Ashtabula Bill Gets FCC's Attention

[Pete, WA2CWA]

From the FCC Enforcement Letters dated November 28, 2006; first one on the list.

Amateur Radio Enforcement-Related Letters

[K1MVP]

Hi Pete,

Just a "note",--as far as ol Bill goes, on 7290,--I have seen times when Bill
was on 7290,--and  very few SSb`ers were on the lower part of the
band, and an SSB`er will come up and "plank" himself on 7290 without any concern for am-ers.

I personally witnessed this one day while in QSO with VYZ.
As Bill mentioned,--these guys can get "greedy", --makes one wonder
how the "new bandplans" about to take effect will work out,--more
space to "fight" over?--time will tell.
                                   
                                 Rene, K1MVP

[Joe Long]

I think it might be time to QSY to 7290 to let a few of the plug+play dorks understand that they didn't buy the frequency when they bought their rice boxes . JOE

[W1UJR]

Bill, a real gentleman, and long time operator gets nipped.
And yet, the one station that really deserved mention from Riley & Co., located in Barre, VT is absent from the list.
Go figure.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Hi Pete,

Just a "note",--as far as ol Bill goes, on 7290,--I have seen times when Bill
was on 7290,--and  very few SSb`ers were on the lower part of the
band, and an SSB`er will come up and "plank" himself on 7290 without any concern for am-ers.

I personally witnessed this one day while in QSO with VYZ.
As Bill mentioned,--these guys can get "greedy", --makes one wonder
how the "new bandplans" about to take effect will work out,--more
space to "fight" over?--time will tell.
                                   
                                 Rene, K1MVP

Well, since the FCC doesn’t give any real specifics, or than “alleges deliberate interference to communications on 7.290”, I won’t speculate on who did what to whom. Unfortunately, now Bill has to respond to these allegations.

If you frequent 40 meter AM operation around 7290, SSB is not uncommon around it. A "7290 Traffic Net" meets  there daily, and actually Monday through Friday, twice a day. Even the ARRL does their phone bulletin transmission for about 10 minutes on that frequency each day.

[k4kyv]

Sounds like a complaint from the 7290 No-Traffic Net down in 5-land, not from anything the FCC has monitored. 

They think they own that frequency and that no-one else is supposed to come anywhere near it.  No matter what time of the day you attempt to start a QSO, even if the frequency has beencompletely clear for a half-hour or more, the moment you transmit they immediately come on and tell you to QSY because their net is about to start up.  It is called a "traffic net" but the only messages they ever pass is to the net control station: "no traffic," and then proceed to ragchew.  They claim that the net operates in the morning, noon or afternoon, depending on what time someone else attempts to use the frequency.

Evidently anyone can submit any kind of bogus complaint, even anonymous, to the FCC regarding your station, and you receive a notice "requesting" you to respond to it.  In addition, your notice is posted on a public website on the internet for the entire amateur community to view.

I wouldn't give it a second thought, but maybe anyone who has witnessed this activity should prepare to communicate with the FCC on Bill's behalf.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Sounds like a complaint from the 7290 No-Traffic Net down in 5-land, not from anything the FCC has monitored. 

They think they own that frequency and that no-one else is supposed to come anywhere near it.  No matter what time of the day you attempt to start a QSO, even if the frequency has beencompletely clear for a half-hour or more, the moment you transmit they immediately come on and tell you to QSY because their net is about to start up.  It is called a "traffic net" but the only messages they ever pass is to the net control station: "no traffic," and then proceed to ragchew.  They claim that the net operates in the morning, noon or afternoon, depending on what time someone else attempts to use the frequency.

Evidently anyone can submit any kind of bogus complaint, even anonymous, to the FCC regarding your station, and you receive a notice "requesting" you to respond to it.  In addition, your notice is posted on a public website on the internet for the entire amateur community to view.

I wouldn't give it a second thought, but maybe anyone who has witnessed this activity should prepare to communicate with the FCC on Bill's behalf.

Actually Don, they call themselves the 7290 Traffic Net and even have a web site:
http://www.7290trafficnet.org/

The 7290 Net started in 1952 on this rig:

To find out more about the history of this net, go here:
http://www.7290trafficnet.org/history.htm

[K1MVP]

Talk about obsolete,--these so called "traffic nets" are a joke in today`s world
of e-mail, cell phones, text messaging, etc.

As far as some of these "plug es play" operators,--Bill has probably "forgotten"
more electronics than these guys know,(or will ever know).
                                          73, K1MVP
                           

[WA1GFZ]

I think Riley is slightly sharper than the average slop bucket idiot cry baby.

[W3SLK]

If you look at that list, there was one person there that was exonerated. Hopefully, we will see the same outcome for Bill.

[Ed-VA3ES]

And yet, the one station that really deserved mention from Riley & Co., located in Barre, VT is absent from the list.  Go figure.

Just out of curiousity,  what station might that be?

[Carl WA1KPD]

What ever happened to the K1BOY case?

[W1ATR]

I think Riley is slightly sharper than the average slop bucket idiot cry baby.

Yup, that hit the nail. I would like to think that with the zillions of ham against ham complaints they get, the fcee would be pretty good at sifting though the bs. Usually, when there's a legit compliant, there's a tape included, and it's noted in the letter. I don't see any mention of a tape here, more than likely, because the complainer is a full of sh1t jackass looking to cause trouble.

All Bill needs to do is write them back expressing his thoughts on the matter, and it should go away.

Without a tape, the whole thing is toothless.

SK

[WD4TC]

 I have been working in the building and had the receiver on 7.290 many ,many times and heard Bill talking with several Stations and enjoing the coversation, and the self centered 7.290 No hearing net would come in on top of the QSO Not even taking time to see,or ask if the Freq was in Use (or cared).I would suppose if you can hear them fire off there BS net that if admitted they could also hear the freq was,has ,and would still be in use Long before there BS time..I am amazed that they would even have the Nerve to Stir this pot !! Bill has done nothing wrong in standing his ground and keeping on the Air with his conversation already in Progress..I think All the explaining should BE DONE BY THE 7.290 NO TRAFFIC NET  NOT BILL...
    Give that some Brain time...  Tim...WD4TC....

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Actually Don, they call themselves the 7290 Traffic Net and even have a web site:
http://www.7290trafficnet.org/

Not unlike the Marcaroni net. Trying to reserve a frequency for ragchewing by using an official sounding name. They should call them what they are - 'For the masses who need to be led' gatherings. I've heard the 7290 jerks come onto frequency a number of times and just start transmitting. My understanding was that no one owns a frequency and unless it's an emergency and the FCC approves doing so, you move to another frequency. Hopefully Riley will start pursuing this approach instead of favoring reserved frequencies.

And yet, the one station that really deserved mention from Riley & Co., located in Barre, VT is absent from the list.  Go figure.

Just out of curiousity,  what station might that be?

That would most likely be 'BHV, convicted jammer and full-time idiot. The FCC must have a separate file cabinet just for him, considering he's been penalized for his activities and warned a number of times. Do some research on 14.313, KV4FZ etc and you'll find plenty to read.

The amazing part (besides the FCC not removing him) is hearing some of the guys piss and moan about 'EGC and other problem children, then get on and talk with a known troublemaker. And people wonder why he's hanging out on 75 interfering with QSOs and talking garbage? Other than his mentor 'DEU, of course...

 

[WA3VJB]

instead of favoring reserved frequencies.

Todd I don't see where Riley has indicated favoritism in the Dolvin case nor elsewhere regarding any non-emergency claims to frequencies.

In fact, after a number of run-ins on 7290Kc a few years ago with Gulf Coast area Hurricane "nets" that abused their ability to ask for pre-emptive communications emergencies, Hollingsworth issued a directive to FCC field bureaus discontinuing such declarations.

He said such traffic is best established on 60 meters.

In general, these "complaints" that are passed along to licensed Amateurs are unverified. He conveys them as part of his responsibility to resolve such complaints. 

If the respondent has a good explanation and documentation of their operating activity at the time of the alleged interference, then it may prove as easy as that to settle the "complaint" cited. However, a combative stance by the respondent would be less helpful, and can unwittingly help establish the complaint rather than undercut it.

I hope Bill chooses his words carefully in his response.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

instead of favoring reserved frequencies.

Todd I don't see where Riley has indicated favoritism in the Dolvin case nor elsewhere regarding any non-emergency claims to frequencies.

Sorry Paul, I was referring to a recent ruling he made where he referenced the net issue and said, in so many words, that one should avoid using a frequency known to be used by an exisiting net, or something to that affect. I'll see if I can locate it and paste in the actual wording. It seemed to indicate that he would give nets preference in disputes such as this.

I hope Bill chooses his words carefully in his response.

So you'd suggest he not say anything along the lines of "There ain't a slopbucket in North America can bother me" ?

[WA3VJB]

At the Timonium, Maryland hamfest in March he did say it's good when people make way for a group of people established on a frequency, so if you find something to that effect, he's said it more than once.

Given that position, it wouldn't be difficult to establish that there's a far more active and identifyable group using 7290Kc than the handful of people calling themselves a net.

When two groups decide they wish to materalize on a frequency, clearly the one that gets there first has the right-of-way in a non-emergency setting.

[W9GT]

There may be enough criticism to go around and cover just about everyone, however, some of these so-called net operations are clearly established and pursued by their participants as thinly-veiled ways of laying claim to frequencies.  It is OK for them to interfere with everyone else, but you'd better not bother them or they will tell on you!!!  As for the 7290 traffic crowd, I think they ought to reconsider their practice of arbitrarily cranking up on 7290 without any regard for the frequent AM qsos already going on on that freq.


Unfortunately, there has also been a fair measure of interference with known and well established AM nets by other AMers who claim not to hear them or resent the fact that the nets are conducted on popular AM frequencies, like 3880 and 3885.  I guess I understand that frustration.  I also understand that propagation can change and sometimes such interference is unintended, however, I just think it is strange when sometimes people are politely reminded that a net or QSO is going on on the frequency and they just insist or continuing to interfere, even after acknowledging the fact that they heard the interference report.  

I guess we all could just move the VFO dial once in awhile to steer clear and avoid such problems.  The down side of that, of course, comes with the guys that are using xtal control. Oh well, most of the time we at least try to get along.  Sometimes, we are victims of our own attempts to get along through our adherence to the so-called "gentlemen's agreement" and the "AM windows".  We end up restricting our AM operation to a few frequencies, 'cause that is where everyone hangs out.  Maybe some of these problems will be resolved or eased with the acquisition of a little more phone band real estate after Dec. 15.

73,  Jack, W9GT

[W1UJR]

This is what I use when I have to "clear out the frequency".
Sure, she's not the most freq agile gal, but the W I D E carrier seems to make good.
As a byproduct the heat keeps the shack warm on those cold Maine nights. 

[KF1Z]

And yet, the one station that really deserved mention from Riley & Co., located in Barre, VT is absent from the list.  Go figure.

Just out of curiousity,  what station might that be?

Just a shot in the dark here, but I would assume he's refering to
WA1BHV (EX  KB1EVE)

[k7yoo]

How can a carrier be wide?? I will believe Tall , but not wide....but come to think of it tall things cast big shadows.

Sorry I blew up, but it just reminded me of what slopbucketeers are always saying

[Jim, W5JO]

Since that group of idiots on 7290 think they are doing such good that the world should give way to them and the ARRL likes to run its bulletins on SSB, why don't we choose another AM calling frequency?

In this part of the country, in the heart of that bunch of idiots, many people like to move up near or on 7.290 just to rag chew.  I was operating on it some time back when an SSBer that frequents that so called "net" broke in and asked me to move because he had a schedule with his father coming up in about 5 minutes.  Such gall I have never witnessed.

Why at the top of the band anyway?  On weekends there is a group in this area on 7.160.  So for the General portion why not choose 7.268, or 70 or 71, something that we can all use without the two groups that thinks it owns 7.290.  Then when the ARRL wises up, they can change their band plan to accomodate us.

[K3ZS]

On August 2,  2006 around 12 noon EDST I called W8VYZ on 7290 AM.   I still keep a log for proof of when I am operating to dodge some TVI complaints.   Conditions were long, as they have been for a while on 40M.   Shortly after starting our contact we were interfered with by the 7290 net.   We finally could not maintain our QSO.   I listened for a while to the so called net.   Their main traffic was a bitch session about W8VYZ and how they were going to record him and compalin to the FCC.    I mentioned this to this AM Forum that day as I was concerned that it seemed like some sort of vendetta.   I never heard of this group until then, they normally would not be heard here.    A few years ago when shorter skip was the rule during the day on 40M,  a few of us in W. Pa.  started using 7200 for AM.   It worked well as 7290 and 7295 were busy most of the time.   What I would like to know if there is a process to defend someone accused of these false accusations?

[Jim, W5JO]

I would write a letter to Mr. Hollinsworth about the situation and explain what you heard.  I would do a letter not an eamil.  Although the email is all right, a letter must be kept and answered.  The specific complaint against Bill must be addressed by him, but your infomration may have a bearing on why the complaint may have been filed and its disposition.

I remember some years ago Bill would wait until the net control  offically closed the net then immediately call CQ.  Those dumbells like to hang around and chit chat following the so called "net" even though that is all they do, and that angered them greatly.  Bill was always repsectful of their claimed time but they have had a grudge for years.