Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
m:

Alun Palmer wrote in message
.. .
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
y.com:

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 07:41:03 -0400, Dwight Stewart wrote:

Very simple answer, Jim. The FCC has limited personnel today.
The few they
have simply don't have the time to sit around listening, as code
users pound out their incredibly slow conversations, to catch
violations.

For reasons that I disagreed with then and I disagree with now,
(but that's another story) the FCC' s enforcement response is
driven by complaints, not by "Patrolling the Ether" (tm) as in
days of yore.

How many complaints of amateur CW violations do you think
"Riley" gets? (Somebody pounding out "FU" in Morse on a
Touch-Tone (tm) pad on a repeater input does not count as
CW....)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard

(expletive deleted)

sent in
Morse on a repeater.

That's awful. I haven't heard anything that bad on the CW/data
subbands, though. Have you?

I really do only use phone, so I wouldn't know what was being sent down
there.

I can assure you that such things don't happen nearly so often (if at
all) on the CW subbands.

Anyone who doubts this is invited to listen for themselves.

Anything from an unidentified transmission to interference to
jamming for starters depending on the exact events. It probably
violates a number of FCC rules.

Let's see: Obscenity, failure to ID, jamming, unauthorized use of a
repeater. For starters.

The point is that Phil is trying to say that jamming in MCW doesn't
count as jamming in CW, which is like trying to say that there's a
vital difference between using FM or SSB to jam.

No, that's not the point at all.

The point is that hams actually using CW/Morse for communications
don't gather anywhere near as many enforcement actions as hams using
'phone modes for communications. The difference is far more than can
be accounted for by the greater popularity of 'phone modes.

Is there a CW equivalent of the W6NUT repeater, 14,313 or 3950?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Probably not.

That's my entire point.

I have, however, heard endless repeated CQ calls sent in CW
by US hams on top of DX phone ops who were innocently using their phone
subbands, that happen to be regarded as CW frequencies in part 97.

Frequency? Date, Time?

I am
90% sure that it is deliberate jamming, and it is a long term ongoing
situation.

How do you know it is deliberate? Perhaps the CQers could not hear the
DX 'phones. Perhaps the DX phones were on top of US CW ops innocently
sending CQ on frequencies that, by bandplan, are CW/digital.

The FCC has definite criteria for deliberate interference. One
criterion is if a station allegedly being interfered with changes
frequency, and the alleged interferer changes frequency too.

Presumably the perpetrators are too ignorant to understand that
FCC rules end at the border?

Who are "the perpetrators" in that case?

You are presuming guilt without adequate proof. Do you have any
evidence that the alleged violators could hear the alleged victims? Or
evidence that the alleged victims were using the frequency first,
rather than the other way around?

Most CW ops use narrow filters - 500, 400, 250 Hz are common choices.*
Useless for 'phone, of course. The CQers may not have realized how
close they were to the DX 'phones. How much room should a CW station
give a weak 'phone station?

Of course the DX 'phones could have switched to CW and answered the
CQers, then politely asked them to move.

73 de Jim, N2EY

*My Southgate Type 7 has two cascaded 8 pole 500 Hz crystal filters,
giving an effective bandwidth of less than 400 Hz and very steep
filter skirts. And it has an audio LC filter as well.