody who is not a ham looks at all the facts and says something like WTF?!
All the while Karol Madera is doing his thing.
Worried about my comment about London? that guy would like to see roadside bombs in the US.
Yes, there are truckers who are on the ham bands without a license.
But, like it was pointed out, the only way to solve this is to go after everybody.
I no longer operate Amateur Radio mobile.

[N2NKW]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,23:52)]Hello.

To make this clear, I was not terminated by the trucking company, I just got a bit burned out by OTR driving.
And, next point, there was never an issue of a linear, the company will have far less of an issue about this.
The trouble started with me and CW or SSB on 28.385 MHz to be precise.
I did not find out about exactly what the issues were until I decided again to run intrastate.
And, the real issue was that some false reports were done to the transportation hotline, the TSA hotline to be exact.
I also have the DOT inspection report where a ham had called the Texas motor carrier section and followed me for over 100 miles.
The first thing Mr. POed ham does is tear off the antenna.
After he was restrained, I showed the DPS radioman that the CB antenna was connected to the CB, 3.9 watts carrier and the radio, a cobra 29, was totally factory stock, no changes whatsoever.
The other radio, a TS-430, was strapped into the rear of the passenger seat and was operated on a preprogrammed memory and on USB.
The guy than argues that I have only a novice ticket, and thus no voice, only CW.
This was a bunch that is very well known in the San Antonio area.
The FCC finally went after some of them.
http://www2.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2006/0317.html
One guy who I had trouble with, an ex-ham, lost his ticket, blew his brains out last week.
Now, I am not saying the the Amateur community is all bad, there are quite a few very good people.
What I am saying is this, if this almost viglante effort, go after anybody with a ham rig, without careful study of the facts, people who are not in violation are going to have trouble.
The new employer is now aware of the situation.
The only thing that was asked of me? leave my hobby at home.
In fact, I was told that I could have a linear and CB radio if that is what I wanted.
Do your research and you will find the the FCC field office in Houston has worked with me to resolve this issue, very good people who will do anything to right a wrong.
The FCC itself has said that this is not the first time something like this has happened in San Antonio.
I now have GMRS repeaters in both Houston and San Antonio, on very good sites, to get me off Amateur Radio.
Everybody who is not a ham looks at all the facts and says something like WTF?!
All the while Karol Madera is doing his thing.
Worried about my comment about London? that guy would like to see roadside bombs in the US.
Yes, there are truckers who are on the ham bands without a license.
But, like it was pointed out, the only way to solve this is to go after everybody.
I no longer operate Amateur Radio mobile.
I withdraw the linear comment. My apologies. it was rude of me to assume...

but....

ALL ham radio licensed truckers should keep the radio out of the truck because a few locals got mad at you?

Sorry, You ain't quite selling me on how the TSA has it in for truck drivers nor any other LE agency.

One last comment as well....

Quote[/b] ] now have GMRS repeaters in both Houston and San Antonio, on very good sites, to get me off Amateur Radio.

Why are you on the ZED then if you are "off amateur radio"?

[ka0gkt]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,21:52)]Hello.

To make this clear, I was not terminated by the trucking company, I just got a bit burned out by OTR driving.
And, next point, there was never an issue of a linear, the company will have far less of an issue about this.
The trouble started with me and CW or SSB on 28.385 MHz to be precise.
I did not find out about exactly what the issues were until I decided again to run intrastate.
And, the real issue was that some false reports were done to the transportation hotline, the TSA hotline to be exact.
I also have the DOT inspection report where a ham had called the Texas motor carrier section and followed me for over 100 miles.
The first thing Mr. POed ham does is tear off the antenna.
After he was restrained, I showed the DPS radioman that the CB antenna was connected to the CB, 3.9 watts carrier and the radio, a cobra 29, was totally factory stock, no changes whatsoever.
The other radio, a TS-430, was strapped into the rear of the passenger seat and was operated on a preprogrammed memory and on USB.
The guy than argues that I have only a novice ticket, and thus no voice, only CW.
This was a bunch that is very well known in the San Antonio area.
The FCC finally went after some of them.
http://www2.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2006/0317.html
One guy who I had trouble with, an ex-ham, lost his ticket, blew his brains out last week.
Now, I am not saying the the Amateur community is all bad, there are quite a few very good people.
What I am saying is this, if this almost viglante effort, go after anybody with a ham rig, without careful study of the facts, people who are not in violation are going to have trouble.
The new employer is now aware of the situation.
The only thing that was asked of me? leave my hobby at home.
In fact, I was told that I could have a linear and CB radio if that is what I wanted.
Do your research and you will find the the FCC field office in Houston has worked with me to resolve this issue, very good people who will do anything to right a wrong.
The FCC itself has said that this is not the first time something like this has happened in San Antonio.
I now have GMRS repeaters in both Houston and San Antonio, on very good sites, to get me off Amateur Radio.
Everybody who is not a ham looks at all the facts and says something like WTF?!
All the while Karol Madera is doing his thing.
Worried about my comment about London? that guy would like to see roadside bombs in the US.
Yes, there are truckers who are on the ham bands without a license.
But, like it was pointed out, the only way to solve this is to go after everybody.
I no longer operate Amateur Radio mobile.
Well, lets see here...

If you hold a General Class License and you are operating phone on 28.085, you are in violation of the rules set forth in 47 CFR Part 97.

If you are operating anywhere on amateur frequencies and failing to use your FCC issued call, you are in violation of the rules set forth in 47 CFR part 97.

If you are communicating with non-licensed "Freebander"/Bootlegger-scofflaw types, you are in violation of the rules set forth in 47 CFR part 97.

If you operate within the privaleges set forth for your license class and obey the rules and regulations as published in 47CFR part 97, then you should have no problems. I know of many OTR truckers who are licensed amateurs, operate mobile from their trucks on amateur frequencies and eschew the "Freebanders" and their ilk. #

Assuming that the incident to which you allude happened after Novices were given phone privaleges in the ten meter band, then your operations at 28.385 were absolutely legal. #At any rate, As I see that you have now upgraded to General, there should be no problems...so long as you stick to the bandplan for your class of license.

Just as that miscreant who tore the antenna off your rig should spend some time in the Iron Bar Hotel as a guest of the state, so should those who operate illegally on our amateur bands. #Until it becomes a major pain in the wallet for Truckers and their employers who bootleg on the amateur bands, it will be difficult to keep those miscreants and scofflaws off our bands.



73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve

[ka5piu]

Hello.

This is 28.385 MHz, legal for both CW and SSB for a Novice.
I have never had an issue with operation outside of my privileges, or any other issues.
And, that is the trouble.
If one does a search they will find that 28.385 MHz is 10 MHz up from 27.385 MHz, CB channel 38 and a commercial assignment.
27.255, an CB channel 23 and a RC assignment as well as a business band channel, is ideal for some sorts of use, as it pretty much covers everything.
But, to make this clear, I am very careful when on the air.
There has not been anyone who has said anything about how I conduct myself.
I do 99% listen, and listen some more, than perhaps I might key the radio.
Field day I did more transmitting on the Amateur bands than the 6 months prior.

[wv6z]

Quote[/b] (N2NKW @ June 29 2007,23:27)]Why are you on the ZED then if you are "off amateur radio"?
He actually said this....

Quote[/b] ]I no longer operate Amateur Radio mobile.

[ka5piu]

Hello.

If one looks at the ragchew central thing it will provide more insight.
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin....=160360 (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=160360)
Note that at this point no one in the UK has said anything about Muslims, although this has been suspected.
The carrier I was running with was ARAMCO, the Arab-American Oil Company.
We are shutting down the US operations.
What I did was try to work with US interests.
The office I had worked with was set up by the Saudi Government right after the oil embargo of the 70's.
If one goes back they will see that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fought very hard on the side of the US, in the OPEC as well as in other ventures.
The Kingdom could very easily stop all attacks by simply throwing the US out of the Kingdom.
ARAMCO services will stay, but everything else goes.
We Muslims who are on the we first list could just as easily shed our concerns by not standing up for non-Muslims in the US.
Right, we are the vocal ones who say that this is wrong.
Some people say that the Islamic community does not take a stand.
And, if one cares to note, I did not edit any of my posts in this or the other matter.
Count the number that edited and or removed their post.
I had always felt that communication was the key to ending conflicts.
Now I must rethink everything.

[N2NKW]

Quote[/b] (ku4my @ July 01 2007,02:05)]Quote[/b] (N2NKW @ June 29 2007,23:27)]Why are you on the ZED then if you are "off amateur radio"?
He actually said this....

Quote[/b] ]I no longer operate Amateur Radio mobile.
He stated that he has gmrs repeaters to get him off amateur radio. If he is "off amateur radio" then he is off...mobile or otherwise.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 30 2007,17:53)]Well, I don't know what issues hams have with "trucks". but I do know that the 10 Meter band is being literally stolen from us by those who have done nothing to earn that privilege ....
Hey! Be easier on the No Code crew! They may not have earned the right to be on HF but they did pass a test.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,23:18)]If one does a search they will find that 28.385 MHz is 10 MHz up from 27.385 MHz, CB channel 38 and a commercial assignment.
So, 28.385 is TEN MEGAHERTZ above the CB channels, and CB channel is a COMMERCIAL "assignment"

WHAT???

Forgotten decimal aside, just what sort of "Commercial" assignment is on a CB channel, at least in the U.S.?



After all the obfuscation, and smoke blowing, it boils down to the fact that there are no Federal or local laws against having CB OR Amateur Radio in a vehicle, be it A Mack 18 Wheeler, or a Beemer Mini-Cooper.

NOPE. If you drive a truck, you have to know and abide by the rules of your company concerning an Amateur Radio or any other radio. If the company rules say NO Amateur Radio, THAT is THEIR perogative. Either argue your case about a license, or work elsewhere. If they say no radio and you violate that company rule, they can, probably will, and should tell you to hit the road without a load. THEY make the rules. Just like any other company policy, if you violate their rules, they have every right to take disciplinary action, including termination.
And that shouldn't be whitewashed. If a trucker refuses to follow company rules in any regard, he deserves disciplanary action, HE CHOOSES to do so. It's too bad if that goes on his employment record.

But all that has NOTHING to do with DOT, TSA, or any other acronym.

[kr2c]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ June 30 2007,07:27)]Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 30 2007,17:53)]Well, I don't know what issues hams have with "trucks". but I do know that the 10 Meter band is being literally stolen from us by those who have done nothing to earn that privilege ....
Hey! Be easier on the No Code crew! They may not have earned the right to be on HF but they did pass a test.
Every chance you get, huh?

[K9STH]

PIU:

The last time I looked 10 MHz above 27.385 MHz was 37.385 MHz, not 28.385 MHz!

Now 37.385 MHz is definitely within the land mobile service but, in the United States, is not a "good" frequency. The "standard" low band frequencies in the United States are issued on a 20 KHz channel spacing with 10 KHz being available as a terciary "split" in some locations. However, the frequencies generally end with a "0" as the third digit to the right of the decimal point.

37.380 MHz is a "good" channel for use by the Police Radio Service but 37.385 is not. This according to 47 CFR Part 90.

Glen, K9STH

[ai4ep]

When the folks can not and DO not even show the abilitiy to do simple math, it just makes you NOT pay any attention at all to the rest of their complaining...!!

[KB1GYQ]

Quote[/b] (kc2rgu @ July 01 2007,11:09)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ June 30 2007,07:27)]Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 30 2007,17:53)]Well, I don't know what issues hams have with "trucks". but I do know that the 10 Meter band is being literally stolen from us by those who have done nothing to earn that privilege ....
Hey! Be easier on the No Code crew! They may not have earned the right to be on HF but they did pass a test.
Every chance you get, huh?
Yup, YO acts like a hate monger frequently.

[WA7KKP]

Thanks to Reagan and 'deregulation' the FCC was de-fanged in the 80's, and left without even wood dentures . . .

One ham called them the "Gettysburg Address . . ." I tend to agree. Letters don't get results, jail time & confiscations do.

Gary WA7KKP

[KQ6XA]

The 10 meter ham band is a vacant lot.

It is no wonder that CB freebanders are squatting there!

Very very few hams are using 28.000-28.150 MHz.

With our ancient mode-based FCC regulations, ham operators in USA are not even allowed to get on 28.085 AM and tell those freebanders to go away.

They sure won't copy our CW or PSK31.

Are there any other hams on this forum actually using 28.0 to 28.15 every day?

Use it or lose it.

[ky5u]

Bonnie is at it again...

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (N2NKW @ July 01 2007,05:32)]Quote[/b] (ku4my @ July 01 2007,02:05)]Quote[/b] (N2NKW @ June 29 2007,23:27)]Why are you on the ZED then if you are "off amateur radio"?
He actually said this....

Quote[/b] ]I no longer operate Amateur Radio mobile.
He stated that he has gmrs repeaters to get him off amateur radio. # # # #If he is "off amateur radio" then he is off...mobile or otherwise.
Hello.

What was said is that I no longer operate Amateur mobile.
The GMRS repeaters are there to facilitate this.
The primary reason for getting more involved with Amateur Radio was the hopes of mutual cooperation and understanding of people.
I have worked with 440 and have had hams tell me that this is a ham band, on a military facility.
No, 440, all of it, is military primary.
I have had hams get upset about 28.385 MHz.
Now, there is not much of an issue, I use GMRS as the IPC and 440 as the hopset, correct, high level encryption.
I also run P25 on GMRS with low level encryption enabled.
I will still operate HF on the ham bands, from a fixed location, field day is always fun.
Operating from Saudi Arabia will again be Arab country only, not my decision.
I had always known that this would be an uphill battle, the Sheikh did not feel that this was all that good an idea, but unless one tries there can be no failure.
And without failure there can be no success.

[WA2ZDY]

KWH has a valid point and you've all allowed PIU to - once again - throw you off the track with his baloney. Now he's a truck driver? The other day he was a Saudi prince. Geez guys, follow the trail.

KWH is correct. And if you don't want to record and report, fine. Get Bonnie's point and GET ON THE BAND. No propagation? Ragchew with the guys in town on 10m CW. Use it or lose it is exactly correct!

[WA9SVD]

Can we ask the FCC to assign 28.085 MHz to WinLink?

[KQ6XA]

I am currently transmitting many times on 10m every day, in the 28.0-28.15 MHz part of the band, using 8FSK. But the only hams I hear there are part of the net that I'm communicating with on one frequency.

The rest of the signals I hear are using callsigns like Fireball 88 ! Let's face it, the low end of 10 meters is lost to freebanders. They won it by default. Hams didn't even show up for the game.

We could have set up some repeaters there to save it, but... no... hams shot ourselves in the foot by limiting the possible operating modes we can use in that part of the band. And there are no hams even using the modes like CW and PSK31 there that we limited it to!

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ July 02 2007,11:47)]I am currently transmitting many times on 10m every day, in the 28.0-28.15 MHz part of the band, using 8FSK. But I only hear the few other hams that I'm communicating with there.

The rest of the signals I hear are using callsigns like "Fireball 88". Let's face it, the low end of 10 meters is lost to freebanders. They won it by default. We didn't even show up for the game.

We could have set up some repeaters there to save it, but... no... hams shot ourselves in the foot by limiting the possible operating modes we can use in that part of the band. And there are no hams even using the modes like CW and PSK31 there that we limited it to!
No offense, but Amateur Radio operators did not, and do not, decide upon frequency allocations or the authorized modes allowed (or disallowed) therein. THAT, SIR, is decided by the FCC. Do not blame Amateurs if we are not allowed SSB, or AM, or FM on any voice mode on 28.000-28.300 MHz. It's not ours to decide.

It's laudable you and others are using digital modes below 28.300 MHz. But just because YOU don't hear as much activity as you would like, doesn't mean legitimate, AMATEUR activity isn't present in other areas. In another 3 years or so, 10 Meters will get congested, even in the region between 28.0 and 28.200 MHZ. (It's best to allow the 28.2-28.300 MHz region open for the propagation beacons.)

[KD6NIG]

I predict this one may be tossed.

Why? I'm hoping the notice is purposely vague, but all they said was that the driver was observed doing this at (exit and time). I seem to recall other notices having more teeth, ie, truck number, trailer number, stuff like that.

If all the information they had on me was that, and no truck ID, not to support the interloper, but I'd be saying I wasn't there, boss.

It will probably cause them to maybe get the radio out of the truck, but I don't see them getting anything out of this if they cannot pin the actual truck number down.

I'm just hoping it was left out purposely and they actually have that info. If they don't, it could have been any truck....and you can bet thats the defense they will use.

[n8yx]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ July 01 2007,19:55)]KWH has a valid point and you've all allowed PIU to - once again - throw you off the track with his baloney. Now he's a truck driver? The other day he was a Saudi prince.
... and here I thought he was ex-Stazi?

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ July 02 2007,11:47)]I am currently transmitting many times on 10m every day, in the 28.0-28.15 MHz part of the band, using 8FSK. But the only hams I hear there are part of the net that I'm communicating with on one frequency.

The rest of the signals I hear are using callsigns like Fireball 88 ! #Let's face it, the low end of 10 meters is lost to freebanders. They won it by default. Hams didn't even show up for the game.
Too bad Bonnie doesn't hear so well. She might change her slant-ridden story. Here's a few of the recent spots down on the low end of 10 meters.

AA3B 28019.9 NB0Z 0201 01 Jul 2007
AA3B 28020.7 VE2IDX 0014 01 Jul 2007
AA3B 28025.2 VE9DX 0052 01 Jul 2007
AA3B 28027.4 K4BAI 0053 01 Jul 2007
AA3B 28028.9 W4LX 1645 24 Jun 2007
AA3B 28030.5 K4WAK 1738 24 Jun 2007
AA3B 28030.5 W4KPG 1643 24 Jun 2007
AA3B 28032.1 VE1RAC 0015 01 Jul 2007
AA3B 28033.7 W8VO/M 1644 24 Jun 2007
AK2B-@ 28024.5 W4YA Jim CQing 1553 30 Jun 2007
K0RC 28020.6 VE6CNU RAC 0050 01 Jul 2007
K0RC 28025.3 VE9DX RAC 0049 01 Jul 2007
K0RC 28026.9 VE3DC RAC 0045 01 Jul 2007
K0RC 28028.4 VE1LD RAC 0048 01 Jul 2007
K0RF 28027.0 KD7WPJ CQDX 1618 24 Jun 2007
K0RF 28031.5 W6DCC 1616 24 Jun 2007
K0RF 28039.9 KC6WGN 1613 24 Jun 2007
K1AR 28034.1 K1GU/30 1811 30 Jun 2007
K2CAN 28001.0 K2CAN test 1251 29 Jun 2007
K2SNJ 28026.5 WK2G CQing 1335 23 Jun 2007
K2UR 28030.0 VE1RAC 1456 01 Jul 2007
K2UR 28030.0 VE1RAC 1456 01 Jul 2007
K3CT 28008.9 F8DGY Chris near Paris 2005 24 Jun 2007

[KQ6XA]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 02 2007,13:19)]Here's a few of the recent spots down on the low end of 10 meters.

AA3B 28019.9 NB0Z 0201 01 Jul 2007
AA3B 28028.9 W4LX 1645 24 Jun 2007

....etc.



A drop in the bucket.

You proved my point precisely.

If all you can point to in support of ham activity on the low end of 10 meters is a few ham CW QSOs over 3 weeks, that doesn't begin to compare to the hundreds of freebanders that use that part of the band every day for hours on end.

But, don't take my word for it, tune around on 28.0-28.15 MHz yourself for an hour or so. I would be willing to bet that you will hear mostly guys like "Fireball 88 and his lineeer drivin' jammers".

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ July 02 2007,13:24)]Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 02 2007,13:19)]Here's a few of the recent spots down on the low end of 10 meters.

AA3B # # #28019.9 NB0Z # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #0201 01 Jul 2007
AA3B # # #28028.9 W4LX # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #1645 24 Jun 2007

....etc.




A drop in the bucket.

You proved my point precisely.

If all you can point to in support of ham activity on the low end of 10 meters is a few ham CW QSOs over 3 weeks, that doesn't begin to compare to the hundreds of freebanders that use that part of the band every day for hours on end.
Ummm...You said, "But the only hams I hear there are part of the net that I'm communicating with on one frequency." Since you're drawing a broad opinion based on your personal experience, I can conclude that your opinions factually flawed.

Thanks for playing though.

[wg7x]

Quoth WA9SVD: Quote[/b] ] THAT, SIR, is decided by the FCC.

Dude,

Use the little box in the upper right next to the "Callsign" button. Type KQ6XA into the little box; then click on the "Callsign" button

Open mouth, insert foot!

Yummy!

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

Gary

[KQ6XA]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 02 2007,13:29)]Since you're drawing a broad opinion based on your personal experience, I can conclude that your opinions factually flawed.

Thanks for playing though.
Unless you can tell me that you are on that part of the band every day like I am, I don't think you carry much weight.

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ July 02 2007,13:32)]Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 02 2007,13:29)]Since you're drawing a broad opinion based on your personal experience, I can conclude that your opinions factually flawed.

Thanks for playing though.
Unless you can tell me that you are on that part of the band every day like I am, I don't think you carry much weight.
I could care less what you think, but the fact of the matter is that the portion of the band has much more licensed activity than you have fooled yourself to believe there to be.

I've got about 900 different contacts down on 10 CW from the past 2 years, and about 20 precent more contacts on 10 SSB.

Are you telling me that those 900 contacts are imaginary? That I really didn't make them?

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ July 01 2007,15:17)]The 10 meter ham band is a vacant lot.

It is no wonder that CB freebanders are squatting there!

Very very few hams are using 28.000-28.150 MHz.

With our ancient mode-based FCC regulations, ham operators in USA are not even allowed to get on 28.085 AM and tell those freebanders to go away.

They sure won't copy our CW or PSK31.

Are there any other hams on this forum actually using 28.0 to 28.15 every day?

Use it or lose it.
Good post Bonnie. The lower end of 10 meters is underutilized. Of course, during the bottom of the solar cycle, this can be expected.

I would love to see more digital operations on 10 meters. Not necessarily a free internet email provider like winlink, though.

Even during periods of high solar activity, 28.000 - 28.200 is mostly void of signals. Activity picks up dramatically during the various CW contests, but otherwise, it's never a problem to locate a clear frequency below 28.100, if you can avoid the gobs of Latino Taxi Dispatchers, fishing trawlers in the Gulf, and the good ol' boy redneck goobers.

I'm building a new 10 meter antenna soon. It will either be a bi-square or an "X" beam. When that's up on the roof of the garage, I'll be very active on 10-cw.

Some of you may be very active on the bottom of 10, but most amateurs aren't. Ten meters has been my favorite band for 15 years, and I know a little something about it!

[KQ6XA]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 02 2007,13:34)]Are you telling me that those 900 contacts are imaginary? That I really didn't make them?
Yes.
I don't believe you. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

The fact that any assigned frequency is underused does not allow any random person to start using it and then lay claim to it.

That isn't how it works.

As for the bandplan, yes, it is mandated by the FCC, but IMHO they did not come up with this out of thin air. It was presumably agreed to by the ARRL, if not proposed by them.

I don't see the bandplan as really being the issue here (I don't think that having band planning written into law is a very bright move, but thats a different issue), the rest of 10m is pretty empty too at the moment, so I see this a something of a red herring.

Anyway, what were we supposed to do? Cause deliberate interference to the truckers? I see that a the edge of a very steep and slippery slope best avoided.

The real answer is one of the following:

* Persuade the FCC to do its job and track/prosecute the offenders.
* Persuade the FCC to allow the ARRL to share/take its role in this area then persuade the ARRL to dedicate the required resources to track/prosecute the offenders.
* Self-policing of our bands -- here is a REAL foxhunting challenge. Go track them down and present the case to the trucking company that they ask their drivers to avoid illegal use of 10m, or face the legal consequences whrn the information is turned over to the FCC.

Personally, I see the last as being the option with the best chance of success. It does assume that we take policing our bands a bit more seriously than sitting at home nit-picking at other hams.

Just my 2c ... now back to your regular programming...

[kd5kfl]

Harumph...

K7UF, may I have word?

We are on the second page of this post. We are on QRZ.

At QRZ, legitimate points of view, cogent lucid comments and reasonable debate are confined to the first page of posts.

We are at this stage, on this page...

"Liar liar pants on fire"

"Well, I have been a ham for 80 years and worked PSK for 70 years and have worked 1000 countries at 100 WPM with a spark gap transmitter! So There!"

"CFR47.97.317/4©subparagraph ii(2)b3 says you can't do that unless the moon is in it's seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and the moon is in it's 4th QTH so you are a COMMIE PINKO MOSLEM FLIP-FLOPPING LIBERAL and you will burn in HELL!"

Enough with calm reasoned thought and polite behavior. Get with the program and act like it's 9th grade, study hall, teacher out of the room for 15 minutes, OM.

On the second and subsequent pages, it's all QRM at QRZ.

PS. You're a knee jerk liberal, you print your own QSL cards from DX countries, and I work moonbounce with an HTX245 and a Pringles can so I'm a better human being than you. Pbbbbtt...

[K4KWH]

Anyway, what were we supposed to do? Cause deliberate interference to the truckers? I see that a the edge of a very steep and slippery slope best avoided.
************************************************
It was determined by Riley Hollingsworth, who IS Special Counsel for Amateur Enforcement, that there is no interference being generated to truckers because, in order for there to be "interference", the communications have to be legitimate. #The truckers have NO legal standing because their presence on 10M is against the law to start with. #Thus duly licensed Amateurs need not be concerned about a problem caused to them by our LEGAL operations. #That is like saying, "OH! #There's stations operating on our frequencies and, even if they are illegal, WE have to stand by #because we might 'interfere' with them". # That is really quite silly. #LAW implies protections to the law-abiding, and all our laws are based on providing such protections to the aggrieved. #To provide ANY protection to truckers or any other ILLEGAL stations WRT radio regulations would render our US Code useless. #Therefore, while some of us interpret Part 97 absolutely word-for-word literally, they also ignore the fact that those same words also carry IMPLICATION of legal vs legal and INTENT to protect LEGAL operations, NOT to penalize legal stations exercising their lawful privileges LEGAL vs LEGAL. # So if you want to run RTTY right over the top of the knuckle-dragging retards (and these are the Billy Bigriggers, not professional, hardworking drivers who follow the law), then DO it!
***********************************************


The real answer is one of the following:

* Persuade the FCC to do its job and track/prosecute the offenders.
* Persuade the FCC to allow the ARRL to share/take its role in this area then persuade the ARRL to dedicate the required resources to track/prosecute the offenders.(quote)

Write your congressman. Carefully explain the problem. Provide historical background to the removal of funding by Congress for FCC. #Explain WHY it is a problem. #WHY it will spill over onto other bands and frequencies. #Ask for PL-106-521 to be amended to allow local DOT to #enforce BANS on "10 Meter" radios in commercial trucks. #And ask for that BAN on these radios. Explain how they cause interference to Amateur Radio and explain how Amateur Radio is an asset worth protecting from these mental regressives!
************************************************
* Self-policing of our bands -- here is a REAL foxhunting challenge. Go track them down and present the case to the trucking company that they ask their drivers to avoid illegal use of 10m, or face the legal consequences whrn the information is turned over to the FCC.

Personally, I see the last as being the option with the best chance of success. It does assume that we take policing our bands a bit more seriously than sitting at home nit-picking at other hams.

***********************************************
Absolutely! #If you got an HF mobile, commute to work, etc. #LISTEN! #Sure you might not hear a THING for a long time. #But if a LOT of us listen, SOMEBODY who is listening will just happen to be right beside that truck that is transmitting into South Carolina, frustrating another ham. Company name, location, direction of travel, frequency, date/time----send it to rholling@fcc.gov. A small pocket tape recorder, or a notepad is great; recorder is sneakier and #less visible. You will get the result in the Tennessee Steel Haulers case & Riley will do the rest! #That ONE truck has the potential of #removing 10, 20, 50 of those "10 Meter" radios from the trucks. #50 incidents of frequency theft, Riley can take up the line like I've said (seems to no avail) to get a Federal BAN on these pieces of sh-- radios! The road from Georgia to California begins with ONE step! #It might seem like an impossible trip, but if each of us takes that ONE step, you'll be in LA eventually! #

Some of us say, it is hopeless. #Well DUH!!!!! It is if we sit on our fat ---es snipping at each other! #Ya gonna sit there and whine, sniff and snort when you eventually hear Bubba Trucker on 21.355. "BWAAAAAAA! #So n so oughta do this (munch, munch, burp), such n such oughta do that (ERP! #Waddle Waddle) #It ain't mah job."

But until WE decide we have had enough of this horse crap, yeah, yer right. #We might as well just turn in our tickets and give them thar channels to the chickenbander
'freebanders'! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #The sorry thieves can pop their eyeballs out on 27 MHZ for all I care;# I ain't giving up 28 MHZ without a FIGHT, damn it!!!!!

[ai4ep]

kwh --- remember that yoour license EXPIRES on SEPTEMBER 17, 2007.

go update it today !!!

I got this information from your own profile.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (wg7x @ July 02 2007,13:31)]Quoth WA9SVD: Quote[/b] ] THAT, SIR, is decided by the FCC.

Dude,

Use the little box in the upper right next to the "Callsign" button. Type KQ6XA into the little box; then click on the "Callsign" button

Open mouth, insert foot!

Yummy!

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

Gary
OK,
Bonnie, for THAT transgression, I WILL sincerely apologize. I am sorry, and no offense was intended. It was not intentional or meant to be demeaning.
But madame, my point DOES stand. The FCC calls the shots, and we don't have any say, whether we like it or not.

That said, I look forward to contacting you sometime; propagation is often decent on 40 M from your area to the Southland here during the AM or early afternoon hours.

73


P.S. And to 7X: Thanks for pointing out an error, but additional sarcasm was unnecessary.

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (n8yx @ July 02 2007,12:25)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ July 01 2007,19:55)]KWH has a valid point and you've all allowed PIU #to - once again - throw you off the track with his baloney. #Now he's a truck driver? #The other day he was a Saudi prince.
... and here I thought he was ex-Stazi?
Hello.

OK, time for the facts.
Where did I say I was a Saudi Prince?
And, STASI? I had to deal with them in the past, yes.
That is one of the reasons I can contrast the current near police state to a communist police state, I lived in one.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 30 2007,22:52)]Hello.
I no longer operate Amateur Radio mobile.
Now if you would no longer operate amateur radio via a fixed station as well, you would make a lot of people happy.

Try Echolink at a wi-fi hotspot. It will make those guys in the dark suits and black helicopters wonder what in the hell you are up to.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ July 02 2007,19:46)]
Anyway, what were we supposed to do? Cause deliberate interference to the truckers? I see that a the edge of a very steep and slippery slope best avoided.
************************************************
It was determined by Riley Hollingsworth, who IS Special Counsel for Amateur Enforcement, that there is no interference being generated to truckers because, in order for there to be "interference", the communications have to be legitimate. The truckers have NO legal standing because their presence on 10M is against the law to start with. Thus duly licensed Amateurs need not be concerned about a problem caused to them by our LEGAL operations. That is like saying, "OH! There's stations operating on our frequencies and, even if they are illegal, WE have to stand by because we might 'interfere' with them". That is really quite silly. LAW implies protections to the law-abiding, and all our laws are based on providing such protections to the aggrieved. To provide ANY protection to truckers or any other ILLEGAL stations WRT radio regulations would render our US Code useless. Therefore, while some of us interpret Part 97 absolutely word-for-word literally, they also ignore the fact that those same words also carry IMPLICATION of legal vs legal and INTENT to protect LEGAL operations, NOT to penalize legal stations exercising their lawful privileges LEGAL vs LEGAL. So if you want to run RTTY right over the top of the knuckle-dragging retards (and these are the Billy Bigriggers, not professional, hardworking drivers who follow the law), then DO it!
***********************************************


The real answer is one of the following:

* Persuade the FCC to do its job and track/prosecute the offenders.
* Persuade the FCC to allow the ARRL to share/take its role in this area then persuade the ARRL to dedicate the required resources to track/prosecute the offenders.(quote)

Write your congressman. Carefully explain the problem. Provide historical background to the removal of funding by Congress for FCC. Explain WHY it is a problem. WHY it will spill over onto other bands and frequencies. Ask for PL-106-521 to be amended to allow local DOT to enforce BANS on "10 Meter" radios in commercial trucks. And ask for that BAN on these radios. Explain how they cause interference to Amateur Radio and explain how Amateur Radio is an asset worth protecting from these mental regressives!
************************************************
* Self-policing of our bands -- here is a REAL foxhunting challenge. Go track them down and present the case to the trucking company that they ask their drivers to avoid illegal use of 10m, or face the legal consequences whrn the information is turned over to the FCC.

Personally, I see the last as being the option with the best chance of success. It does assume that we take policing our bands a bit more seriously than sitting at home nit-picking at other hams.

***********************************************
Absolutely! If you got an HF mobile, commute to work, etc. LISTEN! Sure you might not hear a THING for a long time. But if a LOT of us listen, SOMEBODY who is listening will just happen to be right beside that truck that is transmitting into South Carolina, frustrating another ham. Company name, location, direction of travel, frequency, date/time----send it to rholling@fcc.gov. A small pocket tape recorder, or a notepad is great; recorder is sneakier and less visible. You will get the result in the Tennessee Steel Haulers case & Riley will do the rest! That ONE truck has the potential of removing 10, 20, 50 of those "10 Meter" radios from the trucks. 50 incidents of frequency theft, Riley can take up the line like I've said (seems to no avail) to get a Federal BAN on these pieces of sh-- radios! The road from Georgia to California begins with ONE step! It might seem like an impossible trip, but if each of us takes that ONE step, you'll be in LA eventually!

Some of us say, it is hopeless. Well DUH!!!!! It is if we sit on our fat ---es snipping at each other! Ya gonna sit there and whine, sniff and snort when you eventually hear Bubba Trucker on 21.355. "BWAAAAAAA! So n so oughta do this (munch, munch, burp), such n such oughta do that (ERP! Waddle Waddle) It ain't mah job."

But until WE decide we have had enough of this horse crap, yeah, yer right. We might as well just turn in our tickets and give them thar channels to the chickenbander
'freebanders'! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif The sorry thieves can pop their eyeballs out on 27 MHZ for all I care; I ain't giving up 28 MHZ without a FIGHT, damn it!!!!!
IMHO this IS a very skittish subject.

While Sir Riley (and I use the term with the utmost respect) has actually advocated "interference" with illegal operators, that is NOT the letter of the law. The law states that deliberate interference with other radio communications IS illegal; the LAW does not split hairs between legal or illegal operations.
Obviously, while Mr. Hollingsworth is in charge of enforcement, his interpretation of the law will prevail. But if/when there's a "change of the guard," and another person/persons take charge of the Enforcement Bureau, the actual interpretation of the rules may well be different.

IMHO, interfering with ANY signal, whether illegal or not sets a poor example and a dangerous precedent, as the law seems pretty clear. It's a slippery slope to follow; interfering with illegal operators, and a vigilante action that may cross the line between blatently illegal operation and what is perceived as "undesirable."
I prefer to leave that decision to the FCC, and accept the strict letter of the law, which prohibits deliberate or intentional interference with another signal. The law does NOT make a distinction between legal and illegal operations/operators/signals.

YMMV.

[wg7x]

Quoth WA9SVD: Quote[/b] ]P.S. And to 7X: Thanks for pointing out an error, but additional sarcasm was unnecessary.

What!? On QRZ?

Sorry OM, I thought it was a requirement!

73 Gary

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (wg7x @ July 02 2007,21:26)]Quoth WA9SVD: Quote[/b] ]P.S. And to 7X: Thanks for pointing out an error, but additional sarcasm was unnecessary.

What!? On QRZ?

Sorry OM, I thought it was a requirement!

73 Gary
Noit a problem. I USUALLY say his/her just to offend/not offend all ops equally. I slipped this time. Hope Bonnie wasn't offended, that's what really matters. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Heavens knows, nobody here wants to offend anyone else! (At least, not unintentionally!) Thanks for the heads up, anyway.
73

[KQ6XA]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2007,22:04)]Noit a problem. I USUALLY say his/her just to offend/not offend all ops equally. I slipped this time. Hope Bonnie wasn't offended, that's what really matters. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Heavens knows, nobody here wants to offend anyone else! (At least, not unintentionally!) Thanks for the heads up, anyway.
73
I'll let is slide for now.
Just remember to salute when you say "sir" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ]While Sir Riley (and I use the term with the utmost respect) has actually advocated "interference" with illegal operators, that is NOT the letter of the law. #The law states that deliberate interference with other radio communications IS illegal; the LAW does not split hairs between legal or illegal operations. #

Sorry, but I think that is nonsense.

From 47 CFR - #Quote[/b] ]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 ITU] Radio Regulations.

i.e if they're not operating in accordance with regulations, any interference caused to them is not "harmful interference".

and

From 47 USC - Sec. 333. Quote[/b] ] Willful or malicious interference
-STATUTE- #No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause #interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or # # authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government.

This clearly only applies to stations that are operating as-licensed or as-authorized.

[ai4ep]

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

[NN3W]

How many times are we going to have to address this issue. Interfering with an illegal, unauthorized user of a piece of spectrum is NOT interference. The entire rationale behind the concept of prohibiting malicious interference is that a LICENSED entity has all privileges accorded to it by the FCC, and one of them is the expectation that it may operate free of interference. By being unlicensed and by being per se unauthorized or illegal, there is no expectation and there is NO duty for a licensed amateur to avoid the unlicensed signal.

A perfect example of this is the woodpecker chasing that folks did in the 80s. The woodpecker was a broad, band unlicensed signal that had no authorized presence on 20 meters. Folks who jammed the woodpecker and counter "thumped" the woodpecker were within their license limits to do so.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ July 02 2007,20:21)]Quote[/b] (n8yx @ July 02 2007,12:25)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ July 01 2007,19:55)]KWH has a valid point and you've all allowed PIU to - once again - throw you off the track with his baloney. Now he's a truck driver? The other day he was a Saudi prince.
... and here I thought he was ex-Stazi?
Hello.

OK, time for the facts.
Where did I say I was a Saudi Prince?
And, STASI? I had to deal with them in the past, yes.
That is one of the reasons I can contrast the current near police state to a communist police state, I lived in one.
Ka-shisti Prince, not Saudi Prince, Chris. Ka-shisti secret police of the mind who disguise themselves as cowthieves.

[WA9SVD]

Letter vs. spirit of the law? Conflicting rules?

§Part97.101(d) "No Amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

The rule in §Part 97 doesn't make the distinction between licensed and unlicensed signals or communications. It's still a bad precedent to set, even if it is currently encouraged.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,08:15)]Letter vs. spirit of the law? Conflicting rules?

§Part97.101(d) "No Amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

The rule in §Part 97 doesn't make the distinction between licensed and unlicensed signals or communications. It's still a bad precedent to set, even if it is currently encouraged.
Especially if, you start talking 'over' the interloper, said interloper says something to you, and you respond to it.

Congrats, you just communicated with an illegal station, which WOULD be illegal under the rules, and you can toss that tape out, unless of course you want to still submit it and have you AND the interloper NAL'd http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Not that anyone would talking here, but you know how some people take anger to the next level.

I hope they have his truck number. If not, hes getting away with this one. "I was with that lot lizard at the flying J boss, not yacking on the CB." Unless they have me dead bang, I wouldn't admit it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,08:15)]Letter vs. spirit of the law? #Conflicting rules?

# #§Part97.101(d) #"No Amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

# #The rule in §Part 97 doesn't make the distinction between licensed and unlicensed signals or communications. #It's still a bad precedent to set, even if it is currently encouraged.
You're reading a section in isolation, which is a common error. When the FCC speaks of signals, it assumes that the signal has a right to be there. Spurious signals or unlicensed signals have no right to be there. Hence, its not a signal, and its not a communication.

[n2cfj]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 03 2007,08:37)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,08:15)]Letter vs. spirit of the law? #Conflicting rules?

# #§Part97.101(d) #"No Amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

# #The rule in §Part 97 doesn't make the distinction between licensed and unlicensed signals or communications. #It's still a bad precedent to set, even if it is currently encouraged.
You're reading a section in isolation, which is a common error. #When the FCC speaks of signals, it assumes that the signal has a right to be there. #Spurious signals or unlicensed signals have no right to be there. #Hence, its not a signal, and its not a communication.
No matter which way you interpret it, If you are in a rtty qso when they come on, they are intefering with you. A matter of timing.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 03 2007,08:37)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,08:15)]Letter vs. spirit of the law? Conflicting rules?

§Part97.101(d) "No Amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

The rule in §Part 97 doesn't make the distinction between licensed and unlicensed signals or communications. It's still a bad precedent to set, even if it is currently encouraged.
You're reading a section in isolation, which is a common error. When the FCC speaks of signals, it assumes that the signal has a right to be there. Spurious signals or unlicensed signals have no right to be there. Hence, its not a signal, and its not a communication.
The FCC doesn't define signal, so it's presumptious to say they "MEAN" a legal transmission when they say "any signal or communication."
Since they specify interference to licensed communications as being illegal in The Communication Act of 1934, and §Part 97 was written after that, I would think the FCC meant it to be MORE specific by stating ANY communication or signal, not just legal communications.
And to respond in kind would (or could) actually be TWO violations for an Amateur:

1. Communicating with an unlicensed operator is a violation

2. If responding below 28.300 MHz with ANY voice mode, you are also violating the FCC rules concerning authorized modes; 28.0-28.300 MHz is data or CW only. But yes, SOME hams think it's OK to violate the rules to "run off" intruders. But two wrongs don't make a right.

It's really a moot point right now; Mr. Hollingsworth is in charge of enforcement, and has stated it's OK to transmit over intruders as long as it's done with legal Amateur transmissions and modes. But it's not exactly fololowing the letter of the law. I would perfer to see the mode authorizations changed to allow other modes in the lower end of 10 Meters, so there would be less opportunity for the intruders to stake a claim.

At the risk of again breaking the QRZ code and taking up a serious subject after page 1 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I have the following comments:

Deliberate interference: Whatever Rielly may say, it is my humble opinion that deliberate interference is a no-no under just about any circumstances short of those necessary to save life and limb.

Start deliberate interference of the truckers, and then what do we say to those who do it to SSB signals that intrude into a non-ssb portion of the band? To Winlink when it zaps an ongoing QSO, to Joe Bloggs who we know to be an A*hole, to Billy Boy because we don't like his politics etc. etc.

Just don't do it (my opinion...).

On the topic of banning certain radios: Americas is (was...) a land of freedom, and personal responsibility. More and more we are seeing prior restraint laws passed to ban items which someone considers COULD be used to perform an illegal act. This is just plain wrong. Radio bans would end up like gun bans (except that radio isn't protected by the constitution). Do you REALLY want to have to justify to some governement funtionary why you NEED a radio capable of more than 1.5W, or operating on a band known to be a favorite of Al Quaida because of its unmonitored international communications capabilities, or which has sufficient power to damage someone (or yourself) if the power is directed at them? etc. etc.

It is the act of transmitting on 10m without an appropriate license which is the crime. Not the possession of a radio capable of doing it. Personal responsibility is what its about, not the availability of "illegal" radios.

Its not the gun that kills, its the person pulling the trigger.

Its not the radio which commits a crime, its the person at the controls.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 03 2007,04:36)]How many times are we going to have to address this issue. #Interfering with an illegal, unauthorized user of a piece of spectrum is NOT interference. #The entire rationale behind the concept of prohibiting malicious interference is that a LICENSED entity has all privileges accorded to it by the FCC, and one of them is the expectation that it may operate free of interference. #By being unlicensed and by being per se unauthorized or illegal, there is no expectation and there is NO duty for a licensed amateur to avoid the unlicensed signal.
There are parallels here to the laws of self-defense.

In some jurisdictions, if you are physically attacked or threatened with bodily harm, you must attempt to retreat to safety if you can (i.e., run away) even if you have a legal right to be where you are. #You can only fight back if you are trapped with no means of escape.

In other, more realistic jurisdictions you can "stand your ground" if you have a right to be where you are in the first place. #You don't have to attempt to retreat from an attacker before fighting back. #The theory is that the person attacking you has committed a crime and, as such, forfeits his rights.

The same philosophy extends to someone who forces his way into your house and threatens your safety. #You have no obligation to retreat or allow the interloper to "have his way" without interference.

Riley has said, in effect, that hams can "stand our ground" against unlicensed interlopers. #We have no obligation to "retreat," as it were, because we have a right to be there (by virtue of licensure) and they don't.

Why do some people find this difficult to understand?

[kd5kfl]

K5FH, it is my belief that everyone understands.

It is my belief that many people would rather argue among themselves than deal with the real problem.

It's more important to one-up a member of your own group than to deal with the problems of the community. Status within the group is a higher priority than the status of the group.

The ship is sinking, but I'm in the Captains lifeboat. And you're not...

If you have studied self defense, you know this to be true:

The combatant who makes the first effective move wins, if he follows up with more effective moves.

Disrupting the oppositions communication is an effective strategic move.

I have plans for the weekend, but I think I can work this in.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ July 03 2007,18:32)]Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 03 2007,04:36)]How many times are we going to have to address this issue. Interfering with an illegal, unauthorized user of a piece of spectrum is NOT interference. The entire rationale behind the concept of prohibiting malicious interference is that a LICENSED entity has all privileges accorded to it by the FCC, and one of them is the expectation that it may operate free of interference. By being unlicensed and by being per se unauthorized or illegal, there is no expectation and there is NO duty for a licensed amateur to avoid the unlicensed signal.
There are parallels here to the laws of self-defense.

In some jurisdictions, if you are physically attacked or threatened with bodily harm, you must attempt to retreat to safety if you can (i.e., run away) even if you have a legal right to be where you are. You can only fight back if you are trapped with no means of escape.

In other, more realistic jurisdictions you can "stand your ground" if you have a right to be where you are in the first place. You don't have to attempt to retreat from an attacker before fighting back. The theory is that the person attacking you has committed a crime and, as such, forfeits his rights.

The same philosophy extends to someone who forces his way into your house and threatens your safety. You have no obligation to retreat or allow the interloper to "have his way" without interference.

Riley has said, in effect, that hams can "stand our ground" against unlicensed interlopers. We have no obligation to "retreat," as it were, because we have a right to be there (by virtue of licensure) and they don't.

Why do some people find this difficult to understand?
It's NOT a matter of understanding. It's a matter of the letter of the law.
Riley has indicated that despite the LETTER, he encourages "jamming" illegal intruders on Amateur frequencies. (Unfortunately, SOME Amateurs have even interpreted that to mean it's OK to harass the freebanders outside the Amateur frequencies, which is NOT the case.)
The problem is that while the current FCC administration's enforcement bureau will look the other way in the matter on Amateur frequencies, the actual letter of the law still indicates otherwise. And with a change of administration, the interpretation and application of the law could well change.
And again, by encouraging interference to illegal operations on our Amateur bands, there are more than a few licensees that will expand that sort of activity to other bands, and to other operators that they THINK (in THEIR opinion) are operating illegally or merely not in keeping with "Good Amateur Practice." It is a slippery slope, and it already occurs often on repeaters and on some of the HF bands: someone doesn't like what someone is saying, or thinks they don't belong on a particular part of a band, and feel justified in jamming that station.
Again, my question is: Where does it stop?

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,19:27)]It's NOT a matter of understanding. #It's a matter of the letter of the law.
The non-interference proscription is not absolute.

Neither is the right of free speech, as is illustrated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There is an old Chinese proverb that says, "When in the lair of the tiger, the only justice belongs to the tiger." On the ham bands, the FCC (and, by extension, Riley) IS the "tiger." For all practical purposes, Riley's word is law. Whether you like that or not is immaterial; that's just the way it is.

As for the question of where does it stop, it stops when, where and how the FCC says it stops.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ July 03 2007,19:51)][quote=

As for the question of where does it stop, it stops when, where and how the FCC says it stops.
Agreed. But the FCC can change it's mind, and before the FCC says it must "stop" many licensees will have transgressed and abused the law.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,20:21)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ July 03 2007,19:51)][quote=

As for the question of where does it stop, it stops when, where and how the FCC says it stops.
Agreed. #But the FCC can change it's mind, and before the FCC says it must "stop" many licensees will have transgressed and abused the law.
Rather than belabor the point, consider Justice Felix Frankfurter's classic comment on the meaning of the United States Constitution: "It means what the Supreme Court says it means."

In the same vein, Part 97 means what the FCC says it means. #And they have said that an unauthorized user of a frequency has no legal standing to complain if he is interfered with by someone who is legally authorized to use that frequency.

[kn4ds]

We can all raise all the Cain we wish here on the forums, but until someone files a petition with the FCC requesting that they allow AM and SSB on the lower portions of 10 meters, nothing effective can be done...

Shooting CW at these guys won't make a difference, and you can be sure that digital modes won't help...

We need to be able to ask 'em about their callsign/license. Then they might get off the band.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif No, cause IF you start trying to talk TO the illegals, they can ask you questions like ---

1) why can YOU be here and not me ?

2) what ARE you gonna do if I dont go back to CB > big shot ham radio opertor ?

3) You cant make me leave the frequency, I pay taxes just like you do.

4) and other " blah blah blah " routines .

You have to realize that these folks you are dealing with are NOT the pride and joy of their parents, IF you can find both of them.

Some of them would just as soon shoot you as talk to you.

Some might even run over you with their big trucks, and never think bad about it.

These folks are NOT the pillar of the community .

More could be said, but children are reading all of this ( insert several FCC callsigns here ) . http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[K4KWH]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ July 02 2007,20:16)]kwh --- remember that yoour license EXPIRES on SEPTEMBER 17, 2007.

go update it today !!!

I got this information from your own profile.
Already working on it.

[VE7NOT]

First the best thing to run truckers off 10m we have found is Olivia. Yes right on top of them.

Second remember unlike freebanders the truckers probably have no idea where they are and if they do they think it's unused. Use it.

Third get rid of the bandplans down there.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ July 03 2007,22:52)]First the best thing to run truckers off 10m we have found is Olivia. Yes right on top of them.

Second remember unlike freebanders the truckers probably have no idea where they are and if they do they think it's unused. Use it.

Third get rid of the bandplans down there.
Well, we can only do two out of the three right now. The FCC has to change their regulations; it's not a matter of a voluntary bandplan. Our FCC rules stipulate CW and data modes only from 28.000-28.300 MHz, regardless of license class, and 28.200-28.300 MHz is the propagation beacon subband.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 03 2007,20:54)]We can all raise all the Cain we wish here on the forums, but until someone files a petition with the FCC requesting that they allow AM and SSB on the lower portions of 10 meters, nothing effective can be done...

Shooting CW at these guys won't make a difference, and you can be sure that digital modes won't help...

We need to be able to ask 'em about their callsign/license. Then they might get off the band.
Unfortunately, that isn't a solution either. It's not legal to communicate with unlicensed or improperly licensed operators. While causing interference to illegal operators may currently be acceptable, actually talking to the intruders is not.

That said, I doubt even asking for a call would drive them away. They already know they aren't on the regular CB channels, and I doubt they would respond favorably to any comments asking them to leave.

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,20:06)]Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 03 2007,20:54)]We can all raise all the Cain we wish here on the forums, but until someone files a petition with the FCC requesting that they allow AM and SSB on the lower portions of 10 meters, nothing effective can be done...

Shooting CW at these guys won't make a difference, and you can be sure that digital modes won't help...

We need to be able to ask 'em about their callsign/license. #Then they might get off the band.
Unfortunately, that isn't a solution either. #It's not legal to communicate with unlicensed or improperly licensed operators. #While causing interference to illegal operators #may currently be acceptable, actually talking to the intruders is not.

That said, I doubt even asking for a call would drive them away. #They already know they aren't on the regular CB channels, and I doubt they would respond favorably to any comments asking them to leave.
You are absolutely right. The way to get ridof them is to start using the subband for what it was meant to be used for. Is it very likely that they will be able to continue to communicate there if there are a few data users down there? anything which is going to drive them nuts listening to it would be good enough to move them away - would you like to sit and listen to MFSK all day long? That would drive me nuts if I had a radio on and this was bleeping on the frequency for hours on end.

They will quickly change frequencies. It might not interfere much with their comms when they are close together talking, but when they are not talking and just monitoring the frequency - it would be enough to make them move. CW isn't going to do it. It'sjust the same tone and if they are on AM, they won't hear it anyway unless there is someone talking. something like MFSK, BPSK, or olivia which would most likely, make SOME noise on their AM radios would probably drive them nuts.

Steve

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] ]It's NOT a matter of understanding. #It's a matter of the letter of the law.

Again, you're reading one section in isolation, without examining context. #


Quote[/b] ] # #The problem is that while the current FCC administration's enforcement bureau will look the other way in the matter on Amateur frequencies, the actual letter of the law still indicates otherwise. #And with a change of administration, the interpretation and application of the law could well change.

Since you believe that this is a Riley issue, please cite to me an instance where a prior PRB or EB official (e.g., Ralph Haller) sanctioned a licensed amateur or threatened to sanction a licensed amateur for interfering with an illegally transmitted signal.

In any event, the issue of jamming illegals will not be an issue. #Who is going to complain? #The illegal jammer.

As to the letter of the law, its patently clear that you're an absolutist who can neither accept an interpretation of the regulation, nor read its contextual basis.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states as follows: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Most scholars agree that this amendment pertains to the right of individuals, not the state as the Bill of Rights enumarates rights to individuals. #This is a contextual reading. #A literal reading, your reading based upon your reading of Part 97, would imply that the only militia that can be maintained is a state militia - e.g. the Virginia National Guard - since the amendment contemplates arms "being necessary to the security of a free state." # At the same time, your reading of Par 97 when applied to the Second Amendment as it pertains to "arms" would mean that any arm may be allowed - .38 caliber revolver, Colt .45 ACP, AR-15, AK-47, 120 mm howitzer, or bazooka. #However, the courts have permitted the states to limit the bounds of arms ownership to certain classes of weapons.

You need to stop reading things so literally...

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 04 2007,04:48)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 03 2007,19:27)]
Quote[/b] ]It's NOT a matter of understanding. It's a matter of the letter of the law.

Again, you're reading one section in isolation, without examining context.


Quote[/b] ] The problem is that while the current FCC administration's enforcement bureau will look the other way in the matter on Amateur frequencies, the actual letter of the law still indicates otherwise. And with a change of administration, the interpretation and application of the law could well change.

Since you believe that this is a Riley issue, please cite to me an instance where a prior PRB or EB official (e.g., Ralph Haller) sanctioned a licensed amateur or threatened to sanction a licensed amateur for interfering with an illegally transmitted signal.

In any event, the issue of jamming illegals will not be an issue. Who is going to complain? The illegal jammer.

As to the letter of the law, its patently clear that you're an absolutist who can neither accept an interpretation of the regulation, nor read its contextual basis.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states as follows: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Most scholars agree that this amendment pertains to the right of individuals, not the state as the Bill of Rights enumarates rights to individuals. This is a contextual reading. A literal reading, your reading based upon your reading of Part 97, would imply that the only militia that can be maintained is a state militia - e.g. the Virginia National Guard - since the amendment contemplates arms "being necessary to the security of a free state." At the same time, your reading of Par 97 when applied to the Second Amendment as it pertains to "arms" would mean that any arm may be allowed - .38 caliber revolver, Colt .45 ACP, AR-15, AK-47, 120 mm howitzer, or bazooka. However, the courts have permitted the states to limit the bounds of arms ownership to certain classes of weapons.

You need to stop reading things so literally...
At present, causing interference to illegal intruders on 10 Meters is deemed acceptable. So be it. That is the interpretation of the current powers that be. Interpretations can change.
The greater problem is that advocating such actions gives some Amateurs a false sense of empowerment and carry such activity over to even licensed operators who they believe are operating improperly, and some go so far as rationalizing such activity against those that are NOT operating illegally, but merely undesirably to some. The problem is that some people don't know when to stop.
Don't say it can't or doesn't happen. Certain frequencies on 20 Meters, and repeaters have experienced the so called "cops." And they use the rationalization that they are enforcing the rules, and "Riley said it's OK."



Hams aren't currently using 10 Meters much because at this point in the sunspot cycle, it's often good only fo
r local communications; hams want DX greater than 10-20 miles. They aren't running digital modes on 10 Meters, because that prevents them from operating on other bands at the same time.

Now here's a novel solution if you wish to go this route:


Step up FCC enforcement and have them confiscate ALL "illegal" radios. Sell them to licensed hams, who then put them on 28.085 MHz with PSK, MFSK or OLIVIA. Let licensed hams buy the banned radios and put them on 10 Meters; there's little or no modification required; in many cases, it's just a matter of turning a switch to get to the Amateur 10 Meter band.

=========

However, I will take exception to your opinion that I am taking §97.101(d) out of context. That part is entitled "General Standards." And unless the FCC meant something different than what was originally prohibited in the Communication Act of 1934 (as amended) there would have been no reason to merely repeat a rule already in existance. It seems likely the original rule was meant to be MORE stringent in terms of Amateur operators than the general rules.

[kd5kfl]

Quote[/b] ] Step up FCC enforcement and have them confiscate ALL "illegal" radios. Sell them to licensed hams, who then put them on 28.085 MHz with PSK, MFSK or OLIVIA. Let licensed hams buy the banned radios and put them on 10 Meters; there's little or no modification required; in many cases, it's just a matter of turning a switch to get to the Amateur 10 Meter band.


What makes many illegal radios illegal is the fact they are dual band. CB and 10M. These would need to be destroyed. The rest, the TS-520s et cetera, could be given to local clubs as an equipment bank for newly licensed amateurs. As an incentive, a former freebander could get his gear back if he got a license within 30 days.

Some truckers require a background check. People who transport HAZMAT. Seems to me a coordinated effort between the FCC and the DOT could be arranged. If a HAZMAT qualified freebander gets caught, cancel his HAZMAT qualification. The presence of illegal radios in the truck would be sufficient. The purpose of the background check is to insure that people with flaky judgement aren't driving a rig full of gasoline around. Possession of any illegal item indicates that the individual doesn't get the message. Let the DOT send the message on behalf of the FCC.

Regarding the argument that the current regime at the FCC is OK with amateurs transmitting legal emissions over the illegal harmful interference, and some future regime may not be:

Now is the time to take advantage of this situation. Solve the problem while the tool is available.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I definately AGREE with letting the D O T inspection crews inspect & CONFISCATE and illegal radios ( provide them with a list, with model numbers & PICTURES of the units in question, also the " amplifiers " that these folks just love to use.

While the D O T has the trucker STOPPED, might as well do a thorough inspection, not just half way, covering some areas and letting other areas slide through.

Arent the D O T folks working for the federal government, or the state government ? Either way, training them to be on the lookout for illegal radios should not be a big deal, at their next " training / uppdate meeting " . Just part of their job, one that they do fairly well.

Honestly there should be MORE " check points " to insure that the trucks are safe...after all, it IS 80,000 pounds ( give or take a few thousands ) of a potential rolling deathtrap on our nations highways. Our children and our loved ones are out there, and deserve the best safety in their travels that is available.

oh, and have a happy fourth. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[WA9SVD]

KFL and EP:


KFL first:

The radios themselves do NOT (in most cases) produce transmissions that are not within FCC standards, it's the frequency coverage for radios sold to or as CB radios that is the FCC violation. They WOLUD be, and ARE, legal for licensed Amateurs to use ON AMATEUR frequencies. Since they already can operate on 10 Meters, either by a switch setting or an easy "mod," let Amateurs put them to use in digital modes on the frequencies that are used by the illegal intruders. WHAT could be simpler? The radios are already capable of operating on the low end of 10 Meters.


KFL and EP:

I'm sure DOT inspectors already have more than enough work in their current job description. And I (personally) would not want anyone other than a WELL TRAINED person making a determination as to what radio equipment is or isn't "legal" in a truck or anywhere else. DOT personnel aren't going to get additional training OR duties without additional funding, and in all sincerity, I don't see THAT happening in regard to radio equipment. There probably ARE many other areas where DOT needs to spend more money in training and enforcement of the responsibilities they already have. DOT NEEDS to concentrate on the safety of vheicles on the road; illegal operation on 10 Meters is not exactly a road safety matter. It's really an FCC matter anyway, and I'm sure both the FCC and the DOT would tell you that.
Again, I wouldn't want someone with a few minutes training deciding whether or not a particular radio is "illegal" or not. The legal ham with a license and with a 10 Meter radio could EASILY be misidentified. Should DOT personnel REALLY be expected to know the difference? Merely supplying a list would be meaningless; a modified YaeComWood HF radio would go unimpeded, yet a licensed ham with a dual-band radio (YES, it IS legal to own) used solely on 10 Meters, (never on CB) as authorized by his/her Amateur license would be "nailed." I can even see the $$ in the lawyer's eyes now, over wrongful detention, illegal confiscation, loss of income, loss of cargo, a whole slew of problems, because a DOT inspector made a wrong determination. Is that REALLY what you want? (More importantly, is that what the government would agree to?)

[ai4ep]

SVD --- and another point you did not mention, and I missed too ----- just because some one HAS IN THEIR POSSESSION a 10 meter rig does not mean that they are USING the illegal part ( he may still just be on cb channel 19 ) .....and ( like you said ) about the DOT having enough to do already .

So even on a national holiday, I still make mistakes...and I did on my last post. Sure I COULD go the easy route and EDIT it / re write the whole post...but what would I put in its place ?

I messed up, plain & simple and TO THE POINT .

[kd5kfl]

I'm not going to get into a typical QRZ shouting match over this. I will just state the facts and move on.

No radio can be legal on CB and any other band. If it's certified for CB ( in the last 30 years ), it has to have 40 channels, selected by a knob, defined in the CB regs. No out of band emissions. Dual band radios are illegal, if CB is one of those bands.

No ham rig can be used in the CB bands. The fact they can be made