RE: Reminds me of the abuser guys on 146.52 that won t listen to reason either and pick another FREQ other than the call channel for chit chat between baseMessage 1 of 11 , Oct 24, 2007View Source
RE: "Reminds me of the abuser guys on 146.52 that won't listen to reason either and pick another FREQ other than the call channel for chit chat between base stations! DE WD8USA ...-.-"
A while ago during the discussion of repeater control it was brought up that one of the members of the reflector thought that all of us were in violation of many rules on an ongoing basis. I challenged him to post such rules so that I could either debate the matter with him if I felt he was wrong, or if he was indeed correct it would be an opportunity for us to learn and become better operators. I did not see a response to my challenge. That does not mean he did not respond, it just means I did not see the response. The issue of the use of 146.52 reminded me of that post and my insatiable curiosity has motivated me to seek out some rules in which he may have been referring to. The following is intended to provide information to either facilitate our voluntary compliance with the FCCs rules or offer specific rules to quote when making complaints to the FCC about operators that refuse to cooperate with others in the amateur service. Even if an operator is in violation of the law, failure to quote the EXACT rule they are in violation of will result in the FCCs instant dismissal of the complaint.
LEGAL ISSUES TO CONSIDER
USE OF EXCESSIVE POWER [97.313(a)]
If a station is communicating with another station a couple miles or so away on VHF and that communication could be done using a few milliwatts and that same communication is heard 40 or 50 miles away because the radio being used cant be turned down enough keep the communications local while still being clear the station is in violation of this rule.
RF SAFETY EVALUATION [97.13(C)(1)]
This rule outlines the power levels in which routine RF safety evaluations must be performed. In the 2 meter band that level is any level in excess of 50 watts input to the antenna for a non repeater station. How many of us operate on 2 meters at 75 or 100 watts without performing such an evaluation or even know how to do such an evaluation? Those that do operate at those levels without performing such an evaluation are in violation of this rule.
INTERFERENCE TO COMMUNICATION SIGNALS [97.101(d)]
The way this rule is written it may be interpreted as any interference either malicious or not that interferes with any radio communication or signal is illegal. If a station cant hear another station and is inadvertently interfering with it that station has the possibility of being reported to the FCC and may be required to answer to the charges.
EMISSION STANDARDS [97.307, various paragraphs]
This rule determines not only that we are allowed to occupy a certain maximim bandwidth for each mode we use but also applies to inadvertent operation outside the intended frequency we are using by virtue or our radios emitting spurious signals. One of the reasons that amateur radios are so cheap compared to commercial radios is that they are dirty and most either violate this rule or are just barely in compliance with the rule and may become non-compliant as either the radios get older and internal components start to fail or there is a problem with the antenna system. As an illustration, take a 2 meter radio, even on low power and transmit on 146.52 and using another radio a few feet away check the signal strength on 439.56. In most cases you will see a full scale signal, 60 dB over S9 on the frequency of 439.56. If the level of that harmonic is above a certain strength the operator transmitting on 146.52 is not only in violation of this rule, but may be in violation of 97.101(d) as well if there are operators nearby on 439.56.
The emission standards for the modes we operate on are not outlined in detail in Part 97. The exact standards are in another part of CFR 47 and we must adhere to them. How many of us even know where they are located and how to look them up? Ignorance of the law is no excuse and operation contrary to the provisions of CFR 47 is in violation of the law. I advise all of us to read and become knowledgeable of CFR 47. For instance in CFR 47 Part 90 you will find the explanation of the emission codes referred to without explanation in Part 97. A station being monitored by another with sufficient test equipment that can measure the width of a signal and the strength of both the fundamental signal and any spurious signal found to be out of compliance would be in violation of this section of rules.
How many of us lose track of time and fail to properly ID every 10 minutes? Those that do are in violation of this rule.
GENERAL STANDARDS [97.101(a)]
Those that do not operate in accordance with good amateur practice are in violation of this rule. Is ragchewing on a widely accepted calling frequency considered good amateur practice? It is quite obvious that many do not consider ragchewing on the calling frequency to be good operating practice and may consider such operation a violation of this rule.
GENERAL STANDARDS [97.103(b)]
This rule dictates that each operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels to make the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. Those that ragchew on a widely accepted calling frequency may be in violation of this rule.
ISSUES OUTSIDE LEGALITY
RESPECT FROM FELLOW HAMS
Those that operate in a manner that has caused requests to cease such operation will surely lose respect from fellow hams and be considered lids.
ASSISTANCE PASSING TESTS
Those that have tried and failed to pass an upgrade test and operate in a manner to irritate fellow hams have little chance of getting any form assistance from those they have irritated.
RELUCTANCE TO REPORT UNINTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS
As you can see from the above illustration of the requirements of Part 97 it is quite possible that at some time in our tenure has hams we may inadvertently violate some law. Only respect from fellow hams will facilitate friendly notification and advice as opposed to immediate and valid complaints to the FCC.
In closing I would like to say that the FCC is not likely to actively seek violators of the rules I have outlined unless they get several complaints which puts an operator or operators under the microscope of the FCC. One of the best ways to get under the microscope is to irritate many hams which may compel them to make complaints to the FCC and one of the best ways to irritate many hams is to ragchew on a widely accepted calling frequency and continue to do so after repeated requests to cease such operations.
Mark K8MHZ----- Original Message -----From: wd8usa@...Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 08:49Subject: Re: [WestMichiganHams] JAMBOREE-ON-THE-AIR
Reminds me of the abuser guys on 146.52 that won't listen to reason either and pick another FREQ other than the call channel for chit chat between base stations! DE WD8USA ...-.-
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57 PM