Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 04:30:02 PDT From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #164 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Thu, 7 Apr 94 Volume 94 : Issue 164 Today's Topics: CB interference and FCC...need help (3 msgs) Question about ID'ing... (2 msgs) Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Apr 94 16:32:35 GMT From: hp-cv!hp-pcd!hpcvsnz!tomb@hplabs.hp.com Subject: CB interference and FCC...need help To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Douglas Dever (ak842@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote: : So Mr. OO goes to his phone and does whatever it is OO's do, and : eventually word gets to the FCC. Does anything happen? : Probably not. This is a federal agency! You know, they're part of : the people who steal money out of your paycheck every month and give : you nothing in return. Just last night there was an article about the local FCC monitoring station in Ferndale, WA. They are getting in trouble for being _too_ zealous in enforcing the rules. They hand out multi-thousand dollar fines to folk who apparently make occasional honest (?) mistakes. Senators get called and their aids spend considerable time trying to get fines reduced. Ya just can't win. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 94 17:06:56 GMT From: hp-cv!hp-pcd!hpcvsnz!tomb@hplabs.hp.com Subject: CB interference and FCC...need help To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu I just posted: : Just last night there was an article about the local FCC monitoring : station in Ferndale, WA. They are getting in trouble for being _too_ Sorry, I intended to mention the source: front page, Seattle Times (afternoon newspaper), 05APR94. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1994 02:17:08 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!ak842@network.ucsd.edu Subject: CB interference and FCC...need help To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In a previous article, tomb@lsid.hp.com (Tom Bruhns) says: > >Just last night there was an article about the local FCC monitoring >station in Ferndale, WA. They are getting in trouble for being _too_ >zealous in enforcing the rules. They hand out multi-thousand dollar >fines to folk who apparently make occasional honest (?) mistakes. >Senators get called and their aids spend considerable time trying to >get fines reduced. > >Ya just can't win. > > Welcome to the 90's. :| -- __ Douglas A. Dever __ ak842@po.cwru.edu QSO on 146.82/R anytime! s9000159@llohio.ll.pbs.org 73 de N8VUR ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1994 19:28:41 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!cravitma@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Question about ID'ing... To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu On Tue, 5 Apr 1994 21:54:53 GMT, strange alien beings caused Gary Morris @ignite (garym@alsys.com) to write: > A lot of dual band radios on the market today have cross band repeat > capability but totally ignore the ID requirements. I've been trying to > figure out a way to add an ID'er to my TM-742 for cross band repeat but > there doesn't seem to be a way. I have to ID it manually on both bands. > --GaryM There is a gizmo on the market by a company called Spectrum Concepts for around $300 that allows you to make your dualbander HT into a full repeater, with hangtime and timeout timers, ID etc. It was reviewed in the March QST. /Matthew -- Matthew Cravit, N9VWG | All opinions expressed here are Michigan State University | my own. I don't speak for MSU E-Mail: cravitma@cps.msu.ed | and they don't speak for me. GO/CS -d+@ -p+ c++ !l u+(++) e+(*) s/+ n+(---) h+ f+ !g w+(+++) t++@ r(+) y? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 94 03:55:15 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Question about ID'ing... To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Muenzler, Kevin writes: >or CW, not to exceed 20 WPM. ATV (450MHz and above) may ID within the >picture >that they are sending. SSTV is still required to ID via CW or voice. ATV can ID within the picture IF the NTSC system (as defined by the FCC's broadcast rules) is being used, such that the picture can be received on a normal TV set fed by a converter. If you're running something really odd -- such as FM video, HDTV or any other incompatible system -- you have to revert to a voice or CW ID so that a monitoring station can receive your ID without the sort of unusual gear you're using. (Speaking of HDTV, many people in the broadcast industry are calling it "ATV" now, for "advanced television." In fact that's what the FCC always calls it. Guess we'll have to find another set of initials...) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 94 03:48:16 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <765221426snx@skyld.grendel.com>, , <2nrt2g$67r@abyss.West.Sun.COM> Subject : Re: 40 meter Broadcast QRM Dana Myers writes: >I wonder which countries the (very impressive) VOA site in Delano, CA >that I drove past yesterday transmits to? Probably to their relay sites in the Pacific Rim countries. VOA broadcasts to Latin America from Bethany, Ohio and Greeneville, North Carolina, but for the most part they use overseas relay sites to serve other parts of the world. The relays are fed both by satellite and by HF ISB transmissions from Delano and Greeneville. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 94 17:12:05 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!elmore@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , <1994Apr5.130128.184@arrl.org>, <2ntkaq$9eo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Subject : Re: CB interference and FCC...need help In article <2ntkaq$9eo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak842@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Douglas Dever) writes: ... Story of RFI from CB omitted ... > Ha ha ha ha.... I'm actually quite amused by this. (The ARRL >tends to amuse me anyways.) It's unfortunate, Ed, that local volunteers >are powerless to do anything also! Let's face up to something. The >OO's and Amateur Aux. are POWERLESS! The FCC isn't going to do anything >about interference, and I doubt my local OO is going to march up and >knock on some bozo's door and demand his rig at gunpoint. > >So I guess that leads us to a question, Ed: > How exactly is this volunteer going to help out? > >"Yup, he's interfering with that there telephone alright. I'll the >FCC, wish there was something I could do." > >So Mr. OO goes to his phone and does whatever it is OO's do, and >eventually word gets to the FCC. Does anything happen? >Probably not. This is a federal agency! You know, they're part of >the people who steal money out of your paycheck every month and give >you nothing in return. > >It unfortunate that these events happen, but it's a reality we have to >face until the FCC does somethig about it. Doug, your ignorance and prejudice is showing. Besides, this is one of my hot buttons. I'm the Technical Coordinator for Colorado and before that I was what is now called a Technical Specialist. The TC and whatever TSs that can be gathered up chase after amateur-to-consumer electronics RFI problems. Official Observers (OOs) chase down amateur-to-amateur interference problems and note blatant Part 97 violations from amateurs; they also issue "good guy" reports occasionally to hams that show exemplary behavior. Now, to brass tacks. I work quite regularly with the FCC Denver Field Operations Bureau (FOB) concerning all sorts of problems. The first case I chased as a TS I was accompanied by Leo Cirbo, an FCC Engineer, now the Chief Engineer at Denver. He was *very* interested in the RFI problem, for various reasons. We found that the ham had some harmonics that were barely above the limit, but that the problem was with the consumer electronics. The ham had to fix his problem and we demonstrated to the home-owner that the problems could be cured with proper filtering applications. The Denver FOB issued a letter stating that the amateur station now met all regulatory requirements and that the home electronics equipment was at fault. They care. I've worked lots of cases since then with various FCC engineers. They *ALL* care. And I'll tell you this: they work their butts off. There are THREE engineers at the Denver FOB and these guys have to cover New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and half of Nebraska and South Dakota. And we wonder why they don't leap into their cars and rush out to render assistance to some ham who gets into a telephone, or has power line interference problems. Any idea how many calls they get each day concerning interference problems? I spent what turned out to be a typical day there and I know: about 50 (I asked if this was typical). And guess what? Most concern interference on business frequencies, problems with BC intermod, public service intermod bugs, problems with telephone service, CATV troubles, interference to aircraft radio navigation and communications and, oh yes, amateur and CB problems as well. Three guys. Day in, day out. Oh yeah, they have to do station inspections at BC sites. And then there are the enforcement actions (they really do go after "freebanders"). And then there's the paperwork. In the years I've done this I've learned that amateur RFI problems aren't primarily technical: they are diplomatic. The technical problems are *trivial* compared to the interpersonal problems! In almost every case, by the time I'm called the the technical problems pale in comparison to the turf war that's broken out. My job, and my TSs job, deals primarily with getting both parties to essentially have a stake in solving the problem. Until they do, the problems will never go away. When we go on a case, we write up a report to the FCC and all affected parties. The FCC stands behind our findings. If we say the ham has a problem, then we help solve it. When the ham thinks it's fixed, we're expected to go make sure and report on it. When we find the problem lies in the consumer electronics gear, the FCC stands firm: they tell the complainant that the problem will continue until the demonstrated filter applications are made (we aren't finshed until we show the complainant what is needed to solve the problem). We've had complainants write Senators and Representatives complaining that *they* shouldn't have to do anything. The FCC sites our work and stands firm when the Congresscritter's office calls the FOB (and they do). And, if you ever wanted to be treated like a Nobel laureate, just solve an RFI problem in the field some time. The complainant will beleive you walk on water. And the PR benefits to ham radio are immeasurable. The FCC welcomes our participation. They have offered us use of their equipment (spectrum analyzers, field strength meters, heck they'll even send out an enforcement vehicle if we think we need it). The FCC isn't interested in placing blame: they are interested in *compliance*. Would they like to see PL 95-259 (the law giving the FCC power to enforce RFI acceptance specs on consumer electronics) exercised? The guys in Denver sure do. But then, what standards should be set? I participated in some TV RFI and telephone RFI tests with the FCC a couple of years ago so they could get an idea of what's out there. The Denver guys fervently hoped that it would pave the way to RF tolerenace criteria for consumer electronics, but Washington hasn't made any sounds like that. It doesn't help to snigger and say "How impotent! How ineffective! It's a Federal Agency; what do you expect? There's nothing that anyone can do so why try!" There sure as hell *is* something we can do. In this case, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. 73, Kim Elmore, [N5OP, PP ASEL/Glider 2232456] * _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._ * * Said by NQ0I while working on his shack: * * "All these *wires*! Why do they call it `wireless'!?" * * _._. __._ _.. _.._ _.. . _. ..... ___ .__. _. ..... ___ .__. _.. _.._ _._ * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 09:11:20 GMT From: news.Hawaii.Edu!uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!jherman@ames.arpa To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <765221426snx@skyld.grendel.com>, , <2nrt2g$67r@abyss.West.Sun.COM> Subject : Re: 40 meter Broadcast QRM In article <2nrt2g$67r@abyss.West.Sun.COM> myers@spot.West.Sun.COM (Dana Myers ) writes: >In article jherman@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes: >>In article <765221426snx@skyld.grendel.com> jangus@skyld.grendel.com (Jeffrey D. Angus) writes: >>> >>>In article <1994Apr1.142818.25552@emba.uvm.edu> gdavis@griffin.emba.uvm.edu writes: >>> >>> > It's amazing that after years of IARU work we still must, more or less, >>> > live with the megawatt AM broadcasters. >>> >>> Yeah, good thing we'd never stoop to that. >>> >>> I wonder where VOA have their antennas pointed? >> >>The VOA mostly uses remote xmtr sites close to their target countries. >>For example, their bcsts directed to Viet Nam are transmitted from >>a site in the Philippines. Antennas are oriented towards the target >>countries. >I wonder which countries the (very impressive) VOA site in Delano, CA >that I drove past yesterday transmits to? That's why I was careful to say ``The VOA mostly uses...'' ^^^^^^ for I know that they (we?) do have xmtr sites back on US soil. Isn't Delano a relay site? I once called the USIA office here in Honolulu to ask for a VOA schedule; they refused to send me one on the grounds that the VOA is meant to be an external service of the US govt whose bcsts are meant to disseminate US policy and views to foreign listeners, and act as a news source to overseas Americans - they're not allowed by law to compete against commercial bcst'ers for listenership here in the US. Only after I told them I would be visiting Asia did they send me a schedule. Jeff NH6IL ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #164 ****************************** ******************************