In article et, Robert Casey
writes:

I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone

Look at the W1AW weekday schedule:

Simultaneous CW bulletins on 8 different frequencies 3 times a day

Simultaneous RTTY bulletins on 7 different frequencies twice a day

Simultaneous SSB bulletins on 8 different frequencies once a day

Simultaneous CW code practice on 8 different frequencies 4 times a day (except
Monday when it's only 3 times a day)

W1AW has scheduled transmissions for 44 hours a week.

73 de Jim, N2EY



W1AW transmits CW, RTTY and SSB bulletins

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
nk.net...


If the FCC does that, then they need to head directly on over to W1AW,
and do the exact same.


Maybe I'm nieve(sp), but I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone
(that they can hear, there is a rule saying "listen before
you transmit"). Hams know to look up or down the band
if they don't find W1AW on the expected frequency.

Bob - Perhaps the ARRL has an update to their position in 1988.
ak
-------------------------------
From ARRL to the Bermuda ham representative,
copied to Baxter, the IARU Secretary, and the FCC.

May 13, 1988
----------------------

Rather than wait to have you ask, I thought I should provide some
clarification of the letter dated May 4 that you have been sent by Glenn
Baxter, K1MAN.

Mr. Baxter states, "Our amateur broadcast practice 1s Identical to that of
W1AW." I believe he is referring to the practice of transmitting bulletins
without first ensuring that the frequencies to be used are clear of other
amateur communications. As has been discussed on occasion In QST, W1AW
transmits simultaneously on eight frequencies 1n as many amateur bands. The
bulletin transmitters are crystal-controlled, a limitation we hope will be
remedied shortly. The number of frequencies being used simultaneously, and
the technical limitations of the equipment now in use, make it impossible to
adjust the transmitter frequencies before a bulletin is to be transmitted;
the need to adhere to the published bulletin schedule precludes delaying the
broadcasts until the particular frequency is clear.

However, we are not unmindful of the need to minimize the impact of bulletin
transmissions upon ongoing amateur communications, particularly in the
crowded voice subbands. To that end, except in the event of a communications
emergency, voice bulletins are transmitted only twice a day by W1AW and are
limited to just a few minutes; the exact length of the bulletins depends on
the amount of news to be conveyed. Bulletins are not sent simply to fill out
a predetermined length of time.

I believe it 1s fair to say that our understanding of Section 97.113(d)(2)
of the FCC Rules is somewhat different from Mr. Baxter's. This Section,
which explains one of the exceptions to the general prohibition of
broadcasting in the Amateur Radio Service, provides that "Information
bulletins consisting solely of subject matter relating to amateur radio" are
not considered broadcasting. W1AW operations conform to a narrow
interpretation of this provision.

Accordingly, IARN and W1AW practice are far from "identical."

Finally, I should mention that there is no recent "FCC ruling" having any
relevance whatsoever to "frequency coordination" outside of the bands
available for repeater or auxiliary operation. It follows that no one has
"authority" to perform such coordination in the name of the FCC or, for that
matter, any other entity. Cooperation in the efficient use of the limited
amateur spectrum is essential, but by definition, cooperation is not a
one-way street.

73,
David Sumner, K1ZZ
ARRL Executive Vice President

QrZdoTKoM wrote:

Splinter wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:02:14 GMT, "King Zulu"
wrote:


It sounds like QRZ isn't the only organization that's about to take
Baxter
off their list. Let's see, how many decades did it take to do the
obvious?

ak



I had a feeling that Riley would not accept K1MAN's reply, and
this does indicate that Riely's about had it. The impression I got is
that he's patient, to a point, then, if his patience runs out with
someone, then, things get very uncomfortable.
I suspect that the next series of emforcement letters won't be
asking for an explaination, but, more along the lines of a NAL telling
him to caugh up a decent amount of dough, or maybe accompanied with an
in rem seizure. But, I'm not going to second-guess the next move as
that's up to K1MAN.


If the FCC does that, then they need to head directly on over to W1AW,
and do the exact same.

Why? Does W1AW transmit their bullitens for monitary gain like K1MAN?

"Splinter" wrote in message
...
Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

(---cut)

A very good letter from RH to the AH in ME. (grin)

I get the distinct impression from reading
the letter that the Boston FCC Field Office will
be making a "dunkin doughnutz run" up to
Belgrade Lakes in the very near future.

Let's hope it's sooner rather than later and that they have
two or three U-Haul trucks in tow to collect some vintage
ham radio gear for bid a future GSA or similar auction venue.....

: )

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Splinter wrote:
Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

October 29, 2004
...
Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), we requested you to respond to the
letter within 20 days from receipt certifying: 1) what action(s) you
are taking to correct the deficiencies in the operation of your
station; and 2) specifying what method of station control you have
implemented for your Amateur radio station transmissions.

Your response dated October 14, 2004, in which you stated that "No
corrective actions are necessary at K1MAN" and "No changes are needed
with regard to station control..." failed to furnish the information
requested by the Commission.

And why shouldn't he have said that? His stations works. It's fully
functional and therefore doesn't have any operational deficiencies. :-(

Granted, I'm ignoring the content and jamming issue, but the FCC really needs
to come out and say directly what they mean - not using language which can be
sidestepped. He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating practice
does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.

In addition to the above mentioned complaints, we have received
additional complaints of interference from your station's
transmissions starting at 9:31 PM on 3.890 MHz on October 16, 2004;
6:23 PM on 3.800 MHz and 7:59 PM on 3.977 on October 19, 2004; and
7:59 PM on 3.977 MHz on October 20, 2004. We also note that, according
to your web page, your station now transmits on 14.275 MHz from 11 PM
until past 6 PM the following day.

19 hours straight! He must have alot [of nothing] to say!

In an inquiry of this type we are required to notify you that a
willfully false or misleading reply constitutes a separate violation
made punishable under United States Code Title 18, Section 1001.
Failure to reply also constitutes a separation violation of Commission
rules.

Which practically never gets prosecuted. The U.S. Attorneys, nationwide,
usually don't even bother with more than 3 cases of 18 USC 1621, Perjury - the
"stronger" crime, a year, so they certainly aren't going to bother with this
provision. The failure to enforce the law makes 18 USC 1001 a joke.

Riley has really scared him now.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:51:47 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating
practice does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.

In FCC practice, "operation of the station" by a licensee covers
more than mere operation of the equipment and does in fact include
operating practices and non-technical rule compliance.

The U.S. Attorneys, nationwide, usually don't even bother with more
than 3 cases of 18 USC 1621, Perjury - the "stronger" crime, a year,
so they certainly aren't going to bother with this provision.

Unless the agency has an IOU which it can cash in.

The failure to enforce the law makes 18 USC 1001 a joke.

It doesn't make the law a joke - it makes the U S Attornies a joke.

Don't get me started on what cases they will or will not take, and
for whom.... ggg If it wasn't for the "retirement annuity offset
provision", I could have been a Special Assistant U S Attorney
handling monetary and asset forfeiture cases for the FCC after I
regained my failing eyesight (one of the reasons for my retirement)
several years ago.

Riley has really scared him now.

Look at it from the aspect of an attorney-advocate.... if the
defendant-client is put on actual notice but does the proscribed
action, and for some unique reason the prosecution decides to make
an example out of him or her (cash in the agency's IOU) what defense
can the defendant raise? The defense of latches does not apply in
criminal matters - the fact that the above may or may not happen
or that others do it with no punishment can't be used to justify the
violation.

Add to that "lack of candor" is one of the main reasons why a
license is suspended, revoked, denied, or not renewed. As long as
that is available, the U S Attorney has a hook to wiggle out of
doing his or her job.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating
practice does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.


In FCC practice, "operation of the station" by a licensee covers
more than mere operation of the equipment and does in fact include
operating practices and non-technical rule compliance.


I wonder when the last time a ham got busted for operating
a broken transmitter (broken in the sense that it made too
much harmonics, splatter, and such). Our Yauicowood boxes
rarely drift out of spec like this.

Robert Casey wrote:


He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating
practice does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.


In FCC practice, "operation of the station" by a licensee covers
more than mere operation of the equipment and does in fact include
operating practices and non-technical rule compliance.


I wonder when the last time a ham got busted for operating
a broken transmitter (broken in the sense that it made too
much harmonics, splatter, and such). Our Yauicowood boxes
rarely drift out of spec like this.

Jacking the mike gain, misadjusting a speech processor or overdriving a
linear amplifier can cause splatter. A defective relay or switching
diode on a highpass/lowpass filter board can permit illegal levels of
harmonics. Those things are faily common failures in modern rigs.

Dave K8MN