Comment is invited by e-mail: blee@slksf.com
Weblog
The Rules of Engagement
Guidelines for REPRESENTING THE RADIO AMATEUR OPERATOR. Adapted by (& © 2008) Bart Lee, KV6LEE, ARRL Volunteer counsel, from a published caution to lawyers about representing family and friends:
Proceed only by an integrated written fee agreement. A written agreement is required by the California Bar for any representation that could cost more than $1,000. Have a straight -forward discussion at your first meeting and set the ground rules that will be included in your retainer agreement. The ARRL expects only that an initial consultation will not be charged; after that your attorney and client relationship is governed by your agreement and by law. You are free to set your hourly fee (or any other fee) by negotiation with the client.
When you undertake to represent a fellow amateur radio operator, you may have to be more explicit about the representation than would otherwise be the case with a seasoned business client, because there may be unspoken expectations arising from the fraternal nature of the hobby. An appropriate place for fraternal considerations is in the initial setting of the agreed hourly fee, and the client’s written acknowledgment of a discount if given and your courtesy in handling a matter the revenues from which are unlikely to do more than cover office overhead. You have to have a retainer agreement with all fee and cost issues clearly spelled out. An “evergreen” (i.e., refreshed) and end-of-matter retainer is the best way to avoid any end-game distress and loss of earned revenue. Each new element of legal work (“module”) should be defined in advance and commenced only on receipt of the retainer calculated to cover it. Insisting on this arrangement will give you a clue about how businesslike the radio amateur may be; declining to agree to a retainer arrangement suggests that collecting earned hourly fees will be unpleasant – so forego the representation, recommend other counsel, or decide do it entirely pro bono publico (or not).
Agree to and document in your fee agreement the “rules of engagement,” for example that:
– all discussions of the matter will take place during business hours and in your office, not at home off- hours, and not at the local hamclub meeting, and never on the air;
– you will respond to e-mails during business hours and any telephone calls at home will be billed at triple-time or a one hour minimum whichever is greater;
– you will bill monthly for all of your time and you are going to keep track of all of your time including “review,” “attention to” and “preparation.”
– you will prepare the same kind of notes, memos, letters (including e-mails), and briefs you do for any other client to prosecute and document the case;
– you will do a case plan and budget at the beginning of the case and update both as often as necessary, and send copies to your client. ##
Some radio-related comments
EMCOMM MONTHLY Official Journal of the World Radio Relay League
No. 5, October, 2004
Turn off the Tone Squelch! - By Bart Lee, KV6LEE
What?! Yes, turn it off. In an emergency an amateur radio operator will be under stress and may well be trying to get into an unfamiliar repeater or emergency net. She may or may not be able to look up, or put in, the tone. If not: No Communications. Is this any way to run a disaster response?
Most repeaters I've heard do not announce their tone. All too many repeaters do not appear in directories. Almost no drill nets announce the tone before their invitation to other stations to check in. Few radios can determine the tone in use. The result? No Communication. Is this any way to run drills? What's the point of inviting nearby operators and agencies to check into the drill net if the tone squelch keeps them out?
I actually had exactly this problem, and it was no drill, in New York on September 11, 2001. Does anyone want to have it again in any such circumstances?
Yes, tones protect against interference, but they also in fact can prevent emergency and drill communications. There is at least one repeater council requiring tones as a condition of coordination. Readiness for emergency service suggests that the norm should be no-tone repeater operation with tones imposed (and announced regularly) only when the repeater faces interference in fact. This will usually only be in unusual propagation conditions such as ducting or six meter skip.
Repeater operators can help by announcing the tone at each ten minute repeater identification. Public service and other net control operators can help by frequently announcing the nature of the net and the tone employed, if any. Public service amateur radio organizations can post and publicize, as well as announce, their tones. but in the end the tone squelch is a barrier to communication exactly because it is meant to prevent input to repeaters. This has its uses, but emergency service and disaster response are not among them. Reasonable priorities should put squelch tones in their place: a special tool for occasional use as needed, but not a permanent barrier to all but the regulars on the net or repeater.
George Hughes, W0WEB, President of the San Francisco Amateur Radio Club suggests that at least in Northern California, tones are the same for each county. I cannot verify that but it would be helpful knowledge if correct (but that's all). In his view, though, without tones, the day to day interference problems are too severe. For San Francisco, in the last earthquake, our emergency net on W6TP (a no-tone repeater) ran well and no tone was required to reach the net control station, but it suffered interference (off the "back of the beam") from a Santa Cruz station during the net. On the whole, I think it's better to forgo the tone and deal with the interference on a case by case basis, rather than exclude emergency traffic from operators who don't know, can't find or can't (under the circumstances, such as mobile operation) implement a tone.
This note is an entirely private rumination, but my service for the Red Cross in New York in 2001, and for the last five years with the San Francisco OES/ACS and ARES has brought me to this conclusion. Others are similarly concerned; see QRZ.com:
-- -- -- -- -- --
Letter to ARRL ARES Letter (Sept. 29, 2008):
The letter below (ARES Groups Should Publish Repeater Frequencies for Googling) reminds me of how hard it can sometimes be to get up on the air in disaster conditions: it's not just the disaster but also the lack of information (sometimes the result of the disaster).
Yes, we should be able to find repeater information on Google. But we should also be able to find the PL tones. (And sometimes we won't be able to connect to Google or anything else wired). The repeaters we can hear should be telling us their PL tones every time they identify. Better yet, unless there is an actual repeater interference problem, the PL tone system should be turned off in a disaster response. That PL tone may well be known to the locals (actually, probably not anymore since it's been put in the rig memory). The PL tone will not be known to anyone else such as travelers with emergency traffic, visitors, etc.
Especially in extremis, we should be doing what we can to facilitate communication, not prevent it.
+ LETTERS: ARES Groups Should Publish Repeater Frequencies for
Googling -- I was sent by my job down to Ft. Lauderdale [Florida] on the evening of August 18, as Fay was about to make landfall in Collier County. It was a bit of a wild ride down Alligator Alley, but I made it to Ft. Lauderdale well ahead of the worst of the storm. At the hotel, I attempted to find the local ARES repeater to check in to and monitor. Oddly enough, despite much Googling, I was unable to find out which repeater covered the area. I would suggest that all ARES/ RACES/ SKYWARN groups have a list of the repeaters that they use on-line somewhere so that not only their members have it handy, but travelers to the area can find it as well. -- Joe Tomasone, AB2M, Pinellas County (Florida) EC, and Assistant SEC, West Central Florida Section
-- -- -- -- -- --
EMCOMM MONTHLY Official Journal of the World Radio Relay League VOL. 5 -- No. 6, JANUARY 2009
UMBRAGE?
James D. House, KA6IVF, Walnut Creek, CA wrote about a recent jamming incident (December issue). I live in Walnut Creek also, and there has been some repeater jamming as well. In response EM wrote: "Another idea - Part 95:194 allows non-voice communications (e.g.- tones and text messages) on the FRS, so you may consider looking into that as a possible way to foil a jammer. (Too bad CW isn't legal on FRS!)"
As I recall, voice inversion scrambling is legal on FRS. Some sites say it is legal for GMRS, but I doubt it. It is not legal for amateur radio use. But I don't see why CW or at least MCW with audio tones would not be legal on FRS and maybe GMRS. (I think the GMRS repeaters ID in (M)CW).
47 CFR 45, Ch. 1, Part 95.193 (FRS Rule 3): "Types of communications. (a) You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications with another person. You may use an FRS unit to transmit one-way voice or non-voice communications only to establish communications with another person, send an emergency message, provide traveler assistance, provide location information, transmit a brief text message, make a voice page, or to conduct a brief test. (b) Non-voice communications. (1) The FRS unit may transmit tones to make contact or to continue communications with a particular FRS unit. If the tone is audible (more than 300 Hertz), it must be transmitted continuously no longer than 15 seconds at one time. If the tone is sub-audible (300 Hertz or less), it may be transmitted continuously only while you are talking. "
So, using tones to "transmit a brief text message" suggests to me that using MCW to deal with jamming is permissible, not to carry the text of traffic, but as an "order line" to direct, for example, a change of frequency or mode or PL/CTSSS tone, in other words, the words of the Reg: "to make contact or to continue communications with a particular FRS unit" in the face of the jamming.
In any event, the likelihood that the FCC will take umbrage with any FRS use in aid of any civil authority (even in "just a drill") is close to zero. Moreover, Morse code is not a prohibited code in FCC-regulated radio, because it does not hide meaning. - Bart Lee, KV6LEE, ARRL Volunteer Counsel and Government Liaison
COMMENT - I'm sure we should get into all that in the pages of EM, but thanks for your scholarly comments, Bart. Remember...we're dealing with non-hams here. (Hmmmn, this might be a sneaky way to get some non-hams interested in Morse code. ;-) Umbrage? Now THAT sent me scrambling for my dictionary! - Editor
-- -- -- -- -- --
EMCOMM MONTHLY Official Journal of the World Radio Relay League VOL. 3 -- No. 7, DECEMBER 2006
MORE ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS
Woody Baker-Cohen of the San Francisco Red Cross says that Bay Area Red Cross would only do background checks for history of criminal activity. The national (ARC) program seems to authorize "life-style" investigations. I agree with you that communications stations should not be located within in an actual shelter. It's too dangerous without real security and Rule One is: "Do Not Become a Victim or otherwise make the situation worse instead of better." A friend of mine went to New Orleans on a national SAR team and found himself in danger several times.
Regarding ARC background checks: 1) it's up to them, but 2) it's all insane hysteria; there simply are not enough "bad guys" around to justify the Red Cross proposal for personal investigation. As you may recall, I served ARC in New York 9/11 and we who worked HQ and shelters wore ARC badges. On the other hand, I think ARRL should tell ARC that the MOU is at risk if ARC does any more than the criminal conviction check for seven years.
The credit and similar reports are full of erroneous and libelous information, especially "investigative" and "life-style" reports, in part because the investigators are paid by ton-of-dirt delivered. While they may rarely lie outright, they consistently construe facts and situations against the person investigated and then report an often erroneous surmise as fact. I've seen it happen. Once it's in "the record", it's there forever.
One does not want sex offenders working shelters, but on the other hand, Red Cross's process as described will result in many, wholly innocent amateur radio operators and other volunteers getting black-balled, and libeled without remedy. What do you say to a fellow ham, maybe another ARES volunteer, once the Red Cross won't accept your offer to volunteer to work as a radio operator for it? The innuendo and implication of wrongdoing or worse will be quite strong. ARRL should institute its own criminal background check for ARES® volunteers, vouch for them on that limited basis, and let Red Cross do whatever it wants with respect to anyone without further cooperation from the League.
I worked with hundreds of volunteers in New York (the total of contributing amateur radio operators was more than 560). They were all "good guys." I think Red Cross is about to shoot itself in the foot, because the depth and techniques of its program will be self-defeating in deterring volunteers, including ARES operators, and will injure many innocent people.
-- -- -- -- -- --
Letter Re: EMCOMM MONTHLY - March 2005
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005
Hi Dave,
I agree with a lot of what you say about radiogram forms. It is, of course, necessary to follow "client" rules and protocols when working for served agencies, and ICS etc. is a blessing. Still, The ARRL forms are easily available, nearly universal, and the skills developed with them transfer to other message forms. The radiogram is a format, as you say, and it is also a very valuable training device as well as an effective relayed-message format. Getting a message into a concise Who, What, Where, When, How text takes some training, and the radiogram format helps. One of the first things Charley Hargrove, N2NOV, (a NYC ARES DEC) did on September 12, 2001, when he could get up on the internet, was to download the radiogram forms so we could use them at Red Cross, and we did. I use them in San Francisco for all drill traffic and recommend them to others. Radiogram format translates to other formats and forms if need be, but not vice versa.
-- -- -- -- -- --
Letter to EmComm Monthly Re Blocking Traffic
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005
... a recent experience and some EmComm radio thoughts:
During the tsunami warning last month, it was reported to me that many of the landline telephones in San Francisco did not work: no (or presumably long-delayed) dial tone. Inasmuch as there was no capability disruption, this had to be a result of blocking traffic. So, even for a false alarm (tsunami, terrorism, whatever) the phones can be predicted to go down. As NOAA Weather Radio Stations implement SAME alerts -- Specific Area Message Encoding -- word will get out pretty quickly of a new risk, which is of course exactly what is supposed to happen. But this too will likely result in blocking traffic. When the phones block, public safety radio systems may not be far behind, because there may be events on the ground that end up eating a lot of bandwidth, even on trunked systems. In this sort of scenario, all the hardware is fine, all the software is operating up to spec, but there is simply too much demand put on the systems. Radio networks such as ACS, RACES and ARES may be the only available routes for message traffic at times like this -- and these scenarios assume that nothing bad has in fact yet happened. Food for thought I hope.
Communication, 17 April 2007:
SMS text mesages on cell phones almost always will get through blocking traffic because their bandwidth is so miniscule. They look for any open path so if there is a frequency available they will find it. During the last California tsunami scare, there was no wave but blocking traffic shut down the landlines for a while. I guess it was everybody inviting their friends to the beach to watch the wave come it. That is an emergency manager's nightmare. The radio systems seem useless and redundant until the other systems fail. Modern technology, at least in its market manifestations, is high performance but low reliability. The advantage of (even "legacy") radio systems, including amateur radio ("When All Else Fails") is their distributed archtecture and small bandwidth. Re the shootings in Virginia, places of high concentration of untrained persons should have simple general warning systems, without reliance on high technology. A siren system that works, such as San Francisco's system, is way preferable to a hightech system that fails.
-- -- -- -- -- --
Communication, July 28, 2004
Subject: W6CF, vacuum tube gear and emergency services (ARES/RACES)
Re vacuum tube gear and its relative immunity to electromagnetic pulse (EMP), here's a note I wrote for EmCommWest last year. At KRE with vintage ham gear W6CF could also provide an important backup to emergency communications in the event of an untoward event. You may want to pass this on to Bob Vallio when you meet.
"I read all the EMP materials (5-1-2+ Bulletin No. 112) and it is an issue with which I have some prior familiarity. I wonder if it would make sense to catalog working vacuum tube amateur radio stations looking to involving the operators in a back-up traffic net for ARES/RACES. I would start maybe with the subscription lists from Electric Radio, the Antique Wireless Assn. Old Timer's Bulletin, and Antique Radio Classified, and reach out to readers of QST, CQ, 73 etc. The stations are definitely out there and many of them are operating regularly in the AM nets. I am reminded that Russian avionics continued to use vacuum tubes not because it was backwards, but because of the relative immunity to EMP. If terrorists watch American movies, and they seem to, all they have to do is see Oceans Eleven for an non-nuke EMP scenario."
-- -- -- -- -- --
BIG DX!
From Bart Lee
To: mbreport@Haarp.alaska.edu
Date: Jan 21, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: Moonbounce Received
Dear HAARP
Greetings from amateur radio station KV6LEE. I am pleased to report reception of echoes from the Moon 19 January 2008.
My location is Northern California, 13 miles west of Mt. Diablo, which is (WGS84), 37° 53' N; 121° 55' W. I am in the city of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County.
Two receivers were employed: 1) a new Icom IC-7000 with DSP, and 2) an Icom R-70 (
circa 1980), both in CW mode. The antenna is a storm-distressed B&W 95 foot broadband (HF) folded dipole, mostly laying flat on the roof at 20 feet high. The Moon was high in the sky.
The HAARP signals were quite loud: S-5 on the IC-7000 S meter. I started logging at 06:11 UTC on 7.407.5 mHz. I turned on digital noise reduction and the noise limiter. I could definitely hear the return signal in the quiet intervals. but only about 10% of the time and at very low levels varying from S-1 down to ESP levels (but there). I switched to the R-70 with pre-amp at 06:20 and heard the echoes occasionally through 06:34, very weak (ESP level). I went back to the IC-7000 at 06:40 and again occasionally heard echoes. I lost the HAARP signal about 06:50. At 07:00 and after there was just noise, nothing resembling the echoes.
I first had tuned in to 6.7925 mHz after 05:45 just to see if I could hear anything. HAARP signals were very loud, and I did hear some echoes, weakly. As a result, I took the antenna tuner out of the antenna line and reconnected the antenna directly. By the time I was ready to tune in again, HAARP had moved up to 7.4075 mHz.
I hope this is useful. I also hope you send out QSL cards, as I would very much like one from the Moon. I have also heard the Io-Jupiter 18 mHz synchrotron radiation signals, but Jupiter does not verify (as far as I know, anyway). An e-mail verification would be perfectly satisfactory, of course.
Best wishes on this FB project.
73 de Bart Lee, KV6LEE