The ARRL and 40 meter AM

[Glenn K2KL]

I was involved in a very enjoyable AM qso last night on 7.290 with stations K4CR, W9AD and several other AM operators. I joined the QSO already in progress at about 8:20pm East coast time. At 9:45 W1AW started broadcasting in SSB right on top of the QSO.  :evil: That was the end of QSO. (Yes, I said SSB)

Beside the fact that these broadcasts are completely unnecessary, beside the fact that W1AW didn't ask/listen if the frequency was in use before transmitting, (is W1AW exempt from the FCC rules and "good operating practice") A quick check of the ARRL website shows 7.290 as the "AM calling frequency"

yes, one again representing the AM'ers best interests!

[Tom WA3KLR]

If Glenn Baxter was only on for one 10 minute voice bulletin a day, just 5 days a week, like W1AW, I wonder how much whining there would be about his "bull"etin transmissions?

A quick check of the ARRL website also shows 7.290 as the published voice bulletin frequency.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

A quick check of the ARRL website also shows 7.290 as the published voice bulletin frequency.

Isn't that fairly new, though? Maybe I'm all wet on this, but it seems like that was a recent change/addition, within the last few years.

I'd be inclined to agree that a brief bulletin wouldn't be an issue, but it would be nice if the frequency used isn't an exclusive right-to-use allocation, to have the operator ask first. As much as I benefited from the ARRL CW practice years ago, I never quite understood how the rules could seem to clearly state the proper protocol for operating and sharing frequencies, yet allow one station to wipe out another for a one-way broadcast. If you light up for a conversation on top of someone else, you risk being nailed for malicious interference.

Maybe the ARRL and MANboy could team up on their 'bulletins', so that when one of them completes sending, the other could respond with something official sounding like "Roger that!" or the ever-popular "QSL!"

'KAQ

[Tom WA3KLR]

Hi Todd,

The W1AW bulletins have been on 7290 for at least 25 years.  One of their periodic bulletins is their operating schedule and frequencies.

I would say that technically W1AW was in the wrong when they transmitted on top of Glenn K2KL 's QSO.  But I have to wonder how well the operator at W1AW would have heard Glenn at 9:40 p.m. in Newington.  I would think that Glenn was in their skip zone then.

The op at W1AW has to check 8 transmitters and 8 receive frequencies in about 9 minutes.   The next code practice session starts 15 minutes after the phone bulletin starts on a set of 8 frequencies, 7 of which are different from the previous phone frequencies.  Let's be realistic here.  Then the 11 p.m. code bulletin.  And then he wants to get home.  Unlike K1MAN there really is a person on duty there.

[Jim, W5JO]

Glenn, this is not good in my eyes as well and I queried the ARRL about it and they responded quoting this section, 97.113.

(d) The control operator of a club station may accept compensation for the periods of time when the station is transmitting telegraphy practice or information bulletins, provided that the station transmits such telegraphy practice and bulletins for at least 40 hours per week; schedules operations on at least six amateur service MF and HF bands using reasonable measures to maximize coverage; where the schedule of normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days in advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator does not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other service as a control operator.

[Glenn K2KL]

Yep, the published SSB voice broadcast freq and the published AM calling freq. are one in the same. Obviously some sort of internal communications problem up there in Newington..... or maybe they just don't give a rats butt.

A quick check of the ARRL website also shows 7.290 as the published voice bulletin frequency.

[Glenn K2KL]

Maybe I was as you say, in their skip zone however the guys in 4-land could certainly be heard loud and clear in Newington as could W9AD.

Yes, lets be realistic indeed, There is no such thing as squaters rights on the ham bands. The fact that they've been broadcasting there for 25 years means nothing. That's like defending the slopbucketeers on 75 who stake their claim to a frequency. The ARRL published band plan states 7.290 as the "AM calling frequency" yet they broadcast SSB bulletins on that very same frequency. Is that not a slap in the face to the AM'er??

I'd like to remind everyone that I never mentioned or compared W1AW to K1MAN.

Hi Todd,

The W1AW bulletins have been on 7290 for at least 25 years.  One of their periodic bulletins is their operating schedule and frequencies.

I would say that technically W1AW was in the wrong when they transmitted on top of Glenn K2KL 's QSO.  But I have to wonder how well the operator at W1AW would have heard Glenn at 9:40 p.m. in Newington.  I would think that Glenn was in their skip zone then.

The op at W1AW has to check 8 transmitters and 8 receive frequencies in about 9 minutes.   The next code practice session starts 15 minutes after the phone bulletin starts on a set of 8 frequencies, 7 of which are different from the previous phone frequencies.  Let's be realistic here.  Then the 11 p.m. code bulletin.  And then he wants to get home.  Unlike K1MAN there really is a person on duty there.

[Vortex Joe - N3IBX]

Glenn,
        I was in QSO with Woody, K4CR about 5 years ago on 7290KC and the same thing happened. I was so infuriated that I called the ARRL to query about why they didn't check to see if the frequency was in use. It was explained to me that it's a "published bulletin" and was tape recorded. They further described that due to the nature of the "bulletin", they didn't have to check the frequency, etc. At least they weren't arrogant like a certain illegal broadcaster we all know and love - hi!

I spoke to Woody about this after the fact, and he told me it was the first time he experienced anything like this.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Maybe I was as you say, in their skip zone however the guys in 4-land could certainly be heard loud and clear in Newington as could W9AD.

Yes, lets be realistic indeed, There is no such thing as squaters rights on the ham bands. The fact that they've been broadcasting there for 25 years means nothing. That's like defending the slopbucketeers on 75 who stake their claim to a frequency. The ARRL published band plan states 7.290 as the "AM calling frequency" yet they broadcast SSB bulletins on that very same frequency. Is that not a slap in the face to the AM'er??

I'd like to remind everyone that I never mentioned or compared W1AW to K1MAN.

If you have nothing better to do, you can read the 233 responses to this 7290 issue on the topic, "W1AW violates ARRL bandplan, Do as we say, not as we do", started by KA1OGM, on the QRZ Forum, February 2, 2003 and it went all the way to December 23, 2003.
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=f17cb4755c723efdf18d361d70e4bf6d;act=ST;f=7;t=28475;hl=7290
Many of your favorite  personalities made comments in this thread. It makes no sense to beat it to death here again.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Glenn said "yes, one again representing the AM'ers best interests!"  

Glenn you need to remember that the station manager for W1AW is Joe Carcia, NJ1Q.   (An organization is nothing more or less than its' individuals.) He is the guy who cooperated in putting in a vintage AM station at W1AW this past year.  Please dig up QST September 2004 issue pages 41 - 43.  So Glenn, you are slamming someone who has helped AM when you complain about W1AW.  

Glenn, if you haven't already done so, write an e-mail to Joe Carcia at w1aw@arrl.org with your complaint.  I wrote to Joe a few weeks ago and he answered me back in just 19 minutes.  Better to give him manly feedback "face-to-face" than behind-his-back whining here.  America badly needs more manly face-to-face feedback.

Apparently many don't see the practical matter of handling an 8 channel parallel broadcast.  Glenn, if you were at the helm of W1AW would you do better, every frequency, every broadcast, every time?  

10 minutes is just one buzzard transmission.

I am an ARRL member, but not a loyalist by any means, just a pragmatic idealist.

I remember having a nice enjoyable AM QSO recently and then AM jammers moved in.

[W4LTM]

Hi gang - Just curious here but has W1AW had that vintage AM station on the air since that first week they put it in?

[Glenn K2KL]

Thank you for the info Pete, I will check that out on QRZ.

Maybe I was as you say, in their skip zone however the guys in 4-land could certainly be heard loud and clear in Newington as could W9AD.

Yes, lets be realistic indeed, There is no such thing as squaters rights on the ham bands. The fact that they've been broadcasting there for 25 years means nothing. That's like defending the slopbucketeers on 75 who stake their claim to a frequency. The ARRL published band plan states 7.290 as the "AM calling frequency" yet they broadcast SSB bulletins on that very same frequency. Is that not a slap in the face to the AM'er??

I'd like to remind everyone that I never mentioned or compared W1AW to K1MAN.

If you have nothing better to do, you can read the 233 responses to this 7290 issue on the topic, "W1AW violates ARRL bandplan, Do as we say, not as we do", started by KA1OGM, on the QRZ Forum, February 2, 2003 and it went all the way to December 23, 2003.
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=f17cb4755c723efdf18d361d70e4bf6d;act=ST;f=7;t=28475;hl=7290
Many of your favorite  personalities made comments in this thread. It makes no sense to beat it to death here again.

[Glenn K2KL]

Hi Tom;

I am truly sorry that you perceive this as "whining"  :?:  Do you label all complaints as "whining"? or only one's you disagree with. Yes, I am aware of the token vintage station etc, etc, but Is Joe the one who is responsible for scheduling the SSB broadcast on the ARRL's published bandplan AM calling freq? Probably not.

Isn't this a management decision to place an SSB broadcast on 7.290?

I'll stop whining now..  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Glenn said "yes, one again representing the AM'ers best interests!"  

Glenn you need to remember that the station manager for W1AW is Joe Carcia, NJ1Q.   (An organization is nothing more or less than its' individuals.) He is the guy who cooperated in putting in a vintage AM station at W1AW this past year.  Please dig up QST September 2004 issue pages 41 - 43.  So Glenn, you are slamming someone who has helped AM when you complain about W1AW.  

Glenn, if you haven't already done so, write an e-mail to Joe Carcia at w1aw@arrl.org with your complaint.  I wrote to Joe a few weeks ago and he answered me back in just 19 minutes.  Better to give him manly feedback "face-to-face" than behind-his-back whining here.  America badly needs more manly face-to-face feedback.

Apparently many don't see the practical matter of handling an 8 channel parallel broadcast.  Glenn, if you were at the helm of W1AW would you do better, every frequency, every broadcast, every time?  

10 minutes is just one buzzard transmission.

I am an ARRL member, but not a loyalist by any means, just a pragmatic idealist.

I remember having a nice enjoyable AM QSO recently and then AM jammers moved in.

[W9AD]

As Glenn mentioned we were having a grand time until W1AW fired up. When I unkeyed they were quacking away quite loudly :badgrin:.  It's the 2nd time it's happened to me. If they had listened I'm pretty sure they would have heard me. Jim, Woody and myself returned after 5 minutes or so when they quit. We gave you a call but all signed out as broadcast signals were starting to come up.

[W2VW]

Hi gang - Just curious here but has W1AW had that vintage AM station on the air since that first week they put it in?

The way it works is that it can be made available for visitors to use. Someone has to visit and operate it.
73,
Dave.

[Glenn K2KL]

Hi Dave;

It was great to work you on 40, even if we were forced off the frequency  :roll:   :x  It's tough enough to find a spot to carry on an AM qso on 40 meters at night even without this ARRL SSB broadcast nonsense..

By the way, you had an incredibly strong signal into New York that evening, one of the loudest I've heard from the midwest in a long time.
I'll look for you next week when I get back from house hunting in NC.

   

 

As Glenn mentioned we were having a grand time until W1AW fired up. When I unkeyed they were quacking away quite loudly :badgrin:.  It's the 2nd time it's happened to me. If they had listened I'm pretty sure they would have heard me. Jim, Woody and myself returned after 5 minutes or so when they quit. We gave you a call but all signed out as broadcast signals were starting to come up.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Hi Tom;

I am truly sorry that you perceive this as "whining"  :?:  Do you label all complaints as "whining"? or only one's you disagree with. Yes, I am aware of the token vintage station etc, etc, but Is Joe the one who is responsible for scheduling the SSB broadcast on the ARRL's published bandplan AM calling freq? Probably not.

Isn't this a management decision to place an SSB broadcast on 7.290?

I'll stop whining now..  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


Hi Glenn,
No, I don't label all complaints as whining.  I can't disagree with true complaints.  Complaints are either valid or invalid. Here is my 2-part definition of whining:
     "complaining" about trivial matters. (In the whole scheme of life, most
     but not all ham QRM is trivial.)
     OR -
    Complaining to other than the affected party or affecting party or an    
    authority over the matter is whining.

This not to say whining is not allowed.  This is AMerica; free speech.  I'm just defining my choice of words.
 As I re-read and analyse this, I have to say that my underlying philosophy (based on my experience) is that whining doesn't accomplish anything.  Complaining to the proper persons may.

I presume that by now you have written an e-mail complaint to W1AW about the interfered QSO.  I'm interested to hear what Joe's response was.

On a historical note, I looked in a 1969 issue of QST and read that W1AW transmitted the 40 meter phone bulletins on 7220 kHz.  They also transmitted 2 phone bulletins a night.  My recollection is that the phone bulletins tended to be longer then, than they are now.

It probably is a management decision to transmit on 7290 kHz.  Since most AM'ers follow the self-imposed AM window concept, it would be better for us if W1AW did move further down in the band, like 36 years ago.

So W1AW phone bulletins have pared down, I think.  But you say the bulletins are unneccessary.  I presume this is because the bulletin information is available on the web.  But not everyone is on the web.

So our opinions don't match.  This is nothing to get upset over.  When things are a matter of opinion, there is no 100 % right or 100 % wrong.  It's perfectly o.k. to disagree.  This is the AM Forum.  It's here to discuss matters that relate to AM operation.

Unfortunately, you were QRM'ed, not me.  So, sure it's easy for me to remain calm.

Another AM Forum posting - QSO/DeReg Proposed Rule-Making
I urge everyone to read the Communications Think Tank's Petition to the FCC For Amateur Spectrum De-Regulation, if they haven't already done so.

http://www.geocities.com/k3xf/Rver124F.pdf

The pdf is 63 kilobytes.

Here is one relevent excerpt:
From Page 4 of 16 - "A certain amount of unintentional interference must be accepted in a hobbyist, experimental communications system.  Good judgment remains the tenet guiding when that level must be cooperatively addressed by operators involved.  Intentional and/or deliberate interference with communications in process is in violation of the regulations, independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi autiomatic, or manually keyed."

IMHO, being on the published bulletin frequency doesn't have much more sense than standing on a railroad track just before the published scheduled arrival time.  

I see the publishing of a bulletin transmission schedule as a gentlemanly advance request for the use of a frequency for a small amount of time.  The request is asking for others to cooperate in a gentlemanly manner also.

If neither one of  the parties involved is going to be a gentleman, there is going to be a collision.  Simple logic.

I can easily visualize getting engrossed in a QSO and forget that a scheduled bulletin is intending to use the frequency also.

I wouldn't say that this is a feeling for me, Glenn.  It's just the logic I go by.  It's innate; the way I'm wired.

Hopefully in the future, phonytes (sidebanders, AMers, bit babblers) will gain some of the CW wasteland and alleviate the phone congestion on 75, 40, and 20 meters.  I for one, would like to see much more AM activity on 20 meters.  We won't gain enough space to guarantee non-interference however.  For that, we must continue to rely on being gentlemen.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Hi Phil,

As far as W1AW, my opinion re-stated is just to stand by when their phone bulletin occurs and then go on about your QSO.  
Forget about it, don't mention it. Done.

Five minutes is different than 5 hours in my book.  I don't recall the ARRL broadcasts ever plugging membership or any of their products, as it should be.  Glenn Baxter is in the cattle shoot now and will be dealt with soon.  His broadcasts are over the line.

For any of us to get information via the internet, there has to be A LOT of infrastructure in service, all at the same time.   Not so for amateur radio communications.

As Pete says, I think that we have just about beat this to death.  So this is my last post on this thread.

C U on 160.

[Rob K2CU]

Peersonally, I think it is a more fundamental issue of the definition of "Calling Frequency."  It would seem that a calling frequency is one commonly accepted as the place to iniitate a QSO and not to hold a QSO.  Limiting one's  self to operating on that single calling frequency is just as objectionable as the AM window.   Last time I looked, depending on your class of license, the 40 Meter AM window goes from 7150 to 7300 KHz.  The problem with sitting on a calling frequecy, besides the problem should it be shared with the ARRL bulliten service, is that stations just beyond your hearing may want to nitiate A QSO yet hear your QSO and then can't/won't use it for its intended purpose.  Of course, a short, two person QSO would seem to be OK for rational thinking adults.  Common sense should suggest that if the QSO becomes protracted or attracts other participants, it should QSY to another spot, anywhere in the above mentioned window.  Now, there are also traffic nets that come on at different times of the day, and one should be aware of them and be the bigger person and QSY if you find yourself on a frequency where a net ususally starts up.  MOST of the time the net controller will break in and advise you that a net is scheduled to start up and politely ask you to QSY.
Sure, they have no more right ot any particular frequency than anyone else does, but common sense and courtesy should prevail.  OF course, there are some people who will never "get it."

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Five points.

1. The ARRL named 7290 as an AM calling frequency. It was NEVER used in the manner you suggest in the almost 30 years I've been listening to it.

2. If the ARRL truly believes 7290 to be an AM calling frequency, why then broadcast on it?

3. A QSY is not easily performed on 40 meters a night (the scenario that started this thread) due to the plethora of foreign broadcast stations.

4. The railroad track analogy does not hold. The railroad company owns the tracks and they are for rail use only. The ARRL nor anyone else owns a frequency, nor is any frequency only for ARRL use.

5. Published operating times do not give anyone more "right" to the frequency. If I published that I was to run my net 5 minutes before the ARRL broadcast, would the ARRL standby? Published where, how, how widely? This is the same logic I heard from some bonehead slopbuckets on 160 meters this winter, "You boys know we're on here every night." That sort of crap is the height of arrogance and ignorance. I never heard their call signs before let alone knew their operating schedules - any more than they knew mine. Nonetheless, they used this twisted logic to QRM an attempt by some stateside AMers to work AMers in the Netherlands. Maybe Joe, N3IBX should have published his schedule for working the Dutch AMers. Oh, wait a minute, he did, on this very forum.

Peersonally, I think it is a more fundamental issue of the definition of "Calling Frequency."  It would seem that a calling frequency is one commonly accepted as the place to iniitate a QSO and not to hold a QSO.  Limiting one's  self to operating on that single calling frequency is just as objectionable as the AM window.   Last time I looked, depending on your class of license, the 40 Meter AM window goes from 7150 to 7300 KHz.  The problem with sitting on a calling frequecy, besides the problem should it be shared with the ARRL bulliten service, is that stations just beyond your hearing may want to nitiate A QSO yet hear your QSO and then can't/won't use it for its intended purpose.  Of course, a short, two person QSO would seem to be OK for rational thinking adults.  Common sense should suggest that if the QSO becomes protracted or attracts other participants, it should QSY to another spot, anywhere in the above mentioned window.  Now, there are also traffic nets that come on at different times of the day, and one should be aware of them and be the bigger person and QSY if you find yourself on a frequency where a net ususally starts up.  MOST of the time the net controller will break in and advise you that a net is scheduled to start up and politely ask you to QSY.
Sure, they have no more right ot any particular frequency than anyone else does, but common sense and courtesy should prevail.  OF course, there are some people who will never "get it."

[Tom WA3KLR]

Hi Steve,

Your point #1 -
"The ARRL named 7290 as an AM calling frequency.  It was NEVER used in the manner you suggest in the almost 30 years I've been listening to it."
I have no idea what your point is here.  Please clarify.  Did I suggest what manner?  Are you saying 7290 has never been used for a calling frequency or for bulletins? I did say "I see the publishing of a bulletin transmission schedule as a gentlemanly advance request for the use of a frequency for a small amount of time.  The request is asking for others to cooperate in a gentlemanly manner also".  You don't HAVE to cooperate.

Your point #2 -
"If the ARRL truly believes 7290 to be an AM calling frequency, why then broadcast on it?"
You'll need to ask them Steve, not me.

I still wonder what Glenn K2KL has found out from Joe Carcia as far as an explanation on the 40 meter QRM incident that started this thread.

This appears to be a good time to bring up the angle Rob was talking - the definition of a "calling frequency".  To me, a calling frequency is a standard frequency to meet at. This simple definition doesn't say you can't stay there.  I like it; I prefer it.  Somewhere along the lines, "calling frequency" has become enhanced and evolved to include - "not allowed to QSO there".   I don't know if the amateur population was solicited before this policy for a "calling frequency" has come about.  In a crowded band, this later definition wastes one channel.

Perhaps you or Pete WA2CWA can give the true legal answer there, but I seem to recall that the ARRL bandplan for 2 meters became the law.  The 2 meters bandplan did designate simplex calling frequencies.  I am not aware that calling frequencies and a bandplan on HF designated by the ARRL also became FCC law along with the more stringent definition?  I wouldn't assume what is the law just because some OO's have tried to issue warnings lately.  What is the answer here, experts?

 Your point #3 -
"A QSY is not easily performed on 40 meters a night (the scenario that started this thread) due to the plethora of foreign broadcast stations."

I don't work 40 meters phone at night.  So I'll take your word for it Steve.

Your point #4 -
"The railroad track analogy does not hold. The railroad company owns the tracks and they are for rail use only. The ARRL nor anyone else owns a frequency, nor is any frequency only for ARRL use."

My railroad track analogy does hold.  You say the the railroad company owns the track.  This does not prevent a collision from occurring if someone is on the track when the train arrives.  That was my point.
 
The federal goverment owns that railroad track however.  And they "own" the radio transmission rights from the U.S.,  even though at the highest level, the radio waves are a natural resource.

Your point #5 -
"Published operating times do not give anyone more "right" to the frequency. If I published that I was to run my net 5 minutes before the ARRL broadcast, would the ARRL standby? Published where, how, how widely? This is the same logic I heard from some bonehead slopbuckets on 160 meters this winter, "You boys know we're on here every night." That sort of crap is the height of arrogance and ignorance. I never heard their call signs before let alone knew their operating schedules - any more than they knew mine. Nonetheless, they used this twisted logic to QRM an attempt by some stateside AMers to work AMers in the Netherlands. Maybe Joe, N3IBX should have published his schedule for working the Dutch AMers. Oh, wait a minute, he did, on this very forum. "

I never said that asking for the use of a frequency by publishing give someone the right to a frequency.  You don't have to honor their long-standing request.  That is your decision.  If you want to run a net starting 5 minutes before the published ARRL bulletin, that is your business.  Do you intend for the net to be only 5 minutes long, or much longer?  If you start such a net and run longer than 5 minutes soley because you already know that they have expressed a desire to use the same frequency, this is dirty pool in my book.

One of the arguements has been "look how well the 160 meter band plan works".  The whole 160 meter band is 200 kHz.  The 75 meter phone band alone is 250 kHz.  I see a lot of free space on 160 meters.  If you are butting heads with people on 160 meters Steve, I have to wonder.
 
To take advantage of the full HF phone band available, you may need an Advanced or in some cases Extra class license.  But this is incentive licensing. Some of you are saying that incentive licensing doesn't work.?  There are some people who just don't get it.  I don't have an Extra Class license, but don't feel corraled in.

Thank goodness there are very few bulletin transmissions on the HF bands!  I am amazed at the amount of flak and anger over the 5 minute phone bulletin out of the 10's of thousands of hours of QSO and QRM every day on HF.  There is a guy who transmits AM bulletins on 160 meters on 1860 kHz I think it is.  He is so PW here to be of no consequence.   But he is in the middle of an SSB area.  No complaints that I know of.  I don't even know his call.  I'm not interested in listening long enough to find out.

Some of you may argue that there are many more hams on the bands than 30 years ago.  (This was one goal when incentive licensing started - to really build up the number of hams; for lobbying strength supposedly.)  I don't really know if this is true.  I am baffled by the lack of 2 meter band repeater activity in the Philadelphia area.  It is quite easy to skim through a sampling of the local repeater channels and find no activity.  The repeaters used to be packed solid all day long in the late 1970's.  Is there a shift in useage to HF or is there really a total drop in all activity?  (Don't mistake the number of licenses with free renewal for on-the-air activity.)  If the on-the-air activity has really dropped, why all the grief?

I participate in some nets.  Never had a problem.  We do move a kHz. or two either way now and then.  And we engage in dialogue with some toe-steppers now and then.  And so far they have always agreed to move off when we talk with them.

Frankly, on this Topic and another one here on the AM Forum right now, I sense a lot of emotion - hatred and anger.  I consider this to be the reason for some remarks that I consider to be irrational.  For me, the hobby is a technical outlet.  I have usually spent a major portion of my ham hobby time at the work bench on receivers and transmitters.   The on-the-air operating rounds out the accomplishments.  I can't get too worked up over the amateur issues.

Some of the "arguments" appear to be based on hatred for the ARRL.  Am I right?  If so, why not start a new, second amateur lobbying organization without the legacy entrapments of old traditions and policies?  This would not be a new idea I suppose.  There is no need to be angry.  There is no law against the "angry" ones from starting your own amateur organization.

Pete said in another topic "The declining (ARRL) membership is probably due to a number of factors but probably has little effect on it's financial stability. If you review the latest Annual Report, you would notice that they are very financially solid".

The ARRL has grown into a self-supporting entity.  From it's meager and humble beginnings as a radio relay league to a good technical publishing business.  This is a good niche for them.  And as Peter alludes to, perhaps they don't feel as binded to the membership anymore for the financial reasons.  This may be why many hams perceive them as persuing their own agenda.  Like any magazine, their allegiance is to their advertisers and the selling of their products.  This is where money comes from.  Show me the money and I'll show you the motives.  Look at the latest Supreme Court ruling.  Pretty gosh damn scarey.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Hi Steve,

Your point #1 -
"The ARRL named 7290 as an AM calling frequency.  It was NEVER used in the manner you suggest in the almost 30 years I've been listening to it."
I have no idea what your point is here.  Please clarify.  Did I suggest what manner?  Are you saying 7290 has never been used for a calling frequency or for bulletins? I did say "I see the publishing of a bulletin transmission schedule as a gentlemanly advance request for the use of a frequency for a small amount of time.  The request is asking for others to cooperate in a gentlemanly manner also".  You don't HAVE to cooperate.

The point is the ARRL claims 7290 is an AM calling frequency even though it has never been used in that manner. Any points derived from this flawed premise are also flawed.

I do not see "the publishing of a bulletin transmission schedule as a gentlemanly advance request for the use of a frequency for a small amount of time." Why? Because I may not read the published material. If I don't, does that mean I'm not a gentlemen? There is nothing gentlemanly about using publishing as an excuse for ignoring Part 97. Such is but one problem with using publishing as a means for eminence on a frequency. Gentlemen can disagree however. Implications to the contrary are quite ungentlemanly.

Your point #2 -
"If the ARRL truly believes 7290 to be an AM calling frequency, why then broadcast on it?"
You'll need to ask them Steve, not me.

I'm asking you because you appear to be justifying their inconsistency solely on the basis that they publish their schedule. I would like for you to explain the authority derived from publishing. And, as I asked previously, published where, how and how widely?

I still wonder what Glenn K2KL has found out from Joe Carcia as far as an explanation on the 40 meter QRM incident that started this thread.

That would be a valuable piece of information.

This appears to be a good time to bring up the angle Rob was talking - the definition of a "calling frequency".  To me, a calling frequency is a standard frequency to meet at. This simple definition doesn't say you can't stay there.  I like it; I prefer it.  Somewhere along the lines, "calling frequency" has become enhanced and evolved to include - "not allowed to QSO there".   I don't know if the amateur population was solicited before this policy for a "calling frequency" has come about.  In a crowded band, this later definition wastes one channel.

I like your definition of calling frequency. It makes more sense on HF than the generally accepted (I guess) VHF version. That was my point earlier, 7290 was never used as a "call and then move off" frequency.

Perhaps you or Pete WA2CWA can give the true legal answer there, but I seem to recall that the ARRL bandplan for 2 meters became the law.  The 2 meters bandplan did designate simplex calling frequencies.  I am not aware that calling frequencies and a bandplan on HF designated by the ARRL also became FCC law along with the more stringent definition?  I wouldn't assume what is the law just because some OO's have tried to issue warnings lately.  What is the answer here, experts?

I am not a lawyer, ARRL spokesperson or an expert. An expert is just a former spurt.  

 Your point #3 -
"A QSY is not easily performed on 40 meters a night (the scenario that started this thread) due to the plethora of foreign broadcast stations."

I don't work 40 meters phone at night.  So I'll take your word for it Steve.

It's twue,  it's twue.

Your point #4 -
"The railroad track analogy does not hold. The railroad company owns the tracks and they are for rail use only. The ARRL nor anyone else owns a frequency, nor is any frequency only for ARRL use."

My railroad track analogy does hold.  You say the the railroad company owns the track.  This does not prevent a collision from occurring if someone is on the track when the train arrives.  That was my point.

The point is misplaced. It's not about the collision, it's about who had the right of way. The fact that a collision will occur is obvious and not the source of the initial complaint/post.
 

Your point #5 -
"Published operating times do not give anyone more "right" to the frequency. If I published that I was to run my net 5 minutes before the ARRL broadcast, would the ARRL standby? Published where, how, how widely? This is the same logic I heard from some bonehead slopbuckets on 160 meters this winter, "You boys know we're on here every night." That sort of crap is the height of arrogance and ignorance. I never heard their call signs before let alone knew their operating schedules - any more than they knew mine. Nonetheless, they used this twisted logic to QRM an attempt by some stateside AMers to work AMers in the Netherlands. Maybe Joe, N3IBX should have published his schedule for working the Dutch AMers. Oh, wait a minute, he did, on this very forum. "

I never said that asking for the use of a frequency by publishing give someone the right to a frequency.  You don't have to honor their long-standing request.  That is your decision.  If you want to run a net starting 5 minutes before the published ARRL bulletin, that is your business.  Do you intend for the net to be only 5 minutes long, or much longer?  If you start such a net and run longer than 5 minutes soley because you already know that they have expressed a desire to use the same frequency, this is dirty pool in my book.

Just as if they choose to run their bulletin, net or whatever 5 minutes after my published schedule it's dirty pool on their part. Now you've added another caveat to the publishing rights approach - first published takes precedence. If, as you claim, "publishing gives them no right to a frequency, how then does when the publishing occur matter?

Regardless, this approach does not hold with the concept that applies to the rest of frequency allotment for amateurs, that is, if the frequency is in use, find another that is not in use. I don't see how publishing a schedule, first, last or anywhere in between, should blow this out of the water. It's the old "All animals are equal, but some are more equal."

One of the arguements has been "look how well the 160 meter band plan works".  The whole 160 meter band is 200 kHz.  The 75 meter phone band alone is 250 kHz.  I see a lot of free space on 160 meters.  If you are butting heads with people on 160 meters Steve, I have to wonder.

Wonder about what? Do you know the particulars of the case/incident? Joe published his schedule. Those sidebanders were clearly ungentlemanly.  

 

WA3KLR"]To take advantage of the full HF phone band available, you may need an Advanced or in some cases Extra class license.  But this is incentive licensing. Some of you are saying that incentive licensing doesn't work.?  There are some people who just don't get it.  I don't have an Extra Class license, but don't feel corraled in.

License class and feeling corralled aren't the issue here. Regardless of license class, one should expect others to follow Part 97 and not fire up on a frequency when it is in use.

I participate in some nets.  Never had a problem.  We do move a kHz. or two either way now and then.  And we engage in dialogue with some toe-steppers now and then.  And so far they have always agreed to move off when we talk with them.

And there is the key - you talked with them instead of just firing up right on top of them because it was your published (or otherwise) time to do so. I can't speak for the others, but if W1AW asked me to QRT for five minutes so they could transmit their bulletin, I'd gladly do so - even if they didn't publish the time and frequency.

Frankly, on this Topic and another one here on the AM Forum right now, I sense a lot of emotion - hatred and anger.  I consider this to be the reason for some remarks that I consider to be irrational.  For me, the hobby is a technical outlet.  I have usually spent a major portion of my ham hobby time at the work bench on receivers and transmitters.   The on-the-air operating rounds out the accomplishments.  I can't get too worked up over the amateur issues.

I'm not angry about any of this. Calmly claiming certain parties are allowed to ignore part 97 is irrational. Complaining about such is not.

Some of the "arguments" appear to be based on hatred for the ARRL.  Am I right?  If so, why not start a new, second amateur lobbying organization without the legacy entrapments of old traditions and policies?  This would not be a new idea I suppose.  There is no need to be angry.  There is no law against the "angry" ones from starting your own amateur organization.

I totally agree. I'm an ARRL member. If a member can't criticize the ARRL, who can?

Pete said in another topic "The declining (ARRL) membership is probably due to a number of factors but probably has little effect on it's financial stability. If you review the latest Annual Report, you would notice that they are very financially solid".

The ARRL has grown into a self-supporting entity.  From it's meager and humble beginnings as a radio relay league to a good technical publishing business.  This is a good niche for them.  And as Peter alludes to, perhaps they don't feel as binded to the membership anymore for the financial reasons.  This may be why many hams perceive them as persuing their own agenda.  Like any magazine, their allegiance is to their advertisers and the selling of their products.  This is where money comes from.  Show me the money and I'll show you the motives.  Look at the latest Supreme Court ruling.  Pretty gosh damn scarey.

The Ten Commandments are worth money? :idea: All these years I've been missing out!

I think the ARRL should offer a QST subscription as a stand alone, not as part of the membership package. This would allow them to learn if the members join the organization for all the ARRL offers or just to get a the magazine. It could also allow them to separate QST and the attendant advertising dollar problem you noted from their policy/advocacy efforts. Doing so could increase the legitimacy of these efforts in the eyes of many.