wrote in message
oups.com...
Todd Daugherty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:
The Death of Amateur Radio

It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your
"Death of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.

If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that
they
need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more
and
more
Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure
time, as
they
have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin
free
speech
transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands
into
some sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.

No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should
broadcasting.

"amateurs should broadcasting"?

There are
some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where
all
you do is give a signal report, location, ect.

That's simply not true! I've had many long and enjoyable QSOs on a
variety of subjects, with never a problem on content from FCC. The
only
limits on content
were "no pecuniary interest" and keeping it "G-rated".

As I stated in my paper a good example
of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here
because all
of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of
survive
if BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion
groups.

Such as?

A BBS with discussion on antenna designing, Another BBS with
discussion on
on experimenting. Another BBS with amaeur policy. These are just to
name a
few there was a issue CQ VHF that went into greater detail about the
set up.
The point is to have all the for sale stuff on one BBS and a diverse
of
other BBS on other subjects.

Sounds good in theory. But in practice, how would that work? Could hams
all over the world, or even all over the USA, access that particular
BBS? If so, how?

Well, it could be set up on VHF and HF allow.


I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is
interferning with their system.

How many years ago? And would it have interfered?

It was a while back, around 1997. would it have interfered?? no, if you know
anything about packet; packet time shares a frequency. This guy and his
little group were nothing more then assholes.

It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is
that
it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago.
Heck,
even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup
modems for almost a decade!

Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you could
use a
voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet
would have
moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would mean
someone
would actually have to build a radio to do it...

There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The
problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's
automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would
work if the network was set up right.


You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So
what?
K1MAN
doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and
threatens
those
who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will
decide
that
anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free
speech?

Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone
believes.

If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another
post,
they're legal.

The problem is however, that there are amateur radio operators who
feel that
information bulletins which deal with amateur radio issues shouldn't
be
opinionated and it is those same amateurs operators when the bulletin
is
transmitting then begin jamming the Information bulletin because they
feel
the transmission is illegal.

Jamming is an enforcement issue.

Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.

Agreed!

I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons
free
speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be
reached.

Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of
getting
their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is
a
suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them
off
the air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.

The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.

Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as
detrimental
to the ARS. Which they do.

Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station.

That's simply not true.

yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is
barred to
control the content of any station.

I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that?

Well here's the rule read it for yourself
(47 USC 326)
§ 326. Censorship
Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals
transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be
promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right
of free speech by means of radio communication.



the only content the FCC is allowed to
control is obscene and indecent material and that's it.

How about commercial content on the ham bands?

How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes?

Are those things allowed under 326?

Those are under other rules and regulation.

Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the
alternative....the Internet.

For certain subjects, that's the right medium.

Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
realize........

Interesting!

In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the
internet"
- or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity
theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to
become
disenchanted with it.

I really dout the internet will die.

Me too. But I see its potential dying.

As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now
out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and
government
agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to
three
years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading
will
be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie
within
minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die
anytime
soon.

If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original.

If you want different content than what is found on current amateur
packet,
why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks,
but
on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more
features?

Because the cost would be too much. There is no packet network around here
any more and the cost would be too high. A let's not forget some competition
in a service good be a good thing

Todd N9OGL


73 de Jim, N2EY





----== 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 =----