Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [WestMichiganHams] Reminder: Armageddon Net Exercise Dec. 29th (Saturday) 10:00 am.

Expand Messages
  • wd8usa@aol.com
    If the calling Freq is tied up with local chit chat you decrease your chances of a contact when needed as those that tie up that call Freq will be the only
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 30, 2012
      If the "calling Freq" is tied up with local chit chat you decrease your chances of a contact when needed as those that tie up that "call Freq" will be the only ones listening-
       A call freq is just that call, and move off!
      DE WD8USA   ...-.-


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Richards <jruing@...>
      To: WestMichiganHams <WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 3:01 am
      Subject: Re: [WestMichiganHams] Reminder: Armageddon Net Exercise Dec. 29th (Saturday) 10:00 am.

       
      I rarely accord high credibility to any anonymous post.

      Your point fails to address the most obvious contradiction:
      It is called a "calling frequency" for a reason...
      it is not called a "ragchew net frequency" for
      the same reason.

      ------------------- K8JHR -------------------------

      On 12/29/2012 2:18 PM, TM wrote:

      > People who think this is a problem you are wrong!!!
      > If someone driving through an area where people are using
      > 146.520 and needed instructions or help, and you want these
      > people to vacate the frequency, hmmmm.

    • Mark
      Hi Jim, Thanks for the reply. I can see both sides of the issue, I think. So here are some questions: Totally defeats my ability to listen for OTHER
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 31, 2012
        
        Hi Jim,
         
        Thanks for the reply.  I can see both sides of the issue, I think.  So here are some questions:
         
        "Totally defeats
        my ability to listen for OTHER operators, such as
        those who might be cruising through town and
        look for a brief conversation or for directions to
        find gas, a restaurant, or the like."
         
        The conversational users of the '52 can't give directions and/or other local information?  I am pretty sure that someone cruising through town looking for a brief conversation would get their wish, as well.  So, it's your ability to listen, not your ability to make a call that is 'defeated', correct?
         
         
        "But if two or three
        fellers monopolize the frequency for a 3 hour
        rag chew, other operators have to lock that
        frequency out and stop scanning it, or else their
        scanners would stick on that one frequency and
        play the three hour rag chew - it won't scan if
        there is a signal, and if they talk for 3 hours that
        is all I would ever hear, and my rig won't scan any
        other channel until they stop."
         
        Does your rig not change channels because the '52 ops aren't allowing a second or two between exchanges, or is it because your scanning feature is set to delay?  Or just delays and has no 'instantaneous' feature?  Some radios also have features for a time limit, like 2 seconds for stopping on scan. 
         
        "which they are entitled to talk about,
        but I cannot make contact with anyone else
        who might cruise through town until they get off."
         
        So, why can't you break in and make a contact? 
         
        "I know many hams who have simply given up
        monitoring the calling frequency, because it
        does not work as it could."
         
        Truthfully, what do you think makes the most people not monitor '52, a few guys chatting for 3 out of 24 hours, or no traffic at all, for days, weeks and even months on end?
         
        "This is a hot topic, so I don't wanna do any
        more than answer your question as to how it
        matters to other operators. Not illegal... just
        defeats the calling frequency idea."
         
        It is also a topic in which rational discussion may lead to some long term improvements.  Did you know that when calling frequencies were first contrived, it was standard practice to stay there and have conversations?  This was prior to the VFO days.  It wasn't until maybe 20 years ago that someone, the ARRL perhaps, came up with the idea that once the contact was made to clear the frequency.  That practice was swiped from the marine radio service, Ch. 16 VHF.
         
        Learning a little about the history of calling frequencies shows that the way they have been used throughout history has changed.  Maybe it's time to once again reconsider the methodology behind the use of  '52.
         
        "Sorry, Tom... I live by the highway and when I
        got into ham radio, I was sorta looking forward to
        talking to people on the radio, but have had to
        give up on the calling freq concept. Since everybody
        wants to be PC and not rock the boat, it just goes
        on as you say."
         
        Why does the boat have to be rocked?  Is it all that tough to discuss uses and possible changes of a single frequency without getting emotional about it?  As for talking to people, aren't the number of people on '52 simplex a minutia compared to the number of folks on the repeaters, especially the linked system? 
         
        To be honest, and Tim N8NET can vouch for this, I was first totally against rag chewing on '52.   So I decided to check the 'culprits' out.
         
        1)  Would they let me break in with no problem?   --  Yep.
         
        2)  Would they stop chatting long enough for me to make a call?  -- Yep.
         
        3)  Would they let me join the QSO?  -- Yep.
         
        4)  Would any one of them QSY with me because I didn't want to tie up the '52 -- Yep.
         
        Hmmm.....they aren't breaking any rules, they all seemed to be accommodating and polite. So I reconsidered.  I also found out that this issue is going on all over the US, and not just on 2 meters.  People are actually rag chewing on the 6 m SSB calling frequency, too.
         
         I also found out that one of Rileys career highlights was erroneously citing some hams for rag chewing on the '52.  Riley was big time wrong and had to rescind the citations.
         
        I guess that's part of the calling frequency history, too.
         
        73
         
        Mark K8MHZ
         
        PS  I think I may change my QRZ signature to '146.52?  Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded'.
         
        :)


         
         
         
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Richards
        Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:20 PM
        To: WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [WestMichiganHams] Reminder: Armageddon Net Exercise Dec. 29th (Saturday) 10:00 am.

         



        On 12/30/2012 10:56 AM, Mark wrote:

        > If the people chatting on '52 readily give up the
        > frequency, how do they impede the process of making a contact? In
        > actuality, they may even be able to assist people in their attempts to
        > make contacts.?

        ----------------------------------------------------------

        Since you ask...

        Because others want to monitor the calling
        frequency on their radios, and make contact
        when someone else calls in. But if two or three
        fellers monopolize the frequency for a 3 hour
        rag chew, other operators have to lock that
        frequency out and stop scanning it, or else their
        scanners would stick on that one frequency and
        play the three hour rag chew - it won't scan if
        there is a signal, and if they talk for 3 hours that
        is all I would ever hear, and my rig won't scan any
        other channel until they stop. Totally defeats
        my ability to listen for OTHER operators, such as
        those who might be cruising through town and
        look for a brief conversation or for directions to
        find gas, a restaurant, or the like. I have simply
        had to lock out the calling frequency and no longer
        monitor it - because they will tie up my rig for
        hours every day with pretty much the same
        old schtick - which they are entitled to talk about,
        but I cannot make contact with anyone else
        who might cruise through town until they get off.

        I know many hams who have simply given up
        monitoring the calling frequency, because it
        does not work as it could.

        This is a hot topic, so I don't wanna do any
        more than answer your question as to how it
        matters to other operators. Not illegal... just
        defeats the calling frequency idea.

        Sorry, Tom... I live by the highway and when I
        got into ham radio, I was sorta looking forward to
        talking to people on the radio, but have had to
        give up on the calling freq concept. Since everybody
        wants to be PC and not rock the boat, it just goes
        on as you say.

        ---------------------------- K8JHR --------------------

      • Richards
        ... Sure... but that cuts me and everybody else out. They continue to monopolize the channel. ... Both... but you are getting it. ... Good questions.
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 31, 2012
          > The conversational users of the '52 can't give directions and/or other
          > local information?


          Sure... but that cuts me and everybody
          else out. They continue to monopolize
          the channel.



          > it's your ability to listen, not your ability to make a call that is
          > 'defeated', correct?


          Both... but you are getting it.




          > Does your rig not change channels because the '52 ops aren't allowing a
          > second or two between exchanges, or is it because your scanning feature
          > is set to delay? Or just delays and has no 'instantaneous' feature?
          > Some radios also have features for a time limit, like 2 seconds for
          > stopping on scan.


          Good questions. Let's put it into perspective
          with an example - the guys on 53 pause a bit
          to catch their breath, as is usual in any conversation,
          so the rig releases the channel and scans. Then
          it scans for another busy channel.

          Finding none busy, it catches 52 when they start
          up again - and instead of my listening for a contact,
          I end up listening to them rag chew.

          Or, let's assume the rig finds another busy channel,
          say, the Lowell repeater, then it holds that until
          they take a break, and then the guys on 52 catch
          the attention of the scanner, and we are back to
          them until they catch their breath again.

          But... in any case, all the while 52 continues their
          local rag chew session, I cannot monitor 52 and
          make my own contacts. If a traveler does cut
          into their conversation, THEY get the contact
          and handle the questions... in any case, they
          cut me out.

          But wait... there's more:

          Meanwhile, nobody can call ME on 52 and ask
          ME to QSY to a simplex channel. I cannot call
          YOU to make contact, and QSY with you to another
          channel. I cannot call you - even if I interrupt
          them - because you and the rest of the ham
          community quit monitoring the channel long ago.

          I should not have to beg permission from the
          other guys to use 52 to make a new contact.
          The whole idea is that it is always open for that
          sort of thing. But you cannot call me on 52, either,
          because I blocked that frequency on the scanner
          so I don't have to listen to their rag chew session
          every afternoon.

          And this actually matters, because none of my
          ham friends monitor 52 any more - because they
          don't want to listen to those guys every day, hoping
          somebody else will cut in - but, again, if they are on
          they will deal with the new contact, I will have to
          barge in and steal the contact to get involved, and
          nobody is going to work that hard.

          Unfortunately, it seems this way in a lot of places
          across the country, so many traveling hams don't
          even try 52 any more. But, maybe they would if
          it worked the way it might.




          > So, why can't you break in and make a contact?


          Because I should not have to. It is supposed
          to be open so anyone can call and make
          contact and then leave it open to the
          rest of the community to do so.

          Besides, none of my friends monitor 52 any
          more, so they are not listening for me to
          call them there. They don't wanna listen to
          the rag chew guys all afternoon, either, so they
          simply don't monitor 52 any more... again,
          defeating the whole idea of an open calling
          frequency for everybody. That effectively
          converts it into their personal, private channel,
          and defeats the notion of an open, free for all
          calling frequency.



          > Truthfully, what do you think makes the most people not monitor '52, a
          > few guys chatting for 3 out of 24 hours, or no traffic at all, for days,
          > weeks and even months on end?

          Good question. I doubt we can say for sure
          either way, but I think it is most likely that
          there is no traffic on 52 because so many
          hams have killed it off in this manner. This
          has been discussed on many nationwide internet
          ham discussion groups, so it seems to be a problem
          in many places, and it is possible the majority of
          hams have has simply given up on 52 - so nobody
          uses it much in this way any more.

          That means a few has changed it for the many,
          and considering I am one of the many, I lament
          the loss of something good.





          > It is also a topic in which rational discussion may lead to some long
          > term improvements.


          Yes... so far it has been plenty civil here.




          It wasn't until maybe 20
          > years ago that someone, the ARRL perhaps, came up with the idea that
          > once the contact was made to clear the frequency. That practice was
          > swiped from the marine radio service, Ch. 16 VHF.
          > Learning a little about the history of calling frequencies shows that
          > the way they have been used throughout history has changed. Maybe it's
          > time to once again reconsider the methodology behind the use of '52.



          Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it is changing
          on its own, in an organic way, as opposed to
          any intentional plan promulgated from above.




          > Why does the boat have to be rocked? Is it all that tough to discuss
          > uses and possible changes of a single frequency without getting
          > emotional about it? As for talking to people, aren't the number of
          > people on '52 simplex a minutia compared to the number of folks on the
          > repeaters, especially the linked system?


          You may be right about the statistics.

          Unfortunately, no matter how civil and how
          rational the debate is HERE... and it has been,
          it is impossible to discuss the matter with the
          crowd on 52. They say it is "legal" and have
          no patience or interest in discussing the impact
          or significance of any general understandings,
          or gentlemens' agreements, and the conversation
          is over. I negotiated the resolution of hundreds
          of heated disputes, including a fair number of
          heated divorces, but diplomacy has not chance
          for success. I mentioned this to an ARRL Section
          Manager - and he told me to simply give up and
          let them go. It is this sort of "tolerance" that
          allows a minority to overtake the majority.




          > To be honest, and Tim N8NET can vouch for this, I was first totally
          > against rag chewing on '52. So I decided to check the 'culprits' out.

          > 1) Would they let me break in with no problem? -- Yep.
          > 2) Would they stop chatting long enough for me to make a call? -- Yep.
          > 3) Would they let me join the QSO? -- Yep.
          > 4) Would any one of them QSY with me because I didn't want to tie up
          > the '52 -- Yep.




          Yes... but they should do this as
          a matter of courtesy to others.


          > Hmmm.....they aren't breaking any rules, they all seemed to be
          > accommodating and polite. So I reconsidered. I also found out that this
          > issue is going on all over the US, and not just on 2 meters. People are
          > actually rag chewing on the 6 m SSB calling frequency, too.



          OK... then I suppose we will have to give up
          the whole notion of a calling frequency.

          While they might have yield easily... the
          whole point is that no one should have to
          ask for it.

          They don't violate any rules, per se... but they
          unilaterally void a useful common practice.


          We are now sliding down the old slippery slope.
          How far are you willing to go... should we also
          abandon the band plans ? After all, those are not
          mandated by the Rules, either. How many long
          established practices should yield to a few guys
          who don't wanna play ball? Should my friends
          and I set conduct our 6 hour nightly net on the
          MidCars frequency, or the one used by the ARRL
          for code practice bulletins? That would be legal,
          and not violate any rules. Should we move our
          SSB net into the CW portion of the band, because,
          after all, it gets kinda crowded in the phone
          portion of the band ? How many of the long
          established gentlemens' agreements are we
          willing to void in this way?




          > I also found out that one of Rileys career highlights was erroneously
          > citing some hams for rag chewing on the '52. Riley was big time wrong
          > and had to rescind the citations. I guess that's part of the calling frequency history, too.


          Yes. No doubt no one is operating illegally...
          just operating so as to defeat notion of a calling
          frequency. The fact they call it such gives it
          meaning. Otherwise it is just another simplex
          channel.

          Perhaps there are not enough hams willing
          to stand by the practice to support and
          maintain it. Like so many things in our
          socio-political environment, few are willing
          to stand up and speak out - they just go
          with the flow, and while that is their choice,
          it is not mine. Silly me... I speak my mind!
          ;-) The XYL thinks I will get shot for that
          someday ... ;-)


          GOOD QUESTIONS-- GOOD DISCUSSION HERE.

          I APPEARS I MAY BE OUT-VOTED ON THE ISSUE... ;-)


          HAPPY DAYS AND HAPPY HOLIDAY, MARK.

          ________________JHR___________________
        • Mark
          Happy New Year, Jim! Most advice about ham radio practice centers around the just spin the knob paradigm. Or, basically ignore it. The Internet allows us to
          Message 4 of 30 , Jan 1, 2013
            

            Happy New Year, Jim!
             
            Most advice about ham radio practice centers around the 'just spin the knob' paradigm.  Or, basically ignore it.
             
            The Internet allows us to do both, spin the knob when we don't like what is going on, and also voice our concerns to other hams off the air.
             
            There is a problem with that.  People get brave behind the keyboard and many of them simply toss etiquette out the window.  We have to remember to remain as emotionally neutral as possible, but still keep the opinion intact. 
             
            Many times, it's not what people say, but how they say it. 
             
            ----Break----
             
            Here is some more info on the '52.  First, you have to remember that I started looking for info on the '52 freq. to support a stance just like the one you have now.  Well, as you see, I haven't had much luck.   I just looked at a 1995 ARRL repeater directory.  144.200 is listed as the national calling frequency.  146.52 is listed simply as the "national simplex frequency".  The word 'calling' is not present.
             
            I don't know if the new versions are different.  If they are, then the change occurred sometime after 1995.  I found an old (2006) discussion on QRZ about it and from the banter there, the ARRL had already added the 'calling' thing at that point.  It is currently listed on arrl.org as 'national simplex calling frequency'.
             
            Now, I hate politics and I am not into ARRL bashing or anything of the like, so I tend to look at things mathematically.  
             
            The ARRL consists of a very small minority of licensed operators and the upper echelon of that organization has already admitted they exist for self-preservation (and I understand this) and not necessarily to represent the entire membership, nor hams in general.  And realize, if they did not make self preservation a major concern, they would have been gone long ago.  It is a strategy that simply has to be. 
             
            There are a large number of licensed, active hams that don't really agree with the ARRL and prefer to follow the FCC's rules instead.  Who are we to say that they can't or that following the ARRL's rules is a requirement for 'good operating practice'?
             
            Considering that the FCC indeed does require good operating practices (97.101), their opinion on the use of 146.52 must reflect that.   So....here it is:
             
            "NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 23, 2002--FCC Special Counsel for Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth has told five amateurs in Ohio and Michigan to disregard his earlier admonition to avoid lengthy QSOs on 146.52 MHz. Acknowledging that some confusion (sic!) exists within the amateur community as to whether 146.52 is a national calling channel or just another simplex frequency, Hollingsworth decided to simply rescind the five advisory notices he'd sent October 15.

            "We made an error in issuing that Advisory Notice, and you may disregard it," Hollingsworth wrote today in letters sent to each of the affected amateurs. Commenting to ARRL, Hollingsworth was blunt yet good-natured. "I goofed," he said. "If I were worried about making a fool of myself from time to time, I never would have become a lawyer in the first place." "
             
            I think this is a good place to pause.  :)
             
            Oh, my New Year's resolution is to get some antennas, especially my 2m/440 one outside.  Then I could actually listen to 146.52 and see (hear) what I am missing.
             
            73
             
            Mark K8MHZ
             
             

             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
            Yes. No doubt no one is operating illegally...
            just operating so as to defeat notion of a calling
            frequency. The fact they call it such gives it
            meaning. Otherwise it is just another simplex
            channel.

            Perhaps there are not enough hams willing
            to stand by the practice to support and
            maintain it. Like so many things in our
            socio-political environment, few are willing
            to stand up and speak out - they just go
            with the flow, and while that is their choice,
            it is not mine. Silly me... I speak my mind!
            ;-) The XYL thinks I will get shot for that
            someday ... ;-)


            GOOD QUESTIONS-- GOOD DISCUSSION HERE.

            I APPEARS I MAY BE OUT-VOTED ON THE ISSUE... ;-)

            HAPPY DAYS AND HAPPY HOLIDAY, MARK.

            ________________JHR___________________

          • Richards
            Good Post, Mark -- a lot of buckshot in that one little shell! Happy days.
            Message 5 of 30 , Jan 1, 2013
              Good Post, Mark -- a lot of buckshot in that one little shell!

              Happy days.

              ----------------------- JHR ------------------------------------
            • Mark
              Thanks Jim, Really, not much, if any of the info is mine, personally. I found it on the Net and just passed it on in somewhat of a condensed version. 73 Mark
              Message 6 of 30 , Jan 1, 2013
                
                Thanks Jim,
                 
                Really, not much, if any of the info is mine, personally.  I found it on the 'Net and just passed it on in somewhat of a condensed version.
                 
                73
                 
                Mark K8MHZ
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Richards
                Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 6:12 PM
                To: WestMichiganHams@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [WestMichiganHams] Reminder: Armageddon Net Exercise Dec. 29th (Saturday) 10:00 am.

                 

                Good Post, Mark -- a lot of buckshot in that one little shell!

                Happy days.

                ----------------------- JHR ------------------------------------

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.