Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
"Chuck Harris" wrote in message ... Scott Dorsey wrote: Earl Needham wrote: What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago. Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the bandwidth, they decided not to use it. --scott Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress. Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have realized. -Chuck The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. -- Clif Holland KA5IPF www.avvid.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote:
The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level management, all political appointees who do not understand what the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and equipment) should be expended on it. I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is not charmed by what the agency has become lately. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Not picking on the "grunts" but the upper level would be hard pressed to
find the bathroom. -- Clif Holland KA5IPF www.avvid.com "Phil Kane" wrote in message ast.net... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote: The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought. The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level management, all political appointees who do not understand what the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and equipment) should be expended on it. I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is not charmed by what the agency has become lately. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shipping: UPS Ground vs. FedEx Ground
Phil Kane wrote:
I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is not charmed by what the agency has become lately. Hmmm....I probably have a notice here somewhere with your autograph Does the FCC still go after Novices with 40m harmonics falling out of band on 10 meters or has the freeband CB QRM covered up all of the violations? Just kidding. Well, no...not really. -Bill ex-WN4SXX |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Cold Water Pipe Ground? | Antenna | |||
Grounding Rod | Shortwave | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna | |||
FS/FT Commercial VHF/UHF & Test Gear - Long List | Swap |