Todd Daugherty wrote:
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.

OK, let's see what you've got, Todd.


Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree
with
that statement however, this is a harsh reality.

OK - how is it "dying"?

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.

How do you define "keep up with"?

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.

Why?

The internet is pretty much ubiquitous in the USA and other developed
countries, if you live where there is reliable telephone service.
Broadband access is expanding rapidly and so is mobile access. There's
no way hams can match the infrastructure of any internet provider.

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.

He's right!

Packet is for Amateur Radio operators who enjoy digital
communications
*independent* of commercial communications networks and the Internet.

Exactly!

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."

Sounds like good advice.

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.

Looks to me like he proved his point. If you want packet radio to be
something other than it is, lead the way by example.

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.

Which proves the point about competition.

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.

Because it's true. Amateur radio, or *any* radio service, can only
survive by offering what other services cannot.

I remember a time, perhaps 20 years ago, when a good number of new hams
got their licenses for "honeydo" purposes. Today the same
communications needs are handled by cell phone. Some of those hams are
gone, others discovered that ham radio is more than the reason they
were originally licensed.

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.

Why? I'm both on the air and online. Each medium offers things the
other does not.

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.

Of course. Think about *why*.

Also - why must it be one or the other? Why not both?

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.

That's one reason. Here are some mo

1) Most people already know about the internet and what it can do. Many
people do not know amateur radio exists, or have only a vague idea of
what it is.

2) Most people access the internet via a personal computer or a
wireless-enabled PDA-type device like a Blackberry. Those devices have
uses far beyond those of internet access.

3) No license. No antenna. Worldwide access 24/7.


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?

Because it's different. And only because it's different.

For amateur radio to grow amateur
radio operators are going to have to get out of this not competing
attitude.

Why?

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.

Where, exactly, does it prohibit the FCC from controlling content? If
so,
why does Howard Stern have such problems? Why was there such a flap
about
Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"?

The various courts have repeatedly ruled that content control *is* part
of
FCC's authority. The arguments today are over where the line is, not
whether
FCC can draw a line.

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.

That was nice of him. He could have just let you break the rules and
then
started an enforcement proceeding.

This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.

Sorry, unlimited free speech protection does not extend to the radio
spectrum.

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)

How is he wrong? I can't do routine business communications on the
ham bands, either.

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.

I think he knows more about it than you do, Todd.

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.

Ding! Godwin's Law violated. You lose, Todd.

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"??

FCC, of course. And the accepted norm is pretty well-defined for
one-way transmissions:

1) Non-commercial in nature (ever notice how ARRL doesn't use W1AW to
solicit memberships or publication sales?)

2) Of *specific* interest to the *amateur radio* community

3) On a published schedule of transmissions (so everybody has a chance
to know where and when)

Would your transmissions meet all of those criteria?

The ARRL, why not the FCC could give the
ARRL the power and therefore Free speech could be suppressed.

What is it that you want to say?

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.

Nope. It's FCC.

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.

What is it that you want to say in your bulletin, Todd? How does it
meet the criteria listed above?

73 de Jim, N2EY