Announcing the new Amateur Radio Watch

[g4tut]

Announcing the new Amateur Radio Watch

ARWatch is intended to be a resource and information center for amateur radio operators, specializing in information and issues that are not covered, or not given much focus by traditional amateur radio information resources. This is to be accomplished by hosting Watches activated and moderated by interested, active radio amateurs.

At this writing, there are on-air problems with WinLink2000 interference, intruders on 10 meters, and a Canadian ham who misbehaves. All of these on-air issues, and many more like them may be worthy of a special Watch, and a clearinghouse that seperates fact from hype or rumour. Toward this goal, ARWatch includes Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit among its guiding resources, along with Part97 and The Amateurs Code.

Regulatory issues and events also bear a special watch. If not for the vigilance of a few radio amateurs, the ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal would have gone through virtually unopposed since at first, very few amateurs were aware of what the ARRL was up to. When the light of day was shown upon this proposal and its origins, hundreds and hundreds of comments poured into the FCC, over 85% of which calling for it to be denied. In response to this grassroots opposition, the ARRL withdrew the proposal.

Outfits like the ARRL and agencies like the FCC do publish information, but it often gets lost in the shuffle and can sometimes be buried on purpose so that it can be said to have been 'published' even though very few are ever likely to see it. For this reason, permanent ARRL, DHS, Congressional and FCC watches would be a good foundation for the more volitile onair interference watches and bad operator watches which will tend to come and go as those situations change.

ARWatch is the logical next step after the WinLink-Watch pages I created last year, specifically dedicated to watching, recording, and reporting WinLink2000 interference events. While setting up and operating WinLink-Watch, it occurred to me that WinLink was only one of a number of things that bear an active watch because of the impact they may have upon the hobby if allowed to go on without remark or notice.

In discussions that followed at QRZ.Com, several amateurs made the same observation, that there were a number of problems which really deserved the same kind of focused activism that I have been applying to WinLink interference.

It is intended that ARWatch will be a place to go in order to share or gather information about ongoing issues that affect all amateur radio operators, and also a place where any radio amateur can go to find out - how to find out for ourselves!

http://www.arwatch.com


73,
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
ARWatch.Com






Daily Amateur Radio News Service: (http://www.southgatearc.org/)
Updated every day - 365 days per year

Get our News Headlines for your Website:
http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm

Send Us Your News Items:
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm

[w8znx]

so is this news
or is RL a shill
for another one of Charles anti winlink
crusades

can not
Charles post his own words in talk

does he need a moderatur to post for him

or does this mean
a moderatur is editorializing

can a moderatur remain neutral and editorialize

mac

[N7WEJ]

Need to fix all the typos on the web site..........Looks very unprofessional...

[ky5u]

Geez guys! Look past the source and look for the benefit. A little spotlight on the cockroaches of AR may not be a bad thing. I see alot of the "modern Ham" morality these days which I translate to: "When someone accuses you of something bad, just pull in someone who is worse so you can say that relatively speaking you're an angel."

Being a good Amateur is not relative to anything except the Amateur Code.

Edit: Also, the guy running this site better have thick skin because the radio roaches will be swarming.

[k5co]

Well, I cautiously applaud anyone that will try to watch the self-centered grubs at the ARRL. And the graft-hungry commissioners at the FCC.

And you other guys, c'mon! Hams can't spell. (Or won't)

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 23 2007,07:58)]Geez guys! #Look past the source and look for the benefit. #A little spotlight on the cockroaches of AR may not be a bad thing. #I see alot of the "modern Ham" morality these days which I translate to: "When someone accuses you of something bad, just pull in someone who is worse so you can say that relatively speaking you're an angel."

Being a good Amateur is not relative to anything except the Amateur Code.

Edit: Also, the guy running this site better have thick skin because the radio roaches will be swarming.
And, to think when I read the buy-line that I was going to read about a new Dick Tracy style wrist watch from ARRL.....

This is a great concept and long overdue. #Call it a return to vigilantyism or whatever fits. #But, its needed. #Sorely needed. #In this world of politicians doing it to us to line their pockets, we need to be vigilant.

And, I need not even mention ARRL and its motives, as already noted.

Good point, Charlie. #Your example of what amounts to a #'sliding-slime' scale is exactly what is used by many to breach regulations and standards. #Collective misbehavior, such as violating the intent and spirit of regulations shouldn't be tolerated. #But, it is, thanks to money and numbers.

Great concept. Count me in. I just signed up.

[wv0t]

Darn. I wanted a new watch....

[k2dc]

www.arwatch is a dead link, at least at the moment. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73 All,

Don, K2DC

[kf4vgx]

This is just another Dick, "Tracy" not watch ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/d/dicktracy.jpg

[wc5cw]

Fellow Forum Members...

Re: Information...Research and Reporting

>"All of these on-air issues, and many more like them may be worthy of a special Watch, and a clearinghouse that seperates fact from hype or rumour."

While I agree that numerous issues involving some bad behavior or otherwise behavior on the part of a few that is not in the best interest of the amateur radio community, and a formalized attempt to monitor such behavior is a worthy idea, to establish "a clearinghouse that seperates fact from hype or rumour" #for amateurs by amateurs who have a vested interest and/or personal bias in such issues is a near impossibility simply because of said interest and/or bias...It seems to me that it would be far better to enlist the services of a knowledgeable and capable but independent and disinterested third-party to do the investigative and reporting work...And that is a giant leap from what is possible...Otherwise, as I see it, the effort will produce no viable core information beyond what is already in evidence here within the QRZ.COM forums and others...Such reports will engender the same interpretations, the same opinions and the same personalized exchanges that are rife in the present.

FWIW

Bruce
WC5CW

[KC4RAN]

Bruce,

You might be right, but on the other hand, if we do nothing we might as well go ahead and hand the bands over. The more people that start noticing, maybe the more we get to listen on the air. The more that listen, the more reports we will get. Also, if person X reports "Heard station ABC123 at 29.6MHz at blah date blah time, here's the recording", then the more we have listening, the more likely we are to cull out any bad or misinformed reports.

We're supposed to be self-policing. I fully believe in self-policing as a reporting mechanism. Each one of us should constantly be operating as if someone is always listening. You would hope that if someone reports bad activity from your station or network, you would want to know and would want to try to correct it.

Also, I think one of the points of the website is to better focus solely on things that are either outside threats to amateur radio (like construction companies using 2 meters for business) or internal threats. The more evidence you gather, the easier it is to either determine that what you're listening to is not there (like you have some funky mixing of two stations in your area creating a ghost signal in your receiver), or you might get confirmation that someone else is hearing the same thing you are.

One other good thing about having more listeners and a more open approach, those who might be interested in helping to monitor might be in different geographic areas, and while propagation might be going away for one, it might be picking up for another listener.

Anyone can listen, and anyone can submit reports to the FCC. Doing it in a coordinated fashion is no different than the ARRL OO program, except perhaps that the OO program doesn't openly discuss what they're hearing or monitoring.

[N7PLC]

Just what we need

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]We're supposed to be self-policing. I fully believe in self-policing as a reporting mechanism. Each one of us should constantly be operating as if someone is always listening. You would hope that if someone reports bad activity from your station or network, you would want to know and would want to try to correct it.

You hit the nail on the head here.

I could ask why the ARRL has never set up anything like this but I won't.

Kudo's to n5pvl on a job well done.

tim ab0wr

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (g4tut @ Sep. 23 2007,00:39)]Outfits like the ARRL and agencies like the FCC do publish information, but it often gets lost in the shuffle and can sometimes be buried on purpose so that it can be said to have been 'published' even though very few are ever likely to see it.
Here's an example of why ARRL hasn't and won't set up something like this.

They tried to hide their 11th hour revision to the Regulation by Bandwidth petition from us, and, thankfully, got 'discovered' before it was acted upon.

On occasion, I've tried to post news items here on QRZ, but, delays of a week or more, which are the norm unless Fred posts, won't cut it. #If, as in ARRL's 'sneak,' time is of the essence.

Opinions after postings are another thing. #We're entitled to those. #But, clipping or linking posts from the various sources is an excellent idea.

One last thing. Any comments on why this was published in the Southgate ARC site (and brought here by G4TUT)? I suspect Charles wanted timely publication.

[wc5cw]

Fellow Forum Members...

>"We're supposed to be self-policing. I fully believe in self-policing as a reporting mechanism. Each one of us should constantly be operating as if someone is always listening. You would hope that if someone reports bad activity from your station or network, you would want to know and would want to try to correct it."<-- KC4RAN

While I agree that public awareness of bad behavior or operating activities harmful to the operating privileges and activities of others is, in principle, a good thing, there are a whole host of operatives--safeguards--that need to be in-place that result in verified, truthful reporting...Otherwise the reporting and public awareness mechanism will be an opportunity for a whole spectrum of errors (grounded in knee jerk and/or hair trigger actions) and abuses including mis- and disinformation #(grounded in personal and/or private motivations) not to mention possible slanderous or otherwise harmful characterizations of individuals so reported on...Such publication is as bad if not worse than verified reports of real perpetrators that have established a long-standing "public" history of bad behavior and activities known to be harmful to the operating activities of others and in violation of the rules and regulations of their governing administrations (eg. FCC or Industry Canada)...IMHO, any so-called #"published reports" get to be serious business both for the reporter(s) and the reportee(s) once outside the more informal discussions and exchanges as they exist within Internet mail-lists and forums.

>"I could ask why the ARRL has never set up anything like this but I won't."<-- AB0WR

Actually the OO Program* operating within the ARRL guidelines can be expanded, modified, #strengthened and managed to become a more effective "self-policing" watchdog, including the acceptance, the screening, the verification and the publication of harmful activities by individual offenders...But that's not how it has operated in the past nor how it operates in the present...When I was a youngster and first licensed, receiving a pink post card from an OO was serious business and had a significant impact on operating behavior and station emissions purity in those days (circa 1960)...But it takes a certain amount of human and financial resources to make it effective and "public" in a fair-minded manner on a continuing basis...An essential feature, I might add, must be the tacit acceptance and respect of the governing administrations to take action by enforcement of regulations in those "stubborn" cases that ignore the common sense, the common decency and the simple rules that govern the amateur allocations so granted.

* http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/org/oo.html

FWIW

Bruce
WC5CW

[N5PVL]

Actually, I submitted a news item here but didn't stop to think that SouthGate news items are published here, and probably do not require moderation so their stuff goes in as soon as it appears. My submission here was redundant.

I've been kicking around the idea of an ARWatch for some time, and finally came to the conclusion that it is not a one-man job. - There's no way that anybody could do a creditable job on much more than one issue or area at a time, and there's no shortage of issues. - So I set up a Watch hosting system.

I also set up PART97, The Amateur's Code, and the Baloney Detection Kit as the site's guiding resources. These are the final authority to be used when judging the site's content. Short of perfection as we must be, I think this standard is neither too high or too low.

The hosting system I came up with allows me to spawn or delete a Watch's webpage and BBS quickly and easily, as some of the Watches will tend to outlive thier usefulness with success; Bad onair behavior issues for example. New ones will pop up from time to time, and space must be set aside for that.

In a private email, one amateur objected to my mention of the misbehaving Canadian amateur... What I did was to scan QRZ.Com to see what kind of watchable issues were being discussed at the time, and the Canadian ham was in that mix.

On the other hand. - Imagine a Watch that published a record of information about this behavior, and that then others referred to that Watch in thier discussions so that some pressure eventually began to be felt by the Canadian authorities, who so far have done nothing about the problem...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ---{ #Bingo! #}

That's an imaginary scenario, but I'm sure everybody gets the basic idea. - Using the hosting system I have put together, a small group or even a single amateur has a pretty good opportunity to make a real difference. You can do something really worthwhile and maybe get some 'traction' where you did not get any before.

Part of what makes this workable is those guiding resources I mentioned earlier; Part97, The Amateurs Code, and the late Carl Sagan's 'Baloney Detection Kit'. I called them "guiding resources" because that goes over a lot better than saying "crap filter".

Any enterprise that involves a group effort by our finest amateurs will of course require a powerful "crap filter" in order to avoid having it drown in its own poisons. The mix of guiding resources I came up with may sound radical now, but this is what I believe will work best and I'm looking forward to seeing how it works out.

I've already been bitten by my own 'crap filter' a couple of times now, and didn't find the experience to be all that objectionable. - Considering the source.

The milestone I am looking forward to now is the first ham who steps forward to adopt a Watch, either one of the sample watches I made up, or a new one I didn't think of at the time.

The WinLink-Watch is there as a basic example of what can be done, a starting point for an interested, active ham who would like to man a Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/info/adoption.htm).

Also: I'm looking for a newsfeed for congressional actions that affect the communications industry and amateur radio, if anybody knows about something like that.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ Sep. 24 2007,08:28)]Fellow Forum Members...

>"We're supposed to be self-policing. I fully believe in self-policing as a reporting mechanism. Each one of us should constantly be operating as if someone is always listening. You would hope that if someone reports bad activity from your station or network, you would want to know and would want to try to correct it."<-- KC4RAN

While I agree that public awareness of bad behavior or operating activities harmful to the operating privileges and activities of others is, in principle, a good thing, there are a whole host of operatives--safeguards--that need to be in-place that result in verified, truthful reporting...Otherwise the reporting and public awareness mechanism will be an opportunity for a whole spectrum of errors (grounded in knee jerk and/or hair trigger actions) and abuses including mis- and disinformation #(grounded in personal and/or private motivations) not to mention possible slanderous or otherwise harmful characterizations of individuals so reported on...Such publication is as bad if not worse than verified reports of real perpetrators that have established a long-standing "public" history of bad behavior and activities known to be harmful to the operating activities of others and in violation of the rules and regulations of their governing administrations (eg. FCC or Industry Canada)...IMHO, any so-called #"published reports" get to be serious business both for the reporter(s) and the reportee(s) once outside the more informal discussions and exchanges as they exist within Internet mail-lists and forums.
I'll only respond to this part for this message (time). One of the easy mechanisms to cull out a suspected bad reporter is to have someone else listen to the same thing. For example, let's say that I start reporting that station ABC123 is transmitting lots of music every night on 20 meters. Someone else knows ABC123 personally and doesn't believe me. Their best course of action would be to read my reports, listen to any audio that I provided, and record their own listening sessions of ABC123. If their info doesn't match up with mine, then maybe a third person needs to get involved. Maybe a fourth. Things that become 'in dispute' will likely draw more listeners, just due to human nature.

Just like we don't rely on one umpire in baseball anymore, we shouldn't just rely on one listener - even with that one listener being the ARRL OO program.

You mention publication of reports. Anyone can post anything on the internet at any time, we all know that. The level of trust that the reporter has in the minds of those reading the report can be gained or lost over time based on the accuracy of those reports. If lots of people read the reports of a certain individual or group and they also read counter-reports by other people that say just the opposite, maybe those reports don't gain as much weight in the mind of the reader.

While I appreciate what you are trying to say about being careful in making reports, I personally believe that since amateur radio spectrum is a public intangible item, we should have more people listening and reporting. You talk about knee jerk reactions, what exactly can a group of people listening and reporting do? No one but the FCC can revoke a license. Anyone else can put up any information to counter the report on any website.

People making posts that record their observations are just that... observations. It would only be through several observations, hopefully reported by multiple people, that would establish a pattern of behavior. You see someone posting something just about every week on here, talking about "heard this on XYZ frequency" or something similar. This is just an effort to provide more focus to the listening and reporting aspect of amateur radio.

In theory, we're all supposed to be listening for interlopers in our bands and for rules violations, and we're all supposed to report them when we hear them. That's what self policing is all about. Make the report, let the FCC decide if it's enough to make a ruling on. If you have someone making reports in an attempt to abuse a station, then the evidence will show what's really going on. Gather your own evidence and report it. You would think that two people monitoring the same station should have the same recording. If they don't and you believe it's malicious, get someone else invovled and recording. At some point, you'll have enough simultaneous recordings to show who's making things up.

[W1CAR]

wow. that's what we should do. all of us...start up our own Big Brother watchdog society to police other hams...oh, yeah... and non-hams!

great! more stuff to do for us! maybe we can activate ARES nationwide and have a nationwide LidWatch.

wait... LidWatch.com... gotta get that one registered!

[n1dvj]

Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ Sep. 25 2007,07:28)]Actually the OO Program* operating within the ARRL guidelines can be expanded, modified, #strengthened and managed to become a more effective "self-policing" watchdog, including the acceptance, the screening, the verification and the publication of harmful activities by individual offenders...
Uh, I wouldn't trust the OO program. While I'm sure there are plenty of honorable individuals in the OO program, it's the few tin-cop lids in there that are the image.

I've gotten an OO warning. Turned out the OO didn't know the rules he was trying to warn me about.

Then there's the OO's that try to be more than an OO. The ones that see a real problem, but instead of doing what they should be doing, they 'step in' to try to manage it and make it multiple orders of magnitude worse.

Until the OO program gets it's own house in order, it would be a disaster to put them in anything else.

[k5jat]

Charles,

I'm glad to see you went with my other idea. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Good luck!

73, Jay K5JAT

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 25 2007,06:51)]Quote[/b] ]We're supposed to be self-policing. I fully believe in self-policing as a reporting mechanism. Each one of us should constantly be operating as if someone is always listening. You would hope that if someone reports bad activity from your station or network, you would want to know and would want to try to correct it.

You hit the nail on the head here.

I could ask why the ARRL has never set up anything like this but I won't.

Kudo's to n5pvl on a job well done.

tim ab0wr
My memory is real hazy about this but I seem to remember that the ARRL had something called "Intruder Watch". If you heard a intruder in the ham bands where they should not be, you could report it to the ARRL. I think this was aimed at short wave broadcast stations and the occasional pirate operation.

73
George
K3UD

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Sep. 24 2007,16:58)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 25 2007,06:51)]Quote[/b] ]We're supposed to be self-policing. I fully believe in self-policing as a reporting mechanism. Each one of us should constantly be operating as if someone is always listening. You would hope that if someone reports bad activity from your station or network, you would want to know and would want to try to correct it.

You hit the nail on the head here.

I could ask why the ARRL has never set up anything like this but I won't.

Kudo's to n5pvl on a job well done.

tim ab0wr
My memory is real hazy about this but I seem to remember that the ARRL had something called "Intruder Watch". If you had an intruder you could report it to the ARRL. I think this was aimed at short wave broadcast stations and the occasional pirate operation.

73
George
K3UD
Wait a minute, the Skywarn Advisor might call that one Big Brother as well. All that policing and stuff...

[KQ6XA]

Another wannabe FCC.

[KD7ZOS]

Howdy: Hey where do I get a Baloney Detection kit??If created by the late Carl Sagen, WOW, I truly want it! BTW what kind of bread do I use?!:-) Ok enough of my BS, remember this folks...every agency Govt, or Private is run by a bunch of slime lawers who creat conflict and dissent among people! Win Or Lose they get paid, while creating havoc for the rest of us. Bottom line is they are legal pimps who have sold America our for a Buck, Yen, Peso, etc. Money has become the new God of Greed Power and Treasonous behaviour, making victims of all of us worker bees. Govt begets more Govt, remember we are "Licenesed" a Govt Privledge, if we screw up, there goes yer ticket! Who ever heard of someone "selling" a band of frequencies, before recent times?:-(. Now it's big bucks for the FCC and major Corporate Bidders, including equipment manufacturers. And we will never get the pig outta that trough! Sigh, Oh for the good ole days...Organize, Pray and Fight as a United Group! Prayers for all us poor hams, in the struggle! 73's to all, Stay Safe and God Bless!...Tom

[N5PVL]

KD7ZOS asks:
Quote[/b] ]
Howdy: Hey where do I get a Baloney Detection kit??If created by the late Carl Sagen, WOW, I truly want it! #BTW what kind of bread #do I use?!:-)

No bread required, man...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ #It's like, free (http://www.arwatch.com/info/baloneydet.htm)! #}

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Sep. 26 2007,00:11)]Another wannabe FCC.
You haven't even been to the site, have you?

You truly don't have a clue.

tim ab0wr

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 25 2007,05:52)]Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Sep. 26 2007,00:11)]Another wannabe FCC.
You haven't even been to the site, have you?

You truly don't have a clue.

tim ab0wr
Tim, we must not forget that among us are a few who *want* to go beyond the intent and spirit of regulations. Especially bandwidth restrictions.

Activism (to inform the majority) is not something these folks would want.

[n5ypj]

Dang, I need a new timepiece, I was hoping this one would be something nice. Eyes poked again.

[KG4RUL]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 26 2007,00:52)]Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Sep. 26 2007,00:11)]Another wannabe FCC.
You haven't even been to the site, have you?

You truly don't have a clue.

tim ab0wr
I have been to the site. I am underwhelmed. Seem to be only two people doing all the posting. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[wd8bil]

Quote[/b] ]Just like we don't rely on one umpire in baseball anymore, we shouldn't just rely on one listener - even with that one listener being the ARRL OO program.


The OO program is impotent, at best. When was the last time you heard of an OO report effectively taking care of a problem? K1MAN must have enough OO reports to paper his whole shack. Yet, he's still on the air 10 years later.

[wc5cw]

KC4RAN, WD8BIL, (et al)...

>"Just like we don't rely on one umpire in baseball anymore, we shouldn't just rely on one listener - even with that one listener being the ARRL OO program."<-- KC4RAN

Agree...Where rules infractions or transgressions occur and short of an iron-clad admission or confession, there is no substitute for a preponderance of recorded, factual or otherwise truthful supporting evidence from independent sources.

>"The OO program is impotent, at best. When was the last time you heard of an OO report effectively taking care of a problem? K1MAN must have enough OO reports to paper his whole shack. Yet, he's still on the air 10 years later."<-- WD8BIL

While I agree that the ARRL's Official Observer service is in need of an overhaul which would strengthen its presence and its effective monitoring, it seems to me your blame for the continued K1MAN fiasco is mis-directed...The OO service has no legal power to do anything to "take care of a problem" (to use your words)...The blame should be put squarely on the shoulders of the FCC enforcement bureau...They have had, for a long, long time, enough evidence submitted from dozens if not scores of independent entities...Couple that with a litany of non-existent or otherwise inadequate, if not incriminating, explanations from Baxter in response to official FCC inquiries, it seems to me they have had the necessary and sufficient evidence to revoke his license much earlier on.

My two pf worth...

Bruce
WC5CW

[W4INF]

Quote[/b] (wv0t @ Sep. 24 2007,12:11)]Darn. I wanted a new watch....
http://www.tokyoflash.com/pics/MOR001_L1.jpg

Here ya go, but ya gotta know code...


Oh sanp, I just transitioned it into a code thread.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ Sep. 25 2007,12:06)].... it seems to me your blame for the continued K1MAN fiasco is mis-directed...The OO service has no legal power to do anything to "take care of a problem" (to use your words)...The blame should be put squarely on the shoulders of the FCC enforcement bureau...They have had, for a long, long time, enough evidence submitted from dozens if not scores of independent entities...Couple that with a litany of non-existent or otherwise inadequate, if not incriminating, explanations from Baxter in response to official FCC inquiries, it seems to me they have had the necessary and sufficient evidence to revoke his license much earlier on.

My two pf worth...

Bruce
WC5CW
FCC's Enforcement Bureau is quick to prosecute (or is that persecute) the little guy who has no means to defend himself.

However, don't look at your watch, but what's it been, 2 years, since his license expired, yet he has a continuance until and if the FCC sets a date for and conducts a hearing before an ALJ.

They are quick to do that for folks in jail for other reasons and are essentially defenseless, er, color that broke and unable to afford a lawyer to try and keep their license.

Baxter, on the other hand, has money, and has said openly that he WILL defend himself before an ALJ and if he doesn't prevail there, he'll appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

IMO, the FCC's scared s***less that ARRL has committed some of the things he's accused of. #Or, that the FCC wants to wait until the Federal Court issues a rem seizure of the $21,000 supposedly owed based on the Forfeiture Order.

Actually, the fact that they've issued an FO should be sufficient to go ahead with the ALJ and yank his license. #But, instead, Riley spends his time with more important things such as yanking licenses from Vanity offenders, fines to CB shops, 10 meter truckers, and felons who have served their time.

High time the FCC finished its business with K1MAN instead of sticking its head in the sand.

Sorry for all the diatribe, but you pinched a nerve......

73.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 25 2007,15:26)]Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ Sep. 25 2007,12:06)].... it seems to me your blame for the continued K1MAN fiasco is mis-directed...The OO service has no legal power to do anything to "take care of a problem" (to use your words)...The blame should be put squarely on the shoulders of the FCC enforcement bureau...They have had, for a long, long time, enough evidence submitted from dozens if not scores of independent entities...Couple that with a litany of non-existent or otherwise inadequate, if not incriminating, explanations from Baxter in response to official FCC inquiries, it seems to me they have had the necessary and sufficient evidence to revoke his license much earlier on.

My two pf worth...

Bruce
WC5CW
FCC's Enforcement Bureau is quick to prosecute (or is that persecute) the little guy who has no means to defend himself.

However, don't look at your watch, but what's it been, 2 years, since his license expired, yet he has a continuance until and if the FCC sets a date for and conducts a hearing before an ALJ.

They are quick to do that for folks in jail for other reasons and are essentially defenseless, er, color that broke and unable to afford a lawyer to try and keep their license.

Baxter, on the other hand, has money, and has said openly that he WILL defend himself before an ALJ and if he doesn't prevail there, he'll appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

IMO, the FCC's scared s***less that ARRL has committed some of the things he's accused of. #Or, that the FCC wants to wait until the Federal Court issues a rem seizure of the $21,000 supposedly owed based on the Forfeiture Order.

Actually, the fact that they've issued an FO should be sufficient to go ahead with the ALJ and yank his license. #But, instead, Riley spends his time with more important things such as yanking licenses from Vanity offenders, fines to CB shops, 10 meter truckers, and felons who have served their time.

High time the FCC finished its business with K1MAN instead of sticking its head in the sand.

Sorry for all the diatribe, but you pinched a nerve......

73.
On one point, I will completely agree. It seems that the FCC EB chooses to pursue some things very aggressively and not to even respond to requests for information on other matters.

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Sep. 25 2007,01:11)]Another wannabe FCC.

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

[W1CAR]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 25 2007,20:25)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ Sep. 24 2007,16:58)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 25 2007,06:51)]Quote[/b] ]We're supposed to be self-policing. I fully believe in self-policing as a reporting mechanism. Each one of us should constantly be operating as if someone is always listening. You would hope that if someone reports bad activity from your station or network, you would want to know and would want to try to correct it.

You hit the nail on the head here.

I could ask why the ARRL has never set up anything like this but I won't.

Kudo's to n5pvl on a job well done.

tim ab0wr
My memory is real hazy about this but I seem to remember that the ARRL had something called "Intruder Watch". If you had an intruder you could report it to the ARRL. I think this was aimed at short wave broadcast stations and the occasional pirate operation.

73
George
K3UD
Wait a minute, the Skywarn Advisor might call that one Big Brother as well. All that policing and stuff...
Big Brother Alert!!!! #Big Brother Alert!!! #Pencil-Pushers ACTIVATE! #

this discussion is almost pedantic enough to be on Hamsexy.

...

I'll agree with another previous poster; I am as well, underwhelmed. #Couldn't we just add a forum to the already overwhelming QRZ bb for this...and that way we won't have to go to another site and register with yet another forum/bb? #

my username/password ledger is getting full...

[K1VSK]

conceptually a good idea but not sure how well thought out it is. As examples of success thus far in other endeavors, there is a claim for success in dealing with a "Canadian ham" - how's that working out so far? Similarly, the Winlink controvery is alive and kicking - another example of success?
The credibility of such a "watch" mechansim is fundamantally dependent upon a system of checks and balances to ensure factural and supportable claims, none of which appears in the proposal which I read.
Bias (or worse) reporting is ubiquitious in our national news media - how is this claiming to avoid that which a regulated entity exhibits daily?

For those of you who believe this is a good idea, be careful what you wish for.

This needs a great deal of probing before any of us should support it

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 26 2007,20:35)]conceptually a good idea but not sure how well thought out it is. As examples of success thus far in other endeavors, there is a claim for success in dealing with a "Canadian ham" - how's that working out so far?
There was no claim of 'dealing with' a Canadian ham at all.

I will claim however that you are a particularly stupid and dishonest WinLink Troll.

Quote[/b] ]
Similarly, the Winlink controvery is alive and kicking - another example of success?

Ask WB0TAX, who has cut down on his activities on 14.098 by 75-90% since WinLink-Watch has been monitoring and publishing the interference he and his customers were causing there.

That is success, when the Packet net on 14.098 is no longer being QRM'ed by mindless Win-Lids such as yourself.

So far you are batting 1000 - Clueless and full of misinformation on all counts.

Quote[/b] ]
The credibility of such a "watch" mechansim is fundamantally dependent upon a system of checks and balances to ensure factural and supportable claims, none of which appears in the proposal which I read.
Bias (or worse) reporting is ubiquitious in our national news media - how is this claiming to avoid that which a regulated entity exhibits daily?

Well, since you are already proven a sorry Lid who can't get his facts straight and is obviously out for a Troll, who do you think is really going to give a hoot about your alleged 'reasoning' outlined above?

Another Win-Lid, perhaps? A Hinternetter?

What have YOU done lately to try to help your fellow ham get an even break? - Crash a few QSO's?

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

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 25 2007,19:47)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 26 2007,20:35)]conceptually a good idea but not sure how well thought out it is. As examples of success thus far in other endeavors, there is a claim for success in dealing with a "Canadian ham" - how's that working out so far?
There was no claim of 'dealing with' a Canadian ham at all.

I will claim however that you are a particularly stupid and dishonest WinLink Troll.

Quote[/b] ]
Similarly, the Winlink controvery is alive and kicking - another example of success?

Ask WB0TAX, who has cut down on his activities on 14.098 by 75-90% since WinLink-Watch has been monitoring and publishing the interference he and his customers were causing there.

That is success, when the Packet net on 14.098 is no longer being QRM'ed by mindless Win-Lids such as yourself.

So far you are batting 1000 - Clueless and full of misinformation on all counts.

Quote[/b] ]
The credibility of such a "watch" mechansim is fundamantally dependent upon a system of checks and balances to ensure factural and supportable claims, none of which appears in the proposal which I read.
Bias (or worse) reporting is ubiquitious in our national news media - how is this claiming to avoid that which a regulated entity exhibits daily?

Well, since you are already proven a sorry Lid who can't get his facts straight and is obviously out for a Troll, who do you think is really going to give a hoot about your alleged 'reasoning' outlined above?

Another Win-Lid, perhaps? A Hinternetter?

What have YOU done lately to try to help your fellow ham get an even break? - Crash a few QSO's, WinLinker?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Thats the normal conversation for Charles .
If you cant win an argument, resort to childish name calling http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif . We need to be careful ,you are being
" WATCHED ". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N5PVL]

That's right. Act like a jerk, and that's how I call it.

I don't normally have conversations with jerks... Just every now and then, here on the internet.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 25 2007,19:35)]The credibility of such a "watch" mechansim is fundamantally dependent upon a system of checks and balances to ensure factural and supportable claims, none of which appears in the proposal which I read.
Bias (or worse) reporting is ubiquitious in our national news media - how is this claiming to avoid that which a regulated entity exhibits daily?

For those of you who believe this is a good idea, be careful what you wish for.

This needs a great deal of probing before any of us should support it
Don't believe a "report"? You have the ability to post your own recordings of the same time same frequency. Can't post it on that website? Create your own rebuttal website.

The checks and balances are in every person's hand. All one person can do is say what they have observed. If you don't believe what they are saying, check it your yourself. If you find something different, report it. Calling something 'biased' that says it is specifically looking for 'problem xyz' is disingenuous. If you're trying to say that someone would make something up, then fire up your own receiver, start your own tapes, and start spending your own time to find out what's going on.

Why should anyone at all be worried? Aren't we all supposed to be operating as if someone is always listening, so that we don't violate the rules? What would 99.99% of the operators have to worry about? What would you personally have to worry about?

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 24 2007,08:58)]Geez guys! #Look past the source and look for the benefit. #A little spotlight on the cockroaches of AR may not be a bad thing. #I see alot of the "modern Ham" morality these days which I translate to: "When someone accuses you of something bad, just pull in someone who is worse so you can say that relatively speaking you're an angel."

Being a good Amateur is not relative to anything except the Amateur Code.

Edit: Also, the guy running this site better have thick skin because the radio roaches will be swarming.
You sure had it right about the swarming!

You'd think I had done something to disturb their little nesting grounds, or something! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Well, I certainly hope so. The only folks I see losing out from Amateur Radio Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/) are the ones who are trying to pull a fast one, or do something they know is wrong.

I look forward to seeing how things work out with ARWatch, and hope to get the website more finished in the next couple of weeks. It was published on the web a week or so ahead of schedule, so I'll just have to wrap up the last few pages when I get a chance to.

I think that ARWatch can end up being good for the hobby, and that I have set a good example by openly basing what I am doing with ARWatch upon PART97, The Amateurs Code, and the Baloney Detection Kit. It seems to me that much of our difficulty as amateurs can best be addressed through developing better familiarity with, and respect for these three guiding documents.

The modern addition is the Baloney Detection Kit... No need for additional comment about that, I guess.

[NL7W]

Congrats on your effort and dedication. The concept and action is long overdue.

Keep up the good work!

73.

[KG4RRN]

sick hams deserve no attention..........

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (KG4RUL @ Sep. 26 2007,08:46)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 26 2007,00:52)]Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Sep. 26 2007,00:11)]Another wannabe FCC.
You haven't even been to the site, have you?

You truly don't have a clue.

tim ab0wr
I have been to the site. #I am underwhelmed. #Seem to be only two people doing all the posting. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
ROFL!!

You have nothing to offer to the site but want to say you are underwhelmed by it!

Do you *really* understand how this sounds?


tim ab0wr

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 26 2007,18:47)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 26 2007,20:35)]conceptually a good idea but not sure how well thought out it is. As examples of success thus far in other endeavors, there is a claim for success in dealing with a "Canadian ham" - how's that working out so far?
There was no claim of 'dealing with' a Canadian ham at all.

I will claim however that you are a particularly stupid and dishonest WinLink Troll.

Quote[/b] ]
Similarly, the Winlink controvery is alive and kicking - another example of success?

Ask WB0TAX, who has cut down on his activities on 14.098 by 75-90% since WinLink-Watch has been monitoring and publishing the interference he and his customers were causing there.

That is success, when the Packet net on 14.098 is no longer being QRM'ed by mindless Win-Lids such as yourself.

So far you are batting 1000 - Clueless and full of misinformation on all counts.

Quote[/b] ]
The credibility of such a "watch" mechansim is fundamantally dependent upon a system of checks and balances to ensure factural and supportable claims, none of which appears in the proposal which I read.
Bias (or worse) reporting is ubiquitious in our national news media - how is this claiming to avoid that which a regulated entity exhibits daily?

Well, since you are already proven a sorry Lid who can't get his facts straight and is obviously out for a Troll, who do you think is really going to give a hoot about your alleged 'reasoning' outlined above?

Another Win-Lid, perhaps? A Hinternetter?

What have YOU done lately to try to help your fellow ham get an even break? - Crash a few QSO's?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Perfect example of what we are dealing with - this N5 clearly has no clue nor does he want to do anything except live in a world of self-delusion, insult other people to make himself feel good in some perverted way and demonstrate the difference between stupid and ignorant by doing both simultaneously.

This is the personality type which would gravitate to a watch site and is the essence of why it doesn't work.

I wish there was some way to reach this clown other than by crude comments but I've tried logic, reason and polite debate to no avail.

My best advice to the group is to ignore him.

[n4qa]

As a practical matter, all I want to know is this:

What is the fastest way of learning of the existence #of new proposals to FCC by ARRL?

Hint:
I'd prefer not to depend solely upon ARRL for this information.

For me, once I'm armed with this information, it's ECFS all the way, baby!

72,
Bill, N4QA

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 26 2007,08:26)]Perfect example of what we are dealing with - this N5 clearly has no clue
You apparently have a previous association/reputation with respect to loving WinLink. While I really don't care whether you do or not, the idea that N5PVL has put in place has lots of merit.

Unless, of course, one wants to accept at face value what ARRL tells us (most active hams don't. Just look at the membership numbers) then be content with not looking around for other information sources.

ARRL has tried to hoodwink (hoodLink?) the majority of amateurs on several occasions, and at least a couple have been to overtly screw the HF bands up with Pactor autobots willy-nilly via the Regulation by Bandwidth proposal.

To the ham who sat back and didn't look beyond ARRL's information, all seemed well. But, in reality, a small clique of WinLink/PactorIII users had manuevered the ARRL to see it their way. Perhaps you are one of them.

Thanks to N5PVL and others, the truth came out.

If AR Watch does nothing else, it will likely provide a few links to important issues happening in the federal government and elsewhere, along with side door ARRL activities.

Information is a good. Whether you choose to read or participate, that's your choice.

But, don't put down the concept. Just go away if you don't like it.

[KD7ZOS]

Hey: This really has gone to hell in a handbasket folks. We need to pull together fighting side by side, or we will be destroyed individually. Please enough name calling, it solves nothing, Yeh I slip occassionally too!:-( And Bill I too would like a fast update on pending FCC stuff that would affect Hams, outside of ARRL, as they too play some games, having their own agenda. However let us look at the state of the USA, for insight. No on is accountable for anything, we are taxed from Birth to Death and Beyond by a bunch of self serving bureaucrats who are on a power trip, and all government officials refuse to follow the US Constitution, that plainly states WE are to be in charge, as to the how and why of those who govern us. It again boils down to the damn $$$ and Power Freaks. Refer back to my earlier post, selling frequency space has become big businesss for underfunded federal agencies, because the head cheeze and company, don't give a damn about the worker bees, that made America the greatest in the world. Since they control the $$ and the Military. Courts, etc. I'm not sure how we win, but am open to suggestion. No one has any guts anymore, to do whats needed for fear of losing their damn job. I suppose its ok to loose AMERIKA instead. Lord come help soon! 73's to all, let us pray!:-), thats all the little folks have left!

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (n4qa @ Sep. 27 2007,10:52)]As a practical matter, all I want to know is this:

What is the fastest way of learning of the existence #of new proposals to FCC by ARRL?

Hint:
I'd prefer not to depend solely upon ARRL for this information.

For me, once I'm armed with this information, it's ECFS all the way, baby!

72,
Bill, N4QA
I recommend subscribing to the FCC Daily Digest (http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2007/), as a good start. The FCC has other news services, but I think this is the one that would serve your purpose the best.

If you see something, please stop by FCC-Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_fcc.htm) and post it there.

We don't have a regular moderator for the FCC-Watch who would do that kind of thing full-time, thus activating the Watch. - But even an orphan Watch can be useful if there is good information in there from time to time.

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 27 2007,09:41)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 26 2007,08:26)]Perfect example of what we are dealing with - this N5 clearly has no clue
You apparently have a previous association/reputation with respect to loving WinLink. #While I really don't care whether you do or not, the idea that N5PVL has put in place has lots of merit.

Unless, of course, one wants to accept at face value what ARRL tells us (most active hams don't. #Just look at the membership numbers) then be content with not looking around for other information sources.

ARRL has tried to hoodwink (hoodLink?) the majority of amateurs on several occasions, and at least a couple have been to overtly screw the HF bands up with Pactor autobots willy-nilly via the Regulation by Bandwidth proposal.

To the ham who sat back and didn't look beyond ARRL's information, all seemed well. #But, in reality, a small clique of WinLink/PactorIII users had manuevered the ARRL to see it their way. #Perhaps you are one of them.

Thanks to N5PVL and others, the truth came out.

If AR Watch does nothing else, it will likely provide a few links to important issues happening in the federal government and elsewhere, along with side door ARRL activities.

Information is a good. #Whether you choose to read or participate, that's your choice.

But, don't put down the concept. #Just go away if you don't like it.
Didn't intend to imply anyone should accept anything at face value. My so-called association with Winlink is explained below in the quote from my last post on that subject and this guy seems to have mistaken my participation in that discussion as threatening to his view, hence the outburst. I don't care to debate with a fool as they often bring you to that level and win based on their vast experience..
My only real point is that we need to be careful who is involved and what their motivation and emotional maturity level is before accepting a well-described concept such as overisght on it's face:



"This started out as a surreptitious attempt to determine the validity of your complaints about Winlink as we were thinking about providing this service to offshore sailor hams interested in buying HF equipment to augment their existing communications onboard. Clearly this is a small portion of the community as a whole and as one store, it would not significantly effect the marketplace availability, however, I did want to decide myself if we should offer this equipment as part of the service here in New England. Unfortunatley, simply asking the question here would result in only a few and probably biased responses.
To that end, my comments elicited some rather interesting responses, some childish ones and some incredibly defensive ones too. Some of your arguments were purely emotional, however, there were a few valid points which will be considered."

[N5PVL]

After getting caught in several lies while acting like a jerk, now he comes back with the offended dignity act.

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

[n4qa]

Thanks, PVL.

I shall subscribe to that Digest and report to you guys whenever ARRL makes a move!
And, I'll also work it into threads here on QRZ and over on eHam.

72,
Bill,. N4QA

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 27 2007,11:26)]After getting caught in several lies while acting like a jerk, now he comes back with the offended dignity act.

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

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 25 2007,19:35)]conceptually a good idea but not sure how well thought out it is. As examples of success thus far in other endeavors, there is a claim for success in dealing with a "Canadian ham" - how's that working out so far? Similarly, the Winlink controvery is alive and kicking - another example of success?
The credibility of such a "watch" mechansim is fundamantally dependent upon a system of checks and balances to ensure factural and supportable claims, none of which appears in the proposal which I read.
Bias (or worse) reporting is ubiquitious in our national news media - how is this claiming to avoid that which a regulated entity exhibits daily?

For those of you who believe this is a good idea, be careful what you wish for.

This needs a great deal of probing before any of us should support it
This is your first message, now under the guise of 'finding out about Winlink and seeing if it was something your company wants to sell.

Your post is full of sarcasm and is attacking the premise of monitoring others, and yet you expect people to not speak back as they are spoken to? Questioning someone's credibility and accusing them of bias (your words, not mine - see the post) is hardly a way to handle something like this, unless you are trying to stop it for some reason.

Now the story changes, you were just investigating to see what you wanted to investigate Winlink for business purposes. But not before you called others here a few names:

Stupid
Ignorant
Clowns
Perverts

What sort of response did you really expect then, after your first post, when you were just questioning people's bais, or even better yet now, after calling them that series of names?

Many times, you get back what you put forth to begin with. Might be time to go back and re-read how you presented yourself here to begin with. The reactions you're getting now might make more sense to you...

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (N7WEJ @ Sep. 24 2007,04:42)]Need to fix all the typos on the web site..........Looks very unprofessional...
I got SOME typos fixed, but hesitate to claim that I got all of them. Thanks for the 'heads up', in any case!

[N7PLC]

We don't need no stinkin badges!

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 26 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 27 2007,09:41)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ Sep. 26 2007,08:26)]Perfect example of what we are dealing with - this N5 clearly has no clue
You apparently have a previous association/reputation with respect to loving WinLink. #While I really don't care whether you do or not, the idea that N5PVL has put in place has lots of merit.

Unless, of course, one wants to accept at face value what ARRL tells us (most active hams don't. #Just look at the membership numbers) then be content with not looking around for other information sources.

ARRL has tried to hoodwink (hoodLink?) the majority of amateurs on several occasions, and at least a couple have been to overtly screw the HF bands up with Pactor autobots willy-nilly via the Regulation by Bandwidth proposal.

To the ham who sat back and didn't look beyond ARRL's information, all seemed well. #But, in reality, a small clique of WinLink/PactorIII users had manuevered the ARRL to see it their way. #Perhaps you are one of them.

Thanks to N5PVL and others, the truth came out.

If AR Watch does nothing else, it will likely provide a few links to important issues happening in the federal government and elsewhere, along with side door ARRL activities.

Information is a good. #Whether you choose to read or participate, that's your choice.

But, don't put down the concept. #Just go away if you don't like it.
Didn't intend to imply anyone should accept anything at face value. My so-called association with Winlink is explained below in the quote from my last post on that subject and this guy seems to have mistaken my participation in that discussion as threatening to his view, hence the outburst. I don't care to debate with a fool as they often bring you to that level and win based on their vast experience..
My only real point is that we need to be careful who is involved and what their motivation and emotional maturity level is before accepting a well-described concept such as overisght on it's face:



"This started out as a surreptitious attempt to determine the validity of your complaints about Winlink as we were thinking about providing this service to offshore sailor hams interested in buying HF equipment to augment their existing communications onboard. Clearly this is a small portion of the community as a whole and as one store, it would not significantly effect the marketplace availability, however, I did want to decide myself if we should offer this equipment as part of the service here in New England. Unfortunatley, simply asking the question here would result in only a few and probably biased responses.
To that end, my comments elicited some rather interesting responses, some childish ones and some incredibly defensive ones too. Some of your arguments were purely emotional, however, there were a few valid points which will be considered."


As a rule, I like to see things quoted or claimed to have been said elsewhere footnoted or at least identified as to where and when so I can bring the context together.

Since none of what you said is contained in this thread, you've got quite a vivid perspective of something totally off in left field somewhere. #No, check that, out of the ball park altogether.

And, you call me a fool?

73.

[K1VSK]

If you re-read what I said, you will see it was not you to whom I was referring. Regardless, I said I was reiterating something i wrote elsewhere - what other identifying source would you prefer?

I find it somewhat surprising how someone (not you) can distort chronology to transfer responsibility like he did.

Here's hoping we can get something constructive out of this crap.
73

[KD7ZOS]

Where's the Charmin TP? hi hi, I quit! BTW Thanks Bill for steping up to the plate , looking forward to your reports.!:-)

[K1BXI]

Somewhere in the beginning of this post someone mentioned "self policing" Yes, we are supposed to be self policing, not band policing. The word self means just that, our own self. The best way to handle a bad apple is to take away their stage. Ignore them.

John

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K1BXI @ Sep. 27 2007,15:20)]Somewhere in the beginning of this post someone mentioned "self policing" #Yes, we are supposed to be self policing, not band policing. The word self means just that, our own self. The best way to handle a bad apple is to take away their stage. Ignore them.

John
That might work for a small group of people whose goal it is to gain attention, but not for those whose goal is to communicate with each other while ignoring the rules and whose goal is not to gain attention.

Self policing also doesn't mean 'each individual person', because otherwise the OO program would have no meaning. "Self" refers to us as a group... amateurs.

[K1BXI]

I used to think that also, but Riley himself at Dayton this year in a talk said self did indeed mean our own self. If Riley said it, it's good enough for me.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K1BXI @ Sep. 27 2007,16:00)]I used to think that also, but Riley himself at Dayton this year in a talk said self did indeed mean our own self. If Riley said it, it's good enough for me.
Self meaning each individual? I'd love to see a quote on that one... I've seen too many from the FCC that contradict that stance.

Like I said, what would be the point of the OO program or even the the FCC taking reports at all? Everyone should report themselves, right?

[K1BXI]

The OO program is an observing program, not a policing program, though many OO's have a different idea. The OO was set up to tell an amateur if he was out of band, had a bad sounding phone or cw signal etc. All done between the OO and the ham, without the FCC getting involved. Times have changed and now it's all about sending tapes and mp3 files to the FCC under the guise of self policing.

I looked up the meaning of self policing and you are correct, but notice there is no mention of a governmental intervention.

"Self-policing, a form of Self-Regulation, is the process whereby an organization is asked, or volunteers, to monitor its own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards, rather than have an outside, independent agency such as a governmental entity monitor and enforce those standards."

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K1BXI @ Sep. 27 2007,16:54)]The OO program is an observing program, not a policing program, though many OO's have a different idea. The OO was set up to tell an amateur if he was out of band, had a bad sounding phone or cw signal etc. All done between the OO and the ham, without the FCC getting involved. Times have changed and now it's all about sending tapes and mp3 files to the FCC under the guise of self policing.
So what would you suggest doing when social pressure (which is the point of the OO notices) doesn't work? Do we stick our fingers in our ears and ignore the problem? If you don't think OOs send tapes in to the FCC, I'd say you're in for a suprise...

[K1BXI]

I'm sure the FCC gets plenty of tapes from the OO's and every one else, that's no surprise to me. So many in fact I wonder when they will throw up there hands and just let us have at each other as long as stays within our alloted frequency's.

This Amateur Radio Watch idea may do well, or is it just another OO system for those that don't like the ARRL. The FCC may need to get more servers on line with all those mp3 files about to be downloaded.

Damn........I'm getting cynical in my golden years. I need to take a brake and go watch the Red Sox.

I looked your name up KC4RAN so I could say: Good evening Richard, I enjoyed our banter on here..............John

[NY7Q]

WHAT A BUNCH OF BRAVO SIERRA. THINK I'LL GO SHOOT SOME CW DX...

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 28 2007,17:02)]Quote[/b] (K1BXI @ Sep. 27 2007,16:00)]I used to think that also, but Riley himself at Dayton this year in a talk said self did indeed mean our own self. If Riley said it, it's good enough for me.
Self meaning each individual? I'd love to see a quote on that one... I've seen too many from the FCC that contradict that stance.

Like I said, what would be the point of the OO program or even the the FCC taking reports at all? Everyone should report themselves, right?
Well, it never hurts to see what the FCC says:
Quote[/b] ]
Amateur radio complaints should be as specific as possible, citing dates, times, and frequencies on which alleged violations occurred. Complaints should also include a name and telephone number where the complainant can be reached for further details, if necessary. Complaints should be sent via e-mail to fccham@fcc.gov or by mail to the address below. Parties are encouraged to send standard cassette recordings or CDs in support of their complaints. Recordings should be mailed to: Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Amateur Radio, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. Parties desiring further information may call: (717) 338-2502.


I thought the idea where lawbreakers are supposed to turn themselves in was pretty far-fetched... An honor system for Lids. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Apparently the FCC thinks it's pretty far-fetched as well, the above quote being specifically about how to turn in complaints about rules violations on the air.

My take on all the folks who fantasize about "no rules" and an "honor system for Lids" is that the chances are that sooner or later, we'll end up hearing about them or something they've been doing at ARWatch (http://www.arwatch.com/).

[K1BXI]

I see nothing in that quote about policing, it's about sending in a complaint. The object of self policing is to never having to involve a governmental agency. In our case the FCC.

That's why self policing never works as we think of it. By policing your self all I meant was to operate on the air and behave according to the rules set up by the governmental agency we call the FCC.

John

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (K1BXI @ Sep. 28 2007,07:46)]I see nothing in that quote about policing, it's about sending in a complaint. The object of self policing is to never having to involve a governmental agency. In our case the FCC.

That's why self policing never works as we think of it. By policing your self all I meant was to operate on the air and behave according to the rules set up by the governmental agency we call the FCC.

John
And again, what do you do after self-policing fails? You send in reports.

What do you do if several people start noticing the same type of questionable behavior? Maybe you start talking to one another. Maybe you start comparing notes. Maybe you try to set up some sort of coordinated information gathering to increase the amount of data you can send the FCC.

Instead of one tape from one guy saying "Station XYZ failed to ID as required", you have 15 tapes from 5 guys talking about 3 separate stations that all have something in common and that are all failing to ID, and also breaking this rule, and that rule.

At that point, it becomes harder for the rulebreaker to claim it's accidental, and it becomes evident that the problem is by design.

As as for self-policing never working, actually it does work sometimes. But that requires that the person cares what other people think of him and that they know that lots of people know they're breaking a rule. That social pressure works in many cases. When one ham tells another one to ease back on the language on the local repeater, that's self-policing. Unless he was a control operator for the repeater, the second ham didn't have any means of control over the offending ham, but his 'suggestion' had the effect of stopping the bad behavior. He didn't have to send something in to the FCC, but only because the first ham chose to stop.

This project is sort of a combination of the two approaches. People post reports about things they've heard. If the offending ham finds out about the reports and if they care, the ham might stop themselves, due to social pressures. If it stops, great.

But unfortunately, many people don't care about the rules, or have a vastly different interpretation of the rules, or think that some rules are more flexible than they should be. In that case, the offending activity probably won't stop. That's where the second part, the recording of information, dates, times, tapes, etc comes in. The self-policing was tried and it didn't work in this case. So you gather your evidence, make it as clear as you can, and you send it in to the FCC for them to decide what to do.

The only thing any type of 'watch', like this one or the OO program, can really do is report. If someone publicly saying that they heard callsign ABC123 spewing profanities on 14.313 at 0300Z, and if ABC123 sees the report, maybe they stop. If they don't, the FCC is the only avenue we're left with.

[ab0wr]

Perhaps it's time for the FCC to think about implementing self-policing as was described in the original document laying out self-policing of amateur radio as a doctrine -- clear back in 1922.

Quote[/b] ]

May, 1922

REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE ON RADIO TELEPHONY

IV.
C. It is recommended that for the purpose of self-policing among the amateurs, amateur deputy radio inspectors be created, elected from their number of the amateurs of each locality; that upon receipt of notice of such election the radio inspector in charge of the district in which such amateurs are located shall appoint the person chosen a deputy radio inspector, serving without compensation or for the sum of $1 per year if compensation is legally required; that the duty of such amateur deputy inspector shall be to endeavor to the best of his ability to accomplish under the direction of the district radio inspector, observance of the Radio Communication Laws and the Regulations of the United States and the observance of such local cooperation of measures as are agreed to in each community for the minimization of interference between the various groups of the public interested in radio; that such amateur deputy inspectors be clothed with whatever authority may be necessary in the opinion of the district radio inspector.

Riley could certainly use the help! It would also give the term "self-policing" some teeth. Since these deputy radio inspectors would also be elected they would be subject to recall if they begin showing favorites or going against their charter.

Something to think about.

tim ab0wr

[N5PVL]

I have a post in Talk 'n Opinions about ARWatch.

It's pretty long-winded, so I won't quote it. Here's the link though:

Link (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=169796)

[K1BXI]

There, now I agree with you Richard, send in the complaints to the FCC and hope they do something. I may disagree about some of the petty things people complain about. I hope you are not someone who just listens on the bands hoping to find someone not ID'ing every 10 minutes so you can send in a complaint.

Personally, I find any group or person that wants to set up a web site where a ham can list the call of someone he or she thinks is violating the law very reminiscent of the 50's MaCarthy era. Remember him?

John

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (K1BXI @ Sep. 29 2007,12:34)]There, now I agree with you Richard, send in the complaints to the FCC and hope they do something. I may disagree about some of the petty things people complain about. I hope you are not someone who just listens on the bands hoping to find someone not ID'ing every 10 minutes so you can send in a complaint.

Personally, I find any group or person that wants to set up a web site where a ham can list the call of someone he or she thinks is violating the law very reminiscent of the 50's MaCarthy era. Remember him?

John
I seem to remember reading about that in Ann Coulter's book, " Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism ".

Back then we had a problem with socialists attempting to undermine our economy and political system, and an effort was made to counter that threat.

Senator McCarthy spearheaded that effort, and was given much the same treatment that our General Petraeus recently received in Washington by the socialists ( #liberals ) there, but in a much more vicious and determined fashion. - So much so, that the socialists back then succeeded in destroying the life of a patriot. So much so that the poor man is being slandered to this very day by mindless liberals everywhere. - Read Ann's book for the details.

I can see the relevance here... AG4YO noted the same thing earlier, when he said "the guy running this site better have thick skin because the radio roaches will be swarming. "

That's OK... I've got a stick set aside for cleaning out the waffle on the sole of my boot, OM. No need for concern on my behalf!

[K1BXI]

No Charles, it was alcoholism, not socialism that destroyed his life. He was on a witch hunt for what he perceived to be Communist and Russian spy's infiltrating our government all the way to the White House. He was brought down by his own Republican party (conservatives).

I watched his rants in 1954 as the Army-McCarthy were televised. It was not a pretty sight.

Off topic, I know. But if you think he was a patriot, so be it.

John

[N5PVL]

I do. From what I understand, his drinking problem became a problem after repeated attacks upon McCarthy and his family by folks who did not want their socialist friends - or themselves - to land in hot water.

There was apparently a popular news commentator who took it upon himself to spread the most outrageous lies about the senator and members of his family on his national radio news program. The network gave him a free ticket to use their news department as a smear mill, in much the same fashion in which the New York Times gave Moveon.org a bargain price for their smear of our commanding general in Iraq.

Yes, it is off topic, but I still tried to find a tie-in between the two stories and found one. - The bottomfeeder-style attacks on anyone or anything that resists the general downward trend, and the need to be ready for that.

Comparing Lid ham radio operators today with a clique of nervous communists back in the 50's is pushing things pretty far though, as is comparing ARWatch to a major branch of the US government.

In my experience, the callsigns of serious QRMmers tend to be well-known after a short while in any case. If you will examine the 14.098 Lid List (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_win_wb0tax.htm) from WinLink-Watch, you will discover that special pains are taken to verify the callsigns monitored, with a warning that unverified calls may be garbled due to the FEC origin of those IDs.

I don't think anybody is in danger of winding up in the hot seat while somebody gets ready to work them over with a rubber hose.

On the other hand, some amateurs who believe that they have a free ticket to flout the PART97 regulations and act like Lids may soon be discovering that the free ticket has expired. There is now an effective way to make this kind of thing slow down considerably, if not stop it altogether.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (K1BXI @ Sep. 28 2007,11:34)]Personally, I find any group or person that wants to set up a web site where a ham can list the call of someone he or she thinks is violating the law very reminiscent of the 50's MaCarthy era. Remember him?
If the primary mission of AR Watch is to post calls, names, etc., then I guess I didn't read the details sufficiently.

If that's what it is intended, well, it won't last.

What I think I saw was a forum to post events or activities from a variety of government agencies and/or ARRL that may or may not be published in normal amateur media such as the ARRL's Letter, bulletins, QST, CQ, AR Newsline or the Rain Report.

Maintaining an unbiased database of information that can spread what might otherwise be unknown or sparsely known information to the amateur community will help avoid the "wool being pulled over our eyes" by numerous entities.

So, bottom line, "do I trust my government and ARRL?" Nope. Both have agendas that may not coincide with what the majority of hams would want/like.

Both sides of the aisle in DC respond to lobbies (money) and so does ARRL. Big money interests are not always congruent with what the majority wants.

A witch hunt? I hope not. Just a way to keep the witches' brooms from sweeping amateur radio out of the way.

[N5PVL]

ARWatch is a free hosting service for amateur radio activists. ARWatch does no Watching of its own, but it does host Watches.

WinLink-Watch is hosted there, but none of the other Watches are being personally managed at this writing.

There are two kind of Watches, the Legal/Regulatory Watches like ARRL-Watch or DHS-Watch, and there are onair Watches like WinLink-Watch.

The regulatory Watches are generally going to be passive gathering points for information that doesn't make the hand-outs, etc.. There is sure to be activity associated with that information from time to time, but all or most of it will go on at QRZ, SPAR, eHam, and so on.

The onair Watches like WinLink-Watch are more active, in that the information has to be pursued more aggressively. At WinLink-Watch I have recorded audio, screenshots of waterfall displays, and callsigns of WL2K customers who keyed up right on top of a Packet network in order to poll for a WL2K server that of course was only there to answer part of the time.

HF Packet networks like the ones being interfered with, have up to a dozen stations participating on a single frequency. - Stations scattered all over the USA. Because of this, it is next to impossible to miss hearing an active Packet net because if you don't hear one station, you will hear three others. - If you listen at all before transmitting.

For more detail, it's kind of hard to beat stopping by at WinLink-Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm) and browse around to see for yourself.

Of the various things I tried with WinLink-Watch, the Lid List was the most effective. - After years of unrelenting QRM on that frequency, 75-90% of the problem dissapeared within 48 hours of my publication of that list.

Does it sound to you like the hams on that list thought that they were operating legally?

Amateur radio is not a private or secure communication service, no matter how much some may strive to commercialize it. The fact is that with amateur radio, you have no expectation of privacy. Complaining about privacy issues over the air is like walking around in the shopping mall and then complaining if somebody there takes a photograph of you.

Recently someone in these discussions noted that as amateurs, we should always operate as if we just noticed the FCC van down the street with it's antennas pointed toward you.

Does skipping out on a frequency they've been using for years #- without making a peep, just because their callsign is associated with the activity going on there sound like those folks have been operating as if the FCC van was parked down the block? - I don't think so!

I think they were told not to worry because nobody could catch them, and for years they were content because that appeared to be exactly the case.

Don't you feel sorry for those poor unfortunate Lids when their liscense to act like Lids on that frequency ( and get away with it ) suddenly expired?

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

Anyway: The onair Watches work by monitoring and recording the bad behavior. The sound recordings, text and/or images are displayed on the Watch website, where anybody can link to them in order to illustrate the problem in a discussion. Word about it gets around.

The recorded info will tend to put pressure on both the bad behavor and the authorities. The Lid knows that he's being Watched, as as you have seen with WinLink interference, in one case at least this was sufficient for the WinLids to quietly and quickly migrate elsewhere.

But if this self-policing action through peer pressure does not work, then the Watch will almost certainly have enough information gathered by that point to initiate an actionable report to the FCC.

It is more difficult for the authorities to ignore or forget a complete, well-documented report.

If the authorities are being particularly slow and foot-draggy about dealing with the problem, it may be that the Watch data can be utilized as outlined above for self-policing, but this time the idea is to put pressure on reluctant authorities.

The Watch process will be likened to every atrocity and liberal scare-story known to mankind, but the fact is - that it is both fair and effective.

Those who howl the loudest and are most offended can in many cases be found to have a vested interest in not seeing the scofflaw culture within the hobby controlled.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ #Maybe they own an expensive SCS modem, or something like that. #}

[KC4RAN]

I guess it's easiest to think of it as an Amateur Radio defense operation.

First, disseminate published info. If AR Watch had been in existence when the FCC-ARRL ex parte meeting occured, notice of that meeting would have been published there. When a report on BPL is published by an international organization, post links and snippits. When a BPL industry member published info on where it's deployed, publish that too. Any info that anyone puts out that can be helpful in defending our shared bands from interference and interlopers, publish it.

Second, when we as amateurs notice something questionable going on when we are operating, post it. See if it's a one-time thing. See if it's something localized to you. See if others are hearing it. If it's something that enough people are noticing, then perhaps something more organized needs to be put together, as has happened with the Winlink Watch.

[K1BXI]

"Of the various things I tried with WinLink-Watch, the Lid List was the most effective. - After years of unrelenting QRM on that frequency, 75-90% of the problem dissapeared within 48 hours of my publication of that list."

W6EM, there is your answer.

[KD7YVV]

>>The only thing any type of 'watch', like this one or the OO
>>program, can really do is report. If someone publicly saying
>>that they heard callsign ABC123 spewing profanities on
>>14.313 at 0300Z, and if ABC123 sees the report, maybe
>>they stop. If they don't, the FCC is the only avenue we're
>>left with.

Well, the only thing that concerns me is, if you have on-going
interference and nothing happens for YEARS, then how effective
is something like this going to be?
If it takes the FCC years to deal with something, then
they're seen as a paper tiger with no teeth.

Years ago when I was a CB'er, there was one other in
the area that ran lots of power loved to splatter and
he had a mouth dirtier than a sewer.
Didn't care that he was splattering 3 channels up and down
from the one he was on, or that his language was offensive.
Seems shorted coax blew out his amp or something because
soon after, his signal dropped way down, and finally dropped
off the air altogether. FCC didn't care so people took
matters into their own hands.

Recently we had a ham make the news here on both
KOMO 4 and King 5.
Seems he's been coming through TV's, stereos, anything
with wire and a speaker.
The neighbors contacted the FCC with no results.
Nothing was heard publically from the OO's.

It was only after the story appeared on at least two
news stations that it got attention, and the neighbors
were the ones who had to contact the tv stations!

Where was the FCC? Where were the OO's?
It was only AFTER the story made the news that an email
went out indicating that OO's were involved now.

Obviously this interference had been going on for some
time, so again, where was the FCC and why wasn't action
taken when they were contacted by neighbors?

If I were interfering with my neighbor's equipment, I'd
want to know about it. I take pride in my station and
how it is operated. That's how it should be.

Bravo Sierra? Maybe so....

--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA

[N5PVL]

KD7VYY says:
Quote[/b] ]
Well, the only thing that concerns me is, if you have on-going
interference and nothing happens for YEARS, then how effective
is something like this going to be?

I guess you did not read the previous postings first.

The exact situation you describe, an ongoing interference problem that had gone on for years and everybody including the Lids thought that nothing could be done about it, was what WinLink-Watch took care of in less than 48 hours, with no FCC involvement and a 75-90% reduction in the illegal activity on that frequency. - That was several months ago, and the WinLink interference on the frequency has not returned since.

This has been described several times here.

If you are going to express reservations, it's always best to take a few minutes to see what the other hams have said, first. It saves a lot of time for everybody, in the long run!

How effective can it be? - I guess it would be most accurate to say it can be "very effective".

This kind of result cannot be depended upon in every case of course, but you asked about how effective it can be, and this is the result I obtained with WinLink-Watch.

Once again, I suggest reading the entire topic if you are interested in making a critique. Informed criticism is always most welcome, as it does not waste everybody's time, rehashing what has already been said.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 29 2007,19:57)]I do. From what I understand, his drinking problem became a problem after repeated attacks upon McCarthy and his family by folks who did not want their socialist friends - or themselves - to land in hot water.

There was apparently a popular news commentator who took it upon himself to spread the most outrageous lies about the senator and members of his family on his national radio news program. The network gave him a free ticket to use their news department as a smear mill, in much the same fashion in which the New York Times gave Moveon.org a bargain price for their smear of our commanding general in Iraq.

Yes, it is off topic, but I still tried to find a tie-in between the two stories and found one. - The bottomfeeder-style attacks on anyone or anything that resists the general downward trend, and the need to be ready for that.

Comparing Lid ham radio operators today with a clique of nervous communists back in the 50's is pushing things pretty far though, as is comparing ARWatch to a major branch of the US government.

In my experience, the callsigns of serious QRMmers tend to be well-known after a short while in any case. If you will examine the 14.098 Lid List (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_win_wb0tax.htm) from WinLink-Watch, you will discover that special pains are taken to verify the callsigns monitored, with a warning that unverified calls may be garbled due to the FEC origin of those IDs.

I don't think anybody is in danger of winding up in the hot seat while somebody gets ready to work them over with a rubber hose.

On the other hand, some amateurs who believe that they have a free ticket to flout the PART97 regulations and act like Lids may soon be discovering that the free ticket has expired. There is now an effective way to make this kind of thing slow down considerably, if not stop it altogether.
"We'll provide the stake and the faggots, you bring your own matches."

Ol' Tailgunner Joe is the perfect role model.

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

[WA4DM]

I was just looking at the number of posts some of you have. It would be neat if much of this could be discussed on the airwaves. The internet has its place, but I choose to be an "on the air amateur." Not an internet ham. Come on guys! Get on the air!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KD7YVV]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Sep. 30 2007,17:10)]I guess you did not read the previous postings first.

The exact situation you describe, an ongoing interference problem that had gone on for years and everybody including the Lids thought that nothing could be done about it, was what WinLink-Watch took care of in less than 48 hours, with no FCC involvement and a 75-90% reduction in the illegal activity on that frequency. - That was several months ago, and the WinLink interference on the frequency has not returned since.

This has been described several times here.

If you are going to express reservations, it's always best to take a few minutes to see what the other hams have said, first. It saves a lot of time for everybody, in the long run!

How effective can it be? - I guess it would be most accurate to say it can be "very effective".

This kind of result cannot be depended upon in every case of course, but you asked about how effective it can be, and this is the result I obtained with WinLink-Watch.

Once again, I suggest reading the entire topic if you are interested in making a critique. Informed criticism is always most welcome, as it does not waste everybody's time, rehashing what has already been said.
I did read the previous posts.
What I'm saying is, the FCC doesn't have unlimited resources
to deal with a lot of what goes on on the ham bands.
Regarding the ham causing interference in Everett:
Why didn't the FCC get involved when they were contacted
by neighbors? That's my question.
It took news stories on two different networks (that I know of)
before the interference problem came to light.
You describe ongoing interference problems that have
gone on for YEARS. Years? Why so long?

--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (KD7YVV @ Oct. 01 2007,00:24)]I did read the previous posts.
What I'm saying is, the FCC doesn't have unlimited resources
to deal with a lot of what goes on on the ham bands.
Regarding the ham causing interference in Everett:
Why didn't the FCC get involved when they were contacted
by neighbors? That's my question.
It took news stories on two different networks (that I know of)
before the interference problem came to light.
You describe ongoing interference problems that have
gone on for YEARS. #Years? Why so long?

--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
Naturally, I cannot speak for the FCC. - I can spout off an opinion, slim pickings but that's the best I can offer.

The FCC is a bureau within the federal government, one of the big ones. None of these are known for lightning-fast service to individual citizens. The generally held expectation when dealing with any expression of bureaucracy is to find poor service, delivered begrudgingly by the apathetic. #

They are all in the union, can't be fired for incompetence and just want to get by until quitting time while doing as little as possible. If one of them gets a twinge of conscience and attempts to do their job properly, they earn the wrath of their co-workers and even their supervisors for rocking the boat. - It's just not done!

There are of course pockets of exception here and there, and there are heroic individuals who resist the creeping grey decay and the opinions of their federal co-workers, going out of their way to do the best they can every day. These are the ones that end up in news stories because what they do is so bizarre and out of the ordinary. Those kind of stories are useful because they help us stave off that sinking feeling we get when we think about what dealing with those bureaucracies is really like, most of the time.

I'll note here again that I am reciting opinion, not fact.

As far as complaints to the FCC go, the only pattern that I have noted is that following the FCC's guidelines (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmaCmpl.html) for making a complaint as closely as possible is helpful.

I'm dubious about the news coverage driving a sudden FCC response, thinking that it's just as likely that the FCC simply took that long to investigate and respond to the original complaints. - You never know, though.

The long-term, ongoing WinLink interference problem I noted on 14.098 went on so long primarily through a comprehensive disinformation campaign that started with Vic Poor at ARRL HQ, who used the League's influence, reputation and resources in order to give out a general impression that though the WinLinkers might or might not be doing something illegal, there was no way to catch them at it or prove it, so they in effect had a magical "free pass" from stuff like considerate, competent operation of their equipment, observing both the letter and the spirit of the law... You know, little side-issues like that.

Vic's buddies tried it out, crashed a lot of QSOs and never heard a word from anyone about it. The FCC did not respond to complaints that never appeared in numbers sufficient to awaken the sleeping giant, so the Winlink interference on 14.098 got to be a everyday part of trying to operate there.

That went on for years, until I started publishing screenshots of the interference ( waterfall displays ) on the internet, along with the monitored callsigns of the interfering stations. Within 48 hours of that, 75-90% of the interference went away. ( But only on that frequency.. It's still going on, elsewhere. )

So the answer to why the stuff went on so long is that the entire amateur radio community was systematically lied to by the very people who should have been rooting out the interference source, not rooting for it.

The reason all of those WinLinkers disappeared without a single peep, abandoning a frequency that they had utilized for years was that they knew what they were doing was wrong, all along. - They scattered like roaches when a light is abruptly turned on.

Nobody who is operating legally and knows it is going to be frightened by the fact that somebody saw them on the air and noted their callsign.

The stuff was actionable all along, but everybody had been hoodwinked because they trusted what they heard and saw from the ARRL. ( #'Embracing' WinLink, for example. # )

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif ---{ #Ah, the good old days... }

Remember when you could trust what you heard out of ARRL HQ? - I think that we are going to get there again, someday.

[ab0wr]

Good post, Charles.

What you did with the Lid List should display to everyone the effectiveness of self-policing.

tim ab0wr

[k7ov]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 25 2007,04:51)][quote]

I could ask why the ARRL has never set up anything like this but I won't.

Kudo's to n5pvl on a job well done.

tim ab0wr
Hi Tim,

Well, the ARRL has set up a weak type of monitoring. Unlike the FCC, though, who do publish enforcment actions, the ARRL "Official Monitors" do not publish their letters or observation actions! In fact, the ARRL headquarters may be the only ones who have this info.

That being said, my observation of the ARRL has me believing that there has never been an "Official Observer" letter to a WinLink station for interference. Not that it has never happened, or that it has not been observed, but because they have a vested interest in WinLink, now that it is a "Sacred Cow" of the ARRL.

Until I see some real evidence to the contrary, I will keep on believing this.

73,

Mike - K7OV

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Sep. 30 2007,09:38)][QUOTE=Quote ]

I could ask why the ARRL has never set up anything like this but I won't.

Kudo's to n5pvl on a job well done.

tim ab0wr
Hi Tim,

Well, the ARRL has set up a weak type of monitoring. Unlike the FCC, though, who do publish enforcment actions, the ARRL "Official Monitors" do not publish their letters or observation actions! In fact, the ARRL headquarters may be the only ones who have this info.

That being said, my observation of the ARRL has me believing that there has never been an "Official Observer" letter to a WinLink station for interference. Not that it has never happened, or that it has not been observed, but because they have a vested interest in WinLink, now that it is a "Sacred Cow" of the ARRL.

Until I see some real evidence to the contrary, I will keep on believing this.

73,

Mike - K7OV
I asked my division director and vice director about this, about providing the OOs with the equipment necessary to be able to monitor Pactor III transmissions. I was told it wasn't in the budget...

Quote[/b] ]
Is ARRL planning to purchase Pactor III capable devices? #To answer your question,it is not in the current budget. #Since you as an OO's work for your SM, I need some input from you as an OO thru your SM with justifications to move this forward. #This way, the Delta Division will not only be involved in the purchase of special Proctor III capable equipment. #The whole country will be in on it when it comes before the Board of Directors. #


And here's one of the things Joel Harrison had to say on the matter...

Quote[/b] ]
PACTOR III is sufficiently deployed that monitorability is not a significant issue. The current view, incidentally, of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau is that it is sufficient that signals are identifiable as Amateur transmissions.

[N5PVL]

Seems like there are several commercial services that use PACTOR III on HF. Since the WinLids are no longer identifying themselves on the air, how am I supposed to know the difference between WinLink and SailMail?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif # Silly me! - The commercial services still ID, most likely! If it doesn't ID, then it's a WinLid.

Supposed to be, anyway...

[kb5wbh]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Oct. 01 2007,17:15)]Seems like there are several commercial services that use PACTOR III on HF. Since the WinLids are no longer identifying themselves on the air, how am I supposed to know the difference between WinLink and SailMail?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif Silly me! - The commercial services still ID, most likely! If it doesn't ID, then it's a WinLid.

Supposed to be, anyway...
Somebody show me where in Airmail is the setting that lets you turn off your ID?

The quick answer is there is not a setting in there that will let you turn off your ID. When I force a disconnect it still ID's.

This continued posting about not ID'ing in not correct.
73
mike

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 30 2007,09:49)]And here's one of the things Joel Harrison had to say on the matter...

Quote[/b] ]
PACTOR III is sufficiently deployed that monitorability is not a significant issue. The current view, incidentally, of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau is that it is sufficient that signals are identifiable as Amateur transmissions.

So, once again, it appears that Riley may indeed have an SCS Pactor III modem on his boat too. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Sufficient (to not justify monitoring) that they are amateur transmissions? #Man, has the FCC essentially said, "look the other way" or what?

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ Oct. 01 2007,16:02)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Oct. 01 2007,17:15)]Seems like there are several commercial services that use PACTOR III on HF. Since the WinLids are no longer identifying themselves on the air, how am I supposed to know the difference between WinLink and SailMail?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif Silly me! - The commercial services still ID, most likely! If it doesn't ID, then it's a WinLid.

Supposed to be, anyway...
Somebody show me where in Airmail is the setting that lets you turn off your ID?

The quick answer is there is not a setting in there that will let you turn off your ID. When I force a disconnect it still ID's.

This continued posting about not ID'ing in not correct.
73
mike
More FUD.

This issue is identifying in a manner that meets legal requirements.

You *could* ID using a spread spectrum mode, I suppose. Using your logic that would be ok. A strict reading of the rules would make this questionable. But you seem to want to look away when this is brought up so that you don't have to address the issue head on. That should tell the readers something about your agenda.

tim ab0wr

[kb5wbh]

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/

Looks like its been covered to me.
73
mike

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 02 2007,07:31)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 30 2007,09:49)]And here's one of the things Joel Harrison had to say on the matter...

Quote[/b] ]
PACTOR III is sufficiently deployed that monitorability is not a significant issue. The current view, incidentally, of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau is that it is sufficient that signals are identifiable as Amateur transmissions.

So, once again, it appears that Riley may indeed have an SCS Pactor III modem on his boat too. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Sufficient (to not justify monitoring) that they are amateur transmissions? #Man, has the FCC essentially said, "look the other way" or what?
The quote is from an ARRL hack, not anybody connected with the FCC.

In other words, what we have here is an ARRL quote.

Harrison started off his office by saying that he supported everything that Haynie had been up to.

A few days prior to that statement, Haynie was proposing that the ARRL lobby the FCC in order to eliminate restrictions on encrypted communications on the ham bands - which would have also undermined the entire concept of having content restrictions as well.

Spectrum for sale!

- So it doesn't surprise me that Joel Harrison would deliberately lie to his fellow hams, if that lie might somehow support or protect WinLink's illegal activities.

There appears to be a scramble to patch up the holes in WinLink's magical pass on not having to operate like the rest of us, under the law as set out in PART97.

If that quote is accurate, then Mr. Harrison is a liar.

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau enforces PART97, as written. - That's their job.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ Oct. 02 2007,07:03)]http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/

Looks like its been covered to me.
73
mike
Yes, let's see exactly what the ARRL says at that site:

Quote[/b] ]Documentation should be adequate to (a) recognize the technique or protocol when observed on the air, (b) determine call signs of stations in communication and read the content of the transmissions.

Would you like to point out exactly where Pactor III is documented well enough to allow someone to read the content of the transmissions?

How about where Pactor III is documented well enough to allow determination of the call signs of stations in communications?

Let's look at some of the Pactor bits and pieces that are unknown:

"Prior to their transmission, certain of the symbols of the rate 1/2 encoded stream are punctured or deleted and not transmitted."

Hmmmmm, no explanation of how "certain of the symbols" is determined.

"Both PACTOR and PACTOR-II use an automatic online data compression algorithm that is optimised for text, starting with Huffman encoding. Additionally, PACTOR II uses run-length encoding and pseudo-Markov compression (PMC). "

Hmmmmm, Huffman encoding is not a sufficient description with which to build the exact table that is used. I don't believe saying that Markov compression is being used is sufficient to establsh the exact algorithm that is being used either, only the type of algorithm. Perhaps someone can comment further on this. Certainly saying that you are using run length encoding is not sufficient to tell exactly how you are doing it. Do you send a 1 if only one character exists or do you just send the character with no prefix number?

You are still deluding yourself into thinking that P III meets all the legal requirements. Certainly the ARRL is.

I guess when an answer comes back from Riley we'll find out what he thinks.

tim ab0wr

[N5PVL]

kb5wbh says:
Quote[/b] ]
Somebody show me where in Airmail is the setting that lets you turn off your ID?

Show me the callsigns we used to be able to monitor in PACTOR 1 mode but cannot, now.

Amazing coincidence, how it they disappeared right after I published a few WinLid customers' callsigns.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Oct. 01 2007,10:57)]I guess when an answer comes back from Riley we'll find out what he thinks.
Don't hold your breath. #He doesn't like to interpret regulations.

About a year ago I emailed him and asked why Pactor III was allowed on HF since it wasn't fully documented publicly.

I haven't changed my email address in more than a decade, and no reply yet.....

[w6em]

Here's my email:

Mr. Riley Hollingsworth
Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement
Federal Communications Commission
Enforcement Bureau
Spectrum Enforcement Division
1270 Fairfield Road
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325-7245

September 9, 2006

VIA EMAIL


Dear Mr. Hollingsworth:

Subject: Request for Assistance


As a result of a recent Petition for Rulemaking by the American Radio Relay League regarding regulation of the Amateur Radio Service by bandwidth, RM-11306, I became aware of section 47CFR97.309(a)(4) that appears to be violated on a frequent basis by US amateurs.

97.309(a)(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.

In my reading of this section, and accompanying section 47CFR 97.305, amateurs are only permitted to use digital codes that are published and released to the public on frequencies below 30MHz. This for good reason, perhaps, to avoid the possible use of same for nefarious purposes. I've included my para