In addition, 97.3(a)(22) Harmful interference. Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations.
97.109(d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by an EIC that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the EIC. So, as you can see, harmful interference doesn't even need to be willful or malicious. It only needs to occur in order for the automatic station to be ordered to cease operating. Please note, this resolves the situation where the automatic station argues that since there is no control operator, then there can be no willful or malicious interference. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's what §97.7 says: > > "§97.7 Control operator required > > When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. > The control operator must be a person: > > (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant > appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or > > (b) Who is authorized for alien operation by §97.107 of this Part." > > > "Control Operator" is defined in §97.3.a (13): > > "Control operator. An amateur operator designated by the licensee of > a station to be responsible for the transmissions from that station > to assure compliance with the FCC Rules." > > > In applications like WinLink where an unattended station > is "activated" by an attended station, the attended station's > operator cannot serve as control operator for the unattended station > because this operator has no real-time access to the unattended > station's receiver, and thus cannot assure that transmissions from > the unattended station will not interfere with an ongoing QSO, as is > required by §97.101.d: > > "No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or > cause interference to any radio communication or signal." > > Unattended WinLink PMBOs thus have no control operator and are in > flagrant violation of FCC regulations. The same is true for > unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule, or any other > unattended station where there's no control operator with real-time > access to the station's receiver output. > > No one here or anywhere else has ever refuted the above facts and > logic. Dave K1ZZ, the ARRL's CEO, pointed out that you can sometimes > transmit on a busy frequency without QRMing the users of that > frequency -- which is true -- but when I asked whether that meant it > was okay to always transmit without listening he had no response. > Dave also implied that it was okay to bend the rules in order to > nurture a promising new technology, but when I asked how he felt > about the FCC doing that with BPL he again had no response. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien" > <andrewobrie@> wrote: > > > > Consider the following statements attributed to Hollingworth and > the FCC's > > Cross. > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > Hollingsworth offered good news and bad news. "The good news: > Nothing is > > wrong with Amateur Radio," he allowed. "It is a good service that > is showing > > its value to the public on a daily basis." > > > > The bad news, he asserted, making a comparison to "road rage," > is "that > > there is an element of Amateur Radio that too often reflects > present society > > generally." > > > > Hollingsworth urged all radio amateurs to cooperate more and depend > less on > > the FCC to solve their operating issues. > > > > "We live in a rude, discourteous, profane, hotheaded society that > loves its > > rights, prefers not to hear about its responsibilities, and that > spills over > > into the ham bands," he said. > > > > Hollingsworth's bottom line: Be flexible in your frequency > selection and > > make regular use of the "big knob" on the front of your transceiver > to shift > > to any of the "thousands of frequencies and hundreds usable at any > given > > time of day or year" as necessary to avoid problems. "The world is > ugly > > enough -- don't add to it," Hollingsworth advised. > > > > "We can enforce our rules, but we can't enforce kindness and > courtesy or > > common sense," Hollingsworth concluded. "And a very wise person, > who happens > > to be standing to my left [FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau > staffer > > Bill Cross, W3TN *-- Ed*] once told me: 'You can't regulate > stupid.' If we > > could, we'd be working for the United Nations instead of the FCC." > > > > *Amateur Radio Licensees Responsible for Rule Compliance* > > > > In his comments, Cross singled out the controversy that erupted > recently > > over fears that automatically controlled digital stations would > overwhelm > > the amateur bands, eclipsing most other modes. Cross cited §97.7 of > the > > rules, which requires each amateur station to have a control > operator and, > > in essence, to employ a "listen-before-transmit" protocol." > > > > When a station is under automatic control, regardless of the > transmission > > mode, Cross explained, the control operator need not be at the > control > > point, but must employ station control devices and procedures while > > transmitting that ensure compliance with the FCC rules and does not > cause > > harmful interference to ongoing communications of other stations. > > > > The operational rule, Cross said, is: "Your call sign, your > responsibility." > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > Hollingworth's comments seem contradictory the those attributed to > Cross in > > this article, I suspect the editing altered the context of Cross' > words . I > > think Hollingsworth's intent , applied to the ALE-busy detect > issue we > > have been discussing, would be that we use common sense > and "cooperate > > more" rather than the hair-splitting that USA hams are famous > for. I > > can't say for sure, but I suspect that Hollinsworth would apply > his idea to > > ALE by agreeing with Steve's comments a week ago. Paraphrased: "a > little > > auto-attended beaconing for 12 seconds every now and again isn't > really too > > difficult to handle . If it does get to be a problem when hundred > of ALE > > stations are on the air, figure it out yourselves with voluntary > > guidelines" . I agree with his sentiments. > > > > So , that leaves us with Cross' words. When he " singled out the > > controversy that erupted recently over fears that automatically > controlled > > digital stations ", and "cited §97.7 of the rules, which requires > each > > amateur station to have a control operator and, in essence, to > employ a > > listen-before-transmit protocol.", was he really saying that " > > listen-before-transmit protocol" were essential? Or was he > indicating > > that on-going debate was "stupid" ? Was he implying agreement with > > Hollingsworth and suggesting that obsessive focusing on 97.7 > should end > > and we should just get on with things ? After all, an absolute > insistence > > on "listen-before-transmit " would eliminate the ARRL's bulletins, > the DX CW > > beacons on HF, and DXpeditions . Surely , if Cross' remarks were > intended > > to signal that he thought unattended operations were bad, he would > have > > pushed legislation to clearly ban PACTOR, or proposed new laws > that would > > create a confinement camp of special frequencies for the PACTOR , > ALE, and > > ARRL bulletin lepers of our society. > > > > I have always thought that a "QRL?" was the cornerstone of good > operating > > practice and the effective operator changes frequency when the > answer "yes" > > is heard. I think installing busy detection capabilities would > be "the > > right thing to do" but I wonder if both Cross and Hollingsworth > would > > expect us to "tolerate" the DX beacons, PACTOR mailboxes, and ALE > soundings > > ? If so, lets get on with a common sense approach to sharing the > world of > > attended and unattended operations. If not, lets get a ruling and > stop ALE > > , PACTOR, DX beacons, and ARRL beacons until they routinely QRL and > actually > > change frequency when met with a "yes". > > > > Maybe it is time to drop his office a line and ask for a > clarification. To > > be honest, I love to see the reaction if the response was that the > FCC does > > not really care and you guys should just figure it out among > yourselves. > > > > Andy K3UK > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/23/07, Rud Merriam < k5rud@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rick, > > > > > > The other night I went through that PhD thesis you have posted on > HfDec. > > > > > > The main problems on HF, according to that author, are not AWGN > but fading > > > and multipath. He even indicated that the AWGN model is > inaccurate that > > > empirical measurements indicate the noise is Laplacian, which has > a > > > steeper > > > roll off that Gaussian. He also indicated that did not seem to > make much > > > difference. > > > > > > We seem to be on the same wavelength <groan> with no interest in > putting > > > down any protocol but in looking at them objectively. ALE, Pactor, > > > DominoEX, > > > Mt63, and all the others are doing well in various ways. Given > some theory > > > and this practical experience how do we develop something that > does even > > > better overall. > > > > > > Rud Merriam K5RUD > > > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX > > > http://TheHamNetwork.net > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio% > 40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com<digitalradio% > 40yahoogroups.com>] > > > On > > > Behalf Of Rick > > > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 11:35 PM > > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> > > > Subject: [digitalradio] ALE yes ... or no? > > > ... > > > > > > I have been spending a LOT of time researching the studies of ALE > and > > > the standards from the company claims. Many of these are computer > > > simulations and not real world tests. As one scientist put it, > they had > > > some modes that worked well with computer simulation but were > completely > > > useless when field tested. The one thing that you will find is > that the > > > high speed modes typically need a good strong, clear, moderate to > low > > > ISI signal. > > > ... > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Andy K3UK > > www.obriensweb.com > > (QSL via N2RJ) > > >
