"Most Effective Use" of Frequencies

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Latest ARRL "It Seems To Us"
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2007/05/01/1/?nc=1

Useful information that most of us can related to; here's one snip from the text:

"A common misconception is that the FCC rules require amateurs to avoid transmitting if doing so would cause any interference to ongoing communication. Minimizing interference by, for example, asking if a frequency is in use before calling CQ, is a courtesy we owe to one another and is certainly part of the "good amateur practice" required by Section 97.101(a). However, among the dozens of references to interference avoidance and mitigation contained in Part 97, the only specific references to avoiding interference to other amateurs that apply generally to amateur stations are the prohibitions against willful and malicious interference in 97.101(d) and against splatter and keyclick interference in 97.307(b). Otherwise, as far as the FCC is concerned we're all equal, whether we have been meeting on the same frequency at the same time for the past 50 years or we were just licensed five minutes ago."

[WA1GFZ]

So if you use a receiver built 65 years ago there will be 1 qso allowed in 100 KHz.

[W2VW]

The time honored tradition of punching someone in the nose should be utilized more often.

[WA1GFZ]

Ah Dave to be under 18 again when you could smack someone and not lose your house.   

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

What receiver would that be?

[WA3VJB]

against willful and malicious interference in 97.101(d)

So if you have learned that the frequency is in use and you proceed anyway, isn't that willful ?

It additionally becomes malicious if someone tells you to STFU and you proceed further.

No misperceptions here.

I went back to read Sumner's setup to the section Pete has provided. The article is essentially a repetition of what we all know -- that no one owns a frequency. He echoes what FCC enforcement counsel Riley Hollingsworth (who has joined us on AM) has said a number of times in hamfest presentations, that we need to make way for others if they happen to be where we habitually wish to chat.

Sumner's version:

we cannot claim the exclusive right to use a frequency. Most of the unpleasantness that erupts from time to time on the most popular HF bands can be avoided if we're willing to be flexible in our frequency selection.

Okay, so I hope this went out to the OO's so's we can flash them a complaint when we suffer willful and malicious interference as we seek to work coast-to-coast AM on 3870Kc.

It's also on us to move elsewhere if an "AM Window" is in use by people we don't wish to talk to, on any mode.

[k4kyv]

And remember, in ham radio no-one is guaranteed a clear channel.  When the band is congested there may not be a totally vacant space anywhere, although I am finding this less and less the case, as ham radio activity in general seems to have been dwindling the past few years.

There may be weak signals from distant QSO's, and monkey-chatter from adjacent channel operation.  It is up to us to use our best judgement whether or not we think transmitting on a frequency under those conditions will cause harmful interference to another QSO in progress.

Note that I said harmful interference, something to be avoided whenever possible while operating.  Non-harmful interference may be annoying without disrupting a QSO, such as a weak carrier on a west coast QSO from an AM contact in the northeast, or a little detectable sideband overlap in a crowded band, but this isn't the same thing.  Remember, we operate ham radio with the expectation of interference from other stations.

Harmful interference, which could also be classified as deliberate, occurs when one station wilfully fires up right on top of an ongoing QSO where the signals are strong and the likelihood of disrupting the contact between the other stations is great.

[Jim, W5JO]

Wonder if anyone read the entire editorial?  It read like a yuppieville concotion while having martinis watching the waves come on shore.  This guy is a fruit and need to operate more to see what is really happening.  He reminds me of a weather man who never looks outside to see what is happening.

Remember the old radio blooper from a station in Alaska:  "Just a moment while I take a leak out the window to see if it is freezing".

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Wonder if anyone read the entire editorial?  It read like a yuppieville concotion while having martinis watching the waves come on shore.  This guy is a fruit and need to operate more to see what is really happening.  He reminds me of a weather man who never looks outside to see what is happening.

Remember the old radio blooper from a station in Alaska:  "Just a moment while I take a leak out the window to see if it is freezing".

I do remember a quote from somewhere that went something like "we can't move off our AM net gathering frequency, we have Generals" .... or something like that.

Maybe more AM'ers and SSB operators need to stop and have a martini and watch the waves come on shore. Ah....feel the breeze. Much better than a P&M.

As Paul quoted Sumner's version:
"we cannot claim the exclusive right to use a frequency. Most of the unpleasantness that erupts from time to time on the most popular HF bands can be avoided if we're willing to be flexible in our frequency selection."

[WA3VJB]

harmful interference, something to be avoided whenever possible while operating.  Non-harmful interference may be annoying without disrupting a QSO

The distinction became important in the successful effort to convince the FCC to reject a Petition for a mandatory set-aside on 160 meters a few years ago.

Petitioners had asserted that their weak-CW work was threatened by the prospect of declining sunspots and what they felt was a likely surge of phone activity in the (horrors !) unsegregated 160 meter band.

Among the arguments to the contrary, the fact we must tolerate a certain amount of unintentional interference on shared spectrum, including that caused by incompatible modes and activities.

[W3SLK]

You know, I just read the editorial, (no Pete, I didn't re-join the (be)League(d), someone left a QST on my desk!). I couldn't help but wonder if this was a precursor to the 'precious' un-attended digital modes that the ARRgghhL was trying to ram down our throats via RM11306.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

You know, I just read the editorial, (no Pete, I didn't re-join the (be)League(d), someone left a QST on my desk!).

Oh! A closet QST reader. It just happened to appear on your desk Next you'll be "doing digital" after dark.

I couldn't help but wonder if this was a precursor to the 'precious' un-attended digital modes that the ARRgghhL was trying to ram down our throats via RM11306.

Which version? the original one, the amended version, the amended corrected version, or the proposed new version ("we will re-file")

Although unattended robots need to be kept in check especially if it the usage grows, the current patch work quilt of Part 97 rules and regulations leave a lot of loopholes for all sorts of stuff (given no bandwidth restrictions) to be dropped on our amateur bands as maybe "experimental modes" in the near future. Picture the HF bands 3 years from now as we start to swing up the sunspot cycle.

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

Oh! A closet QST reader. It just happened to appear on your desk  Next you'll be "doing digital" after dark.

Truth be known Pete, I had asked him about the date of the Bloomsburg Hamfest. I got my card last night, but when I went to work this morning, QST was laying on my bench and the date of said hamfest highlited. Do you actually think I would have spent money for this rag?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Truth be known Pete, I had asked him about the date of the Bloomsburg Hamfest. I got my card last night, but when I went to work this morning, QST was laying on my bench and the date of said hamfest highlited. Do you actually think I would have spent money for this rag?

Other than for the magazine, you might have had a mind revelation in seeing the advantages of being a member in the organization. If you need info, go here: http://www.arrl.org/join.html
Even for non-members, the ARRL does have its Hamfest list available on line:
http://www.arrl.org/hamfests.html

And for members:
http://www.arrl.org/members-only/

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

Other than for the magazine, you might have had a mind revelation in seeing the advantages of being a member in the organization

   

Don't hold your breath Pete!

[WD8BIL]

A frequency is most effectively used when I am on it !!!