Leo wrote in message . ..
On 09 Nov 2004 12:26:50 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:
In article , Leo
writes:
On 5 Nov 2004 17:31:32 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:
snip
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."
Oh oh. We've been caught. The FCC said the dreaded "hobby" word.
Then we should grab that ball and run with it!
Run with what?
With a revised definition of what ham radio is all about, and its
importance in today's world.
To paraphrase Orwell, the FCC sees all license holders
as equal, but some are more equal than others.....amateur radio
apparently being on the 'less than equal' side of the
equation......non-essential, per se.
I don't know about the Orwellian part ("Animal Farm" reference
well-done and duly noted) but it's hard to argue that all of amateur
radio is more important or even equal with, say, maritime or
aeronautical safety communications. What I see FCC saying is just that
those safety communications deserve the most protection.
Of course the idea that *any* licensed service does not have absolute
protection from interference caused by an unlicensed, incidental
radiator is the real problem. And it's not a "science" problem but a
"political" problem.
Most of what goes over the internet is "routine communications and hobby
activities" isn't it?
...which has what relevance to the topic of amateur radio and BPL?
BPL is being touted as something we *need*, for some reason or other.
Why do we *need* high speed internet via BPL at all? Why is such
access so needed that licensed radio services must tolerate
interference from BPL systems?
IOW, what will BPL do that is so much more important - more "vital" -
than ham radio and other licensed radio services?
Jim, it looks like your "it's an avocation, not a hobby" arguement
didn't work - they seem to have seen right through it and figured out
what Amateur Radio is anyway! Nice try, though.
I say we go forward on all fronts - hobby, avocation, public service,
education, emergency comms, tinkering, advancing SOTA, etc. If they're gonna
call us hobbyists, then make it a badge of honor, same as was done with the
title "ham operator".
Nice flag waving, Jim, but is there a strategy behind that lofty
statement?
I'm following K0HB's "PBI" concept. Come up with ideas and see where
they lead.
Go forward how, with what, to whom, and to what goals and
objectives?
Publicity, for one. How we present ourselves to Congress, the FCC, and
our BPL opponents, for another.
I've seen plenty of "Sportsmen for Bush" and "Sportsmen for Kerry"
bumperstickers. By folks who hunt and fish for "a hobby".
Or was that just a "one for the Gipper" thing that you
thought sounded real cool?
Nope.
The regulatory folks have made it pretty clear - do you have a plan to
have them overruled somehow? By whom? - the decision on BPL is
entirely within their sphere of control.
Congress is one avenue. Another is simply to make amateur radio more
visible and better understood.
And this goes beyond the BPL battle. Take CC&R struggles - would they try to
ban other "hobbies"?
CC&Rs are outside the jurisdiction of the FCC, I believe.....
Exactly!
I like the term "antenna-hugger" myself.
Great! Just wait until the FCC helps the ARRL complete the sequel to
their most popular book (entitled "2 Meters And Down - Amateur Radio
In The 21st Century"). The little antennas for our only remaining
bands will be much easier to hug!
Actually, I see the VHF/UHF allocations as being much more threatened
by reallocation than HF.
---
The phrase I object to is "*just* a hobby" - which denies the components of
public service, education, etc.
Which, unfortunately, is what the FCC R&O quoted above boils down to -
no special protection warranted, it's just a hobby activity.
*Most* amateur communications aren't emergency communications. Never
have been.
The
emergency communications aspect was dismissed pretty neatly in their
statement.....the condescending "while we recognize..." line.
My point is simply that the FCC isn't buying the argument that we hams
need complete protection from BPL because we *sometimes* do emergency
communications. Neither do the CC&R folks. So we need a new tactic.
Like the "Sportsmen for X" folks. Part of which is a revised
definition that shows how unique and valuable a resource amateur radio
is - just like the park system.
Even though I'll probably never visit most of the nation's parks, they
are of value to me.
73 de Jim, N2EY