"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of
the FCC enforcement actions for "jerk-like" on-air
behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using
PHONE modes, not CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have
taken written tests detailing what we should and should
not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much
more prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders
or keyboarders. Why?


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.

Actually, the differences in violations between the various modes isn't
that hard to understand. The phone modes dominate ham radio usage, therefore
it should be obvious more violations will occur in those modes. In addition,
phone users exchange information at a greater rate when compared to CW users
and conversations occur more often when compared to data users. Both of
these lead to greater opportunities for violations to occur. If all these
differences were factored in, I suspect the differences in violations would
be far less.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

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

"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 F-U-C-K sent in Morse
on a repeater.

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

"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?

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) But note this plain, simple fact: Almost all of
the FCC enforcement actions for "jerk-like" on-air
behavior (obscenity, jamming, failure to ID, exceeeding
license privileges, etc., etc.) are against hams using
PHONE modes, not CW/Morse or data modes. ALL of us have
taken written tests detailing what we should and should
not do on the air, but it seems like violations are much
more prevalent among the talkers than the brasspounders
or keyboarders. Why?


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.

HAW!

Actually, the differences in violations between the various modes isn't
that hard to understand. The phone modes dominate ham radio usage, therefore
it should be obvious more violations will occur in those modes.

True to a point - but HF/MF usage isn't that much slanted towards 'phone. The
ratio of cited violations is far greater than the ratio of users.

And since enforcement is complaint-driven, FCC monitoring activity isn't a
factor.

In addition,
phone users exchange information at a greater rate when compared to CW users

Some do. But in general, decent CW ops exchange info at a rate that is close to
that of people talking. Although the raw WPM is less, CW uses abbreviations and
prosigns, while 'phone tends to be full of pauses, redundancies and phonetics.

and conversations occur more often when compared to data users. Both of
these lead to greater opportunities for violations to occur. If all these
differences were factored in, I suspect the differences in violations would
be far less.

I don't think so. The worst I've ever heard on the CW bands was one ham calling
another a lid for tuning up and calling a DX station on the DX's freq after the
DX had clearly stated he was working split. The worst I've heard on the 'phone
bands I am too embarrassed to even describe.

It should be noted that the vast majority of hams behave very appropriately on
the
bands, regardless of mode or license class. But it only takes a few bad apples
to make all of us look bad.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

But it only takes a few bad apples to make all
of us look bad.


And the FCC should go after those bad apples, whatever their license
class. Ham operators should also informally ostracize the bad apples by not
talking to them or inviting them to participate in other activities. Like
the troublemakers in these newsgroups, these people are seeking an audience.
Deprive them of that and they often change their ways fairly quickly.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

But it only takes a few bad apples to make all
of us look bad.

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

I agree 100%. But FCC's are very limited, thanks to the mandate to "get the
government off your back" from 20+ years ago. And the general unpopularity of
things like taxes.

Ham operators should also informally ostracize the bad apples by not
talking to them or inviting them to participate in other activities.

I agree 100%. And many of us do.

But there are those who don't accept our "old fashioned values" and traditions.
Like not cussing or jamming on the air. Did ostracizing clean up 3950, 14313 or
W6NUT?

Like
the troublemakers in these newsgroups, these people are seeking an audience.
Deprive them of that and they often change their ways fairly quickly.

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.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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