ARRL Ruins the AM, CW and DIGITAL bands.

peter A markavage pmarkavage at JUNO.COM
Wed Oct 27 20:59:40 EDT 2004

Great response and should help (cough) clear the air of misconceptions on
how this stuff really operates. Of course, for some, it doesn't make any
difference; the ARRL never does anything right and there's always a
conspiracy going on.

Pete, wa2cwa

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:11:57 -0400 "J. Forster" <jfor at QUIK.COM> writes:
> I forwarded the postings on this issue to an active ham, and got the
> following reply:
> This thread is a particularly idiotic flame war.
> These guys are blowing hot air; they are
> ignorant; they have no sense; they have gotten
> carried away.
> The FCC rules/reg's for hams (1) prohibit
> interfering with a QSO in progress and,
> relatedly, (2) say that no one has any more right
> to use a given frequency than anyone else.  In
> other words, the rule is "Listen first and don't
> transmit unless the frequency is clear."
> No one has proposed changing these rules; and the
> FCC enforces these rules when someone presents
> them with a good case against an interferer.  I
> read about such enforcement actions practically
> every month.
> For every case that reaches the FCC, hundreds or
> thousands are dealt with by the community.  No
> person/station can interfere with others very
> often or very long without others returning the
> favor, so to speak.  Such community
> self-policing, or frontier or vigilante or mob
> justice, or whatever you call it is very swift
> and effective.  An offensive "robot" such as
> these naïve blowhards imagine would be
> immediately and totally overwhelmed.
> A "robot" that transmitted on some frequency
> without first listening and, if necessary,
> waiting for the frequency to be clear would (1)
> be operating illegally and would be shut down by
> the FCC if anyone bothered to complain giving
> date, time, frequency, supporting statements by
> witnesses, and preferably also a recording; and
> (2) would probably be shut down by its
> owner/operator anyway, because it wouldn't work
> as its owner/operator intended, because it would
> be interfered with.
> The modems made and sold by the German company
> that these guys are flaming about _do_ listen
> first and do _not_ transmit if the channel is not
> clear (unless the reason why the channel is not
> clear is that someone is _calling_ the station
> with the modem in question, in which case the
> modem can respond, but only if the calling signal
> is not being interfered with).  I know this
> independently; and I also know that if it were
> not true, this German company would be having
> trouble selling these modems, both (1) because
> their buyers would be unhappy because the modems
> would not work as intended; and (2) because hams
> in Germany, elsewhere in the EC, in the USA, in
> Japan, and everywhere that mattered would be
> petitioning their respective government agencies
> that regulate radio to outlaw the modems.  I have
> not heard of any such thing happening; and, if it
> had, I believe that I would have heard, because I
> have been involved in ham digital-radio comm. for
> about a year now.  I have heard only good things
> about this company's modems.
> -C.
> Please don't flame me. He works CW and digital, BTW.
> -John

This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona

Subscription control -
Archives -

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list