Interference


Dan Morris - KZ3T
 

Huh == that guy just came across to me and told me I was operating out of band and then gave the following:
7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data and repeated that several times and of course he did not identify himself but he had a fairly strong signal — I’m on 7071.5

Dan Morris KZ3T 070-1065
dbmorris315@...


Joe Cook
 

I had one blowing up the 40m JT 65 freq the other night with RTTY. I think it was a 6 station but i can't remember for sure  

Joe- KG5KRZ

On Mar 9, 2017 6:52 PM, "Dan Morris dbmorris315@... [070]" <070@...> wrote:
 

Huh == that guy just came across to me and told me I was operating out of band and then gave the following:
7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data and repeated that several times and of course he did not identify himself but he had a fairly strong signal — I’m on 7071.5

Dan Morris KZ3T 070-1065
dbmorris315@...



Paul Butzi <kg7stv@...>
 

I suppose this isn’t a matter of reasoning, but mostly I’m just curious why this person hasn’t included psk31 in the ‘data’ part of RTTY/data.

It must be very frustrating to him to tune to 7070 and see eight different qso’s in progress, all of which to him are violations of the ‘rules’.  And it’s very hard for him to make them all stop because he can only interfere in one at a time!

Ah, well.  To my great relief, that is most definitely not my circus and not my monkeys.  But I do think that perhaps he’s forgetting to smile and have fun.

-p KG7STV
73, don’t forget to smile and have fun



On Mar 9, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Dan Morris dbmorris315@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

Huh == that guy just came across to me and told me I was operating out of band and then gave the following:
7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data and repeated that several times and of course he did not identify himself but he had a fairly strong signal — I’m on 7071.5

Dan Morris KZ3T 070-1065
dbmorris315@...



Steve W3HF
 

I think the issue is that he has mistaken the ARRL band plan as mandatory rules. The links I included earlier clearly state that the range he quotes (7.080-7.125) is identified by the ARRL as "RTTY/data". I think he's saying that 7070 is lower than 7080, so it is a violation. But the ARRL band plan is only voluntary, and hasn't been updated in quite a while. And it doesn't even really include 7070--it has a single frequency (7040) for RTTY DX and then there's a gap between that freq and 7080. 

As others have pointed out, the FCC rules clearly allow data (non-specific as to actual mode) from 7025 to 7125. But he doesn't seem to realize the difference between FCC rules and ARRL recommendations.

Steve 
W3HF 
 
On 03/10/17, Paul Butzi kg7stv@... [070]<070@...> wrote:
 


I suppose this isn’t a matter of reasoning, but mostly I’m just curious why this person hasn’t included psk31 in the ‘data’ part of RTTY/data.

It must be very frustrating to him to tune to 7070 and see eight different qso’s in progress, all of which to him are violations of the ‘rules’.  And it’s very hard for him to make them all stop because he can only interfere in one at a time!

Ah, well.  To my great relief, that is most definitely not my circus and not my monkeys.  But I do think that perhaps he’s forgetting to smile and have fun.

-p KG7STV
73, don’t forget to smile and have fun



On Mar 9, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Dan Morris dbmorris315@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

Huh == that guy just came across to me and told me I was operating out of band and then gave the following:
7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data and repeated that several times and of course he did not identify himself but he had a fairly strong signal — I’m on 7071.5

Dan Morris KZ3T 070-1065
dbmorris315@...





Rick - N7WE
 

Good morning all-

Unfortunately I have some experience with dealing with intentional interference in a prior club role.  It can be dealt with, but it takes time and effort.

The fact that this individual failed to ID tells me this was not simply a "misinformed" individual seeking to be helpful.  Regrettably, my experience has been this type of behavior will be repeated and is not self-correcting.  And the only way to impact it is through the FCC and the ARRL OO program.  It takes time and documentation, documentation, documentation to get any action, but it eventually happens.

To that end I filed an Interference complaint with the FCC this morning using their on-line complaint form.  I also sent my ARRL Section Manager and ARRL OO the following:

Rick here -
N7WE - ARRL Member # 2000168852
Leesburg, FL 34748

Last evening between about 00:30 UTC and 01:30 UTC I was operating PSK31 between 7.070 and 7.072.  I observed an individual intentionally and repeatedly interfering with stations calling CQ and in-progress QSOs.  He was using sufficient power to jam the in-progress QSOs.  The text he or she transmitted was:

7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
You are operating out of data band!!
I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu

He or she specifically jammed a QSO between myself and KZ3T - Dan Morris - at approximately 01:00 to the point that we were unable to complete the QSO.  At no time during this period did the station identify. 

As I only have a vertical, I am unable to provide an azimuth on the transmissions.  Hopefully, this was a one-time occurrence and the individual will correct their ways. Experience tells me that is probably an idle hope.  Thus this email to you.   Should the behavior persist, I will let you know and ask for your assistance.

I am also filing a complaint of intentional interference and failure to identify with the FCC  via the on-line complaint system.

Thank you & 73,

Rick - N7WE
Leesburg, FL

If you were interfered with, or saw others being interfered with, please consider making an FCC complaint and informing your Section Manager and OO.  The "ball" has to get really big before it starts rolling!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.  This only incites them and caused them to become more devious and harder to track down.

Thanks,

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602


Dan Morris - KZ3T
 

Rick - the complaint you filed on the FCC web site, was it under Radio and then the form that comes up??  I have never done this before but feel if we don’t do something it could get out of hand. 

thanks

Dan Morris  KZ3T





On Mar 10, 2017, at 8:12 AM, n7we1980@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

Good morning all-

Unfortunately I have some experience with dealing with intentional interference in a prior club role.  It can be dealt with, but it takes time and effort.

The fact that this individual failed to ID tells me this was not simply a "misinformed" individual seeking to be helpful.  Regrettably, my experience has been this type of behavior will be repeated and is not self-correcting.  And the only way to impact it is through the FCC and the ARRL OO program.  It takes time and documentation, documentation, documentation to get any action, but it eventually happens.

To that end I filed an Interference complaint with the FCC this morning using their on-line complaint form.  I also sent my ARRL Section Manager and ARRL OO the following:

Rick here -
N7WE - ARRL Member # 2000168852
Leesburg, FL 34748

Last evening between about 00:30 UTC and 01:30 UTC I was operating PSK31 between 7.070 and 7.072.  I observed an individual intentionally and repeatedly interfering with stations calling CQ and in-progress QSOs.  He was using sufficient power to jam the in-progress QSOs.  The text he or she transmitted was:

7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
You are operating out of data band!!
I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu

He or she specifically jammed a QSO between myself and KZ3T - Dan Morris - at approximately 01:00 to the point that we were unable to complete the QSO.  At no time during this period did the station identify.  

As I only have a vertical, I am unable to provide an azimuth on the transmissions.  Hopefully, this was a one-time occurrence and the individual will correct their ways. Experience tells me that is probably an idle hope.  Thus this email to you.   Should the behavior persist, I will let you know and ask for your assistance.

I am also filing a complaint of intentional interference and failure to identify with the FCC  via the on-line complaint system.

Thank you & 73,

Rick - N7WE
Leesburg, FL 

If you were interfered with, or saw others being interfered with, please consider making an FCC complaint and informing your Section Manager and OO.  The "ball" has to get really big before it starts rolling!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.  This only incites them and caused them to become more devious and harder to track down.

Thanks,

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602




Jerry N9AVY
 

"Data"  is all inclusive in that all digital modes are lumped into the "data" category. Therefore PSK31 is  considered "data".  

The only thing that keeps the band from being total chaos is the ARRL Band Plan which is merely a "gentlemen's agreement" and by no means FCC law. Hams do pretty well policing the bands until some yo-yo shows up like last night who thinks he a kilocycle kop.  There are always a few of these nuts on the bands who are to be ignored as best as possible.

Have heard RTTY signals on 14070 from time to time. They call CQ  and get no answer and move away.  Of course, when there's a RTTY contest those contesters take over every piece of PSK31 real estate they can. That's when we should look to the WARC bands if they're open.

Jerry   N9AVY  #454




From: "Paul Butzi kg7stv@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [070] Interference

 
I suppose this isn’t a matter of reasoning, but mostly I’m just curious why this person hasn’t included psk31 in the ‘data’ part of RTTY/data.

It must be very frustrating to him to tune to 7070 and see eight different qso’s in progress, all of which to him are violations of the ‘rules’.  And it’s very hard for him to make them all stop because he can only interfere in one at a time!

Ah, well.  To my great relief, that is most definitely not my circus and not my monkeys.  But I do think that perhaps he’s forgetting to smile and have fun.

-p KG7STV
73, don’t forget to smile and have fun



On Mar 9, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Dan Morris dbmorris315@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

Huh == that guy just came across to me and told me I was operating out of band and then gave the following:
7.080 - 7.125 RTTY/Data and repeated that several times and of course he did not identify himself but he had a fairly strong signal — I’m on 7071.5

Dan Morris KZ3T 070-1065
dbmorris315@...





Jerry N9AVY
 

Not sure if that will bring any action.  The ARRL OO program seems to be in limbo since the departure of the ARRL OO program administrator last Fall.  There was some mention that his duties would be taken over by "staff", but I haven't seen that, yet. There was also talk of the OO program becoming more closely tied to FCC, but that has as yet failed to materialize.

As an OO, I monitored the same transmission that you did, but without an ID there was little I could do because there was no call given, I could not send out an Official Observer Advisory Notice.  If this happens again I'll try to catch an ID if one is given. 

My take is that the guy was copying PSK31 signals, knew they were legal data signals and was just trying to stir up trouble.

Jerry, N9AVY
OO




From: "n7we1980@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [070] Interference

 
Good morning all-

Unfortunately I have some experience with dealing with intentional interference in a prior club role.  It can be dealt with, but it takes time and effort.

The fact that this individual failed to ID tells me this was not simply a "misinformed" individual seeking to be helpful.  Regrettably, my experience has been this type of behavior will be repeated and is not self-correcting.  And the only way to impact it is through the FCC and the ARRL OO program.  It takes time and documentation, documentation, documentation to get any action, but it eventually happens.

To that end I filed an Interference complaint with the FCC this morning using their on-line complaint form.  I also sent my ARRL Section Manager and ARRL OO the following:

Rick here -
N7WE - ARRL Member # 2000168852
Leesburg, FL 34748

Last evening between about 00:30 UTC and 01:30 UTC I was operating PSK31 between 7.070 and 7.072.  I observed an individual intentionally and repeatedly interfering with stations calling CQ and in-progress QSOs.  He was using sufficient power to jam the in-progress QSOs.  The text he or she transmitted was:

7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
You are operating out of data band!!
I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu

He or she specifically jammed a QSO between myself and KZ3T - Dan Morris - at approximately 01:00 to the point that we were unable to complete the QSO.  At no time during this period did the station identify. 

As I only have a vertical, I am unable to provide an azimuth on the transmissions.  Hopefully, this was a one-time occurrence and the individual will correct their ways. Experience tells me that is probably an idle hope.  Thus this email to you.   Should the behavior persist, I will let you know and ask for your assistance.

I am also filing a complaint of intentional interference and failure to identify with the FCC  via the on-line complaint system.

Thank you & 73,

Rick - N7WE
Leesburg, FL

If you were interfered with, or saw others being interfered with, please consider making an FCC complaint and informing your Section Manager and OO.  The "ball" has to get really big before it starts rolling!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.  This only incites them and caused them to become more devious and harder to track down.

Thanks,

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602




Rick - N7WE
 

Dan-

Yes, select the form for Radio and then follow the prompts.  You need your email, then Subject - I used intentional interference and failure to identify.   Then there is a space (free text entry) for "description" for you to enter your specific complaint.  After that it is mostly drop down boxes - Radio Issues - interference, Radio Interference Sub Issue - from Amateur Radio, Your Radio Method - Amateur Radio, Account number - leave blank, and then all the pro forma contact info.  The Submit button will not go active until you have all the necessary boxes filled.

Hope that helps.

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602


David Westbrook
 

"I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu"

Hopefully he does report it, so they can correct him!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.   
 
It might also be illegal to respond?  I seem to recall reading once that someone was cited for transmitting to an unidentified station, but don't remember details (might have been involving 14.313) ... I just tried to give Part 97 a quick search (http://www.arrl.org/part-97-text) but didn't see anything (maybe it's considered "one-way" communication since other side isn't identified/legal?) ... 
Can anyone provide a citation?

73!
--david
KJ4IZW


On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:12 AM, n7we1980@... [070] <070@...> wrote:
 

Good morning all-

Unfortunately I have some experience with dealing with intentional interference in a prior club role.  It can be dealt with, but it takes time and effort.

The fact that this individual failed to ID tells me this was not simply a "misinformed" individual seeking to be helpful.  Regrettably, my experience has been this type of behavior will be repeated and is not self-correcting.  And the only way to impact it is through the FCC and the ARRL OO program.  It takes time and documentation, documentation, documentation to get any action, but it eventually happens.

To that end I filed an Interference complaint with the FCC this morning using their on-line complaint form.  I also sent my ARRL Section Manager and ARRL OO the following:

Rick here -
N7WE - ARRL Member # 2000168852
Leesburg, FL 34748

Last evening between about 00:30 UTC and 01:30 UTC I was operating PSK31 between 7.070 and 7.072.  I observed an individual intentionally and repeatedly interfering with stations calling CQ and in-progress QSOs.  He was using sufficient power to jam the in-progress QSOs.  The text he or she transmitted was:

7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
You are operating out of data band!!
I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu

He or she specifically jammed a QSO between myself and KZ3T - Dan Morris - at approximately 01:00 to the point that we were unable to complete the QSO.  At no time during this period did the station identify. 

As I only have a vertical, I am unable to provide an azimuth on the transmissions.  Hopefully, this was a one-time occurrence and the individual will correct their ways. Experience tells me that is probably an idle hope.  Thus this email to you.   Should the behavior persist, I will let you know and ask for your assistance.

I am also filing a complaint of intentional interference and failure to identify with the FCC  via the on-line complaint system.

Thank you & 73,

Rick - N7WE
Leesburg, FL

If you were interfered with, or saw others being interfered with, please consider making an FCC complaint and informing your Section Manager and OO.  The "ball" has to get really big before it starts rolling!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.  This only incites them and caused them to become more devious and harder to track down.

Thanks,

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602



Rick - N7WE
 

Thanks Jerry-

I already got a response from our OO for the section.  You are right...not anything they can do at this point.  But he did say he would include my complaint in his report...which is what we want right now.  Make the ball big!  If and when it is big enough, then in the past our OO got the Section Manager involved, and he got the ARRL Hq guys to bug the FCC.  Then things started happening.  But it takes time, time, time. And documentation, documentation, documentation.

When the station is not IDing, the FCC seems to get more excited and starts direction finding.  I should imagine that when the FCC bangs on your door while you are transmitting and demands inspection of your station, it tends to get your attention.  It has happened!  But now that field offices and staff have been so greatly downsized, ham complaints are probably way down the list.  But we did get action that resolved the issue.  Of course, that was then.  Now is now.

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602


Jerry N9AVY
 

With no ID, it would be considered an unlicensed transmission and perhaps even broadcasting.  In any event it's illegal. 

If you should catch an ID,  never contact that station directly.  Some of those are real head cases and a some have had death threats from contacting a station.

n9avy



From: "David Westbrook dwestbrook@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [070] Interference

 
"I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu"

Hopefully he does report it, so they can correct him!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.   
 
It might also be illegal to respond?  I seem to recall reading once that someone was cited for transmitting to an unidentified station, but don't remember details (might have been involving 14.313) ... I just tried to give Part 97 a quick search (http://www.arrl.org/part-97-text) but didn't see anything (maybe it's considered "one-way" communication since other side isn't identified/legal?) ... 
Can anyone provide a citation?

73!
--david
KJ4IZW


On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:12 AM, n7we1980@... [070] <070@...> wrote:
 
Good morning all-

Unfortunately I have some experience with dealing with intentional interference in a prior club role.  It can be dealt with, but it takes time and effort.

The fact that this individual failed to ID tells me this was not simply a "misinformed" individual seeking to be helpful.  Regrettably, my experience has been this type of behavior will be repeated and is not self-correcting.  And the only way to impact it is through the FCC and the ARRL OO program.  It takes time and documentation, documentation, documentation to get any action, but it eventually happens.

To that end I filed an Interference complaint with the FCC this morning using their on-line complaint form.  I also sent my ARRL Section Manager and ARRL OO the following:

Rick here -
N7WE - ARRL Member # 2000168852
Leesburg, FL 34748

Last evening between about 00:30 UTC and 01:30 UTC I was operating PSK31 between 7.070 and 7.072.  I observed an individual intentionally and repeatedly interfering with stations calling CQ and in-progress QSOs.  He was using sufficient power to jam the in-progress QSOs.  The text he or she transmitted was:

7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
You are operating out of data band!!
I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu

He or she specifically jammed a QSO between myself and KZ3T - Dan Morris - at approximately 01:00 to the point that we were unable to complete the QSO.  At no time during this period did the station identify. 

As I only have a vertical, I am unable to provide an azimuth on the transmissions.  Hopefully, this was a one-time occurrence and the individual will correct their ways. Experience tells me that is probably an idle hope.  Thus this email to you.   Should the behavior persist, I will let you know and ask for your assistance.

I am also filing a complaint of intentional interference and failure to identify with the FCC  via the on-line complaint system.

Thank you & 73,

Rick - N7WE
Leesburg, FL

If you were interfered with, or saw others being interfered with, please consider making an FCC complaint and informing your Section Manager and OO.  The "ball" has to get really big before it starts rolling!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.  This only incites them and caused them to become more devious and harder to track down.

Thanks,

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602





Jerry N9AVY
 

Rick:

If the FCC comes to door and asks to inspect one's station, provided they have proper ID, it's best to let them in. I recall a couple cases where they were flatly refused and it didn't go well for the offender. 

Jerry



From: "n7we1980@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [070] Interference

 
Thanks Jerry-

I already got a response from our OO for the section.  You are right...not anything they can do at this point.  But he did say he would include my complaint in his report...which is what we want right now.  Make the ball big!  If and when it is big enough, then in the past our OO got the Section Manager involved, and he got the ARRL Hq guys to bug the FCC.  Then things started happening.  But it takes time, time, time. And documentation, documentation, documentation.

When the station is not IDing, the FCC seems to get more excited and starts direction finding.  I should imagine that when the FCC bangs on your door while you are transmitting and demands inspection of your station, it tends to get your attention.  It has happened!  But now that field offices and staff have been so greatly downsized, ham complaints are probably way down the list.  But we did get action that resolved the issue.  Of course, that was then.  Now is now.

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602



Rick - N7WE
 

Yup. That's the law.  And the Second Law of Freedom is....."Don't xxxx off the Feds!"  Just ask Martha Stewart.

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602


Dan Morris - KZ3T
 

Ok, I did find it and went through it all, I did give an account number though which I think is a number or password number.   thanks

Dan Morris







On Mar 10, 2017, at 8:55 AM, n7we1980@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

Dan-

Yes, select the form for Radio and then follow the prompts.  You need your email, then Subject - I used intentional interference and failure to identify.   Then there is a space (free text entry) for "description" for you to enter your specific complaint.  After that it is mostly drop down boxes - Radio Issues - interference, Radio Interference Sub Issue - from Amateur Radio, Your Radio Method - Amateur Radio, Account number - leave blank, and then all the pro forma contact info.  The Submit button will not go active until you have all the necessary boxes filled.

Hope that helps.

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602



David Westbrook
 

With no ID, it would be considered an unlicensed transmission and perhaps even broadcasting.  In any event it's illegal. 

Obviously their transmission isn't legal ...  But if you reply to it with ID,  is that also illegal?   That's what i'm curious to see a reference for.

Not advising to ever reply (as Rick said, best not to), just wondering on the exact rule.

73!
--david
KJ4IZW
 

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jerry n9avy@... [070] <070@...> wrote:
 

With no ID, it would be considered an unlicensed transmission and perhaps even broadcasting.  In any event it's illegal. 

If you should catch an ID,  never contact that station directly.  Some of those are real head cases and a some have had death threats from contacting a station.

n9avy



From: "David Westbrook dwestbrook@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [070] Interference

 
"I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu"

Hopefully he does report it, so they can correct him!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.   
 
It might also be illegal to respond?  I seem to recall reading once that someone was cited for transmitting to an unidentified station, but don't remember details (might have been involving 14.313) ... I just tried to give Part 97 a quick search (http://www.arrl.org/part-97-text) but didn't see anything (maybe it's considered "one-way" communication since other side isn't identified/legal?) ... 
Can anyone provide a citation?

73!
--david
KJ4IZW


On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 8:12 AM, n7we1980@... [070] <070@...> wrote:
 
Good morning all-

Unfortunately I have some experience with dealing with intentional interference in a prior club role.  It can be dealt with, but it takes time and effort.

The fact that this individual failed to ID tells me this was not simply a "misinformed" individual seeking to be helpful.  Regrettably, my experience has been this type of behavior will be repeated and is not self-correcting.  And the only way to impact it is through the FCC and the ARRL OO program.  It takes time and documentation, documentation, documentation to get any action, but it eventually happens.

To that end I filed an Interference complaint with the FCC this morning using their on-line complaint form.  I also sent my ARRL Section Manager and ARRL OO the following:

Rick here -
N7WE - ARRL Member # 2000168852
Leesburg, FL 34748

Last evening between about 00:30 UTC and 01:30 UTC I was operating PSK31 between 7.070 and 7.072.  I observed an individual intentionally and repeatedly interfering with stations calling CQ and in-progress QSOs.  He was using sufficient power to jam the in-progress QSOs.  The text he or she transmitted was:

7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
7.Ø8Ø-7.125 RTTY/Data
You are operating out of data band!!
I will be sending a repo.  into ARRL Bureu

He or she specifically jammed a QSO between myself and KZ3T - Dan Morris - at approximately 01:00 to the point that we were unable to complete the QSO.  At no time during this period did the station identify. 

As I only have a vertical, I am unable to provide an azimuth on the transmissions.  Hopefully, this was a one-time occurrence and the individual will correct their ways. Experience tells me that is probably an idle hope.  Thus this email to you.   Should the behavior persist, I will let you know and ask for your assistance.

I am also filing a complaint of intentional interference and failure to identify with the FCC  via the on-line complaint system.

Thank you & 73,

Rick - N7WE
Leesburg, FL

If you were interfered with, or saw others being interfered with, please consider making an FCC complaint and informing your Section Manager and OO.  The "ball" has to get really big before it starts rolling!

One other caution - and this was passed to our club from those who deal with these situations.  DO NOT ENGAGE THE INDIVIDUAL.  This only incites them and caused them to become more devious and harder to track down.

Thanks,

Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602






David, K9DWR
 

On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:35, David Westbrook dwestbrook@... [070] <070@...> wrote:


With no ID, it would be considered an unlicensed transmission and perhaps even broadcasting. In any event it's illegal.

Obviously their transmission isn't legal ... But if you reply to it with ID, is that also illegal? That's what i'm curious to see a reference for.

Not advising to ever reply (as Rick said, best not to), just wondering on the exact rule.
I’ve heard this before. This is what I’ve worked out previously.

97.111(b)(2) defines one-way being allowed "Brief transmissions necessary to establishing two-way communications with other stations;”

Which this arguably is the case (you are trying to establish communication). Just because they don’t answer, that’s not your problem. However once you start talking to them (i.e., they answer),

97.111(a) says you can’t have a two-way conversation with just anyone.

(1) is talking to another amateur
(2) is relief action
(3) is emergency
(4) is government stations
(5) is non-regulated but they are authorized by the FCC

It all boils down to defining the state of the other station. Do they fall into an appropriate category under 97.111(a)?
If they don’t fit (1)-(5) (which they wouldn’t be if they don’t ID), you are in violation.


David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...


David Westbrook
 

Thanks!! That's exactly the type of info I was looking for (and knew I must have missed in my really quick look through the Part 97 text).

73!
--david
KJ4IZW


On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:57 AM, David Rock david@... [070] <070@...> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 10:35, David Westbrook dwestbrook@... [070] <070@...> wrote:
>
>
> With no ID, it would be considered an unlicensed transmission and perhaps even broadcasting.  In any event it's illegal.
>
> Obviously their transmission isn't legal ...  But if you reply to it with ID,  is that also illegal?   That's what i'm curious to see a reference for.
>
> Not advising to ever reply (as Rick said, best not to), just wondering on the exact rule.

I’ve heard this before.  This is what I’ve worked out previously.

97.111(b)(2) defines one-way being allowed "Brief transmissions necessary to establishing two-way communications with other stations;”

Which this arguably is the case (you are trying to establish communication).  Just because they don’t answer, that’s not your problem.  However once you start talking to them (i.e., they answer),

97.111(a) says you can’t have a two-way conversation with just anyone.

(1) is talking to another amateur
(2) is relief action
(3) is emergency
(4) is government stations
(5) is non-regulated but they are authorized by the FCC

It all boils down to defining the state of the other station. Do they fall into an appropriate category under 97.111(a)?
If they don’t fit (1)-(5) (which they wouldn’t be if they don’t ID), you are in violation.


David, K9DWR
#1604 LONP #255
david@...