He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this
forum (rightly so)
that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a
weapon.

He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this
forum (rightly so)
that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a
weapon.

My dear friend,

This is not the case.

I work with hams and have hams on my board. And, of course, I am a ham. There
is no 'weapon'.

The issue is the following:

Does ham radio accept the wireless /telecom revolution, or does it live in the
past?

Dual use of spectrum with the proper guidelines and thoughtful restrictions is
the way to go, so that millions of folks can share in this evolving radio
landscape. BPL will be only one of many adopted technologies in this mix.

What's happened is that a very few vocal hams have gone totally ballistic and
used any and all tactics possible to try to kill a new technology called BPL.

My point is that those of us who dissent (relative to those such as yourself)
on this matter , and in fact we have a logical, rational, and objective view,
should have our opportunity to voice our opinion as well.

The few radical hams who have tried to represent radio amateurs in the United
States as a whole, do not,in fact, represent that body.

The FCC must represent the people of the United States, and more specifically
in this case, the WHOLE radio amateur service.

They watch out and do what's best for the SERVICE--not a few very vocal hams.

I think the latest modifications to Part 15 are a brilliant roadmap to allowing
new technologies to be a viable dual user of spectrum with licensed services.
That includes the BPL use of the HF spectrum.

I'm also very enthusiastic about the other technologies that have been
discussed here, including, among others, Wi-Max.

Obviously there will be some markets where BPL does well, and others where it
won't.

But for a few vocal hams to try to kill a new technology only focuses the
spotlight back on us, as, in fact, it has this past Summer and Spring (for
example, the front page Wall Street Journal article). And that focus makes us
look antiquated and silly to the outside world.

I don't feel (and am not) antiquated and silly. Are you?

Hams need to move ahead--not just anecdotally-- with new modes and
technologies. There is HUGE resistance to that, and the world has and is
passing us by.

I think this is very sad, and I cannot condone that.

So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels.

With Best wishes,

Chip N1IR

So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels.

With Best wishes,

Chip N1IR



Oh, not this sh1t again! Go away troller!!!

BUm

(Fractenna) wrote in message

I work with hams and have hams on my board. And, of course, I am a ham. There
is no 'weapon'.

Too bad...I'm a ham, and I have a shotgun within arms reach...I sleep
better at night knowing that...

The issue is the following:

Does ham radio accept the wireless /telecom revolution, or does it live in the
past?

I'd rather live in the past, than live with digital spew across the hf
spectrum.

Dual use of spectrum with the proper guidelines and thoughtful restrictions is
the way to go, so that millions of folks can share in this evolving radio
landscape. BPL will be only one of many adopted technologies in this mix.

Dual use....Right....

What's happened is that a very few vocal hams have gone totally ballistic and
used any and all tactics possible to try to kill a new technology called BPL.


Good for them....

My point is that those of us who dissent (relative to those such as yourself)
on this matter , and in fact we have a logical, rational, and objective view,
should have our opportunity to voice our opinion as well.

I've read that about three times, and it still doesn't really make any
sense...


The few radical hams who have tried to represent radio amateurs in the United
States as a whole, do not,in fact, represent that body.

The ARRL is composed of only radical, ballistic, troublemakers? Damn,
maybe I should apply for a membership after all....

The FCC must represent the people of the United States, and more specifically
in this case, the WHOLE radio amateur service.

They screwed the pooch on this issue, if they have the WHOLE radio
amateur service in mind...Not to mention, others live there also..."HF
spectrum"

They watch out and do what's best for the SERVICE--not a few very vocal hams.

Bullcrap....They do whatever the big money dictates...And maybe who
can bend over the farthest....Whoever ramrodded this BPL crap through,
probably needs a jar of vasoline...

I think the latest modifications to Part 15 are a brilliant roadmap to allowing
new technologies to be a viable dual user of spectrum with licensed services.

I've got news for you. Dual use of the HF spectrum, with the exception
of SS, will never work. I think the new modifications are a primetime
cluster#$%@ of ignorance.

That includes the BPL use of the HF spectrum.

That means BPL most likely taking over the HF spectrum...It will
become so trashed with digital spew, no one else would want to use it.



Obviously there will be some markets where BPL does well, and others where it
won't.

But for a few vocal hams to try to kill a new technology only focuses the
spotlight back on us, as, in fact, it has this past Summer and Spring (for
example, the front page Wall Street Journal article). And that focus makes us
look antiquated and silly to the outside world.


Again, pure crap. I read the letter from one of the powerline
empiretts...
She made herself look silly to the outside world, due to all the
blatant misconceptions she had about hams...IE: most still use tube
gear, most are inbred CB wannabees, etc...You should read the letter I
sent her. I gave her a complete front end alignment free of charge. So
did about 15,000 other hams I think. Some, who were VERY up to date on
BPL technology. Hams are not against new technology. Hams are against
it sharing the same frequencies as an existing technology. There is no
good reason for it. AT ALL!

I don't feel (and am not) antiquated and silly. Are you?

You may not be antiquated, but you are without a doubt, one of the
silliest *******s I've ever come across on usenet. You can take that
any way you want...
I'm sure many will back me up on this conclusion.

Hams need to move ahead--not just anecdotally-- with new modes and
technologies. There is HUGE resistance to that, and the world has and is
passing us by.

Pure and simple horsecrap...BPL is *NOT* an amateur radio related
endeavour.
We do NOT need non amateur radio endeavours, and the resulting digital
spew, in *OUR* amateur bands.

I think this is very sad, and I cannot condone that.

Another day, another $2.31... Next...

So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels.

That statement is open to further debate....MK

You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?

We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital
communications by now..

Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design?

Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new
technology that
causes a problem with our old technology.

Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue
communications..
Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is
digital.

That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... )

Then again, the regs and band plans have us bound up pretty tightly.
Not a whole lot of room left to experiement with modulation schemes.

Antennas are still wide open, but it seems a lot like aerodynamics, all the
good work was done in wwII, and not much progress since, except for tweaks.

--
KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org
Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark"
wrote:

You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?

Hi Mike,

Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains
examples which follow below.

We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital
communications by now..

As an isolated statement that is true. There are more modulation
modes now than there were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and many of them
are digital based - BPL is baseband, not modulation, however I will
let that pass for further discussion.

There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency
of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment
commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash
generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering
methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than
amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts.

Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design?

This is called being stuck in the time warp of 1928 innovation and
WWII's need to draft both the Ham and his transmitter because of a
shortfall of equipment. Since then, except for rare achievements like
exploring Spread Spectrum (which the FCC hamstrung) it has been follow
the market.

The Amateur community is not about being a class of inventors, but
rather a resource pool of savvy and experienced technicians and
engineers who could be relied upon to reign in the self-interests of
decadent commercialism. This dialogue is one clear and obvious
example of both that talent's exercise, and the stonewalling of a
crypto-fascist administration.

Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new
technology that causes a problem with our old technology.

I presume by the inclusive nature of "we" that you are against new
technology? If not, then your argument contains its own
self-negation. If so, then your argument is what psychology calls
"projection" WE do not necessarily share YOUR problem.

Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue
communications..
Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is
digital.

And in this last statement, "we" find your poor understanding of the
problem in general, and the concept of what digital is, in particular.

Your TV is analogue even if your remote tuner is digital. Even there,
your remote tuner is not digital, it is CW (albeit with a different
code set). CW is one of the oldest modes around. That IR beam that
communicates with your big bottle across the room sends a chopped
light beam that is in now way OCTAL nor HEXIDECIMAL but closer to
Baudot. This is about as close to "digital" as you are in the living
room, and Amateur equipment has had this advantage for quite a long
time now (Baudot has been with amateur service for at least 60 years).

As for your home phone or CD player, if you have any impression that
you are actually listening to "digital" you are indeed the product of
genetic manipulation and should rush a sample of your DNA to the
nearest patent office to claim your birthright is actually
intellectual property.

Again, any "digital" property found in these commonplace AND LINEAR
devices is and has been found in Amateur equipment for a very long
time now. If this is news to you, you can then appreciate your unique
problem of "projecting" your lack of understanding on others and
calling them out for being against technology.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark"
wrote:


You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?


Hi Mike,

Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains
examples which follow below.


We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital
communications by now..


As an isolated statement that is true. There are more modulation
modes now than there were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and many of them
are digital based - BPL is baseband, not modulation, however I will
let that pass for further discussion.
There are also digitally based methods of generating an RF frequency
of a purity that exceeds all the current Ham radio equipment
commercially available, but those methods are not widebanded trash
generators. Clearly, digital methods are not necessarily interfering
methods - except in the hands of commercial interests with less than
amateur talent in marketing dominating their engineer's efforts.

Why aren't we using them then? Is the nasty need for channelizing going
to rear up?


Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design?


This is called being stuck in the time warp of 1928 innovation and
WWII's need to draft both the Ham and his transmitter because of a
shortfall of equipment. Since then, except for rare achievements like
exploring Spread Spectrum (which the FCC hamstrung) it has been follow
the market.

The Amateur community is not about being a class of inventors, but
rather a resource pool of savvy and experienced technicians and
engineers who could be relied upon to reign in the self-interests of
decadent commercialism. This dialogue is one clear and obvious
example of both that talent's exercise, and the stonewalling of a
crypto-fascist administration.


Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new
technology that causes a problem with our old technology.


I presume by the inclusive nature of "we" that you are against new
technology? If not, then your argument contains its own
self-negation. If so, then your argument is what psychology calls
"projection" WE do not necessarily share YOUR problem.


If there is a digital mode that uses less bandwidth, sounds at least
acceptable to enough people, and allows me to tune my radio in a normal
fashion, I'll hop right on it.

And of course, we have to remember that there is an inertia based on
the need to have people to talk to. If I have the nifty new digital mode
of communications, how much fun is it going to be if I only have three
other people to QSO with? These things take time, and I may assume that
Mark has a digital rig?



Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue
communications..
Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is
digital.


And in this last statement, "we" find your poor understanding of the
problem in general, and the concept of what digital is, in particular.

I guess I hadn't looked at it from that perspective, but I agree, there
must be some confusion as to what exactly digital is.

Your TV is analogue even if your remote tuner is digital. Even there,
your remote tuner is not digital, it is CW (albeit with a different
code set). CW is one of the oldest modes around. That IR beam that
communicates with your big bottle across the room sends a chopped
light beam that is in now way OCTAL nor HEXIDECIMAL but closer to
Baudot. This is about as close to "digital" as you are in the living
room, and Amateur equipment has had this advantage for quite a long
time now (Baudot has been with amateur service for at least 60 years).


As for your home phone or CD player, if you have any impression that
you are actually listening to "digital" you are indeed the product of
genetic manipulation and should rush a sample of your DNA to the
nearest patent office to claim your birthright is actually
intellectual property.

Again, any "digital" property found in these commonplace AND LINEAR
devices is and has been found in Amateur equipment for a very long
time now. If this is news to you, you can then appreciate your unique
problem of "projecting" your lack of understanding on others and
calling them out for being against technology.

I have a nice mid-80's IC745 that is indeed digital in all the places
where it serves the purpose!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:43:03 +0100, "Mark"
wrote:

You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?

Hi Mike,

Sure, some of them don't know what "digital" is, your posting contains
examples which follow below.

SNIP
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh dear, my generalisations have yet again confused those of electronics
academia and has caused interpretation problems with a gargantuan
proportion.

Maybe my sentence " You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is? "
should
be changed to " You know what the trouble is with all those on this list is:
" ( followed by a list of every amateur in the world , but filtering out
those who don't reply to an extensive survey to find out if they would like
to be included in the generalisation "we". )

He casts... he waits... ( not long ) , and he reels them in...

Mark wrote:
You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?

We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital
communications by now..

Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design?

Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new
technology that
causes a problem with our old technology.

Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue
communications..
Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is
digital.

That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... )


There are some serious limitations to digital voice comms that make it
not work so well for our purposes. Bandwidth issues, believe it or not.

Another problem I note is that I was reading a review of a unit that
will interface between the microphone and xciever. I was reading along
with interest - it sounded pretty good - then at the end of the article
they note that you have to receive the whole transmission, or you
receive nothing. No tuning across the bands looking for a signal.
Perhaps the ARS should be channelized like CB?

Comparisons with cell phones are amusing because the quality of those
little POC's is by and large unacceptable IMO. "Can you hear me now?" 8^)