On 6 Aug 2003 15:13:10 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

We're not quite above such things. You oughta been there the nite in
the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer
Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved
up the band and didn't come back.

Remember my story about "Radio Moscow does not operate on 16.xxx
MHz" ?? ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 06 Aug 2003 22:21:48 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Sometimes. OTOH they sometimes cluster together and reinforce each
other when that is done. We had an example of that a few years ago on
a local repeater. Solution was to shut down the repeater when the bad
apples showed up, which deprived everyone of its use.

We ran into this in the 70s and 80s in San Francisco. The problem
there was that the goal of the "bad apples" was to shut the repeater
down.

After we hauled one of the ringleaders into Federal court on the
complaint of the N. Cal. DX Club (it was pure coincidence that the
judge was a classmate of the chief complainant) the problem abated
somewhat and the yoyos gathered on one particular machine which
gets shut down from time to time. And this was nothing compared to
the NUT machine.

Total dependence on enforcement and peer group rejection is not adequate if
basic "social" values are not inculcated into people's thinking.

For sure.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license
class.

Dream on, cant wait till the CBplussers start filling up HF, and you all start
crying to the FCC. I will be setting here laughing my ASS off

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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?

We're not quite above such things.

Yes, we are.

You oughta been there the nite in
the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer
Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved
up the band and didn't come back.

That was hams uniting to repel an illegal intruder. 7.000 to 7.100 has been
worldwide exclusive amateur since at least 1929.

Was there any enforcement action from FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

Total dependence on enforcement and peer group rejection is not adequate if
basic "social" values are not inculcated into people's thinking.

For sure.

I thought the brainwashing has been quite well done by you-know-who
membership organization? :-)

LHA

(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.

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. 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. I am
90% sure that it is deliberate jamming, and it is a long term ongoing
situation. Presumably the perpetrators are too ignorant to understand that
FCC rules end at the border?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On 5 Aug 2003 08:22:13 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

So what do we call it then? I have certainly heard F-U-C-K sent in Morse
on a repeater.

It is intentional and usually unidentified interference to voice
communications (except if the repeater is running Packet or SSTV as
several of our club and/or ARES/RACES repeaters do). It is NOT
interference with CW/Morse communication or by a station in a
legitimate QSO using CW/Morse.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

Oregon Tualatin Valley Amateur Radio Club




So using Morse to deliberately interfere with phone is OK, then?

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.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On 6 Aug 2003 15:13:10 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

We're not quite above such things. You oughta been there the nite in
the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer
Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved
up the band and didn't come back.

Remember my story about "Radio Moscow does not operate on 16.xxx
MHz" ?? ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Hey Phil, isn't that a violation of FCC (...and international?) rules/regs?
(...and it gets a giggle?) Certainly NOT as "plain and simple" as I was led
to believe wrt following the rules. Lol. ;-)

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

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?

We're not quite above such things.

Yes, we are.

Agreed.

You oughta been there the nite in
the early '70s when the Big Guns got together and decided to hammer
Radio Moscow off a freq around 7.030. You bet it worked, Moscow moved
up the band and didn't come back.

That was hams uniting to repel an illegal intruder. 7.000 to 7.100 has
been
worldwide exclusive amateur since at least 1929.

Was that action legal, Jim? I certainly believe that it was the correct
action, given the circumstances. I'd always believed that deliberate
interference was illegal no matter what and that that intruders were to be
handled by the FCC.

Was there any enforcement action from FCC?

I'm curious about that too, was there?

73 de Jim, N2EY

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI