Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM
To: amradio@mailman.qth.net Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:35:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Bob said: "ARRL will not want to enforce it through the Official Observer program because of legal liability." It might be helpful if you could explain what "legal liability" you are referring to. Pete, wa2cwa On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:24:24 -0800 (PST) Bob Scupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Web page appears in opposition to RM-11306 > I agree with you! Based on historical retrospect, the FCC will not possess the budgetary means to enforce it also. The ARRL will not want to enforce it > through the Official Observer program because of legal liability. Therefore, the entire Amateur Radio community will have to respond to it. Sorry, but I > do no think that will happen either or will be far and few between and totally ineffective! > "Just the fact ma'am and only the facts!", as they say on Dragnet. > > Thanks for your and everyone else's comments. > > 73's, > Bob K5SEP __ AMRadio mailing list Pete and All- I was speaking of legal action such as law suits against ARRL or any of it's representatives acting in their capacity. This happening after the League Petition goes through the NPRM stage and is unmodified(?) and is included in a revised Part 97. Sorry I did not clarify that point. I really hope I am wrong on this one though. Thank you for asking. 73's, Bob K5SEP Life Member QCWA and ARRL Member - Antique Wireless Association Life Member - New Mexico Radio Collectors Club __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM
Bob said: "ARRL will not want to enforce it through the Official Observer program because of legal liability." It might be helpful if you could explain what "legal liability" you are referring to. Pete, wa2cwa On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:24:24 -0800 (PST) Bob Scupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Web page appears in opposition to RM-11306 > I agree with you! Based on historical retrospect, the FCC will not possess the budgetary means to enforce it also. The ARRL will not want to enforce it > through the Official Observer program because of legal liability. Therefore, the entire Amateur Radio community will have to respond to it. Sorry, but I > do no think that will happen either or will be far and few between and totally ineffective! > "Just the fact ma'am and only the facts!", as they say on Dragnet. > > Thanks for your and everyone else's comments. > > 73's, > Bob K5SEP
Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM
Here ya go Jim. ARRL has the "Amateur Auxiliary of the FCC": http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/org/am_aux.html If you contact your ARRL Section Manager he/she should be able to contact some OO's somewhere in your area to pay some extra attention to the frequencies where you are having problems. May not be the ultimate fix but it at least gets the ball rolling and could provide some documented evidence if you have to pursue it further with the FCC. Pete, wa2cwa On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:59:48 -0600 "Jim Wilhite" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Isn't this the kind of behavior that should be discouraged? I have > and > "issue" with some SSB operators on a frequency where I operated SSB. > Should > I behave as this guy has? > > I wonder if the ARRL should form a committee to help resolve these > problems. > It might be a good way to prevent them from escalating to > interference > problems and resultant complaints to the FCC. > > We are in a low sunspot cycle currently and interference and > resultant > confrontations are commonplace. What has not changed is the > attitude of > this guy when it comes to a legal mode operated in a technically > correct > manner. He should have to answer and should have his license > removed if he > cannot accept the overall rules he agreed to follow when he accepted > his > license. > > 73 Jim > W5JO > > - Original Message ----- > From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM > > > >I think Ron believes all AM'ers should stay in the imaginary AM > window > > and not wander around all over 75 meters. You should strike up an > e-mail > > dialogue with him to find out where he's really coming from. Maybe > he > > just doesn't like you or has had an issue with AM (or AM'ers) in > the past > > that keeps gnawing at him. i.e. the itch you can't reach. > > Pete, wa2cwa > > > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:50:57 -0500 "W1EOF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > >> > >> > -Original Message- > >> > From: VJB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:28 AM > >> > To: amradio@mailman.qth.net > >> > Subject: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM > >> > >> > >> > I've already had one heckler, > >> > N2NGY, breaking into a QSO on 75m and telling us that > >> > your Petition will "finally do us in." > >> > >> > >> > >> > Paul > >> > >> > >> I'm not diagreeing with you but consider the source > >> Paul (See below, from the ARRL website) - > >> > >> 73, > >> > >> Mark W1EOF > >> > >> > >> > > > ~ > > ~~~ > >> > >> BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, > 2000, > >> to > >> Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that > >> information > >> before the Commission indicates the licensee has been > "deliberately > >> interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs > on > >> the > >> 75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the > >> licensee > >> "failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and > have > >> made > >> threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur > Radio > >> Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation > of > >> the type > >> described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and > >> revocation > >> proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him to > >> discuss the > >> matter. > >> > > > ~ > > ~~~ > >> > >> January 15, 2002 > >> > >> Mr. Ronald Marshott > >> 56 Briarwood Drive West > >> Berkely Heights, NJ 07922 > >> > >> RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license N2NGY > >> > >> Dear Mr. Marshott: > >> > >> Monitoring information before the Commission indicates that you > >> were > >> transmitting music during transmission on 3.832 MHz on the > evening > >> of > >> November 27, 2001. > >> > >> Please be advised that such transmissions are contrary to the > >> Commission's > >> rules regarding the Amateur Radio Service, and degrade the > Service > >> for > >> legitimate users. You are requested to review the Commission's > rules > >> for the > >> Amateur Service, particularly Section 97.113(a)(4). > >> > >> You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about > this > >> matter.
Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:06:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Bob Scupp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Web page appears in opposition to RM-11306 To: AMRadio@mailman.qth.net CC: "Brian Carling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "The exact same thing can be said of the ARRL proposal. The only difference is that the ARRL proposal hampers everyone with a lot more complicated rules and hampers the FCC with enforcing something they don't have time to monitor." Brian- I agree with you! Based on historical retrospect, the FCC will not possess the budgetary means to enforce it also. The ARRL will not want to enforce it through the Official Observer program because of legal liability. Therefore, the entire Amateur Radio community will have to respond to it. Sorry, but I do no think that will happen either or will be far and few between and totally ineffective! "Just the fact ma'am and only the facts!", as they say on Dragnet. Thanks for your and everyone else's comments. 73's, Bob K5SEP "The ARRL will not want to enforce it through the Official Observer program because of legal liability. Therefore, the entire Amateur Radio community will have to respond to it. Sorry, but I do no think that will happen either or will be far and few between and totally ineffective!" The same goes for any other committee/service the League might consider. (Unfortunately) 73's, Bob K5SEP Life Member QCWA and ARRL Member - Antique Wireless Association Life Member - New Mexico Radio Collectors Club __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM
Isn't this the kind of behavior that should be discouraged? I have and "issue" with some SSB operators on a frequency where I operated SSB. Should I behave as this guy has? I wonder if the ARRL should form a committee to help resolve these problems. It might be a good way to prevent them from escalating to interference problems and resultant complaints to the FCC. We are in a low sunspot cycle currently and interference and resultant confrontations are commonplace. What has not changed is the attitude of this guy when it comes to a legal mode operated in a technically correct manner. He should have to answer and should have his license removed if he cannot accept the overall rules he agreed to follow when he accepted his license. 73 Jim W5JO - Original Message - From: "peter markavage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM I think Ron believes all AM'ers should stay in the imaginary AM window and not wander around all over 75 meters. You should strike up an e-mail dialogue with him to find out where he's really coming from. Maybe he just doesn't like you or has had an issue with AM (or AM'ers) in the past that keeps gnawing at him. i.e. the itch you can't reach. Pete, wa2cwa On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:50:57 -0500 "W1EOF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > -Original Message- > From: VJB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:28 AM > To: amradio@mailman.qth.net > Subject: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM > I've already had one heckler, > N2NGY, breaking into a QSO on 75m and telling us that > your Petition will "finally do us in." > Paul I'm not diagreeing with you but consider the source Paul (See below, from the ARRL website) - 73, Mark W1EOF ~ ~~~ BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that information before the Commission indicates the licensee has been "deliberately interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs on the 75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the licensee "failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and have made threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation of the type described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and revocation proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him to discuss the matter. ~ ~~~ January 15, 2002 Mr. Ronald Marshott 56 Briarwood Drive West Berkely Heights, NJ 07922 RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license N2NGY Dear Mr. Marshott: Monitoring information before the Commission indicates that you were transmitting music during transmission on 3.832 MHz on the evening of November 27, 2001. Please be advised that such transmissions are contrary to the Commission's rules regarding the Amateur Radio Service, and degrade the Service for legitimate users. You are requested to review the Commission's rules for the Amateur Service, particularly Section 97.113(a)(4). You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about this matter. __ AMRadio mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html Post: mailto:AMRadio@mailman.qth.net AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami, Paul Courson/wa3vjb
Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM
I think Ron believes all AM'ers should stay in the imaginary AM window and not wander around all over 75 meters. You should strike up an e-mail dialogue with him to find out where he's really coming from. Maybe he just doesn't like you or has had an issue with AM (or AM'ers) in the past that keeps gnawing at him. i.e. the itch you can't reach. Pete, wa2cwa On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:50:57 -0500 "W1EOF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > -Original Message- > > From: VJB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:28 AM > > To: amradio@mailman.qth.net > > Subject: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM > > > > I've already had one heckler, > > N2NGY, breaking into a QSO on 75m and telling us that > > your Petition will "finally do us in." > > > > > Paul > > > I'm not diagreeing with you but consider the source > Paul (See below, from the ARRL website) - > > 73, > > Mark W1EOF > > > ~ ~~~ > > BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, > to > Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that > information > before the Commission indicates the licensee has been "deliberately > interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs on > the > 75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the > licensee > "failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and have > made > threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio > Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation of > the type > described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and > revocation > proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him to > discuss the > matter. > ~ ~~~ > > January 15, 2002 > > Mr. Ronald Marshott > 56 Briarwood Drive West > Berkely Heights, NJ 07922 > > RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license N2NGY > > Dear Mr. Marshott: > > Monitoring information before the Commission indicates that you > were > transmitting music during transmission on 3.832 MHz on the evening > of > November 27, 2001. > > Please be advised that such transmissions are contrary to the > Commission's > rules regarding the Amateur Radio Service, and degrade the Service > for > legitimate users. You are requested to review the Commission's rules > for the > Amateur Service, particularly Section 97.113(a)(4). > > You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about this > matter.
RE: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM
> -Original Message- > From: VJB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:28 AM > To: amradio@mailman.qth.net > Subject: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM > I've already had one heckler, > N2NGY, breaking into a QSO on 75m and telling us that > your Petition will "finally do us in." > Paul I'm not diagreeing with you but consider the source Paul (See below, from the ARRL website) - 73, Mark W1EOF BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that information before the Commission indicates the licensee has been "deliberately interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs on the 75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the licensee "failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and have made threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation of the type described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and revocation proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him to discuss the matter. January 15, 2002 Mr. Ronald Marshott 56 Briarwood Drive West Berkely Heights, NJ 07922 RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license N2NGY Dear Mr. Marshott: Monitoring information before the Commission indicates that you were transmitting music during transmission on 3.832 MHz on the evening of November 27, 2001. Please be advised that such transmissions are contrary to the Commission's rules regarding the Amateur Radio Service, and degrade the Service for legitimate users. You are requested to review the Commission's rules for the Amateur Service, particularly Section 97.113(a)(4). You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about this matter. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 1/24/06
