John Smith wrote:
wrote:
That's certainly one way to look at it.
Here's another, somewhat similar view:
An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
Whoa! Let's be accurate! Radio frequencies are a "natural resource",
granted us by our creator and the laws of physics he/she/it/"the-aliens"
constructed.
I agree!
The problem is, they are a limited resource, to be shared among a lot
of people.
For example, if each of us 300,000,000 Americans were to ignore the
other six billion humans on earth, and divide up the HF spectrum
equally, how much would we each get to call our own?
Less than a tenth of a Hertz on HF. Even if we allow time separation,
so that 100 Americans share the same allocation, that's less than 10 Hz
each.
Why I will allow a gov't agency to manage these in a manner
which is ultimately governed by "the people", I will not support laws, rules
or regulations which run contrary to such ... or in short, the people
control the use of the air waves, and the air waves are made available to
the people in a very logical method.
Agreed - but who determines what the logical method is? What you see in
radio regulations is a set of compromises among differing uses.
For example, I think there are some folks who would be happy to see
amateur radio eliminated, or reduced in power/spectrum/privileges so
much that it would effectively disappear. Those folks would rather see
the amateur bands used for something else, like broadcasting, BPL, etc.
To them, ham radio itself is illogical.
OTOH, we hams think that polluting the radio spectrum with BPL noise is
illogical. Yet we have to push and prod the regulators to understand
that simple idea.
btw, this "character" issue isn't just aimed at hams. It was originally
used against broadcasters.
The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
The FCC can assume anything it wishes, but I insist it obeys the
constitution and the laws of the creator in doing so.
What does either say about the radio spectrum, and access to it?
Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.
I don't believe there is any argument of merit which can be proposed which
would take radio frequencies from us, they are simply one of those
"inalienable rights" our creator has gifted upon the peoples of this earth.
I would quite openly question anyones sanity who claim differently.
Do you think each of us has the inalienable right to operate an
uncoordinated transmitter on, say, 90.9 MHz? I don't, and I don't think
you do either.
Think about why.
It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.
I live in America, I grew up when the constitution was not "interpreted",
rather, we took it for granted our forefathers "said what they meant, and
meant what they said."
The Constitution has always been interpreted. That's one of the reasons
for the Supreme Court, and why it has struck down laws that
contradicted their interpretation of the Constitution. Not a new thing.
And one of the greatest wisdoms of those who wrote and ratified the
Constitution (near here, in Philadelphia, btw) was that it would not be
a static, unchangeable document, but rather one that would evolve and
develop over time. Yet at the same time, the amendment process was set
up to try to keep changes from happening on a whim.
A pretty ingenious system, all told.
You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.
I am pleased we agree on the above, I like to live in a safe country,
composed of safe states, harboring safe cities/towns, which are conductive
to safe neighborhoods ...
Exactly. And that safety means reasonable regulations, laws, and other
measures to ensure order.
At the same time, we must be careful that we do not try to obtain
"safety" at the price of our freedoms.
Warmest regards,
JS
Same to you, "John"
73 de Jim, N2EY