At least it is not a disgruntled member! 73, Wade W0EJ W5JBP@aol.com wrote:
They are coming out of the woodwork. This fits in with the ham that is mad because he can't listen to the SWB stations on 40.
Jim, this is one of yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: ARRL Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 11:36:22 -0400 From: "rs" <rs@dial2net.net> To: <fccinfo@fcc.gov> CC: <w5jbp@arrl.org>
This email is a complaint, request for rulemaking and proposal for the FCC to investigate the practices of the American Radio Relay League (AKA ARRL). 1. The ARRL has been using its publishing empire to publish procedures and practices that give the general public the impression that it has some official regulatory authority. It has been impersonating a governmental body for decades and the ARRL has continually tried to usurp the authority of the FCC. 2. The ARRL specifically has published procedures that are in direct violation of part 97.101d. For decades, the ARRL has widely disseminated procedures to "break" already established communication. Anyone listening on any part 97 authorized frequency can hear station operators using the words "break, break" on a frequency that is occupied in an attempt to force stations already in communication to stop and acknowledge the interfering station. This "breaking" procedure may be used for long periods of time to force interruption. Another well published procedure proposed by the ARRL is for interfering stations to continually give their call letters on an occupied frequency in an attempt to force interruption. 3. It may be easily verified that the procedure discussed in paragraph 2, is probably the cause for the massive interference problems with gross vulgarity that occurs daily on part 97 frequencies. In fact this malicious interference problem is so severe it may be cause for the eventual demise of part 97 communications. A sequence of events occurs hundreds of times in a day on any part 97 band. It starts with an operator using the break procedure in an attempt to add his station to an established group, the group may ignore the breaking station, causing the interfering station to further attempt to interrupt. This sequence of events can and does lead to frustration and retaliation by the interfering station and eventually leads to vulgar responses, dead carriers, music, etc, transmitted on the occupied frequency. This retaliation may last for years and even decades on certain frequencies. This problem starts with station operators who are under the assumption they are interfering in an acceptable way (per ARRL procedures); it is easy for the interfering station to assume he is entitled to a response; when a positive response is not returned the interfering operator thinks he has followed the rules and the other stations have not thereby justifying retaliation. 4. The FCC should modify its part 97 rules to specifically state that stations may not attempt to join operators already in communication unless the operators in the established group explicitly say on the frequency occupied that they welcome stations to join their communications. 5. The FCC should warn the ARRL to stop behaving as a governmental organization, monitor the ARRL and fine the ARRL if it continues to publish regulatory sounding procedures. 6. The FCC should further inform the ARRL that Congress did not give any regulatory power to the ARRL and Congress did not give the FCC any authority to delegate any of it's authority to the ARRL. Richard SheroskyWA8KJP19186 Fort ST.# 103Riverview, MI 48192