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?

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

(N2EY) wrote in message om...
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?

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?

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

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

"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

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

"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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net...
"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.

Agreed about what?? That CW ops are "infractionless" wrt to knowingly
interfering with each other?


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.

Radio Moscow wasn't/isn't particularly concerned about what the FCC
does or doesn't do or think. There's a procedure for handling foreign
intruders via diplomatic channels. So a bunch of guys with beams at
150 feet and kilowatts to spare saved the FCC and State from that
drudgery and got the job done in 15 minutes.


Was there any enforcement action from FCC?

I'm curious about that too, was there?

The only place I saw anything about it in print was in a subsequent
weekly spots bulletin where a few attaboys got passed around. Not a
peep about it in QST.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

(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

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.