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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Dec 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 30 , Jan 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        

        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 3 of 30 , Jan 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 30 , Jan 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            
            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.