RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 6th 04, 11:29 PM

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote

So BPL at this point is *all* a political and legal problem.

If that's true, then the money we've spent on lobbying by Hainie,
Sumner, and Imlay has been wasted, and any more spent would be further
waste.

Disagree. Strongly.

Here, from the FCC R&O, is what that money bought us:

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio
frequencies warrant the special protection afforded
frequencies reserved for international aeronautical
and maritime safety operations. While we
recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist
in providing emergency communications," it described
typical amateur operations as "routine communications and hobby
activities."

I don't have a problem with that.

Face it, Brian, we've been marginalized,

We've been continuously marginalized ever since the commercial and
government services and the technologies they used passed ham radio as
a source of emergency comms and new technologies starting in the
1920s.

and for years the FCC has been
trying to get our attention. Way back in June of 2000 FCC'er Dale N.
Hatfield (W0IFO) Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology made
these comments in a speech to AMRAD:

"I would urge you to continue shifting towards more
spectrally efficient communications techniques - especially
digital techniques. Such a shift has a number of benefits:

"- First of all, it demonstrates to POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS
that you are good stewards of the public's airwaves even without
direct economic incentives.

Then the same "POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS" dumped BPL all over the HF
and beyond spectrum which essentially precludes the introduction of
new "spectrally efficient HF communications techniques" by any
service.

"- Second, by using what you have efficiently, it strengthens your
case when you need to ask for additional spectrum.

The last couple times we asked for more HF spectrum space we got it,
30, 17, 24 and 60 meters and none of it had anything to do with
"spectrum efficiency". Had to do with hams jumping into open spectrum
space abandoned by other services which moved to higher slots in the
spectrum.

"- Third, by allowing more users to access the available
allocations simultaneously,

What BPL "allocations"?

it improves the amateur experience and
ultimately increases the attractiveness of the service to new and old
users alike."

How in the hell does sharing 30M & 440 with the commercials "improve
the amateur experience"?

I have a 12 year old grandson who got his first peek at ham radio this
past July when I still had the FD station running in his aunt's garage
and was doing a bit of dxing and he started asking questions. I tuned
around 20M and explained what was going on and how it happens. His
opinion of ssb was that it sounded like a waste of time. I tuned some
RTTY and PSK31 which he immediately likened to his Internet
connection, "I can already do that", then I worked a couple Euros with
CW. That grabbed him and he bored into the subject. Ditto SWLing the
foreign broadcast stations. I bought him a copy of the ARRL primer on
ham radio, a copy of Passport and I need to dredge up a half-decent
rcvr for cheap, toss some wire up and I'll see what happens.

Then a couple of weeks later FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH, made some
chillingly similar comments in a public speech.

"Take nothing for granted. Bill Gates can't, and you can't either."

"You're at a crossroads now. An old Chinese philosopher (or my
grandmother--I can never remember which!) said, "Be careful what
you wish for. You may get it." Seize the moment, and make this
your finest hour. Ham radio has been at a crossroads before and
has thrived. Continue that tradition."

"Make sure that, on your watch, Amateur Radio never becomes
obsolete."

Where's he been?

From those two FCC speeches, it ought to be clear to all of us that
Amateur Radio does *not* have a "free pass" to spectrum, not will our
current allocations be "protected" when other applications come
looking for a place to operate.

What "other applications" besides BPL are out there looking for HF
space? The Radio Mondiale SW broadcasters? Which want to use 10 Khz
wide digital signals to replace their existing 6 Khz wide AM signals?
There's a great example of "modern spectral efficiency".

The handwriting is on the wall --- the FCC isn't much interested in
what we used to do,

Welp, I guess that means that they're not interested in what 99.9% of
us hams do huh?

but is intensely watching our current stewardship of the
resources that are so highly coveted by other services. Regretably I
think we've been found, in Riley's words, "obsolete", and financing a
rearguard legal and political maneuvering by Haynie and Imlay is
pretty much ****ing money down a rathole.

Point 1: The FCC's formal rationale for the existence of ham radio is
what's actually obsolete. The whole pile of nonsense about justifying
ham radio based on ham emergency comms and "advancing the state of the
art" is farcical at best and needs to be recognized as such so that we
get that silly old baggage out of the way. The HF spectrum is a
protected and regulated natural resource which needs to be shared by
both common citizens like hams and others who need access to the
resource for their particular purposes. The ham spectrum spaces need
to be protected on the same bases as the national parks are protected
and for the same reasons. One big difference between ham radio and the
national park system of course is that we don't cost the gummint squat
compared to what it spends to provide hiking trails for users of other
"antiquated technologies" like feet. Hypocrites.

Point 2: The coming of BPL is exactly analogous to the timber
companies clear-cutting anywhere they choose to do so. We're now in a
position to get clear-cut ourselves, that's WRONG and it's coming from
the same bunch of politicians who have the worst environmental record
and big-biz "connections" in recent times. The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies by leaning on the politicians and the
courts and now it's our turn.

Point 3: With respect specifically to funding the ongoing ARRL battle
against BPL note that we managed to get the FCC to recognize that yes,
BPL does have the potential to generate harmful interference and they
handed us a few tools to deal with it as best we can. The League is
going to spend money on that effort and I continue to support their
efforts.

"Quitters don't win."

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

Brian, you're right!

The issue is not that we are relevant or up to date. We're not. The issue
is that we are the public. Hobby use of the radio spectrum is justifiable
on it's own terms, and that is a matter of politics, not technology. CB and
FRS are parts of the same thing, whether we like to admit it or not, and
amateur radio is for the few who know a kilocycle from a bicycle!

The parks argument is a good one. The spectum is a natural resource like
the forest and the shoreline, and like those it shouldn't be for business
use only.

73 de Alun, N3KIP, G8VUK