This just in from Lee WIcal, KH6BZF
Subj: A Big Sunspot Turns Toward
Earth
Space Weather News for Jan. 11, 2013
http://spaceweather.com
ACTIVE
SUNSPOT: One of the biggest sunspots of the current solar cycle is now turning
toward Earth. Named AR1654, the active region is crackling with medium-sized
(M-class) flares and could be poised to break the recent spell of calm space
weather around our planet. Check http://spaceweather.com for images and
updates.
SOLAR FLARE ALERTS: Would you like a call when solar flares are
underway? X-flare alerts are available from http://spaceweathertext.com (text) and http://spaceweatherphone.com
(voice).
Keep listening.....
73,
Carl, N4AA
%252055%2525.jpg)
LWRA, Amateur Radio and more!
Friday, January 11, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
New Argonaut VI QRP from Ten Tec
Argonaut VI QRP 1-10 Watt Transceiver
Price:
$995.00
SKU:
539
Weight:
11.00 LBS
Rating:
Shipping:
Calculated at checkout
| 1ST PRODUCTION SOLD OUT-- AVAILABLE MID JANUARY |
Product Description
Ten-Tec has created another legend within the new 539 Argonaut VI. This "NEW" QRP transceiver incorporates the use of Ten-Tec's ASR design philosophy. This same low noise receiver design blended with advanced software control has been used with the 599 Eagle and RX-366 receiver giving you outstanding dynamic range and crystal clear audio.Tired of extended long menu driven transceivers. Experience the simple, fun, and ease of use the Ten-Tec Argonaut VI offers. Designed right here in the USA, you will never find a more enjoyable QRP experience in such a small package with such outstanding receiver performance. The 539 will operate with any of the currently available, optional, 8 pin microphones. The legend lives on.
- New Speed Sensitive VFO tuning rate
- New 9.5-14 VDC power requirements
- Dynamic Range of 91dB @ 2 kHz
- 1-10 Watt adjustable power output
- Built in Curtis Mode A or B keying
- Keying output for 100 Watt Solid State Linear amplifier Model 418
- Operate digital modes with full rated output
- Legendary Ten-Tec quality QSK CW keying
- Standard 2.9 kHz Roofing Filter Included (2.5kHz effective through DSP)
Model 539 Quick Start Guide Download
Model 539 Manual Download
Thursday, December 13, 2012
OUCH!!! FCC Finds New Jersey Ham Violated Communication Act
After unsuccessfully appealing to the FCC to cancel his $20,000 forfeiture, Joaquim Barbosa, N2KBJ, of Elizabeth, New Jersey was issued a Forfeiture Order stating that he must pay $16,000 for “willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by operating a radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 296.550 MHz without Commission authorization.”
The FCC noted in the Forfeiture Order that based on the examination process involved in pursuing an amateur license, “amateur licensees are expected to have an understanding of radio operations and pertinent FCC regulations, including Part 97 of the FCC’s rules governing the Amateur Radio Service. Licensed amateur operators know that they are authorized to operate only on the frequencies listed in Section 97.301 of the rules, as designated by their operator class and license. Pursuant to the Table of Allocations, the 267-322 MHz band -- the band that Barbosa was operating in -- is allocated solely for federal government use, which we continue to believe Barbosa knew (or should have known) was not authorized for non-government use.”
Barbosa’s Amateur Radio license expired August 31, 2008, but his timely filed renewal application was listed as “Offlined for Enforcement Bureau Action” in the ULS. As such, Barbosa was legally allowed to operate while his case was undergoing the enforcement proceedings.
Background
In February 2008, the FCC, after receiving complaints from an authorized US government user regarding “harmful radio interference from an unauthorized station operating on the frequency 296.550 MHz -- a frequency limited to US military operations -- in the Elizabeth, New Jersey area.” Agents from the FCC’s New York Field Office responded to the complaint and used mobile direction finding techniques on February 6, 7, and 11 of that year. They determined that the source of the transmissions was coming from a residential home owned by Barbosa. On February 11, the agents conducted an inspection of the home and “directly observed a transceiver whose display showed that it was set to transmit frequency on 296.550 MHz. The agents also observed that the transmitter was connected to an antenna mounted on the back of the house.”
When the agents interviewed Barbosa, he admitted to operating the station and the transmitting equipment for at least four months, and confirmed that he owned the equipment. “Barbosa, who is licensed by the FCC as an Amateur Extra Class licensee (the highest level class), acknowledged knowing that the frequency 296.550 MHz was not a US frequency authorized for use by amateur licensees and confirmed that he did not have a license to operate on the frequency, the Forfeiture Order stated. “The agents advised Barbosa of the violation and issued him a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (NOUO).”
Following the inspection, on February 26, 2008, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), which found Barbosa in violation of Section 301 of the Act for “willfully and repeatedly operating a radio transmission apparatus on the frequency 296.550 MHz without Commission authorization.” In the NAL, the FCC proposed a $20,000 monetary forfeiture for the violation, “which included a $10,000 upward adjustment mainly because of the egregiousness of the violation.” On March 25, 2008, Barbosa filed a response to the NAL, requesting cancellation or a reduction of the forfeiture, and acknowledged that he did, in fact, operate a radio transceiver on the frequency 296.550 MHz without a license.
According to the Forfeiture Order, Barbosa contended, however, that cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed $20,000 forfeiture was warranted for several reasons: “(1) He reasonably believed that he had authority to operate on the frequency 296.550 MHz; (2) his constitutional rights were violated; (3) the unlicensed operation did not cause harm or interference; (4) the forfeiture amount is not supported by case precedent, and (5) that there are other factors -- such as his cooperation with the investigation, inability to pay and prior history of overall compliance with the rules -- that, when considered, justify cancellation or a reduction of the forfeiture.”
In examining Barbosa’s response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act requires that the FCC take into account “the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and other such matters as justice may require.” The FCC noted that it had “fully considered Barbosa’s response to the NAL in light of these statutory factors and find that cancellation of the forfeiture is not warranted; however, we find that some reduction of the forfeiture is justified based on his overall history of compliance with the rules prior to the investigation.”
Unlicensed Operation
Barbosa told the FCC that he “truthfully acknowledged to the FCC agent who conducted the enforcement visit on February 11, 2008 that he did operate a transceiver on 296.550 MHz.” Even so, he contended that cancellation or forfeiture reduction is warranted “because he reasonably believed that he otherwise had authority to operate the radio transmitting equipment using the frequency 296.550 MHz,” saying that his authority is “not based on his status as an amateur licensee (which he readily acknowledges does not authorize him to operate on the US government frequency), but based on the authority vested in him by a Brazilian man, who is authorized to operate the radio equipment using the frequency 296.550 MHz in Brazil.”
Mr. Barbosa told the FCC that “the frequency was one I knew to be an authorized Brazilian frequency for satellite communications and that I was operating on that frequency in compliance with a Brazilian permit as authorized by the Brazilian permit holder.” Barbosa also said that the Brazilian man who gave him the radio as a “gift” was a licensee under Brazilian authority, and that this individual showed him the Brazilian authorization and granted him permission to operate under his license to use the frequency. He argues that, as such, he “honestly believed” that the “master authorization” he was shown authorized him to operate the radio using the frequency at issue and, therefore, he should not be penalized for relying on that information.
“We find Barbosa’s arguments unavailing,” the FCC said. “Even assuming for the sake of argument that Barbosa is authorized to operate the radio equipment under Brazilian authority, he is not authorized to operate any such equipment in the United States without Commission authorization and, therefore, is still in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act. We emphasize that Section 301 makes clear that operation of any radio station within the United States requires FCC authorization, which Barbosa did not have.”
The FCC also found Barbosa’s suggestion that the violation should be excused because he reasonably believed that he was authorized to operate the radio transmitter using the frequency 296.550 based on the Brazilian license held by the individual who gave him the radio “unpersuasive,” saying that “it is well established that the FCC does not consider ignorance of the law or even reliance on erroneous or misleading advice or information from third parties about licensing requirements as mitigating circumstances that can justify cancellation or reduction of a forfeiture, and we see no reason to depart from that long-established policy in this case.”
The FCC noted in the Forfeiture Order that Barbosa had not presented (including in his NAL response) any Brazilian license that specifically authorized him to operate the radio equipment on the frequency 296.550 MHz, nor a copy of the Brazilian license held by the individual who supposedly granted him permission to operate under his Brazilian license.
Violation of Constitutional Rights
The FCC stated that its inspection of Barbosa’s radio equipment was warranted, “given that Barbosa’s unauthorized use of the frequency 296.550 MHz was believed (and later confirmed) to be the source of harmful interference with a government communications system.” In his response to the NAL, Barbosa argued that his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were violated “because the FCC agents conducted a search of his home on February 11, 2008 without a warrant, entered his home without his consent and subjected him to an unlawful interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings.”
The FCC found “no merit” in Barbosa’s arguments: “First, the FCC inspection was not a criminal investigation, thereby making much of Barbosa’s constitutional claims (such as the need for Miranda warnings) inapplicable. Second, the inspection was authorized under Section 303(n) of the Communications Act, which states that the Commission has the ‘authority to inspect all radio installations associated with stations required to be licensed by any Act, or which the Commission by rule has authorized to operate without a license under section 307(e)(1).’ FCC agents are not required to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a radio station inspection. Third, as a licensed amateur radio operator for more than 13 years, Barbosa knew or should have known that any radio equipment at his station must be made available for inspection at any time when requested by the FCC, and that his cooperation and truthful responses during an inspection are expected. Finally, we find nothing in the record in this case to support Barbosa’s suggestion that the agents conducted themselves in an improper manner.”
In Barbosa’s response to the NAL, he confirmed that the FCC agents “took the following actions during the inspection (none of which we [the FCC] find inappropriate): The FCC agents knocked on the door of his home, identified themselves as federal agents, showed him government identification and handed him an FCC business card during the inspection; that he and his son led the agents inside and outside their home so that the agents could inspect the radio equipment and antenna; that the agents took photographs of the equipment and asked him questions concerning his operations; and that, at the end of the inspection, the agents handed him a Notice of Unlicensed Radio Operation that was signed by one of the agents. Based on all the foregoing, we find that the inspection conducted by the agents was lawful and appropriate, and that Barbosa’s constitutional rights were not violated.”
Harmful Interference
Barbosa also argued that the forfeiture should be reduced because there was, in his opinion, no evidence of actual interference or harm. “With respect to the record evidence,” the FCC said, “Barbosa is incorrect. The investigation in this case commenced specifically because an authorized US government user reported harmful radio interference to its communications system. It is self-evident that an unlicensed operation on unauthorized frequencies disrupts the operations of authorized licensees and often results in interference to authorized services. The fact that Barbosa’s unauthorized use of the frequency was obstructing and interfering with government communications was sufficient to characterize the interference as harmful.”
The FCC also noted that it believes that any interference to any US government user is “serious because of the potential harm to the public’s safety and security. Furthermore, even if there was no finding of interference or harm, Barbosa still would not be entitled to a forfeiture reduction. It is fairly established that the absence of interference or the showing of any harm to the public does not warrant a downward adjustment of the forfeiture.”
Case Precedent
Contrary to Barbosa’s assertion, the FCC stated that the NAL’s proposed $20,000 forfeiture amount -- which included a $10,000 upward adjustment -- is supported by case precedent: “In Raimundo P. Silva, the [FCC’s Enforcement] Bureau also issued a $20,000 forfeiture against an amateur licensee who admitted to operating radio equipment in the frequency band reserved for federal government use without a license for several months, but asserted (like Barbosa does here) that he was unaware that his unauthorized radio transmissions interfered with the federal government users’ authorized operations. The FCC found Silva’s apparent willful and repeated unlicensed and unauthorized radio operation in the restricted federal government band ‘egregious,’ justifying a significant upward adjustment in the amount of $10,000. Because the violation here is equally egregious, we find the $10,000 upward adjustment in this case to be consistent with prior cases and justified.”
Cooperation, Inability to Pay and History of Overall Compliance
Barbosa also suggested that the forfeiture amount merits some reduction because he was cooperative with the FCC agents during the inspection and because he has been truthful in his responses to the FCC. “While we appreciate Barbosa’s conduct in this investigation,” the FCC said, “Barbosa’s cooperative conduct is not a basis to justify a forfeiture reduction. The Commission expects all licensees to cooperate with its investigations and to provide truthful responses to any questions.”
Although Barbosa claims to be a “micro business owner,” he also contended that the forfeiture amount would present “a significant hardship” and, therefore, should be canceled or reduced. But he failed to provide any financial documents to support his request. With respect to a claim of financial hardship, the FCC will not consider canceling or reducing a forfeiture in response to an inability to pay claim, unless the individual or entity making the request submits either federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period, financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles or some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the individual’s or entity’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. “Because Mr. Barbosa did not provide any financial or other documentation to support or corroborate his asserted financial status,” the FCC stated, “we have no basis by which to evaluate Barbosa’s inability to pay claim and, therefore, must deny the request.”
Barbosa also said that the proposed forfeiture amount should be reduced because of his overall history of compliance with the laws, including the FCC’s rules. “We agree that a reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted, based on our review of the record and finding that Barbosa (prior to the investigation) has a history of overall compliance with the Commission’s rules,” the FCC said. “Accordingly, after consideration of the entire record (including Barbosa’s response to the NAL), the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act, we find that, although cancellation of the monetary forfeiture is not warranted, a reduction of the forfeiture amount from $20,000 to $16,000 is appropriate.”
Barbosa has until December 31, 2012 to make full payment of the $16,000 or to contact the FCC to arrange a payment plan. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the US Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture.
The FCC noted in the Forfeiture Order that based on the examination process involved in pursuing an amateur license, “amateur licensees are expected to have an understanding of radio operations and pertinent FCC regulations, including Part 97 of the FCC’s rules governing the Amateur Radio Service. Licensed amateur operators know that they are authorized to operate only on the frequencies listed in Section 97.301 of the rules, as designated by their operator class and license. Pursuant to the Table of Allocations, the 267-322 MHz band -- the band that Barbosa was operating in -- is allocated solely for federal government use, which we continue to believe Barbosa knew (or should have known) was not authorized for non-government use.”
Barbosa’s Amateur Radio license expired August 31, 2008, but his timely filed renewal application was listed as “Offlined for Enforcement Bureau Action” in the ULS. As such, Barbosa was legally allowed to operate while his case was undergoing the enforcement proceedings.
Background
In February 2008, the FCC, after receiving complaints from an authorized US government user regarding “harmful radio interference from an unauthorized station operating on the frequency 296.550 MHz -- a frequency limited to US military operations -- in the Elizabeth, New Jersey area.” Agents from the FCC’s New York Field Office responded to the complaint and used mobile direction finding techniques on February 6, 7, and 11 of that year. They determined that the source of the transmissions was coming from a residential home owned by Barbosa. On February 11, the agents conducted an inspection of the home and “directly observed a transceiver whose display showed that it was set to transmit frequency on 296.550 MHz. The agents also observed that the transmitter was connected to an antenna mounted on the back of the house.”
When the agents interviewed Barbosa, he admitted to operating the station and the transmitting equipment for at least four months, and confirmed that he owned the equipment. “Barbosa, who is licensed by the FCC as an Amateur Extra Class licensee (the highest level class), acknowledged knowing that the frequency 296.550 MHz was not a US frequency authorized for use by amateur licensees and confirmed that he did not have a license to operate on the frequency, the Forfeiture Order stated. “The agents advised Barbosa of the violation and issued him a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (NOUO).”
Following the inspection, on February 26, 2008, the Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), which found Barbosa in violation of Section 301 of the Act for “willfully and repeatedly operating a radio transmission apparatus on the frequency 296.550 MHz without Commission authorization.” In the NAL, the FCC proposed a $20,000 monetary forfeiture for the violation, “which included a $10,000 upward adjustment mainly because of the egregiousness of the violation.” On March 25, 2008, Barbosa filed a response to the NAL, requesting cancellation or a reduction of the forfeiture, and acknowledged that he did, in fact, operate a radio transceiver on the frequency 296.550 MHz without a license.
According to the Forfeiture Order, Barbosa contended, however, that cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed $20,000 forfeiture was warranted for several reasons: “(1) He reasonably believed that he had authority to operate on the frequency 296.550 MHz; (2) his constitutional rights were violated; (3) the unlicensed operation did not cause harm or interference; (4) the forfeiture amount is not supported by case precedent, and (5) that there are other factors -- such as his cooperation with the investigation, inability to pay and prior history of overall compliance with the rules -- that, when considered, justify cancellation or a reduction of the forfeiture.”
In examining Barbosa’s response, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act requires that the FCC take into account “the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay and other such matters as justice may require.” The FCC noted that it had “fully considered Barbosa’s response to the NAL in light of these statutory factors and find that cancellation of the forfeiture is not warranted; however, we find that some reduction of the forfeiture is justified based on his overall history of compliance with the rules prior to the investigation.”
Unlicensed Operation
Barbosa told the FCC that he “truthfully acknowledged to the FCC agent who conducted the enforcement visit on February 11, 2008 that he did operate a transceiver on 296.550 MHz.” Even so, he contended that cancellation or forfeiture reduction is warranted “because he reasonably believed that he otherwise had authority to operate the radio transmitting equipment using the frequency 296.550 MHz,” saying that his authority is “not based on his status as an amateur licensee (which he readily acknowledges does not authorize him to operate on the US government frequency), but based on the authority vested in him by a Brazilian man, who is authorized to operate the radio equipment using the frequency 296.550 MHz in Brazil.”
Mr. Barbosa told the FCC that “the frequency was one I knew to be an authorized Brazilian frequency for satellite communications and that I was operating on that frequency in compliance with a Brazilian permit as authorized by the Brazilian permit holder.” Barbosa also said that the Brazilian man who gave him the radio as a “gift” was a licensee under Brazilian authority, and that this individual showed him the Brazilian authorization and granted him permission to operate under his license to use the frequency. He argues that, as such, he “honestly believed” that the “master authorization” he was shown authorized him to operate the radio using the frequency at issue and, therefore, he should not be penalized for relying on that information.
“We find Barbosa’s arguments unavailing,” the FCC said. “Even assuming for the sake of argument that Barbosa is authorized to operate the radio equipment under Brazilian authority, he is not authorized to operate any such equipment in the United States without Commission authorization and, therefore, is still in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act. We emphasize that Section 301 makes clear that operation of any radio station within the United States requires FCC authorization, which Barbosa did not have.”
The FCC also found Barbosa’s suggestion that the violation should be excused because he reasonably believed that he was authorized to operate the radio transmitter using the frequency 296.550 based on the Brazilian license held by the individual who gave him the radio “unpersuasive,” saying that “it is well established that the FCC does not consider ignorance of the law or even reliance on erroneous or misleading advice or information from third parties about licensing requirements as mitigating circumstances that can justify cancellation or reduction of a forfeiture, and we see no reason to depart from that long-established policy in this case.”
The FCC noted in the Forfeiture Order that Barbosa had not presented (including in his NAL response) any Brazilian license that specifically authorized him to operate the radio equipment on the frequency 296.550 MHz, nor a copy of the Brazilian license held by the individual who supposedly granted him permission to operate under his Brazilian license.
Violation of Constitutional Rights
The FCC stated that its inspection of Barbosa’s radio equipment was warranted, “given that Barbosa’s unauthorized use of the frequency 296.550 MHz was believed (and later confirmed) to be the source of harmful interference with a government communications system.” In his response to the NAL, Barbosa argued that his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were violated “because the FCC agents conducted a search of his home on February 11, 2008 without a warrant, entered his home without his consent and subjected him to an unlawful interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings.”
The FCC found “no merit” in Barbosa’s arguments: “First, the FCC inspection was not a criminal investigation, thereby making much of Barbosa’s constitutional claims (such as the need for Miranda warnings) inapplicable. Second, the inspection was authorized under Section 303(n) of the Communications Act, which states that the Commission has the ‘authority to inspect all radio installations associated with stations required to be licensed by any Act, or which the Commission by rule has authorized to operate without a license under section 307(e)(1).’ FCC agents are not required to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a radio station inspection. Third, as a licensed amateur radio operator for more than 13 years, Barbosa knew or should have known that any radio equipment at his station must be made available for inspection at any time when requested by the FCC, and that his cooperation and truthful responses during an inspection are expected. Finally, we find nothing in the record in this case to support Barbosa’s suggestion that the agents conducted themselves in an improper manner.”
In Barbosa’s response to the NAL, he confirmed that the FCC agents “took the following actions during the inspection (none of which we [the FCC] find inappropriate): The FCC agents knocked on the door of his home, identified themselves as federal agents, showed him government identification and handed him an FCC business card during the inspection; that he and his son led the agents inside and outside their home so that the agents could inspect the radio equipment and antenna; that the agents took photographs of the equipment and asked him questions concerning his operations; and that, at the end of the inspection, the agents handed him a Notice of Unlicensed Radio Operation that was signed by one of the agents. Based on all the foregoing, we find that the inspection conducted by the agents was lawful and appropriate, and that Barbosa’s constitutional rights were not violated.”
Harmful Interference
Barbosa also argued that the forfeiture should be reduced because there was, in his opinion, no evidence of actual interference or harm. “With respect to the record evidence,” the FCC said, “Barbosa is incorrect. The investigation in this case commenced specifically because an authorized US government user reported harmful radio interference to its communications system. It is self-evident that an unlicensed operation on unauthorized frequencies disrupts the operations of authorized licensees and often results in interference to authorized services. The fact that Barbosa’s unauthorized use of the frequency was obstructing and interfering with government communications was sufficient to characterize the interference as harmful.”
The FCC also noted that it believes that any interference to any US government user is “serious because of the potential harm to the public’s safety and security. Furthermore, even if there was no finding of interference or harm, Barbosa still would not be entitled to a forfeiture reduction. It is fairly established that the absence of interference or the showing of any harm to the public does not warrant a downward adjustment of the forfeiture.”
Case Precedent
Contrary to Barbosa’s assertion, the FCC stated that the NAL’s proposed $20,000 forfeiture amount -- which included a $10,000 upward adjustment -- is supported by case precedent: “In Raimundo P. Silva, the [FCC’s Enforcement] Bureau also issued a $20,000 forfeiture against an amateur licensee who admitted to operating radio equipment in the frequency band reserved for federal government use without a license for several months, but asserted (like Barbosa does here) that he was unaware that his unauthorized radio transmissions interfered with the federal government users’ authorized operations. The FCC found Silva’s apparent willful and repeated unlicensed and unauthorized radio operation in the restricted federal government band ‘egregious,’ justifying a significant upward adjustment in the amount of $10,000. Because the violation here is equally egregious, we find the $10,000 upward adjustment in this case to be consistent with prior cases and justified.”
Cooperation, Inability to Pay and History of Overall Compliance
Barbosa also suggested that the forfeiture amount merits some reduction because he was cooperative with the FCC agents during the inspection and because he has been truthful in his responses to the FCC. “While we appreciate Barbosa’s conduct in this investigation,” the FCC said, “Barbosa’s cooperative conduct is not a basis to justify a forfeiture reduction. The Commission expects all licensees to cooperate with its investigations and to provide truthful responses to any questions.”
Although Barbosa claims to be a “micro business owner,” he also contended that the forfeiture amount would present “a significant hardship” and, therefore, should be canceled or reduced. But he failed to provide any financial documents to support his request. With respect to a claim of financial hardship, the FCC will not consider canceling or reducing a forfeiture in response to an inability to pay claim, unless the individual or entity making the request submits either federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period, financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles or some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the individual’s or entity’s current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. “Because Mr. Barbosa did not provide any financial or other documentation to support or corroborate his asserted financial status,” the FCC stated, “we have no basis by which to evaluate Barbosa’s inability to pay claim and, therefore, must deny the request.”
Barbosa also said that the proposed forfeiture amount should be reduced because of his overall history of compliance with the laws, including the FCC’s rules. “We agree that a reduction of the forfeiture amount is warranted, based on our review of the record and finding that Barbosa (prior to the investigation) has a history of overall compliance with the Commission’s rules,” the FCC said. “Accordingly, after consideration of the entire record (including Barbosa’s response to the NAL), the Forfeiture Policy Statement and the factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Communications Act, we find that, although cancellation of the monetary forfeiture is not warranted, a reduction of the forfeiture amount from $20,000 to $16,000 is appropriate.”
Barbosa has until December 31, 2012 to make full payment of the $16,000 or to contact the FCC to arrange a payment plan. If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the US Department of Justice for enforcement of the forfeiture.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
The 14th Annual SKYWARN Recognition Day Set for December 1
The 14th Annual SKYWARN Recognition Day (SRD) Special Event will take place Saturday, December 1, 2012. SRD is co-sponsored by the ARRL and the National Weather Service (NWS) as a way to recognize the commitment made by Amateur Radio operators in helping to keep their communities safe. According to SRD Coordinator David Floyd, N5DBZ, Amateur Radio operators can visit their local participating NWS office, working as a team to contact other hams across the world throughout the 24-hour event on 80, 40, 20, 15, 10, 6 and 2 meters, as well as 70 centimeters.
The idea for the first SRD took shape in the summer of 1999. Meteorologist-in-Charge of the Goodland, Kansas NWS office Scott Mentzer, N0QE, tried to find a way to recognize the valuable contributions storm spotters make to the National Weather Service. “Since many of those storm spotters were also hams,” Floyd told the ARRL, “it seemed like a natural fit for the recognition to be centered on Amateur Radio.” With the approval of NWS headquarters and a commitment to participate from many local NWS offices across the country, the first National Weather Service Special Event took place on November 27, 1999.
Floyd said that feedback from that first event was “overwhelmingly positive” from both the NWS staff and the local ham clubs: “Many local club members who came to that first event had never visited an NWS office before. When they came for the special event, they learned the value of their reports and how they were used in conjunction with existing technology.” And so began an annual tradition. The following year, 85 of the 122 NWS offices -- almost 70 percent -- participated in the event, making nearly 24,000 QSOs.
In 2001, the name of the event was changed to SKYWARN Recognition Day, a name Floyd said better relayed what the day was all about: “Each year since the inception of SRD, the number of NWS offices participating with local ham clubs has increased; more than 100 offices sign up each year to take part.” In keeping with the NWS setting, stations are asked to include a weather report of their location in their exchange.
In 2011, the NWS office in Melbourne, Florida -- WX4MLB -- topped the QSO list with 1604 QSOs; the Lincoln, Illinois office (WX9ILX), with 980 QSOs, placed second. The Melbourne office also contacted the most NWS offices, at 81, with the Lincoln office placing second, with 70.
The 2012 SKYWARN Recognition Day will be held on December 1 from 0000 UTC-2400 UTC. In the past, NWS offices have contacted all 50 states and more than 40 countries during the 24 hour event. Even if you make just one QSO to an NWS office, you are eligible to receive a certificate. Submit a list of the station(s) you worked (along with a self-addressed stamped envelope) to SKYWARN Recognition Day, 920 Armory Rd, Goodland, KS 67735. Many NWS offices also send out special QSL cards for this event. If you haven’t yet joined in the fun of SKYWARN Recognition Day, make 2012 your year to do so!
For more information about severe weather reporting and SKYWARN, including a state-by-state listing of SKYWARN websites, check out the ARRL publication Storm Spotting and Amateur Radio (ISBN: 978-0-87259-090-8, ARRL Order No. 0908, retail $22.95 plus shipping) is available from ARRL publications dealers and from the ARRL Online Store (telephone 860-594-0355, or toll-free in the US 888-277-5289; www.arrl.org/shop; pubsales@arrl.org).
The idea for the first SRD took shape in the summer of 1999. Meteorologist-in-Charge of the Goodland, Kansas NWS office Scott Mentzer, N0QE, tried to find a way to recognize the valuable contributions storm spotters make to the National Weather Service. “Since many of those storm spotters were also hams,” Floyd told the ARRL, “it seemed like a natural fit for the recognition to be centered on Amateur Radio.” With the approval of NWS headquarters and a commitment to participate from many local NWS offices across the country, the first National Weather Service Special Event took place on November 27, 1999.
Floyd said that feedback from that first event was “overwhelmingly positive” from both the NWS staff and the local ham clubs: “Many local club members who came to that first event had never visited an NWS office before. When they came for the special event, they learned the value of their reports and how they were used in conjunction with existing technology.” And so began an annual tradition. The following year, 85 of the 122 NWS offices -- almost 70 percent -- participated in the event, making nearly 24,000 QSOs.
In 2001, the name of the event was changed to SKYWARN Recognition Day, a name Floyd said better relayed what the day was all about: “Each year since the inception of SRD, the number of NWS offices participating with local ham clubs has increased; more than 100 offices sign up each year to take part.” In keeping with the NWS setting, stations are asked to include a weather report of their location in their exchange.
In 2011, the NWS office in Melbourne, Florida -- WX4MLB -- topped the QSO list with 1604 QSOs; the Lincoln, Illinois office (WX9ILX), with 980 QSOs, placed second. The Melbourne office also contacted the most NWS offices, at 81, with the Lincoln office placing second, with 70.
The 2012 SKYWARN Recognition Day will be held on December 1 from 0000 UTC-2400 UTC. In the past, NWS offices have contacted all 50 states and more than 40 countries during the 24 hour event. Even if you make just one QSO to an NWS office, you are eligible to receive a certificate. Submit a list of the station(s) you worked (along with a self-addressed stamped envelope) to SKYWARN Recognition Day, 920 Armory Rd, Goodland, KS 67735. Many NWS offices also send out special QSL cards for this event. If you haven’t yet joined in the fun of SKYWARN Recognition Day, make 2012 your year to do so!
For more information about severe weather reporting and SKYWARN, including a state-by-state listing of SKYWARN websites, check out the ARRL publication Storm Spotting and Amateur Radio (ISBN: 978-0-87259-090-8, ARRL Order No. 0908, retail $22.95 plus shipping) is available from ARRL publications dealers and from the ARRL Online Store (telephone 860-594-0355, or toll-free in the US 888-277-5289; www.arrl.org/shop; pubsales@arrl.org).
Saturday, November 17, 2012
N0D - - Special Event Station celebrating The End of the world!
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
ARRL Says 'Thank You' to Veterans:
On Sunday, November 11, here in the US and abroad, we will celebrate Veterans
Day, also called Remembrance Day or Armistice Day. Originally a holiday that
marked the end of World War I -- the "War to End All Wars" -- this day has been
set aside to honor all who have served their country. It was on November 11,
1918, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, that Germany signed
the Armistice, formally ending the hostilities that had been ongoing since
1914.
The ARRL would like to take this opportunity to thank our service veterans. Whether they served on active duty or reserve, during peacetime or time of conflict, they served their county with honor. We also would be remiss if we did not remember the families of those veterans who kept the home fires burning bright; without their love and support, our veterans would have indeed been alone.
ARRL Headquarters has its share of service veterans: Assistant VEC Manager Perry Green, WY1O (Army); Technical Editor Joel Hallas, W1ZR (Army); News Editor S. Khrystyne Keane, K1SFA (Coast Guard); Instruction and Resource Coordinator Nathan McCray, K9CPO (Navy); DXCC Manager Bill Moore, NC1L (Army); Reprints Specialist Tony Nesta, AA1RZ (Navy); Membership and Volunteer Programs Manager Dave Patton, NN1N (Navy); Technical Relations Specialist Jon Siverling, WB3ERA (Army); Field and Regulatory Correspondent Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG (Air Force), and Education & Technology Program Coordinator Mark Spencer, WA8SME (Air Force).
Thank you for your service -- your sacrifice and the sacrifice of your fellow service members is not forgotten.
The ARRL would like to take this opportunity to thank our service veterans. Whether they served on active duty or reserve, during peacetime or time of conflict, they served their county with honor. We also would be remiss if we did not remember the families of those veterans who kept the home fires burning bright; without their love and support, our veterans would have indeed been alone.
ARRL Headquarters has its share of service veterans: Assistant VEC Manager Perry Green, WY1O (Army); Technical Editor Joel Hallas, W1ZR (Army); News Editor S. Khrystyne Keane, K1SFA (Coast Guard); Instruction and Resource Coordinator Nathan McCray, K9CPO (Navy); DXCC Manager Bill Moore, NC1L (Army); Reprints Specialist Tony Nesta, AA1RZ (Navy); Membership and Volunteer Programs Manager Dave Patton, NN1N (Navy); Technical Relations Specialist Jon Siverling, WB3ERA (Army); Field and Regulatory Correspondent Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG (Air Force), and Education & Technology Program Coordinator Mark Spencer, WA8SME (Air Force).
Thank you for your service -- your sacrifice and the sacrifice of your fellow service members is not forgotten.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Lakeland ARC Picnic
Coming up Sept 29th in Lakeland: http://lakelandarc.blogspot.com/2012/09/picnic-on-29th.html
Friday, August 31, 2012
New Rigs coming soon
Click on the pics to enlarge
First up, Icom has a new rig on the way, I stubbled across this image on another site and my first thought was "neat". I do like the layout of the remote head.
TX: 10-160 m + WARC / 6 m / 2 m / 70 cm (and 70 MHz in Europe)
RX: 0.03-200 / 400-470 MHz
While I am not a big D-star fan, this rig also includes D-star as well.
No price as of now , 8/30/2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next we have the new Yaesu FTM-400D.
No specs other than, Dual band, dual recieve and APRS.
No price as of now , 8/30/2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next we have a TYT TH-9800.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last but not least, the highly anticipated Wouxun KG-UV920R.
This is the first photo of the actual radio I have found.
The saga continues for this rig.....Now going on 2 years to be released....
Thursday, August 23, 2012
FCC Releases Congressionally Mandated Study on Amateur Radio
FCC Releases
Congressionally Mandated Study on Amateur Radio
On August 20 -- in response to a Spring 2012 Congressional directive -- the Federal Communications Commission released its findings on the Uses and Capabilities of Amateur Radio Service Communications in Emergencies and Disaster Relief: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 6414 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
This report contains the FCC's "review of the importance of emergency Amateur Radio Service communications relating to disasters, severe weather and other threats to lives and property in the United States; and recommendations for enhancements in the voluntary deployment of Amateur Radio operators in disaster and emergency communications and disaster relief efforts; and recommendations for improved integration of Amateur Radio operators in the planning and furtherance of initiatives of the federal government." It also required "that the study identify impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications and provide recommendations regarding the removal of such impediments."
"There are many positive things included in the FCC report to Congress," said ARRL Regulatory Information Manager Dan Henderson, N1ND. "We are pleased that the Commission highlighted the existing Amateur Radio infrastructure to provide disaster and time-critical communications. They also recognized the flexibility of the Amateur Service in working with federal, state, local and tribal emergency service agencies to supplement existing communications. The affirmation of the value that Amateur Radio brings to the communities across the country is underscored by the suggestion that 'DHS work with state, local, and tribal authorities so they may develop disaster area access or credentialing policies for trained amateur operators, including a means for documenting their qualifications..."'
While the FCC did hold Amateur Radio in a positive light in its discussion of emergency Amateur Radio Service communications, the FCC report was not as favorable in the portion of the study that addressed impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications. In the comments provided to the FCC as they prepared the study, the ARRL -- as well as numerous individuals -- cited the proliferation of specific land-use restrictions, such as deed restrictions and homeowners associations covenants, that prohibit the erection of even modest Amateur Radio antennas.
The ARRL cited that such restrictions now apply to tens of millions of homes and condominiums. In communities across every state, these restrictions make finding suitable living arrangements that would also allow amateurs to participate effectively in providing support communications nearly impossible to find. The FCC disagreed with that assessment stating "...our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions. Therefore, at this time, we do not see a compelling reason for the Commission to revisit its previous determinations that preemption should not be expanded to CCRs."
When considering any current rules that serve as impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications, the report did agree with the ARRL's position, stating that "Commission rules that may be an impediment to enhanced Amateur Service emergency communications can, as the ARRL notes, be considered through the Commission's rulemaking process. Consequently, we do not believe that Congressional action is necessary to address any of these issues."
In the report, the FCC recommended that "DHS consult with the public safety, emergency management and Amateur Radio emergency communications associations and groups to identify training opportunities that will support better utilization of Amateur Radio operators for emergency communications, and to solicit views on how Amateur Radio capabilities could be further incorporated into response plans or initiatives. We also recommend that OEC include these recommendations in the NECP."
Henderson noted that it is significant "that the FCC recommends efforts be continued by DHS to facilitate the training and utilization of Amateur Radio across the emergency and disaster response spectrum -- from the public sector through to the various groups and organizations which provide support communications via the Amateur Service, including ARES, RACES, MARS or locally organized support groups. When served agencies and amateur groups plan and train cooperatively, it only enhances our abilities to serve our communities and the public."
With the delivery of the FCC's report to Congress, the ARRL will determine its next step in its efforts to find relief for amateurs who live under unduly restrictive private land-use regulations. "Our review of the FCC report shows that there is a lot to be done if amateurs living in deed-restricted properties are to receive even the limited relief they enjoy under the Commission's PRB-1 ruling or the limited relief given to deed-restricted properties given by the FCC's OTARD ruling," Henderson said. "This means continuing ARRL's efforts on Capitol Hill and continuing to seek a Congressional directive to the Commission to extend those limited preemptions to include prohibition of effective Amateur Radio antennas and support structure that are imposed by private land use restrictions. The FCC report to Congress is not the final action in this fight. It merely lays the groundwork for the next steps to be taken by the ARRL," he concluded.
On August 20 -- in response to a Spring 2012 Congressional directive -- the Federal Communications Commission released its findings on the Uses and Capabilities of Amateur Radio Service Communications in Emergencies and Disaster Relief: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 6414 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
This report contains the FCC's "review of the importance of emergency Amateur Radio Service communications relating to disasters, severe weather and other threats to lives and property in the United States; and recommendations for enhancements in the voluntary deployment of Amateur Radio operators in disaster and emergency communications and disaster relief efforts; and recommendations for improved integration of Amateur Radio operators in the planning and furtherance of initiatives of the federal government." It also required "that the study identify impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications and provide recommendations regarding the removal of such impediments."
"There are many positive things included in the FCC report to Congress," said ARRL Regulatory Information Manager Dan Henderson, N1ND. "We are pleased that the Commission highlighted the existing Amateur Radio infrastructure to provide disaster and time-critical communications. They also recognized the flexibility of the Amateur Service in working with federal, state, local and tribal emergency service agencies to supplement existing communications. The affirmation of the value that Amateur Radio brings to the communities across the country is underscored by the suggestion that 'DHS work with state, local, and tribal authorities so they may develop disaster area access or credentialing policies for trained amateur operators, including a means for documenting their qualifications..."'
While the FCC did hold Amateur Radio in a positive light in its discussion of emergency Amateur Radio Service communications, the FCC report was not as favorable in the portion of the study that addressed impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications. In the comments provided to the FCC as they prepared the study, the ARRL -- as well as numerous individuals -- cited the proliferation of specific land-use restrictions, such as deed restrictions and homeowners associations covenants, that prohibit the erection of even modest Amateur Radio antennas.
The ARRL cited that such restrictions now apply to tens of millions of homes and condominiums. In communities across every state, these restrictions make finding suitable living arrangements that would also allow amateurs to participate effectively in providing support communications nearly impossible to find. The FCC disagreed with that assessment stating "...our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions. Therefore, at this time, we do not see a compelling reason for the Commission to revisit its previous determinations that preemption should not be expanded to CCRs."
When considering any current rules that serve as impediments to enhanced Amateur Radio Service communications, the report did agree with the ARRL's position, stating that "Commission rules that may be an impediment to enhanced Amateur Service emergency communications can, as the ARRL notes, be considered through the Commission's rulemaking process. Consequently, we do not believe that Congressional action is necessary to address any of these issues."
In the report, the FCC recommended that "DHS consult with the public safety, emergency management and Amateur Radio emergency communications associations and groups to identify training opportunities that will support better utilization of Amateur Radio operators for emergency communications, and to solicit views on how Amateur Radio capabilities could be further incorporated into response plans or initiatives. We also recommend that OEC include these recommendations in the NECP."
Henderson noted that it is significant "that the FCC recommends efforts be continued by DHS to facilitate the training and utilization of Amateur Radio across the emergency and disaster response spectrum -- from the public sector through to the various groups and organizations which provide support communications via the Amateur Service, including ARES, RACES, MARS or locally organized support groups. When served agencies and amateur groups plan and train cooperatively, it only enhances our abilities to serve our communities and the public."
With the delivery of the FCC's report to Congress, the ARRL will determine its next step in its efforts to find relief for amateurs who live under unduly restrictive private land-use regulations. "Our review of the FCC report shows that there is a lot to be done if amateurs living in deed-restricted properties are to receive even the limited relief they enjoy under the Commission's PRB-1 ruling or the limited relief given to deed-restricted properties given by the FCC's OTARD ruling," Henderson said. "This means continuing ARRL's efforts on Capitol Hill and continuing to seek a Congressional directive to the Commission to extend those limited preemptions to include prohibition of effective Amateur Radio antennas and support structure that are imposed by private land use restrictions. The FCC report to Congress is not the final action in this fight. It merely lays the groundwork for the next steps to be taken by the ARRL," he concluded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)