bb wrote:
robert casey wrote:

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

Riley says that "Good Amateur Practice" is enforceable.

No one here believes it, though.

Who doesn't believe it, Brain?

Quotes? Posts?

I know for a fact that Dave Heil, Jim Miccolis and myself have all
stated that FCC policy has been to minimize enforcement action in lieu
of self-policing, but has and will continue to issue citations to those
who violate established band plans, etc, when required to do so.

Now...WHO doesn't believe that "Good Amateur Practice" isn't
enforceable?

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
robert casey wrote:

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

Riley says that "Good Amateur Practice" is enforceable.

No one here believes it, though.

Who doesn't believe it, Brain?

Quotes? Posts?

I know for a fact that Dave Heil, Jim Miccolis and myself have
all
stated that FCC policy has been to minimize enforcement action in
lieu
of self-policing, but has and will continue to issue citations to
those
who violate established band plans, etc, when required to do so.

Now...WHO doesn't believe that "Good Amateur Practice" isn't
enforceable?

Steve, K4YZ

Simple. All those who think that communicating with out of band
frenchmen is good amateur practice.

King Zulu wrote:
"Caveat Lector" wrote in message
news:ZPdPd.30559$xt.18447@fed1read07...
RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out

Good grief! I got the Extra before incentive licensing created
sub-bands,
just so I didn't have to keep track of anything more than CW and
phone
bands. Now we have to worry about every bandplan mode allocation?

Relax. You've just heard from the nannerheads that think the
government is supposed to supervise every aspect of a citizen's life.
They rest of us aren't buying into it.

Either the
frequency is in use or not in use.

Ayup.

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
robert casey wrote:

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

Riley says that "Good Amateur Practice" is enforceable.

No one here believes it, though.

Who doesn't believe it, Brain?

Quotes? Posts?

I know for a fact that Dave Heil, Jim Miccolis and myself have
all
stated that FCC policy has been to minimize enforcement action in
lieu
of self-policing, but has and will continue to issue citations to
those
who violate established band plans, etc, when required to do so.

Now...WHO doesn't believe that "Good Amateur Practice" isn't
enforceable?

Steve, K4YZ

Simple. All those who think that communicating with out of band
frenchmen is good amateur practice.

You've not answered my question, Brian.

Who doesn't believe that "Good Amateur Practice" isn't
enforceable?

Was the person you allege to have made this transgression
operating his station within the parameters of his license?
(Remember...only TRANSMITTING is regulated by the license...NOT
receiving).

Was the person obligated by law to know the bandplans of the
French (or any foreign) operators?

Do YOU know the bandplans of all the foreign stations YOU "work"?


Can you attest to the 100% legality of any contacts you have made
based upon any out-of-band operation by the foreign operator?

Come on, Brian...You're insinuating you have some inside knowldege
on foreign operating, here...Strut your stuff.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
robert casey wrote:

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

Riley says that "Good Amateur Practice" is enforceable.

No one here believes it, though.

Who doesn't believe it, Brain?

Quotes? Posts?

I know for a fact that Dave Heil, Jim Miccolis and myself
have
all
stated that FCC policy has been to minimize enforcement action in
lieu
of self-policing, but has and will continue to issue citations to
those
who violate established band plans, etc, when required to do so.

Now...WHO doesn't believe that "Good Amateur Practice" isn't
enforceable?

Steve, K4YZ

Simple. All those who think that communicating with out of band
frenchmen is good amateur practice.

You've not answered my question, Brian.

I did, even though I'm not required to.

"Kim" wrote in message
. com...
"Dan" wrote in message
link.net...

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

GeorgeF wrote:
Caveat Lector wrote:

RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out


Its to the point where the last few days even operating CW on 40 has
been a waste. Twice tonight 20+ minutes into two different QSO's had

RTTY coming right on top..... Guess they couldn't hear that the freq

was already in use (ya right!)

In the "Olde Days" a person operating ANY Amateur mode on that
frequeny would have been proficient in Morse Code to at least 13WPM,
the speed at which one reaches true "literacy" in Morse. (Able to
understand what was being sent without having to write down everything
to get it)

Incursions like this will continue, expecially with the spectre of
a true no code Amateur license looming close.

73 and didididadidah

Steve, K4YZ

Exactly...not to mention the fact that IMHO most of the RTTY contesters
just
don't give a damn who they clobber.

Tonight is the CW Sprint. 40 will be a total wipe out. However I will
have
my RTTY program loaded. And the tape running. One way or another they
will
know who they stepped on.

Dan/W4NTI



heh heh. Yeppers. That'll learn 'em. Of course, nothing more would be
expected from ya there, Dan.

Kim W5TIT


Hey Kim ....stick to what you know....Nothing.

Dan/W4NTI

"Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL" wrote in message
k.net...
GeorgeF wrote in
ink.net:

Caveat Lector wrote:

RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out


Its to the point where the last few days even operating CW on 40 has
been a waste. Twice tonight 20+ minutes into two different QSO's had
RTTY coming right on top..... Guess they couldn't hear that the freq
was already in use (ya right!)

George



Thanks to hard work and efforts of the ARRL, new Ham's don't have to know
CW anymore. So these RTTY OM's probably didn't know they were QRM'ing
anyone. These new ARRL approved "CB'er type Ham's", are good at jamming
and causing all sorts of problems on the bands just like you can hear on
11
meters.

The ARRL does have a plan to help solve conflicts like this to reduce
future problems, but it hasn't been proposed to the FCC yet:

Anyone caught showing any sign of inteligence, using CW, or not acting
like
an all around dumb ass, should be fined and have their license revoked.


KB7ADL


I think you have a handle on the situation.

Dan/W4NTI

"robert casey" wrote in message
.net...

Its to the point where the last few days even operating CW on 40 has been
a waste. Twice tonight 20+ minutes into two different QSO's had RTTY
coming right on top..... Guess they couldn't hear that the freq was
already in use (ya right!)


The RTTY people may not have the receiver audio playing in the
shack, but just looking at the computer monitor for decoded RTTY
messages. SO they may not realize that there's some code coming
in on freq. Changing band conditions and such.

Just one more reason to call them LIDS.

Dan/W4NTI