WOW! #LOUD Jamming signal on 28.085 at 10:30 PM ET

[K4KWH]

It is 10:30 PM Eastern Daylight 7/26/07 and somebody has a HUGE signal on 28.85 jamming the daylights out of
Charlie dumb a-- Chickenbander! #Nope, it ain't me, but I think it is funny that "gre't day, mercy me thar, somebody is a-lockin' down this h'yar channel thar an' ah cain't tawk on mah trucker's channel thar!" #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Jam away, boys!!!!!!!! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Buncha %#@^&* (censored) stupid illegals! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[n8yx]

Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ July 26 2007,19:35)]It is 10:30 PM Eastern Daylight 7/26/07 and somebody has a HUGE signal on 28.85 jamming the daylights out of
Charlie dumb a-- Chickenbander!...
Are they THAT HIGH into 10M now ??!!??

[N2RJ]

I think they left out a zero.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I think KWH just got excited and left a " 0 " out of the frequency.

kind of strange the reading of the numbers, if you make the numbers 2 & 5 to look like opposites, it nearly looks the same reading it forward as backward, something like the spelling of the word " radar " .

Any one got any new information about " 4 wheeler illegal 10 meter operators " or is it still the biased / opinionated " all 18 wheelers who use 28.085 " information we have been subjected to for years ? Just think, at least 10 - 25 % of the traffic we hear on that frequency COULD be from some " trashy 4 wheelers " and not be from those " pillars of the community 18 - wheelers " ...... let us NOT lump all 18 whellers into one small basket and call ALL of them bad, or say that ONLY 18 wheelers are using 28.085 AM in an illegal manner.

...and plus it was about time for KWH to start ANOTHER " illegal 10 meter " thread here on the zed...been a week or two since he started the last one or three .

have fun wif yore rat killin' !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[VE7NOT]

I fear for 28.085.

You must realize the majority of these ops 'know not what they do'.

They brought a rig at a truck stop that says 'extra channels'.


On the good side 10m is mostly VHF now except for some Es.


Truth is though there are alot less cbers on 27MHz then 30 years ago. In fact in my area most of the cb am crowd (except for truckers on the road channel) are on gmrs (which is combined with frs and licence free here) It's become the new cb with handles and 10-code s and simple lingo. (no swearing around here though, it's a family band)

I think 27MHz will some become a ham band again anyway. (The ssb channels are mostly hams anyway)


10m will aways have 3 problems:

HF or VHF?: depends on the sunspots!

Rebels in third world countries using it: Oh yes. I remember my Elmer calling for his son in Equador and having a moron (probably in central america) say it was a restricted frequency. Yes it was. It is the 10m ham band!

And as said... Expanded cbs sold to people that don't know what they are doing: This as I see is not solvable. Sadly.

[N4AUD]

Had a long PSK31 QSO on 28.085 today. I heard a lot of phone use there, then heard the "f" word used a lot, so I started calling CQ on psk. The band started fading, so I ended the contact. There wasn't anyone talking there anymore.

28085 is a great place to call CQ with PSK. I've heard RTTY there too.

[w8znx]

i tuned across 28085 the other day
yes there were truck drivers using the freq

and yes they should not be on ten meters

they were behaving better than the ham ops on freq

listened for about 15 min

one op was sending strings of dits
one op sent dit da dit da dit da dit da for about 5 min
another was op sending four letter words

not once did i hear one op give their call

N4AUDs psk 31 conversation is to be commended

but
there far too many so called hams
acting like jack asses on that freq

mac

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (n4aud @ July 27 2007,01:49)]Had a long PSK31 QSO on 28.085 today. #I heard a lot of phone use there, then heard the "f" word used a lot, so I started calling CQ on psk. #The band started fading, so I ended the contact. #There wasn't anyone talking there anymore.

28085 is a great place to call CQ with PSK. #I've heard RTTY there too.
Most PSK on 10M is at 28.120 or so, the 28.085 region is primarily RTTY. But any legal mode there is good use of the frequency.

[wa2dtw]

I almost never hear ham activity on 10 meters. Even in sunspot lows, it is useful for local communications, and there is the Es.
If we don't use it, we will lose it.

[VA3SAX]

I say we should go call CQ there...have nice long QSOs...we're doing nothing wrong that way and if the frequency is quite clearly in use then the guess would be that the illegals will stay off it

[kr2c]

I was tuning around the low end of 10m early last evening. i heard AM conversations starting from 28.005 all the way up to 28.175. I think this problem is bigger than we think.

[KA4DPO]

I agree with Mac that these guys are just as stupid as the illegal operators and are themselves illegal operators. Jamming, sending one way transmissions, is illegal. Please don't do it.

[W3MIV]

Doing something that is illegal to combat something that is illegal is still illegal.

Only a very stupid person would engage in such an activity, and I would gladly support the withdrawal of that person's license for the offense.

It is of dubious legality to interfere, even by running a wholly legal PSK or CW or MFSK signal over the illegal ops on 10m. Nowhere in the Rules does is say that interference is wrong, except... the Rules only make plain that ALL intentional interference is wrong.

Don't descend to their level and risk YOUR license by being stupid.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 27 2007,11:00)]Doing something that is illegal to combat something that is illegal is still illegal.

Only a very stupid person would engage in such an activity, and I would gladly support the withdrawal of that person's license for the offense.

It is of dubious legality to interfere, even by running a wholly legal PSK or CW or MFSK signal over the illegal ops on 10m. Nowhere in the Rules does is say that interference is wrong, except... #the Rules only make plain that ALL intentional interference is wrong.

Don't descend to their level and risk YOUR license by being stupid.
Reilly has already stated it is perfectly legal for an amateur to simply begin using a frequency occupied by an illegal operator subject to the normal rules for use of an amateur frequency. #Under the law, the illegal signal does not exist and so there is no illegal interference to it. #You just need to be certain that the signal is an illegal operator and not an amatuer from another country who may have phone privleges on that frequency. #That is usually quite easy to do.

[N8CPA]

About an hour ago, through mild QSB, I heard an actual Amateur CQ on that frequency. I answered on the straight key, but in the course of the QSO, the QSB got too severe, so I had to cut it short. But for maybe twenty minutes, I had useable comms with CT.

[AG3Y]

I agree with KYY. If it were illegal to send a one way transmission, every unanswered "CQ" call would be, in essence, an illegal transmission!

Maybe I am "testing" my rig on an actual antenna. Maybe I am engaged in a QSO with a station the third station cannot hear. I have heard that excuse being used by a lot of operators down on 20 !

I do not ever advocate that we should intentionally jam another legally operating amateur radio operator, but if it is a case of jamming an illegal "freebander" and getting him to move in frustration, or losing another chunk of spectrum to that kind because I sit back and do nothing about it, I think I will take my chances with the FCC. Besides, I can always say, "Mr. Hollingsworth said . . . ."

73, Jim

[N4AUD]

When I hear an AM phone signal using the "F" word, I start calling CQ in a legal mode. I'll take my chances with Riley on that as well.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ July 27 2007,12:15)]I agree with KYY. #If it were illegal to send a one way transmission, every unanswered "CQ" call would be, in essence, an illegal transmission! #

Maybe I am "testing" my rig on an actual antenna. #Maybe I am engaged in a QSO with a station the third station cannot hear. #I have heard that excuse being used by a lot of operators down on 20 !

I do not ever advocate that we should intentionally jam another legally operating amateur radio operator, but if it is a case of jamming an illegal "freebander" and getting him to move in frustration, or losing another chunk of spectrum to that kind because I sit back and do nothing about it, I think I will take my chances with the FCC. #Besides, I can always say, "Mr. Hollingsworth said . . . ."

73, Jim
I understand what your saying Jim I was thinking about unidentified pure unmitigated key down jamming.

That makes the purpetrator just a guilty as the interloper and is just plain dumb. #Now if the station identifies and calls CQ I guess technically that is OK. #Or, if you QSO with another amateur on top of a bootlegger that's OK too. #But intentional jamming is not cool no matter what.

For the record, if I heard someone QRMing a bootlegger I would'nt try to stop them, I'd just look the other way.

[ne3r]

I just call CQ in RTTY http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif the best part is, I make RTTY QSO's that way. Unfortunately, my digital rig is down at the moment or that is what I'd be doing right now.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 27 2007,05:03)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 27 2007,11:00)]Doing something that is illegal to combat something that is illegal is still illegal.

Only a very stupid person would engage in such an activity, and I would gladly support the withdrawal of that person's license for the offense.

It is of dubious legality to interfere, even by running a wholly legal PSK or CW or MFSK signal over the illegal ops on 10m. Nowhere in the Rules does is say that interference is wrong, except... #the Rules only make plain that ALL intentional interference is wrong.

Don't descend to their level and risk YOUR license by being stupid.
Reilly has already stated it is perfectly legal for an amateur to simply begin using a frequency occupied by an illegal operator subject to the normal rules for use of an amateur frequency. #Under the law, the illegal signal does not exist and so there is no illegal interference to it. #You just need to be certain that the signal is an illegal operator and not an amatuer from another country who may have phone privleges on that frequency. #That is usually quite easy to do.
Riley is wrong.

The law states that it is illegal to interfere with any radio signal.

I have discussed this before. #Why would we want to bring oursleves down to an illegal operator's level?

Far better to occupy the frequency ahead of time.

Riley also says "America is not the greatest nation on Earth". #

If Riley said that the moon was made of blue cheese would you believe that too?

Quote[/b] ]Under the law, the illegal signal does not exist and so there is no illegal interference to it.

Really, what law? #Show me where that is in ANY law on the books. #Riley doesn't make the law. #He is SUPPOSED to enforce the law and instead insists we 'lighten up' so he has less to do....and still collect full pay. #Instead he wants us to break the law and jam illegal operators off our bands so he has less work to do.....and still collect full pay.

Anyone see a pattern here?

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] ]That makes the purpetrator just a guilty as the interloper and is just plain dumb. #Now if the station identifies and calls CQ I guess technically that is OK. #Or, if you QSO with another amateur on top of a bootlegger that's OK too. #But intentional jamming is not cool no matter what.


Thank you for being the voice of reason here. #I wish Riley had the half the integrity that you do. #Our bands would be in much better hands if he did.

[ka0gkt]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 27 2007,20:36)][
The law states that it is illegal to interfere with any radio signal.
Please cite your references.

I assume that you are referring to § 97.101(d) "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."

A respected member of the FCC Enforcement Bureau has clarified this section by pointing out that the interlopers signals legally do not exist. It is impossible to interfere with something which does not exist, ergo, there is no violation of § 97.101(d). In the unlikely event that an Amateur were charged with a violation of § 97.101(d), stating that “Riley Told me that it was OK” would be a viable defense.

There are several types of “One-Way” transmissions which are authorized to Amateur Radio Operators by the rules and regulations of the FCC.

§ 97.111 (4)(b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized elsewhere in this part, an amateur station may transmit the following types of one-way communications:
(1) Brief transmissions necessary to make adjustments to the station;
(2) Brief transmissions necessary to establishing two-way communications with other stations;
(3) Telecommand;
(4) Transmissions necessary to providing emergency communications;
(5) Transmissions necessary to assisting persons learning, or improving proficiency in, the international Morse code; and
(6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins.
(7) Transmissions of telemetry.

The answer is to make 28.085 the “Official Bulletin Frequency” and forward bulletins of general interest to the amateur community using a digital mode specifically chosen to be most annoying when listened to on an AM or Single Sideband receiver.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve

[ne3r]

If you take it literally, you couldn't transmit over static crashes or power line noise, they are radio signals too.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ July 28 2007,00:23)]If you take it literally, you couldn't transmit over static crashes or power line noise, they are radio signals too.
Without going that far, think about the birdies coming from all the electronic appliances, the 14.31818MHz which is the 4fsc frequency in many video generators (video games, ect), the infamous 3.579545MHz or the 1.245GHz (if I remember well) of the microwave ovens. Should they be protected also?

[NN3W]

Yah, what about the woodpecker chasers that we had in the 1980s.

There has never once been a licensed amateur who has had his license revoked for interfering with or talking over a unlicensed, illegal station. Its certainly illegal to communicate with an unlicensed station. But to send out a signal on top of an illegal, unlicensed station is not illegal. Riley has never sanctioned anyone. Ralph Haller never sanctioned anyone. And I can guarantee you that no other PRB or EB chief has either.

[kr2c]

Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ July 26 2007,22:17)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 27 2007,20:36)][
The law states that it is illegal to interfere with any radio signal.


The answer is to make 28.085 the “Official Bulletin Frequency” and forward bulletins of general interest to the amateur community using a digital mode specifically chosen to be most annoying when listened to on an AM or Single Sideband receiver.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve
That is not the answer. I can hear these guys from 28.005 to 28.175.

[AG3Y]

Well, it's been said before, but bears repeating, If you hear a sustained conversation on a ham frequency that is not originating from an amateur radio station ( or a broadcast station in another zone ), make a recording of the conversation, get as much information about the conversation as you can; time, location if you can determine it, pertinent content "yah, I work for the xxx trucking company and drive this here I70 every day. . . ." etc.

Send it to Mr. Hollinsworth, the company the trucker works for ( if it is a trucker ) etc.

At least you might get some place of business to get their employees off the ham bands !

73, Jim

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ July 27 2007,16:23)]If you take it literally, you couldn't transmit over static crashes or power line noise, they are radio signals too.
It says "radio communication or signal".

Static crashes and powerline noises are NOT signals. #Look up 'signal' in the dictionary. #Does 'convey information' mean anything to you?

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] ]A respected member of the FCC Enforcement Bureau has clarified this section by pointing out that the interlopers signals legally do not exist.

Respected by some, not by others.

He did not clarify anything and in fact the interloper's signals do indeed exist. #(Look up the word 'exist' in the dictionary. #You won't find Riley's name there as a qualifier, I assure you)

Case in point. #I was just released from the hospital and noted that the heart monitors used on our floor operated on a portion of the band not authorized by the FCC for medical telemetry and were not approved by the FCC.

So you are saying it would be legal to intentionally interfere with those telemetry devices?

Of course not. #That is why the law is written as it was. #Riley is simply looking for a way to get the FCC out of doing it's job. #They are the ones that should be dealing with this issue, not us.

I will obey the law. #You can obey some 4 land lawyer if you please. #Remember, Riley is not a cop and is not an ALJ. #He is a lawyer employed by the FCC.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,16:31)]So you are saying it would be legal to intentionally interfere with those telemetry devices?
No, because in that case you're operating outside the ham bands, so you're the illegal to begin with.

[ai4ep]

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

...so what IF it aint truckers who are using 28.085 AM illegally...what is it is some of those " trashy 4 wheelers " ?

What do you do then ? Do a u-turn and go the other way as fast as you can before they see you ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc6toa]

Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ July 27 2007,21:17)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 27 2007,20:36)][The answer is to make 28.085 the “Official Bulletin Frequency” and forward bulletins of general interest to the amateur community using a digital mode specifically chosen to be most annoying when listened to on an AM or Single Sideband receiver.

Perhaps K1MAN is up to the task.

As you know, its a FELONY to interfere with K1MAN bulletins.

[k0dxc]

...okay...

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ July 28 2007,08:36)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,16:31)]So you are saying it would be legal to intentionally interfere with those telemetry devices?
No, #because in that case you're operating outside the ham bands, so you're the illegal to begin with.
Not if you are authorized to use the bands. #I never mentioned ham radio. #The telemetry devices I am talking about were using a frequency that other users are authorized to use in both fixed and mobile applications.

Also, the devices were compromised simply by monitoring the frequencies indicating that they were not built to sufficiently filter out interference from other legal devices.

Call your local hospital and ask them if they allow cell phones on the floors that they have telemetry devices on. #Right there is a hint. #The frequency we hit the telemetry device on is right next to the 800 Mhz cellular telephone band. #Even if you don't talk on some cell phones when the tower pings them they send short bursts of signal right next to the frequency the telemetry devices are on and it messes with the monitors. #Now, cell phones are legal devices. #If you took one into a hospital and used it to intentionally interfere with their telemetry devices do you REALLY think you would get off the hook by saying 'Riley said they didn't exist so I did nothing wrong?'

If you sneak a cell phone into a hospital and use it to intentionally mess with a non-certified telemetry machine and get caught you will be charged with intentional interference, if you don't believe me ask the FCC. #If they say you will not be charged, try to get it in writing. #I'll bet you won't.

Now do you see my point? #Just because Riley says something doesn't exist does NOT make it so. #I just makes it so the FCC has less work to do.

Obviously Riley is not using his head when he makes statements like his 'they don't exist' rant.

[W4KTL]

While driving home from Portsmouth, VA today I stopped at the Petro Express at the Efland, NC exit on I-40 for a cup of coffee. Walked into the store, big display of 10 meter rigs with a sign at the top that said "10 Meter Radio Center". No mention anywhere that a license is required (not that anyone would have paid any attention to it anyway). Hard fines against the trucking companies whose drivers are operating w/o a license on 10 will help, but it will do nothing with all the independent truckers out there. You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.

The solution? Probably none. Ideas? The FCC banned 10 meter only amps, how about banning 10 meter single band radios or at least restricting the power on them to under a watt. Would like to think that a boycott by hams of the Petro Express, and all the other chain truckstops would help, but the truth is we are so small of a part of their business we don't even show up on their radar screen.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (W4KTL @ July 28 2007,13:26)]While driving home from Portsmouth, VA today I stopped at the Petro Express at the Efland, NC exit on I-40 for a cup of coffee. #Walked into the store, big display of 10 meter rigs with a sign at the top that said "10 Meter Radio Center". #No mention anywhere that a license is required (not that anyone would have paid any attention to it anyway). #Hard fines against the trucking companies whose drivers are operating w/o a license on 10 will help, but it will do nothing with all the independent truckers out there. #You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.

The solution? #Probably none. Ideas? #The FCC banned 10 meter only amps, how about banning 10 meter single band radios or at least restricting the power on them to under a watt. Would like to think that a boycott by hams of the Petro Express, and all the other chain truckstops would help, but the truth is we are so small of a part of their business we don't even show up on their radar screen.
I have an idea.

Get someone in charge that will actually do some enforcement instead of trying to come up with ways to get out of doing it.

Here is another one. #Actually cite illegal operators and those that sell illegal equipment and fine them heavily, confiscate their equipment and put the spoils into the kitty to finance further operation. #That should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here is not what to do. #Tell people that are using the bands legally to 'lighten up' and jam illegal operaters while sitting on one's backside collecting a government salary with full benefits and looking forward to a cushy life living off a government pension....at the expense of those supposedly being protected by said government.

[K4KWH]

Quote[/b] (W4KTL @ July 28 2007,18:26)]While driving home from Portsmouth, VA today I stopped at the Petro Express at the Efland, NC exit on I-40 for a cup of coffee. #Walked into the store, big display of 10 meter rigs with a sign at the top that said "10 Meter Radio Center". #No mention anywhere that a license is required (not that anyone would have paid any attention to it anyway). #Hard fines against the trucking companies whose drivers are operating w/o a license on 10 will help, but it will do nothing with all the independent truckers out there. #You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.

The solution? #Probably none. Ideas? #The FCC banned 10 meter only amps, how about banning 10 meter single band radios or at least restricting the power on them to under a watt. Would like to think that a boycott by hams of the Petro Express, and all the other chain truckstops would help, but the truth is we are so small of a part of their business we don't even show up on their radar screen.

HAHA! #I was up there YESTERDAY at the Petro Stopping Center in Mebane! (Buckhorn Rd) Saw the same chicken band 10 Meter crap! #It goes to Dallas, TX via email tonight. #Mr Darling will read of it Monday (replaced Larry Brock who retired). If you would, email robert.darling@fcc.gov and apprise him of what you saw. It will help back up my complaint about Petro not far from the one you were in! I copied down the illegal sets to send to Dallas. #The more reports we get of this, the more likely it is we will get action. #Sounds as if "two birds with one stone" would be worth a trip down from Norfolk by Joe Husnay! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,13:31)]Of course not. #That is why the law is written as it was. #Riley is simply looking for a way to get the FCC out of doing it's job. #They are the ones that should be dealing with this issue, not us.

I will obey the law. #You can obey some 4 land lawyer if you please. #Remember, Riley is not a cop and is not an ALJ. #He is a lawyer employed by the FCC.
You're on this crusade, and for the life me, I cannot understand why. Riley is the "Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement". Any type of amateur violation of the rules is going to go through him before it reaches an ALJ. In other words, it is never going to reach an ALJ. Moot point.

And, you seem to believe that this some Riley lack of desire or lack of enforcement.

I again challenge you to show this board where a prior FCC enforcement bureau action found an amateur station to have violated the rules for transmitting on top of an unlicensed station operating in the amateur spectrum.

Put up or shut up.

[K4KWH]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,19:11)]Quote[/b] (W4KTL @ July 28 2007,13:26)]While driving home from Portsmouth, VA today I stopped at the Petro Express at the Efland, NC exit on I-40 for a cup of coffee. #Walked into the store, big display of 10 meter rigs with a sign at the top that said "10 Meter Radio Center". #No mention anywhere that a license is required (not that anyone would have paid any attention to it anyway). #Hard fines against the trucking companies whose drivers are operating w/o a license on 10 will help, but it will do nothing with all the independent truckers out there. #You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.

The solution? #Probably none. Ideas? #The FCC banned 10 meter only amps, how about banning 10 meter single band radios or at least restricting the power on them to under a watt. Would like to think that a boycott by hams of the Petro Express, and all the other chain truckstops would help, but the truth is we are so small of a part of their business we don't even show up on their radar screen.
I have an idea.

Get someone in charge that will actually do some enforcement instead of trying to come up with ways to get out of doing it.

Here is another one. #Actually cite illegal operators and those that sell illegal equipment and fine them heavily, confiscate their equipment and put the spoils into the kitty to finance further operation. #That should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here is not what to do. #Tell people that are using the bands legally to 'lighten up' and jam illegal operaters while sitting on one's backside collecting a government salary with full benefits and looking forward to a cushy life living off a government pension....at the expense of those supposedly being protected by said government.
I don't know what your "beef" with him is, but you TANGLE with him, and YOU won't exist! As a ham, that is!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ July 28 2007,16:10)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,19:11)]Quote[/b] (W4KTL @ July 28 2007,13:26)]While driving home from Portsmouth, VA today I stopped at the Petro Express at the Efland, NC exit on I-40 for a cup of coffee. #Walked into the store, big display of 10 meter rigs with a sign at the top that said "10 Meter Radio Center". #No mention anywhere that a license is required (not that anyone would have paid any attention to it anyway). #Hard fines against the trucking companies whose drivers are operating w/o a license on 10 will help, but it will do nothing with all the independent truckers out there. #You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.

The solution? #Probably none. Ideas? #The FCC banned 10 meter only amps, how about banning 10 meter single band radios or at least restricting the power on them to under a watt. Would like to think that a boycott by hams of the Petro Express, and all the other chain truckstops would help, but the truth is we are so small of a part of their business we don't even show up on their radar screen.
I have an idea.

Get someone in charge that will actually do some enforcement instead of trying to come up with ways to get out of doing it.

Here is another one. #Actually cite illegal operators and those that sell illegal equipment and fine them heavily, confiscate their equipment and put the spoils into the kitty to finance further operation. #That should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here is not what to do. #Tell people that are using the bands legally to 'lighten up' and jam illegal operaters while sitting on one's backside collecting a government salary with full benefits and looking forward to a cushy life living off a government pension....at the expense of those supposedly being protected by said government.
I don't know what your "beef" with him is, but you TANGLE with him, and YOU won't exist! #As a ham, that is!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Really,

Tell that to W6WBJ. Google that call and his former call, N6AYJ and prepare to be informed as to what one lawyer can do to another.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 28 2007,15:34)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,13:31)]Of course not. #That is why the law is written as it was. #Riley is simply looking for a way to get the FCC out of doing it's job. #They are the ones that should be dealing with this issue, not us.

I will obey the law. #You can obey some 4 land lawyer if you please. #Remember, Riley is not a cop and is not an ALJ. #He is a lawyer employed by the FCC.
You're on this crusade, and for the life me, I cannot understand why. #Riley is the "Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement". #Any type of amateur violation of the rules is going to go through him before it reaches an ALJ. #In other words, it is never going to reach an ALJ. Moot point.

And, you seem to believe that this some Riley lack of desire or lack of enforcement.

I again challenge you to show this board where a prior FCC enforcement bureau action found an amateur station to have violated the rules for transmitting on top of an unlicensed station operating in the amateur spectrum.

Put up or shut up.
All I have do to is file for a petition to expand the issue and Riley is out of the picture and I go directly to an ALJ.

Put up or shut up?

Who died and left you king? I will do and say as I wish regardless of your juvenile demands.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (W4KTL @ July 28 2007,21:26)]You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.
Actually I think it's gonna get better as the propagation returns, these truckers won't have those clear channels anymore and will have to cope from worldwide CW and digital modes, far more annoying than voice QRM. The freebanders that are working DX know enough not to use 10m anyways so they're not a problem.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (ve2nsm @ July 28 2007,16:47)]Quote[/b] (W4KTL @ July 28 2007,21:26)]You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.
Actually I think it's gonna get better as the propagation returns, these truckers won't have those clear channels anymore and will have to cope from worldwide CW and digital modes, far more annoying than voice QRM. The freebanders that are working DX know enough not to use 10m anyways so they're not a problem.
How right you are Olivier.

Also be prepared to see pretty much the entire CB thing go down the tubes the same way it did in the mid to late 70's. As soon as the spanish stations started pegging the needles from dawn until dusk most people got sick of it and the CB thing pretty much died off for a few years.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ July 28 2007,16:10)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,19:11)]Quote[/b] (W4KTL @ July 28 2007,13:26)]While driving home from Portsmouth, VA today I stopped at the Petro Express at the Efland, NC exit on I-40 for a cup of coffee. #Walked into the store, big display of 10 meter rigs with a sign at the top that said "10 Meter Radio Center". #No mention anywhere that a license is required (not that anyone would have paid any attention to it anyway). #Hard fines against the trucking companies whose drivers are operating w/o a license on 10 will help, but it will do nothing with all the independent truckers out there. #You think it's bad now? Wait until the sunspot cycle gets better and 10 is open on a regular basis. Those bootleggers will be trying to work DX, both other bootleggers and overseas hams.

The solution? #Probably none. Ideas? #The FCC banned 10 meter only amps, how about banning 10 meter single band radios or at least restricting the power on them to under a watt. Would like to think that a boycott by hams of the Petro Express, and all the other chain truckstops would help, but the truth is we are so small of a part of their business we don't even show up on their radar screen.
I have an idea.

Get someone in charge that will actually do some enforcement instead of trying to come up with ways to get out of doing it.

Here is another one. #Actually cite illegal operators and those that sell illegal equipment and fine them heavily, confiscate their equipment and put the spoils into the kitty to finance further operation. #That should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here is not what to do. #Tell people that are using the bands legally to 'lighten up' and jam illegal operaters while sitting on one's backside collecting a government salary with full benefits and looking forward to a cushy life living off a government pension....at the expense of those supposedly being protected by said government.
I don't know what your "beef" with him is, but you TANGLE with him, and YOU won't exist! #As a ham, that is!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
All I am doing is promoting the idea that we need to follow the rules and not bring ourselves down to the level of recalcitrant CBers by jamming people. I can't believe the penchant you guys are showing for jamming people. It really says little about your integrity.

As far as tangling with Riley unless he has a problem with me stating my opinion about him here on the Zed (Remember, this is America the not greatest nation on the Earth and I do have freedom of speech) there will be no 'tangling'. If he does have a problem with it and decides to attempt to take some action to prevent it I assure you it will be his undoing, not mine.

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,21:21)]
Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 28 2007,15:34)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 28 2007,13:31)]Of course not. That is why the law is written as it was. Riley is simply looking for a way to get the FCC out of doing it's job. They are the ones that should be dealing with this issue, not us.

I will obey the law. You can obey some 4 land lawyer if you please. Remember, Riley is not a cop and is not an ALJ. He is a lawyer employed by the FCC.
You're on this crusade, and for the life me, I cannot understand why. Riley is the "Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement". Any type of amateur violation of the rules is going to go through him before it reaches an ALJ. In other words, it is never going to reach an ALJ. Moot point.

And, you seem to believe that this some Riley lack of desire or lack of enforcement.

I again challenge you to show this board where a prior FCC enforcement bureau action found an amateur station to have violated the rules for transmitting on top of an unlicensed station operating in the amateur spectrum.

Put up or shut up.
All I have do to is file for a petition to expand the issue and Riley is out of the picture and I go directly to an ALJ.

Cite me the FCC reg which allows a party filing a complaint to appeal a denial of a complaint to an ALJ. You've made the assertion, now back it up.

Quote[/b] ]Put up or shut up?

Who died and left you king? I will do and say as I wish regardless of your juvenile demands.

Time after time you've made an assertion concerning the law which is unsupported by information available. Riley is an attorney charged with enforcement of the law. He views unlicensed stations as not entitled to protection under the FCC's regs. You disagree with this, yet you FAIL completely to show how any other prior FCC enforcement bureau chief has taken a different viewpoint, and has acted upon a complaint concerning that interference.

Again, if Riley is such the rogue, show me where a prior FCC chief has sanctioned a licensed ham for causing interference to an unlicensed, illegal station.

Indeed, you on June 8, 2007, demanded that we should "{a}sk a lawyer" concerning interference with illegal stations. Again, Riley is a lawyer, likely a member of the Federal Communcations Bar Association, and an expert on regulatory enforecment. Can you present similar credentials? Based on this alone, your argument is DOA from the get go. Second, concerning intereference and your June 8 challenge, I prsented Riley's stance to a partner in my firm - an attorney who has a hell of a lot more FCC experience than you ever will. He confirmed that Riley's position is accurate, reasonable, and tenable.

So, again, other than your strained layman's read of the FCC's regs, made out of context, made without and broad view of the regulations, and without support of prior Commission practice, you don't have a leg to stand on and aare, quite frankly, wasting our time.

[K8MHZ]

NN3W,

First off, if you think I am wasting your time stop visiting the thread, no one is forcing you to be here. #If I want to post here and the moderators don't have a problem with it I will continue to do so. #You have no authority to stop me. #It seems you have an issue with control here and I am not about to submit to it, nor am I about to start breaking the law, a clearly written law at that, based upon your desire to run the show.

Second, Riley is a counsel and has no authority to enforce the law. #Any enforcement must come from an ALJ. #You show ME where any punishment has been finalized without the presence of an ALJ. #He can cite the law and hope for voluntary submission, but in the event of a challenge the case must go in front of an ALJ. #The following is from the FCC web site describing some of the roles of the ALJs and how they become involved when petitions are put forth:

Quote[/b] ]The Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) of the Federal Communications Commission is responsible for conducting the hearings ordered by the Commission. The hearing function includes acting on interlocutory requests filed in the proceedings such as petitions to intervene, petitions to enlarge issues, and contested discovery requests.

The above is just a partial dictate of their responsibilities but should illustrate my point.

I will concede that you may be correct that there, so far, has been no proceedings against a licensed station jamming an unlicensed station. #It really doesn't matter, I am not going to sift through a myriad of cases to please you. #Consider this, though, there is a provision in Part 95 that operators of the citizen's band are not allowed to communicate over a distance of 155.3 miles. (250 kilometers) Have you ever heard of the FCC citing anyone for doing it....it happens all the time. #Does the lack of enforcement on the FCC's part negate written law? #No, it just means that it hasn't happened YET.

Now, consider the following hypothetical case. #Party A, a licensed ham, starts jamming Party B, an interloper while Party C, someone with a beef with Party A decides to make an issue of it and reports Party A to the FCC. #Let's say that Party C is a very cunning lawyer and has made sure that he has all the evidence needed to make his case and properly files his case with the FCC. #Considering that Riley may try to halt the case Party C files the necessary petitions to get the case in front of an ALJ and challenges the court to provide a statute stating that unlicensed signals do not exist under the law of the land. #The court, obviously, will not be able to do so and the case against Party B will continue and could result in Party B being found guilty of intentional interference, which he is. #The key here is 'intent' and since intent is an indicator of malice Party B would not stand much of a chance against a crafty lawyer out to get him.

Now, if you will show me anything in the Code of Federal Regulations that states that only legal signals exist in the eyes of the law I will gladly concede to both your and Riley's assertion. #I have pretty much combed Title 47 looking for such a document and have come up empty handed. #Perhaps one of your lawyer friends may be aware of something I have missed, but I doubt it.

The reason I chose the actions of a crafty lawyer to illustrate my point is due to the fact that I have been following the case of William Crowell, W6WBJ (formerly N6AYJ) for a couple of years now and so far Mr. Crowell, an attorney AKA 'Billy the Bill Collector' has been bouncing Riley around the pillared halls like a cat bounces a ball of yarn around and still is able to legally transmit on the ham bands.

Let's start with Billy's response to Riley's first enforcement letter. #Since it is about 12,000 words long I will post a link to the letter here instead of quoting the entire thing. #Here is part of it, however, with a link to follow:

Quote[/b] ]And I find it really disconcerting that you are supposed to be an amateur
enforcement specialist, and I am not even a communications law specialist,
although you are supposed to be one, yet clearly I either have a better
under-stand-ing of Part 97 enforcement law than you do, or else you're
deliberately dissemb-ling and pretending that the law under Part 97 is something different than it really is, because it lets you make your job easier, issue more self-promoting press releases and keep the brownshirts happy. So at an administrative hearing I am basically going to require you to specify whether you issued my Warning Notice because you're incompetent or because you're venal. Man, Princess, I sure wouldn't like to be presented with a choice like that in front of an ALJ! I think a serious question concerning your integrity is involved with respect to your overall attitude toward enforcement. For example, why would you try to deliberately distort the law to unsuspecting licensees?



Link to the entire response here (http://www.w6dek.com/435Photos/n6ayj/N6AYJ_Response.html)

Now, if you take a look at this link on the FCC web site and read closely you will find something very interesting. #Billy's license shows active status but the expiration date is long passed, 12 March 2007 to be exact.

W6WBJ license info (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/results.jsp;JSESSIONID_ULSSEARCH=Gs49uG18InU9DB6MO FwcL1sw7u1Wd12qlK1VzTN53tIlyGPwcpfE!-1080231575!1180713082)

Interesting, eh? #What Billy managed to do was to tick Riley off and got him so confused with his own emotions that he refused to process Billy's renewal request. #Well, Riley overlooked the fact that if a ham files all the paperwork for a timely request and can document that filing to the FCC the ham in question can still operate until an ALJ revokes the license which they won't because Billy was smart enough not to give them a reason to. #ONLY a bona fide court of law presided over by an ALJ has the authority to revoke, Riley has no such authority and Billy knew it. #In effect, Riley just handed Billy a life long ham license. #That status will remain in effect until Billy's renewal request is granted by Riley conceding to the fact that he screwed up and backs off.

Now, I am no fan of Billy's because he can be a real jerk and has no desire to be a good ham, but he is crafty enough to bring to light the fact that Riley simply does not have the authority he leads us to believe he does.

Now, do you see why I prefer to follow the law as it is written and NOT as it is interpreted by 'Princess' W.R. Hollingsworth?

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ July 26 2007,23:38)]You must realize the majority of these ops 'know not what they do'.
Bullcrap! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 31 2007,00:49)]Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ July 26 2007,23:38)]You must realize the majority of these ops 'know not what they do'.
Bullcrap! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Exactly.

It is a matter of irreverence, not ignorance. #The use of illegal radios is consistent with cheating on logs, using 'Jake Brakes' in localities where they are prohibited, dodging weigh stations with overloaded rigs and cheating lot lizards out of their hard earned pay.

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

Sorry, I couldn't resist..

The vast majority of truck drivers not only are legal, but great people. #I have a legal CB radio in my van for long trips (and entertainment when I get sick of listening to my Gene Tracy tapes) and chat with them from time to time. #It isn't very difficult to find one just looking to make the time go by that is willing to rag chew with someone that is not interested in 'dropping the maul' on them. #The attraction of radios with channels outside the the legal CB bands is there because they are trying to get away from the rubbish and jamming they encounter on the legal channels. #

While intentionally interfering with any radio signal is illegal, working over the top of an illegal signal is not and there IS a difference.

If you have set up a sked with a pal on 28.085 and you get there only to find a voice QSO that is likely illegal (remember, in an emergency such a QSO would not be illegal....so LISTEN first) there is nothing illegal about working over the top of them. #If you hear someone calling CQ a the frequency and answer them over the top of an illegal signal that is not illegal. #Your intent (key word) is not to interfere in either of those instances.

If Riley would have chosen his words better it would have been better for all of us. #From what I have read of his remarks, though, it seems that he tends not to think things through before he makes his statements.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that the reason CBers are attracted to the lower portion of the 10 meter ham band is because it seems to be unused and if we start to occupy it that attraction will no longer exist.

There are, believe it or not, ways to occupy that portion of the band without intentionally interfering with a radio signal, although some operators may not think it is near as much fun, indicating a mentality that we are better off shunning.

(Edited to correct spelling / grammar errors)

[WA3KYY]

Decided to write something else after I saw MHZ's next message but was too late.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 31 2007,01:40)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 27 2007,23:47)]Quote[/b] ]That makes the purpetrator just a guilty as the interloper and is just plain dumb. #Now if the station identifies and calls CQ I guess technically that is OK. #Or, if you QSO with another amateur on top of a bootlegger that's OK too. #But intentional jamming is not cool no matter what.


Thank you for being the voice of reason here. #I wish Riley had the half the integrity that you do. #Our bands would be in much better hands if he did.
MHZ,

He just affirmed what Riley said and you agreed with him. #Calling CQ on top of an illegal signal or starting a QSO there is perfectly fine.

Just who do you think is going to say it is not legal to do so? #If the FCC, the sole agency charged with enforcing the various regulations dealing with radio communications, is not going to take action in this case, just who is and how? So me in the law where an illegal signal has any legal existence to be interferred with?

Frankly I am not in the least bit concerned that calling CQ in RTTY on 28.085 when an illegal signal is there will place me at any legal risk whatsoever. #Until the FCC states otherwise, I will do so whenever the opportunity presents itself.
You must have hit the send button the same time I did.

Check out my post above.

There is a difference between intentionally interfering and working over the top of someone.

I do not agree that jamming illegals for the sole purpose of doing so is legal and will not until the written law is changed.

I do agree that it is perfectly legal to work over the top of an illegal signal to conduct a legal QSO that would exist regardless of the illegal signal.

I know that there exists a really fine line between the two but that line is determined by the INTENT of the operator.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 31 2007,09:48)]Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 31 2007,01:40)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 27 2007,23:47)]Quote[/b] ]That makes the purpetrator just a guilty as the interloper and is just plain dumb. #Now if the station identifies and calls CQ I guess technically that is OK. #Or, if you QSO with another amateur on top of a bootlegger that's OK too. #But intentional jamming is not cool no matter what.


Thank you for being the voice of reason here. #I wish Riley had the half the integrity that you do. #Our bands would be in much better hands if he did.
MHZ,

He just affirmed what Riley said and you agreed with him. #Calling CQ on top of an illegal signal or starting a QSO there is perfectly fine.

Just who do you think is going to say it is not legal to do so? #If the FCC, the sole agency charged with enforcing the various regulations dealing with radio communications, is not going to take action in this case, just who is and how? So me in the law where an illegal signal has any legal existence to be interferred with?

Frankly I am not in the least bit concerned that calling CQ in RTTY on 28.085 when an illegal signal is there will place me at any legal risk whatsoever. #Until the FCC states otherwise, I will do so whenever the opportunity presents itself.
You must have hit the send button the same time I did.

Check out my post above.

There is a difference between intentionally interfering and working over the top of someone.

I do not agree that jamming illegals for the sole purpose of doing so is legal and will not until the written law is changed.

I do agree that it is perfectly legal to work over the top of an illegal signal to conduct a legal QSO that would exist regardless of the illegal signal.

I know that there exists a really fine line between the two but that line is determined by the INTENT of the operator.
Yes, I replied before I saw your other post with Amateur C having a beef with the amateur who was transmitting on top of the illegal.

You are correct, it is a fine distinction which is why I have always stated the transmissions on top of an illegal must be for the purpose of legal Part 97 communications. Calling CQ is a perfectly legal Part 97 operation. Now is my intent to start a QSO or drive off the illegal? Both actually. It is this type of legal operation I believe that Riley is actually referring to, not the vigilantte tactics of long key downs, frequency sweeps, noise generators and other unidentfied signals that have recently been reported. If you are going to try and drive the illegal off 10M, do it with legal Part 97 communications.

It actually would be interesting to see how an ALJ would rule on whether an illegal signal has status to be interferred with. Any complaint would have to be brought by a third party in a manner similar to that which you proposed. I doubt the illegal operator would do so. It is not clear to me how such a case would be argued. Would their be two sides with legal representation or just the person called befor the ALJ and his/her counsel?

[kr2c]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 30 2007,07:38)]Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that the reason CBers are attracted to the lower portion of the 10 meter ham band is because it seems to be unused and if we start to occupy it that attraction will no longer exist.
Even if the "Freeband" were conceded there is absolutely no reason for these gust to be in 10 meters. There is more than enough bandwidth between 26.500 and 27.999 for these guys to do what the want to do. If the FCC can't handle removing these guys from 10 meters then I believe proposals will have to be made to make AR self policing.

[ve2nsm]

Quote[/b] (kc2rgu @ July 31 2007,10:08)]Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ July 30 2007,07:38)]Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that the reason CBers are attracted to the lower portion of the 10 meter ham band is because it seems to be unused and if we start to occupy it that attraction will no longer exist.
Even if the "Freeband" were conceded there is absolutely no reason for these gust to be in 10 meters. There is more than enough bandwidth between 26.500 and 27.999 for these guys to do what the want to do. If the FCC can't handle removing these guys from 10 meters then I believe proposals will have to be made to make AR self policing.
I said it many times but I will again.
The vast majority of the interlopers that end up on 10m do it because of ignorance. They have no idea where they are, and don't even know it's illegal, ie: truckers or really stupid freebanders.
The truckers have no interest in radio operation, they just want a mike with a clear channel to talk to their buddies. If you think they end up on 10 on purpose to pi** you off, you're gravely mistaken.
The really stupid freebanders will soon get educated by a less stupid freebander that knows better than invading 10m and calling all the attention. He rather stay quiet and laying low between 27405 and 27999.

Wrap-up... the people you hear there are most likely NOT doing it on purpose, so I think a different approach is to be used. Report the offending truckers to the FCC, petition the ARRL to send memos to trucking companies, etc.
Bashing and screaming and whining will get you nowhere.

[K4KWH]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 31 2007,07:03)]It actually would be interesting to see how an ALJ would rule on whether an illegal signal has status to be interferred with. #Any complaint would have to be brought by a third party in a manner similar to that which you proposed. #I doubt the illegal operator would do so. It is not clear to me how such a case would be argued. #Would their be two sides with legal representation or just the person called befor the ALJ and his/her counsel? (quote)
Only a really STOOPID person would do this---make a complaint about somebody messing up his "tawkin' on them extree channels". #However, this HAS happened in a different legal venue where a drug addict purchased #a couple of dime bags of "cocaine" . It turned out to be powdered sugar! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif # So the addict called the cops to make the pusher give her $20 back! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #I saw this on "COPS". #So if an illegal operator sought recourse for "interference" to his already illegal operation, betcha it would go over like a lead balloon!!!

More like "Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? #Whatcha gonna do when they come for you.............."!

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

[K8MHZ]

KYY,

Interesting indeed and better suited for someone else to be human litmus paper.

I prefer to follow the law to the letter and let someone else, maybe even someone that argued against me here, to be the subject of a test case.

I also have no desire to adopt any part of the mentality #promoting jamming anyone for the sake of jamming them. #It simply is NOT good amateur practice. #I feel it brings us down to their level.

Furthermore, after seeing what Billy Crowell, Esq. is doing to Riley in court so far and his remark in CQ Magazine about Americans being, and I quote, "rude, self-important, cell-phone yapping, road raging and stressed out monsters behind the wheel" I have little respect for his interpretation of the law and I have even less respect for him....

From what I have read here on the Zed about what the CW ops on 28.085 have been doing sans ID'ing themselves, it seems that Riley's offhanded invitation to jam CBers is really bringing out the best in us.

I doubt that this goes on unnoticed and would not be surprised if a change was made a few years down the road.....say towards the peak of the cycle when things REALLY get bad.....

I don't think a passe attitude is going to cut it then like it has for the last few years.

[K5FH]

As to the question of whether or not it is legal to interfere with a pirate/bootlegger, consider this:

The police knock on your door and ask to search your property. #You refuse, saying that you want to see a search warrant. #The police enter your property anyhow over your objections and conduct a search during which they find, say, some controlled substance that you are not legally authorized to possess. #They then arrest you for unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

When this gets to court the judge wants to know why the police conducted a search without a warrant. #The police have no good answer, and the judge declares the search illegal and throws the case out of court. #You walk. #End of story.

Now, look at what has happened. #There is absolutely no question that you did, indeed, possess contraband. #However, since the police violated the law by conducting an illegal search, the law deems the contraband nonexistent in this case.

This appears to be Riley's reasoning. #Because the pirate/bootlegger violated the law, his signal is deemed to be nonexistent for legal purposes...even though everyone knows full well that the signal was there.

Yes, it's a convenient legal construct subject to modification and interpretation. #But so are most things under the law.

As I said in a previous thread on the same subject:

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, when asked what the Constitution means, answered, "It means what the Supreme Court says it means."

Similarly, Part 97 means what the Commission says it means. #In this case, for all practical purposes, it means what Riley Hollingsworth says it means.

It is naive to think that Riley and the ALJs don't talk to one another, and Riley wouldn't be saying what he does on this subject if it wasn't the prevailing attitude at the Commission.

[K4KWH]

Most of the time, they are pretty much in lockstep! And for those who seem to have a problem with RH, if you do some digging, you'll find that THEY were doing something out of line and got their hand smacked! #Like the good schoolboys they are, they whimper and snot about how "unfair" everything is! It is somebody ELSE'S fault, right! #Riley is just a good scapegoat! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

73