Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:34:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

10-4 Gud Buddy! Didn't that already happen back in
the 60's when they took 11m away from hams?

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Unfortunately, the common justification these days is that ham radio
is a service hobby. When was the last time that ham radio advanced
the state of the art? I have some examples, but they're sufficiently
obscure that none would be sufficient to justify ham radios continued
existence. There is some logic in using the ham bands as a proving
ground for new technologies. Metricom did exactly that, but rapidly
switched to commerical operation. It seems that such advanced
experimentation is discouraged by Part 97. Most of the progress today
is in HF digital modes. These have their own sub-bands by convention.
Also QRP operation, spacecom, CW, and weak signal sub-bands. Various
nets also operate on specific frequencies. It wouldn't be much of a
stretch to unofficially allocate a sub-band to the technically
challenged, such as the old Novice class sub-bands.

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Yer crocked! 1296 is fully utilized here and so was 220. People like YOU
who underutilized it and TOLD everyone it was underutilized are to blame for
US losing it!! Did you get a Ham license just so you could use 802.11/g on
channel 13?

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Bendict Arnold! Anarchist!! Anti-Ham!! Your web domain says it all!!
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:09:57 GMT, "JB" wrote:

Yep. Also the bottom of the 1296MHz band went to GPS because hams
couldn't do anything useful with it. Also most of the 220MHz band
went to ACSSB and inland waterways because it was under-utilized and
because the ARRL couldn't get it together on no-code licensing. We
almost lost the 2.4GHz band because the ARRL was going to demand
priority over unlicensed wi-fi operation, but that was averted when
the ARRL directors received a rare dose of common sense from unknown
sources.

Yer crocked! 1296 is fully utilized here and so was 220. People like YOU
who underutilized it and TOLD everyone it was underutilized are to blame for
US losing it!! Did you get a Ham license just so you could use 802.11/g on
channel 13?

Been licensed since about 1964. There was about a 7 year period where
I let my license lapse. Hmmm... I should probably let it lapse again
as I was profitable, happy, and optimistic during those 7 years.

About 8 ago, I setup several scanners and a computah to run long term
statistics on channel utiliziation for a variety of services. For
fun, I threw in some local VHF and UHF repeaters. For 14 daytime
hours (I used 6am to 8pm) median utilization on public safety
frequencies ran about 20%. Somewhat less for various shared
commerical repeaters. However, of the 5 or so ham repeaters I
monitored, utilization was well below 1% (less than 1.5hrs per day). I
didn't bother to do any 1.2GHz repeaters, but I'll guess from one that
I have in my scanner, it's probably even lower. I had no way to count
users per channel per day, but if I did it manually, I suspect ham
radio would also be scraping bottom. Many ham repeaters have only one
user.

For what it's worth, I consider myself party responsible for educating
at least one ARRL director on the realities of the FCC balancing the
300 million wi-fi users against perhaps a handfull of hams on 2.4GHz.

I don't use Channel 13 for Wi-Fi. It's an unlucky number (and not
legal in the US).

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Bendict Arnold! Anarchist!! Anti-Ham!! Your web domain says it all!!

Guilty as charged. If I can't be a part of the solution, I'll become
part of the problem.

Incidentally, the LearnByDestroying.com has nothing to do with ham
radio. A college I attended has the motto "Learn by Doing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_University
That morphed into "Learn By Destroying" which seemed to be the
practice in the engineering department. Since graduating with a
rather substantial damage fee, I have adopted it as my personal motto.
If you haven't destroyed and later repaired it, you don't understand
how it works.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:35:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Incidentally, the LearnByDestroying.com has nothing to do with ham
radio. A college I attended has the motto "Learn by Doing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_University
That morphed into "Learn By Destroying" which seemed to be the
practice in the engineering department. Since graduating with a
rather substantial damage fee, I have adopted it as my personal motto.
If you haven't destroyed and later repaired it, you don't understand
how it works.

Oops. Wrong Cal Poly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Polytechnic_University,_Pomona
The San Luis Obispo motto of "Discere Faciendo" which is Latin for "To
Learn by Doing" was once the motto for both skools. The motto and
seal for Pomona changed when the skools split in the 1960's to
"Instrumentum Disciplinae" which is Latin for "Application of
Knowledge". This was often incorrectly interpreted as "Instrument of
Discipline" as indicated by the hammer and mace like weapons in the
logos.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sep 18, 1:40*pm, Jeff Liebermann

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. *Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. *With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

I could go along with that. Let them use amateur power amps as well;
at least that would legalize their power amp hardware. Also, I think
CBers do have something to contribute in the construction of some of
those antennas those guys use; some are trash but others are fairly
imaginative at maximizing output power at that frequency. Also those
cheap Galaxy amps. Ise use one myself when I put 10m in my car.

wrote:

...
I could go along with that. Let them use amateur power amps as well;

Look at those 18 wheelers out there with 10/11 meters on 'em, which one
don't you think is running one?

at least that would legalize their power amp hardware. Also, I think

Yeah, it'd make 'em feel better, huh? Let's ask 'em what they would
thing about it!

CBers do have something to contribute in the construction of some of
those antennas those guys use; some are trash but others are fairly
imaginative at maximizing output power at that frequency. Also those
cheap Galaxy amps. Ise use one myself when I put 10m in my car.

Yeah, mass production tends to lower the price.

Regards,
JS

Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Like this?

http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/pic...nas/index.html

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:08:52 +0000, Dave wrote:


Personally, I've suggested that CB'ers and Free Banders be issued
complimentary ham licenses for 10 meters and let them fight it out.
I'll be betting that the CB'ers win. Most of the "new hams" these
days are former CB'ers. With a few notable exceptions, most are quite
nice, but also technically lacking.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm serious. It's kinda like the red light districts in many cities.
If you can't supress prostitution, at least you can control it in a
confined space. Give the lunatics room to jam each other, and they
won't be tempted to land on licensed frequencies.

It's also great for contesting. The art of rudeness, jamming, and
tuning up on other peoples conversations have been sufficiently
optimized on the ham bands. Time for a new challenge, which will be
contesting in a band full of hostile interference. I was running
PSK31 on CB for a while, much to the irritation of the channel
"owners". Worked nicely and there was little intererence. I consider
this advancing the state of the art in communications effectiveness.

Surely the FCC and Congress will recognize the value of ham radio to
global harmony, where international cooperation is enhanced by the
wireless exchange of a signal report, call letter, and contact number,
with foreign operators sufficiently politically connected to obtain a
ham radio license in their country. Perhaps ham radio should be
nominated for the Nobel peace price.

I dread to think what such hams might do with their spare time if ham
radio were to disappear. Give them a sandbox in which to play and get
out of the way.

Like this?
http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/pic...nas/index.html

Ugh. That's my "old" site, where I've been playing with JAlbum
formatting. I haven't updated it in a while. Go unto:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/
for the latest version. The coffee can antenna is in there with
better 4NEC2 output.

Ooops. The NEC model files seem to have evaporated. I'll fix later
tonite.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558