|
Amateur radio is a hobby, yes -- but it is a hobby that also provides
training for services to the public. E.g., search and rescue operations (e.g., much of the shuttle debris was in areas with no cell-phone or regular two-way radio service), emergency communications when major power outages occur, etc., etc. Alan AB2OS On 03/10/04 08:35 pm Barry OGrady put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio. If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies valuable radio spectrum. |
Amateur radio is a hobby, yes -- but it is a hobby that also provides
training for services to the public. E.g., search and rescue operations (e.g., much of the shuttle debris was in areas with no cell-phone or regular two-way radio service), emergency communications when major power outages occur, etc., etc. Alan AB2OS On 03/10/04 08:35 pm Barry OGrady put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio. If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies valuable radio spectrum. |
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic wrote: Tony P. wrote: We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box. And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra without an HF rig right now. And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do stuttering wonders for BPL. BPL needs to be killed and pronto. The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1 Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services." Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only, and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL. And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures roam unimpeded... 73 ... WA7AA What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio. If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies valuable radio spectrum. Well, guess you are not a US Radio Amateur, or you would know that Amateur Radio is not a hobby, but is a service. If you ARE a ham and live in the US, please go read Part 97 again. -- ... Hank http://horedson.home.att.net http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic wrote: Tony P. wrote: We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box. And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra without an HF rig right now. And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do stuttering wonders for BPL. BPL needs to be killed and pronto. The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1 Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services." Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only, and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL. And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures roam unimpeded... 73 ... WA7AA What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio. If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies valuable radio spectrum. Well, guess you are not a US Radio Amateur, or you would know that Amateur Radio is not a hobby, but is a service. If you ARE a ham and live in the US, please go read Part 97 again. -- ... Hank http://horedson.home.att.net http://w0rli.home.att.net |
Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service? That my friends is a very important question. How much do they value our knowledge and volunteer emergency services? Tony P. wrote: The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1 Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services." Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only, and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL. And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures roam unimpeded... 73 ... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service? That my friends is a very important question. How much do they value our knowledge and volunteer emergency services? Tony P. wrote: The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1 Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services." Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only, and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL. And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures roam unimpeded... 73 ... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
Pappy wrote:
Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC consider amateur radio such a service? ... Hmmm...how much campaign money does the ARRL give???... |
Pappy wrote:
Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC consider amateur radio such a service? ... Hmmm...how much campaign money does the ARRL give???... |
Regardless of your ignorance, it is the amateurs that are pointing out the
potential problems of BPL. If nothing else, this speaks volumes about the need for reasonable tests for potential amateurs (not something that you can walk into a test and walk away with an 'extra' class license). The code/no code arguement, in my opinion, is moot; what is more to the point is what these amateurs can and *do* contribute, regardless of the rants of many folks who may be envious of the frequencies available to amateurs. I worked in EMC compliance. We had a problem with interference from powerlines. Yes, it is possible to reduce the problem. Whilst it won't qualify as a test to pass a particular piece of hardware, it is *great* for determining sources of RFI. Someone has a problem with RF interference to home equipment (not necessarily amateur). How do you solve it? I've helped in both cases. Some folks have minds so closed that they can't see the forest for the trees (or vice-versa). I remember finishing my active duty with the U.S. Navy. I suspect it was verteran's day as there had been a parade and I was in a bar later on. A few guys in Navy uniforms had a problem. I overheard the conversation. Their transmitter had low output and couldn't tune. I went over to them and asked to see the transmitter. Sure enough, a bad cap in the tank circuit. We repaired it on the spot (dang if I didn't get hornswaggled into joining the reserves LOL). When folks like you ask "did you repair that pothole in interstate 90 between ....", you are missing the point. It is the knowlege and theory that can enable hams to assist in many situations. Although I had engaged in emergency communications on Guam Island (and it was many years ago) and an SOS on 500 KHz at sea (also many years ago), you assume that I am obsolete. I would suggest that bad capacitors still happen and the folks with some technical background still can help. Although that situation with the U.S. Naval Reserve was many years ago, I've also repaired much more modern transceivers in the past decade. I am also quite capable of reducing interference between devices today. You dwell on the past; the technically astute needn't. BTW, BPL is *not* going to serve the "underserved". I won't explain it. You take the time and effort (*if* you have the perseverence - which I doubt - and research it). 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic wrote: What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio. If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies valuable radio spectrum. -- -Barry ======== Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.615 / Virus Database: 394 - Release Date: 3/8/04 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com