ad: KF7PMW-1

What do you want in an Amateur Organization?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by AE6JM, Nov 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
  1. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Well Tim, since you did not ridicule or insult, I'll respond.

    Something you seem to have misunderstood from the beginning, or incorrectly reasoned your way towards: Neither myself nor any post that I have read have sugested that any form of attempting to avoid violations mitigates violations.

    I've expressed that I don't believe that filters can be 100%. I've also expressed that I don't believe that people may be 100%. Yes, I acknowledge your example of your filtering and your monitoring never causing or seeing a violation. By the same token an automatic filter, though not flawless, may not ever pass messages that violate the regulations. It all depends on what's thrown at it.

    I won't continue in the debate of what you call "business" emails because we disagree and that's that. I've exressed enough about emails source lists, spam filtering, etc, to greatly reduce or eliminate the volume of those type of emails if that is what the recipient control op desires.

    I've expressed that I think some emails may get by that shouldn't, just as cursing sometimes gets on the air by phone. I never suggested nor do I now that the inevitable is mitigating.

    I'll accept introducing the word integrity in here if used as the control op not dodging his responsibility to be held accountable for violations. I don't believe that pleas about "attempting not to violate" mitigate anything, not any more than an op caught transmitting spurious signals pleading that he tried to transmit a clean signal mitigates the fact that he didn't.

    Here's where we disagree. You may have one ham who has test equipment that allows him to be 100% positive that his signal is clean. Then you may have another who has no test equipment (probably a great many hams). Can the latter ever be 100% certain that his signal is always clean before getting on the air, maybe even while on the air? The latter does his best (which can't be much) to ensure a clean signal, but if he doesn't, he can't plead that he didn't have the right test gear.

    The point is that the op with no test gear may transmit spurious signals, but until, if, he does, he is not violating the regs and is certainly not a scofflaw. May he be crossing his fingers and hoping that his signal is always clean? Sure! However that is not a problem as long as his signal is always clean!

    This op is not trying to get away with anything, and no one would suggest that he must never get on the air because he can't be 100% certain that his signal is clean at all times. Most ops can't be certain because they go by what their rig is telling them, but that is not a proof about what is radiating, especially if the rig is malfunctioning.

    If something should happen to go awry with his rig and he starts transmitting spurious signals, he might not know until someone tells him. If it's another op, then he just gets off the air and addresses the problem. If it's a neighbor suddenly complaining about RFI, he does the same thing, perhaps first getting some on air checks. If it happens to be the FCC, then he is in violation and he is accountable. It may also be that this never happens!

    Is all of this a "me" view of things? If so, then it's always been that way because what I stated above has always been true in ham radio.

    I never in anyway quantified any number of violations as acceptable. I said some violations are inevitable, just as with hams transmitting spurious signals. It happens. This is not accepting, nor is it in anyway mitigating violations, but is just accepting reality. 

    Just as a great many hams cannot be 100% certain that their signals are clean, no one could claim that any automatic filtering could be 100% effective. Neither of those being 100% is a reason to be kept off the air.

    Your belief that using filters that are known up front not to be 100% is an indication of a lack of integrity, that they're going on the air with something that they know is going to fail.

    No, they don't know it will fail, they know it's possible that it will fail because it is not 100%, just as a great many ops get on the air without being 100% certain that their signals are clean. Acknowledging that it will likely happen to some ops does not mean that it will happen to all.

    Some ops with no way of being 100% certain that their signals are clean may operate for 50 years without ever having transmitted a spurious signal. Others may be in violation by transmitting a spurious signal the day they get on the air.

    Would you deny the air to all ops who can't be 100% certain of clean signals, knowing that it's inevitable that some are going to transmit spurious signals at sometime and be in violation?

    Now consider that op who has everything that is needed to be 100% certain that his signal is clean. One day he misses a reading, some measurement is incorrect and for whatever reason he fails to notice. He gets on the air and gets a report that tells him he is transmitting spurious signals. Maybe and in all probability another op tells him, but it's always possible that it's the FCC who tells him. He's still in violation, still accountable, even though he has everything needed to be 100%. He is human and he can make mistakes.

    Integrity for ARS is ops accepting responsibility for their transmissions. Lack of intergrity would be trying to squirm out from under that accountability, and I never once suggested otherwise.

    Mike

    PS: Merry Christmas!
     
  2. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Mike, you are trying to equate not having sufficient test equipment with not being willing to put forth the effort needed to manually review all emails.

    They are two entirely different situations.

    In the first situation, testing, you do all that you are capable of.

    In the second situation, review of emails, you are not doing all you are capable of if you depend on automatic filters that you *know* will fail.

    You claim that manual filtering cannot be 100% but then turn around and admit that you have exactly ZERO evidence for such a claim. How do you expect anyone to believe your claim if you have no evidence for it? You are indulging in the argumentative fallacy called the Relativist Fallacy -- where the contrary argument is simply taken not to be true for the particular person involved.

    I have handled traffic for over 40 years. For four of the past five years I have handled 200-500 NTS messages per month. I have *never* seen an inappropriate NTS message, *not once*. I have *never*, *not once*, seen the FCC issue any kind of warning or fine to a ham over inappropriate content of NTS messages, not in over 40 years.

    That's pretty good evidence that manual review of messages *can* be 100% effective in keeping inappropriate messages from getting put on-the-air.

    No, I wouldn't keep someone that doesn't have a spectrum analyzer off the air. I *would* keep someone that *never* checks *anything* associated with their transmitter off the air. And, yes, I would keep all messages that are not manually vetted off the air.

    tim ab0wr
     
  3. AE6JM

    AE6JM Ham Member QRZ Page

    The Board had alot to say in the last SW Division election.  They disqualified a candidate and elected the SW Division Director 3-0, completely disenfranchising the 13,000 SW division members from voting.  The Board completely controls the by-laws, has a staggered election timetable, making it practically impossible for the general membership to effect any significant change.
     
  4. KC9JIQ

    KC9JIQ QRZ Member QRZ Page

    Wow.
     
  5. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Doing your best... the ARS way.
    Doing enough to "get by and hopefully not get caught"... the NGN way.

    You *could* review each email, but by choosing not to, you are not doing your best. That is a system design flaw, not an 'accident' or anything short of intentional. You intentionally didn't manually monitor each message.
     
  6. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You guys are unreal, almost surreal.

    There is NOTHING that says that you even have to check the messages. The rules state what would be a violation, and the control operator is responsible for any violations.

    Do you have a spectrum scope? Whether you do or not, do you think that most ops do?

    So those who don't are not doing their best, but are doing enough "to get by and hopefully not get caught"...?

    Those ops who don't have a spectrum scope *could* get one, but in choosing not to they're not doing their best? The station is flawed because they don't have one, and in not having one they are intentionally not monitoring each transmission?

    There is no difference between avoiding spurious signal transmissions and avoiding the transmission of illegal third party data. Both involve spending the resources (time and/or money) to monitor and avoid violations. The FCC does not say how to avoid, only what is a violation.

    You refuse to acknowledge that the possibility of failure is not failure. You refuse to acknowledge that the inevitability of failure for some unknown number of ops without spectrum scopes or manual monitoring of emails is not the inevitability of failure for all ops without spectrum scopes or manual monitoring of emails.

    You refuse to acknowledge that regardless of how much or little effort is put in to avoid violations, that the control operator is responsible.

    I've responded to every challenge you've presented, and when you can't refute my response, you move on to another. Now with this last post you admit that you have nothing else by moving on to insults.

    It couldn't be any simpler, but you refuse to admit it because it would invalidate your entire position.

    Mike
     
  7. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Who   elected   the   board   members ??
     
  8. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The op without a scope is doing all that he is capable of? Yes, all that he is capable of without a scope. We've already agreed that there is no mitigation by saying that you did your best. The op *could* get a spectrum analyzer, new or used, or being a ham, he could build one (far from a minor project, I know)....so he's *not* doing all that is possible, is he? Do you want to say that there are excuses for not obtaining a scope to be 100% certain of his signal? Maybe can't afford it? Maybe a ham can't afford the time for manual review of emails?  One is an acceptable excuse for not being 100% sure of his signal, but the other is not for not being 100% sure of signal content?

    You're drawing lines that are convenient for your position, but they're no more than that.

    Yes, I may know that in the universe of all that can be thrown at that automatic filter that it will fail. What I don't know is that what can cause it to fail will be thrown at it.

    In both cases the op could do more, but makes an effort up to a point. You draw the line at less than 100% for the operator who doesn't have a spectrum scope, yet insist that an op using a filter that is not 100% is wrong. Both involve the op spending resources (time and/or money). You excuse a less than 100% effort for the ham with no scope (he could obtain a scope), but don't for the ham with a less than 100% filter. The less than 100% effort in both cases may (not will) result in violations.

    I already acknowledged your experience. Your experience does not define reality for the entire world. As you said, it shows that manual review *can* be 100% effect, not that it will always be 100% effective.

    Yes, I already admitted that I can't prove that manual review has ever failed. You can't prove that it never has.

    Do you think that everyone who has ever transmitted a spurious signal was detected by the FCC and received notice about it, creating a public record of the incident? Do you think that everyone who has ever transmitted a spurious signal was detected by someone? There are far, far more hams transmitting signals than there has ever been hams manually reviewing message traffic, especially email traffic. You seem to imply that if there had ever been a failure, you would somehow know about it. How would you know if some ham relayed some message that he shouldn't have, wasn't caught by anyone, or was just caught by another op, when, let's say, you weren't on the air? Sorry Tim, but I'm quite certain without having to prove it that you have not been involved in all message traffic, not even a measurable percentage of the total.

    I don't have to offer proof that people make mistakes. Life teaches this to most of us.

    Well, as I said Tim, this is where we disagree.

    You're drawing a line at less than 100% effort in terms of resources (time and/or money) when it comes to ops and spurious signals, but insist on a 100% effort for messages. (Yes, I know, you're saying the op without the test gear is still doing his best. He could obtain the test gear Tim, and in not doing so he is not putting 100% into assuring that his signal is clean.)

    I see no difference between the two because a less than 100% implementation means that it's inevitable that there will be a violation. You accept that inevitability when it comes to signals, but not the content of signals.

    Not much point is discussing it any further because we are not going to change each other's mind about this. Please don't jump to a ridiculing or characterizing response because we disagree: it serves no purpose. I have my rationale for my opinion whether you agree with it or not. If I'm the only ham in the entire world holding my opinion, then so be it. I'm quite capable of, and hope I'll always be capable of, independent thought. I suspect that I'm not the only one holding this opinion, and despite what you may believe, participants in QRZ do not represent all hams at large.

    Mike
     
  9. AE6JM

    AE6JM Ham Member QRZ Page

    To repeat a post on another thread, I propose the following short change to the bylaws that would restore credibility to the ARRL, "Effective November 2009, the entire Board of Directors will be voted on, with subsequent elections for the entire Board to be held every three years thereafter."  This would immediately put the power back in the hands of the membership to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the policies and direction of the ARRL. If the present Board is confident that they represent the best interests of the general membership, then they should embrace this change.  I'll also be watching the skies for flying pigs.
     
  10. N0NB

    N0NB Subscriber QRZ Page

    A much better bylaws or constitutional amendment may be to establish an annual membership meeting, much like an annual shareholders meeting in the corporate world. While there is an annual convention, it lacks the type of general business meetings other organizations hold at their annual conventions (I've only been to two national conventions and don't recall general business meetings at either).

    Trying to institute such an annual business meeting may be more likely to garner broad membership support than re-arranging Director elections.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page