The Death of Amateur Radio
By
Todd Daugherty N9OGL
I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy
to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the FCC's
suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to write
this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio operators who
will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some crack
pot. But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine.
Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree with
that statement however, this is a harsh reality. Now as I stated above I
have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do. Amateur
radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial services. On
February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the heck is
Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named "Inquisitor"
anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically compete with
the internet. One amateur radio operator Charles Brabham N5PVL made this
statement in responds to mine:
N9OGL:" My point is Packet does not have the variety like the internet and
when a person comes up with a new idea for packet or a new program idea for
packet it is seemed to be frowned upon by other operators. So packet radio
will remain in last place behind the Internet, and Wireless systems."
N5PVL: "I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a
commercial communications network, and so does not "compete" with commercial
communications networks in any way.
Packet is for Amateur Radio operators who enjoy digital communications
*independent* of commercial communications networks and the Internet.
Of course it's different... It's supposed to be, for a number of reasons. If
it offered exactly the same thing as the commercial nets, there would be no
reason for it to exist at all.
Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while."
N9OGL "Variety does not have to be a new idea or program but a BBS with it's
own stuff in it and not some Forwarded stuff from other places have BBS
systems for just for sale stuff and another BBS for Digital communication
idea or
one with General Amateur radio stuff but leave all the for sale stuff in the
for sale BBS."
N5PVL "That's up to the individual BBS SYSOP. My BBS has offered a good
variety of info above and beyond the daily bulletins for over a decade
now... So what?"
N9OGL "Give the BBS a variety and its own individualism. Stuff on BBS doesn'
t have to be just "For Sale" and jokes On Amateur radio you
can talk about anything not just radio. But again you have Amateurs who
don't want change whether it packet or anything in the Amateur radio
service. So Packet will be like ancient modes of communication it will die
out because those people will not accept changing the system"
N5PVL "Blah blah blah... Yah yah yah... Too lazy and stupid to do anything
yourself, but you have plenty of energy at hand for the purpose of
denigrating the efforts of others. Maybe you should just stick your head in
the toilet...Flush twice! It's a long way to Washington D.C.!
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
Now the reason I bring this up is simply that this misguided amateur radio
operator WAS trying to prove a point which he could not; simply for two
reasons. The first is that most of the BBS systems on packet were on the
forwarding system and the vast majority of messages on the BBS systems were
all the same. Regardless to what Mr. Brabham said this was a harsh reality.
What Mr. Brabham didn't realize was at the time of that post I had been
running TWO BBS systems on packet. Most packet operators didn't want no
"individuals" running a BBS system and not use the forwarding system. Today,
here in Illinois packet radio is nothing more then a vast memory. All the
Nodes and BBS systems are gone. Gone for two reasons the first is the BBS
operators were running their forwarding system on the user frequency. The
second reason is as I stated in my post that there was no variety and all
amateur radio operators went to the internet. Packet Radio was a prelude of
what will happen to amateur radio. Like N5PVL stated "I hate to be the one
to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a commercial communications
network, and so does not "compete" with commercial communications networks
in any way." This seems to be the attitude of all amateur radio operators
when it comes to competing with other services. For amateur radio to survive
they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be no
amateur radio in near future. As I stated on the newsgroup
rec.radio.amateur.policy look at it this way. Go to streets of your town as
ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast majority of
people would pick the internet. The reason is the internet provides a vast
variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via email, chat
rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more. Why should someone
take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world via
radio when they can do it on the internet? For amateur radio to grow amateur
radio operators are going to have to get out of this not competing attitude.
One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is both
the amateur and FCC's view on content control.
Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC for
controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to the
amateur radio service. However, this seems NOT to be the case. When I
announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a post
from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can send me a
"QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
letter. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech. One of the most known FCC free speech
suppression cases is the Liberty Net. Here's an article from Newsline:
"FCC vs. The Liberty Net Riley Hollingsworth and the FCC are questioning if
a controversial 75 meter SSB net really has any place on the ham bands. The
group is called the Liberty Net. It operates nightly at 3.950 MHZ and is
primarily an open discussion or right wing politics and conservative causes.
But, in a May 7th letter to Victor Misek, W1WCR,Hollingsworth requests that
the Hudson NewHampshire ham review the Basis and Purpose of Amateur Radio as
outlined in Section 97.1 of the Commissions rules. He then tells Misek to
explain to the Commission how the operation of the Liberty Net can be
justified. But it's another Hollingsworth statement that draws the
proverbial line in the sand between the FCC and the Liberty Net.
Hollingsworth tells Misek - and we quote -- "We are unable to determine how
transmissions of this group met the standards of, or contribute to the
purpose of, the allocation of frequencies for the Amateur Radio Service."
In other words, the FCC appears to be questioning whether the content of
communications by those involved in the Liberty Net meet the minimum
requisite requirements to be transmitted in the ham radio bands.And
Hollingsworth goes even further. He suggests that the Liberty Net might
want to consider moving to the Internet or wait to wait and see if the
Commission creates a low power FM broadcast service. If it does, the net
might then want to apply for a broadcasting license grant. (FCC)
The part one should look at is the part in which Hollingsworth stated that
the Liberty Net should look at the internet or apply for a low power FM
license. Apparently Mr. Hollingsworth never heard of Section 326. Now Mr.
Hollingsworth isn't the only FCC official that has done this; in 1990 the
FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and of
course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick their
Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it. Stating in ARRL Letter and World
Radio "The League maintains that the disputes can resolved by enforcing
existing FCC regulations: One-way Broadcast, if they go beyond the accepted
norms for such transmissions on the Amateur bands their illegal." So who's
to say is the "ACCEPTED NORM"?? The ARRL, why not the FCC could give the
ARRL the power and therefore Free speech could be suppressed. The first
Amendment bars the government from stomping on free speech, but it doesn't
apply to the ARRL which is a national organization from doing it. Who's the
one pushing to K1MAN off the air?? The ARRL and its members. I was asked on
the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have a FCC
official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information bulletin
which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech by a
Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion is being
suppressed by the FCC.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----