|
A plea for civility
Fellow hams,
Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters. My reasons for doing so are probably typical: I do it because it reminds me of the first transmitter I owned, and of other rigs and earlier times, before I had the money to buy new equipment and linear amplifiers. I also have many good friends who operate AM, and I like to talk to them as well as to my friends who use CW or SSB. I'm writing this to ask that hams who don't favor AM make allowances for us: it seems that the "AM Window" on 80 meters is being taken over by hams operating SSB, sometimes with blunt, on-the-air comments to the effect that those running AM aren't entitled to use the space. There have been skirmishes, complaints, acrimonious debates, and even outright jamming lately, and I'm afraid it will escalate to the point that FCC action will be needed. I'm going to be blunt he I'm not a psychologist, but I think those who oppose AM are making a big mistake by not treating AM operators with the same standard of on-air behavior that they show to other hams. I'm not sure why this "range war" has started, but it's only logical endpoint is with reduced privileges for ALL hams, not just those who use AM. Our hobby is at a crossroads: with young technophiles gravitating to the Internet, and military forces needing neither CW operators nor technicians, the future we face at the frequency-bargaining table and in the public's mind is no longer in the hands of benevolent government agencies eager for trained personnel who can be pressed into service quickly. In fact, the future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and unless we start working together and stop sniping at each other over minor things like the modes we use, we're going to fade away without anyone noticing. FWIW. YMMV. 73, Bill W1AC (Filter qrm for direct replies) |
A plea for civility
Bill Horne, W1AC wrote:
Fellow hams, Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters. My reasons for doing so are probably typical: I do it because it reminds me of the first transmitter I owned, and of other rigs and earlier times, before I had the money to buy new equipment and linear amplifiers. I also have many good friends who operate AM, and I like to talk to them as well as to my friends who use CW or SSB. I'm writing this to ask that hams who don't favor AM make allowances for us: it seems that the "AM Window" on 80 meters is being taken over by hams operating SSB, sometimes with blunt, on-the-air comments to the effect that those running AM aren't entitled to use the space. There have been skirmishes, complaints, acrimonious debates, and even outright jamming lately, and I'm afraid it will escalate to the point that FCC action will be needed. I'm going to be blunt he I'm not a psychologist, but I think those who oppose AM are making a big mistake by not treating AM operators with the same standard of on-air behavior that they show to other hams. I'm not sure why this "range war" has started, but it's only logical endpoint is with reduced privileges for ALL hams, not just those who use AM. There is an element on 75 meters that just seems to hate the idea of Hams having fun, and want to spoil it for others. I suspect that they don't really have all that much against AM'ers, or at least no more than they have against anyone else in the hobby. Though no doubt they bring up the mode as a wedge to "justify" their harassment. I believe that we are at a good point in the timeline of Amateur radio that we need to have the amateurs who are being interfered with to start documenting the interference, and sending it off to the F.C.C. RDP - Record, Document, Pursue Our hobby is at a crossroads: with young technophiles gravitating to the Internet, and military forces needing neither CW operators nor technicians, the future we face at the frequency-bargaining table and in the public's mind is no longer in the hands of benevolent government agencies eager for trained personnel who can be pressed into service quickly. In fact, the future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and unless we start working together and stop sniping at each other over minor things like the modes we use, we're going to fade away without anyone noticing. You're pretty much right there Bill, although I would not quite agree on tekkie folks going to the internet. I don't think we're producing many tech folks at all. But that's another issue. I am convinced that what we need a Kind and friendly folk who are willing to take the newbies under their wing and teach them. Folk who do not judge other Hams by their favorite mode of operation. Folk who are willing to go after the jammers and riff raff and follow through with that RDP. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
A plea for civility
On Jun 11, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
There is an element on 75 meters that just seems to hate the idea of Hams having fun, and want to spoil it for others. There are a lot of cbers on the ham bands who happen to have ham licenses. |
A plea for civility
On Jun 11, 11:20?am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Bill Horne, W1AC wrote: Fellow hams, You're pretty much right there Bill, although I would not quite agree on tekkie folks going to the internet. I don't think we're producing many tech folks at all. But that's another issue. I am convinced that what we need a Kind and friendly folk who are willing to take the newbies under their wing and teach them. Ahem...most of the "newbies" recently getting on HF aren't "new" at all but have now been able to administratively change their class as a result of FCC 06-178. [I am a relatively rare extra-out-of-the-box who has been IN radio longer than most here, but I'm cheering for the recent 'upgraders.'] BTW, I've never had any "Elmer" since my Army active duty time ended in 1956. The closest to that I've gotten since is to silently observe others operating their rigs and, once in a while, get to say a few words as a guest third-party. First-hand observation can teach much and the 'teacher' doesn't have to explain anything, certainly not lecture. Folk who do not judge other Hams by their favorite mode of operation. Whoa! BIG issue from what I've heard. Usually its against DSB AM as if it is some cardinal sin! I don't understand it even though I've heard all the rationales of "limited bandspace" and all that for years. The very last time hams got more bandspace on HF was 28 years ago at WARC-79. Lately the FCC gave out a few channels at "60m" instead of the ARRL-requested band of frequencies. Nobody in any position of amateur leadership seems to be doing anything about getting more band- space in HF, yet HF is much less used overall now than it was 28 years ago. Folk who are willing to go after the jammers and riff raff and follow through with that RDP. I don't know about all this "riff-raff" stuff since I've not heard much, yet I can receive fairly good over HF, same as most others. So far, I've only had one UNIDENTIFIED Raddio Kopp try to flash his badge about my using the phrase "roger that" instead of just 'roger.' :-) How does one follow up on the Unidentified riff-raff without having a trio of DF-equipped hams all taking bearings at the same time? Shout and holler in newsgroups and other forums and demand somebody do something?!? Listening to 10m here I just don't get all that "jamming" and "riff-raff" supposedly done by CBers, just hams doing their ham thing with a few complaining about that CBer riff-raff. :-( I like the sound of DSB AM. Saves having to retweak tuning for a network of SSB users, none of which are exactly on-frequency. 73, Len AF6AY |
A plea for civility
cmdr buzz corey wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: There is an element on 75 meters that just seems to hate the idea of Hams having fun, and want to spoil it for others. There are a lot of cbers on the ham bands who happen to have ham licenses. I would respectfully note that the problems cannot all be laid at the feet of those who use/used Citizen band radios. It is a kind of convenient word to generalize with, but in the end can add to the problems. But more importantly, what are we going to do about it? Somewhere between the world of "You will not say the word "roger" lest ye be banned from my repeater", and the Dodge City of 75 meters is a middle ground that needs explored. Basically, Hams need to accept that there are some of us who have different accents from us, and may talk differently. We need to not get spun up when someone says "My handle is...". Or Roger, or whatever. People who speak Q-signals and give 5 of 9 reports should not berate others for silly language. On the other hand, people who interfere with others communications need dealt with, and dealt with harshly once found. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
A plea for civility
AF6AY wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:20?am, Michael Coslo wrote: Bill Horne, W1AC wrote: Fellow hams, You're pretty much right there Bill, although I would not quite agree on tekkie folks going to the internet. I don't think we're producing many tech folks at all. But that's another issue. I am convinced that what we need a Kind and friendly folk who are willing to take the newbies under their wing and teach them. Ahem...most of the "newbies" recently getting on HF aren't "new" at all but have now been able to administratively change their class as a result of FCC 06-178. [I am a relatively rare extra-out-of-the-box who has been IN radio longer than most here, but I'm cheering for the recent 'upgraders.'] True enough, but I'm not really addressing admin upgrades. There is a new group of Hams who are interested in radio, but may not know all that much. In our area we nave new Hams who haven't used a soldering iron. We teach 'em how to use one. There are some Hams who would hold these unpolished gems in contempt for their lack of knowledge. Folk who do not judge other Hams by their favorite mode of operation. Whoa! BIG issue from what I've heard. Usually its against DSB AM as if it is some cardinal sin! I don't understand it even though I've heard all the rationales of "limited bandspace" and all that for years. There is some contention here. The enhanced bandwidth SSB crowd is pretty roundly panned for their use of bandwidth. Theey might point out that the AM'ers also use a lot. My thoughts are that the AM is a legacy mode, and there really aren't a lot of practitioners, so I am willing to put up with that bit of extra use. Wide band SSB on the other hand, is just a mode that doesn't serve much purpose. Folk who are willing to go after the jammers and riff raff and follow through with that RDP. I don't know about all this "riff-raff" stuff since I've not heard much, yet I can receive fairly good over HF, same as most others. So far, I've only had one UNIDENTIFIED Raddio Kopp try to flash his badge about my using the phrase "roger that" instead of just 'roger.' :-) There is a fair amount of interference out there. It isn't really too many people, much less than 1 percent, but that small group can wreak some havoc. And as I have said before, there is altogether too much worry about saying the exact correct words. If more hams worried about actual problems, and less about speech patterns, it would be FB... ;^) How does one follow up on the Unidentified riff-raff without having a trio of DF-equipped hams all taking bearings at the same time? More or less just that, Len. There are a lot of Hams who love Fox-Hunts. This would be different from most fox hunting, but would serve an actual useful purpose. We have Hams who travel to some pretty awful places to DXpedition. Seems a few might want to do some direction finding. Sometimes this isn't even needed, as some of the miscreants aren't too secretive about their callsigns. Shout and holler in newsgroups and other forums and demand somebody do something?!? Hehe, people have tried that for some time, and it doesn't work too well. Listening to 10m here I just don't get all that "jamming" and "riff-raff" supposedly done by CBers, just hams doing their ham thing with a few complaining about that CBer riff-raff. :-( I don't spend a lot of time on 10 m, but what time I have spent there, the inhabitants have been pretty well behaved. Most of my experience with the bad guys has been on 75 meters, and a little on 20. I like the sound of DSB AM. Saves having to retweak tuning for a network of SSB users, none of which are exactly on-frequency. |
A plea for civility
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:53:34 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
Somewhere between the world of "You will not say the word "roger" lest ye be banned from my repeater", and the Dodge City of 75 meters is a middle ground that needs explored. "Roger that, 10-4...good buddy...." g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
A plea for civility
On Jun 12, 7:53 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
cmdr buzz coreywrote: On Jun 11, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: There is an element on 75 meters that just seems to hate the idea of Hams having fun, and want to spoil it for others. There are a lot of cbers on the ham bands who happen to have ham licenses. I would respectfully note that the problems cannot all be laid at the feet of those who use/used Citizen band radios. It is a kind of convenient word to generalize with, but in the end can add to the problems. But more importantly, what are we going to do about it? Somewhere between the world of "You will not say the word "roger" lest ye be banned from my repeater", and the Dodge City of 75 meters is a middle ground that needs explored. Basically, Hams need to accept that there are some of us who have different accents from us, and may talk differently. We need to not get spun up when someone says "My handle is...". Or Roger, or whatever. People who speak Q-signals and give 5 of 9 reports should not berate others for silly language. On the other hand, people who interfere with others communications need dealt with, and dealt with harshly once found. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - I will rephrase that...there are a lot of cbers and cb types who have ham licenses. |
A plea for civility
"Phil Kane" wrote
"Roger that, 10-4...good buddy...." g Yeahhhhh, the personal here is Howard.... And now back to our regularly scheduled program. N7SO |
A plea for civility
I would respectfully note that the problems cannot all be laid at the feet
of those who use/used Citizen band radios. It is a kind of convenient word to generalize with, but in the end can add to the problems. In my experience the bulk of "problem" operators were on air before CB became a popular hobby. Using the term "CBer" as a derogatory remark can only lead to pointless arguments. A tactic some very successfully use as a means to divert debate away from the fact that bad operators are bad operators regardless of their other interests, and focus on those newer to the hobby than themselves. Can we use the term "CBer" to describe people who use CB radio? And accept that CB is really off topic for this group so why are we talking about these guys anyway? -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org |
A plea for civility
Jim Higgins wrote in
: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:53:34 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote: cmdr buzz corey wrote: On Jun 11, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: There is an element on 75 meters that just seems to hate the idea of Hams having fun, and want to spoil it for others. There are a lot of cbers on the ham bands who happen to have ham licenses. I would respectfully note that the problems cannot all be laid at the feet of those who use/used Citizen band radios. It is a kind of convenient word to generalize with, but in the end can add to the problems. But more importantly, what are we going to do about it? Somewhere between the world of "You will not say the word "roger" lest ye be banned from my repeater", and the Dodge City of 75 meters is a middle ground that needs explored. Basically, Hams need to accept that there are some of us who have different accents from us, and may talk differently. We need to not get spun up when someone says "My handle is...". Or Roger, or whatever. People who speak Q-signals and give 5 of 9 reports should not berate others for silly language. On the other hand, people who interfere with others communications need dealt with, and dealt with harshly once found. I like your approach, Michael. That last suggestion, if successful, would go a long way to ward cleaning up 75M! ;-) Not sure what rock I've been living under, but I've never heard that "Roger" wasn't kosher on a repeater. Do you maybe mean "10-4?" Nope. A few months ago, I did a little investigation on repeaters. Surprisingly enough to me, a lot of the repeater pages had guidelines of "how to speak" Roger was in a few. Keeping in mind that that is quite legal - a repeater owner can bring down the repeater or kick someone off it if s/he doesnt want anyone to say "Chewbacca", it isn't a freindly sort of thing to do. Some of the best - friendly, courteous, etc. - hams I know were former CBers. They may not be all very technically inclined, but all have well set up stations - good effective antennas, proper grounding, etc. - and they did it themselves. And more importantly they treat their fellow hams decently on and off the air. All the ones I know deserve the respect and tolerance you suggest above and when you get down to it don't really need it because they don't stand out as former CBers. My experience has been the same. A local Ham who is a truck driver just happens to be an excellent ham, in all ways. We're bringing him up on the technical end too. He does occasionally say "roger that". Big deal. I'll take ten of him for every grump. And if a new ham does happen to say "10-4" or "my handle is" it's easy enough to privately Elmer him on the sensitivity some have to that lingo. Those who refuse that simple courteous approach might do well to look for another hobby. We have enough grouchy old men as it is. ;-) Right! We can lead by example, and if need be, I can make a mention of it if it is egregious. Mention it off the air, and in a constructive way. I wouldn't browbeat anyone for saying roger, or even first personal, but would make an exception if people were delving into the "avoidance/defeat" of law enforcement activities that I've heard on 11 meters. My personal pet peeve comes from reading the FCC enforcement letters. If it's not an Extra class licensee involved then it tends to be someone who has been licensed for 20+ years. It's definitely not the newcomers. They make their occasional mistakes, but they don't do anything wrong with malicious intent. If everyone just met that one simple standard the bands would be an entirely different place, esp 75M. Seeing the enforcement letters, I read much the same. There is the occasional Technician that is operating beyond their priveliges, but unlicened operation, repeater jammers, and plenty of hams who have been licensed for a very long time. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
A plea for civility
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:30:26 EDT, Jim Higgins
wrote: And if a new ham does happen to say "10-4" or "my handle is" it's easy enough to privately Elmer him on the sensitivity some have to that lingo. Those who refuse that simple courteous approach might do well to look for another hobby. We have enough grouchy old men as it is. ;-) This really not-too-grouchy old man remembers the use of "my handle is...." or "handle here is..." on HF as "good amateur practice" even before CB was invented. Of course the use of "first personal is...." still grates on my ears but give them time....they'll learn eventually. My two electrons.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
A plea for civility
Phil Kane wrote in
: Of course the use of "first personal is...." still grates on my ears but give them time....they'll learn eventually. My own personal pet peeve is when someone speaks "HI HI". In Morse it does sound kind of like laughter, but when spoken it sounds quite strange. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
A plea for civility
On Jun 13, 1:08 am, "Howard Lester" wrote:
Yeahhhhh, the personal here is Howard.... Talked to a young fella on the repeater the other day who introduced himself by saying "my first personal is Jim and you're my first contact, QSL?". He seemed like a nice sort, delighted that he had just received his shiny new call sign, and was anxious to make some new friends. Kinda sounded like I felt when I put my new call sign on the air the first time way back when, except probably brighter, cuz Jim is one of those young computer jocks. Me, I still got problems with the LL scale on my Pickett slide rule. Yep, I think Jim sounded brighter than me, quick to catch on to things. But I don't think Jim will be back on the repeater. Before I had a chance to really get to know much about Jim, or even wrangle an invite to lunch, another station, with an impressive "senior" call sign joined the contact, flashed his shiny Radio Cop badge, and proceeded to issue Jim a "verbal speeding ticket" for improper lingo on the radio. "Radio Cop" said the term "personal" (and for that matter "handle") were unwelcome in ham radio, and that Q-signals were not to be used on VHF voice. Just generally made my newfound friend feel like an unwashed interloper. (Gosh, I've been saying "handle" since I was a conditional class. Slow to catch on, you know.) Now I should point out that "Radio Cop" took pains to appear very well meaning. Didn't use any bad words that I noticed, was quite polite, even seemed like he was trying to be "helpful." In other words, he thought he was doing Jim a favor by pointing out his transgression from our sacred Amateur Radio way of doing things. I think Jim felt just the same way I did back in a new school in third grade when the well meaning teacher pointed out that "we don't keep our pencil behind our ear in this room." Sure enough, I looked around and none of my new classmates had pencils behind their ears. Sure was embarrassing, and at that moment I really wished I was back with my good old buddies in second grade. Now, if I'd been allowed to hang out a couple of days, I'm sure I would have learned how to properly stow my pencil. And if Jim would have hung around a couple of days on our repeater I just bet he would have noticed that his lingo, perhaps learned in another radio service, was a bit out of place, and pretty soon Jim would sound "just like the rest of us." Like I said, he seemed pretty bright to me, quick to catch on to things. "Radio Cop", you have kept our hobby uncorrupted. I heard Jim down around 27 Mhz this morning, and saw his ad on eBay trying to sell his barely used 2-meter HT. I'm gonna miss my new friend Jim, because I think I could have learned something from him. Maybe you could have also. Like I said, he seemed pretty bright to me, quick to catch on to things. What do think it was that he caught on to about us from "Radio Cop". 73, de Hans, K0HB ~~~ When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~~~ |
A plea for civility
On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote: Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters. Minor point: For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97 as if they were different bands. My reasons for doing so are probably typical: I do it because it reminds me of the first transmitter I owned, and of other rigs and earlier times, before I had the money to buy new equipment and linear amplifiers. I also have many good friends who operate AM, and I like to talk to them as well as to my friends who use CW or SSB. I used to do some 75 meter AM - because it was fun. I hope to do more soon. But the fun was definitely reduced by the behavior of a few bad apples. I'm writing this to ask that hams who don't favor AM make allowances for us: it seems that the "AM Window" on 80 meters is being taken over by hams operating SSB, sometimes with blunt, on-the-air comments to the effect that those running AM aren't entitled to use the space. There have been skirmishes, complaints, acrimonious debates, and even outright jamming lately, and I'm afraid it will escalate to the point that FCC action will be needed. Long history of that. I don't know why, because AM activity is concentrated on a few well-known frequencies. I'm going to be blunt he I'm not a psychologist, but I think those who oppose AM are making a big mistake by not treating AM operators with the same standard of on-air behavior that they show to other hams. I'm not sure why this "range war" has started, but it's only logical endpoint is with reduced privileges for ALL hams, not just those who use AM. Our hobby is at a crossroads: with young technophiles gravitating to the Internet, and military forces needing neither CW operators nor technicians, the future we face at the frequency-bargaining table and in the public's mind is no longer in the hands of benevolent government agencies eager for trained personnel who can be pressed into service quickly. In fact, the future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and unless we start working together and stop sniping at each other over minor things like the modes we use, we're going to fade away without anyone noticing. I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial and military folks want. What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even when documented harmful interference has been presented. As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on CW. What really puzzles me about the problem is this: Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters) even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band except 10 and 15 meters. Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
A plea for civility
|
A plea for civility
On Jun 16, 2:19?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote groups.com: On Jun 11, 11:21?am, "Bill Horne, W1AC" wrote: Like many others, I occasionally use AM on both 160 and 80 meters. Minor point: For some odd reason, FCC lists "80 meters" and "75 meters" in Part 97 as if they were different bands. Really odd, in that the ARRL lumps them together as 80 meters. The whole thing is not accurate anyhow, so I guess it is more by convention than anything else. Yup. Why FCC considers them different bands, even though they are right next to each other, is a mystery. I don't think we'll lose HF spectrum. VHF/UHF is what the commercial and military folks want. Agreed. HF "suffers" from unpredictability, or perhaps more accurately, it's wildly varying characteristics. One part of the day, a flea power signal can make its way around the world, the next part it won't. Then the sunspots can do the same thing. Those are all the characteristincs that we have fun with, but are really bad for the control that is needed by other groups. I like to think about what would happen during good propagation to all those competing signals. There's also the size of simple, effective antennas on the lower frequencies, particularly if you want broadband, no-tuner performance. I saw a neat design for a 40-10 meter discone in the ARRL Antenna Book - it's not exactly small. What has already started to happen is lack of protection for licensed radio amateurs. Look at the BPL mess: FCC has dragged its feet even when documented harmful interference has been presented. Politics always loses when confronted by physics. Even if wins all the battles. I don't know about politics losing all the time. If the licensed services are not protected, all kinds of havoc can happen. In the bad old days, 27 MHz was an ISM band, reserved for things like diathermy and heat-sealing machines. I remember one case, here in Philadelphia, where a heat-sealing factory's machines put a strong harmonic right on the Philadelphia Police dispatcher channel. Of course FCC was all over them in a big way. But imagine if FCC had dragged its feet... Of course amateur radio isn't the same as the police channel, but once the camel's nose gets in the tent, things get very odd. As for the bad behavior on 75, it is one of the reasons I sold my AM rig (National NC-173, EFJohnson Viking 2 and 122 VFO) and focused on CW. What really puzzles me about the problem is this: Several months ago, FCC widened 75 meters (and narrowed 80 meters) That would be quite a trick! (joke) Yup. But they did it anyway. even more than had been requested. AM voice is now legal for US Extras from 3600 to 4000 kHz. That's more space than any HF/MF ham band except 10 and 15 meters. Is there no room for AM in all those 400 kHz? Not for the miscreants! 8^( 'zactly. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
A plea for civility
|
A plea for civility
|
A plea for civility
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:04 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote: While it does indeed interfere with our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far, however. If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same "money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws radar systems. My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
A plea for civility
On Jun 11, 3:21 pm, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote: In fact, the future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and unless we start working together and stop sniping at each other over minor things like the modes we use, we're going to fade away without anyone noticing. AMEN! Hams are members of a group comprising about one quarter of one per cent of the U.S. population. We have strong common interests as a result of that shared minority status. Let's focus on those common interests, rather than on minor differences in our mode preferences or whether we say "name" or "handle" or "first personal". These petty arguments remind me of sail-boaters and power-boaters arguing among themselves about which technology is "most efficient", or "gets through rough water", or whatever, while in the meantime a commercial interest is petitioning to drain the water out of the lake and converting the whole stinking place to an industrial park. Friends, our "lake" of spectrum is in danger of being drained away -- spend your energy and intellect trying to solve that problem which MEANS SOMETHING to everyone of us, instead of arguing over the merits/ demerits of Morse testing, or whether "hi hi" on voice is acceptable. Without spectrum, there is no Amateur Radio. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- The dust will not settle in our time. And when it does some great roaring machine will come and whirl it all skyhigh again. |
A plea for civility
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same "money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws radar systems. Fortunately, the legal situations which exist with regard to those two situations are rather different. w/r/t the PAVE PAWS radar systems in the 420 - 450 MHz frequency band, the government radar system is the primary user of this frequency spectrum, and has been for years. Amateur operators are secondary users of these frequencies, and are (and have been) explicitly required to limit use of these frequencies so that amateur use does not interfere with the primary users (radar). All that has happened recently, is that the government users have actually asserted that amateur use _is_ interfering with radar, and that amateur users must eliminate the interference as is required by the FCC rules. In short, the Air Force has the law on their side. We can hope that the ARRL's work to come up with a selective interference-mitigation program will succeed... but if the Air Force gets snicky and insists on a total shutdown of 70 cm ham repeaters near the PAVE PAWS sites, they can make it stick. The situation with BPL is different, as least as far as the law reads today... BPL operators have *no* licensed right to radiate in the amateur bands, while amateur users are either primary or secondary users of these bands. The ARRL is making a pretty good case that the FCC is ignoring both the law (national, and perhaps even international law and treaty obligations), and their own regulations, in allowing BPL operators to behave as they are. My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. Agreed. The BPL providers have made big noise about how BPL will open up broadband access to rural customers who are not now served by any broadband providers. It would be amusing to see what would happen if the FCC were to offer these providers the right to continue operating BPL systems with current emission levels... but *only* on the condition that the providers would agree to fund a build-out of their system to cover 90% or more of rural customers. Imagine the howls of "Oh, we can't afford that!" -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
A plea for civility
On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote:
My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. I share that opinion, Phil, as do most others in the telecomm industry that I associate with. For all the hoopla generated from POTUS right on down into the ranks of FCC, the stark fact is that real-live users (notice I didn't say 'paying customers') of BPL number under 10,000 nationwide, and most of those 'users' are participants in 'trials' and 'feasibility studies'. After a half-decade of promotion, BPL has been unable to gain economic traction in the form of 'production' installations in real customer bases. In five years BPL with be nothing more than a footnote in some telecom technical journals as a dead-end technological curiosity which never made a dime. Last time I checked there were less than 8,000 paid and 'demonstration' subscribers, and the number was dwindling. Meanwhile every second issue of QST contains another confrontational "It seems to us" K1ZZ jeremiad about BPL, we see ARRL President W5ZN sending huffy letters to the FCC Chairman, ARRL has challenged the Commission in Federal court, and now a ham in Congress is pushing for a Bill to have a Congressional "study" of the matter.. All this over an issue that is already dying a quiet death-by-apathy on the part of the commercial telecommunications community. I've spent two successful careers in professional telecommunications, and maintain strong personal and professional ties in the industry. Up until about 5 years ago Amateur Radio enjoyed a very positive reputation among the "pros", but today we are mostly viewed as obstructionist old coots without a clue, and it's getting worse. This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother", and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately calculated to raise our "bother quotient". We should expect no support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a hastening of that event. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- {{{{* http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
A plea for civility
In article .com,
KOHB wrote: [...] This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother", and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately calculated to raise our "bother quotient". We should expect no support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a hastening of that event. I am not certain of that. Sometimes, government agencies are not able to give voice to certain positions because of political pressures from elected officials and their temporary appointees. The 'work-around' is to get some pliant non-governmental organization to give voice to those controversial positions. It is a sort of 'good cop/bad cop' routine. The ARRL has been the FCC's lapdog for so many decades that it is tough to imagine that they have suddenly grown a backbone. |
A plea for civility
On Jun 19, 12:50 am, Klystron wrote:
The ARRL has been the FCC's lapdog for so many decades that it is tough to imagine that they have suddenly grown a backbone. This issue (BPL) will collapse from a case of market apathy. ARRL is squandering good will and good money on an issue that the "pros" in telecommunications have already written off as a non-starter. We should have saved our "silver bullets" to fight a real threat. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
A plea for civility
Phil Kane wrote in
: On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:04 EDT, Mike Coslo wrote: While it does indeed interfere with our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far, however. If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same "money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws radar systems. I think the two situations are a little different, depending on who is the primary and secondary users of a particular frequency. I wonder if they will ban The users of 11 meters too? 5 watts is enough to disrupt BPL. I don't think that the money will talk loudly enough as the sunspot cycle picks up again. Could be wrong about that tho' And even if so, It is just poor technology, and has so many levels of possible failure. My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. We agree on that, for sure. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
A plea for civility
K?HB wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:59:36 EDT:
On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote: My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. snip In five years BPL with be nothing more than a footnote in some telecom technical journals as a dead-end technological curiosity which never made a dime. Last time I checked there were less than 8,000 paid and 'demonstration' subscribers, and the number was dwindling. The June 2007 issue of the IEEE Spectrum has a Special Report which is over-titled "By 2008 More Than Half Of The World's Population Will Live In Urban Areas." Note "world's population," not just the USA. That further reduces some (mythical?) need to bring the Internet- structure to rural users, the popular rationale for BPL...as touted by the FCC Commissioners of the recent regime. Meanwhile most of those "isolated" rural users are doing just fine with their POTS. Here in southern six-land there is intense competition among the cable TV providers to offer high-speed Internet connectivity (768 KBPS on the cheapest plan) using the already-installed cable TV "wires." Much of the Greater Los Angeles area and adjoining foothill communities are already so "wired." We don't need subcarriers on AC primary power lines to carry even low-speed Internet. Meanwhile every second issue of QST contains another confrontational "It seems to us" K1ZZ jeremiad about BPL, we see ARRL President W5ZN sending huffy letters to the FCC Chairman, ARRL has challenged the Commission in Federal court, and now a ham in Congress is pushing for a Bill to have a Congressional "study" of the matter.. All this over an issue that is already dying a quiet death-by-apathy on the part of the commercial telecommunications community. Ah, but BPL very definitely remains a clear and present danger to HF radio users. SOMEONE has to carry the banner of Forces Against BPL. We can't ask the apathetic to do it...they have, well, too much apathy to do it. However, the forces that be at Newington are feeling the mortality symptoms of their organization. They feel they must DO SOMETHING now that they no longer have the clout with the FCC they've always assumed was theirs. They may not have received an onslaught of New Members as a result of the revolutionary effect of 06-178. They seem worried, thus all the more reason to SAY something to prove they still "have what it takes to lead their membership." But, I agree with you that they've gone over-the-top in their response. Sincerely, Len AF6AY |
A plea for civility
On Jun 17, 12:50 pm, wrote:
Yup. Why FCC considers them different bands, even though they are right next to each other, is a mystery. The high end of the band is at 75-meters, the low end at 85-meters (give or take). On average, I guess it's 80 meters. I'm just glad they don't make us call the MF/HF bands: 166.666666666666667-meters, 85.714285714285714-meters, 42.857142857142857-meters, 29.702970297029703-meters, 21.428571428571429-meters, 16.603940668585344-meters, 14.285714285714286-meters, 12.053033346725593-meters, and 10.714285714285714-meters. Beep beep, de Hans, K0HB |
A plea for civility
K?HB wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:59:36 EDT:
On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote: I've spent two successful careers in professional telecommunications, and maintain strong personal and professional ties in the industry. Up until about 5 years ago Amateur Radio enjoyed a very positive reputation among the "pros", but today we are mostly viewed as obstructionist old coots without a clue, and it's getting worse. Well, I've only had one career in radio-electronics counting my particular military service. "Successful?" For me? Well, I want for nothing having finished it. As a mostly-licensed-NOT-in-amateur- radio for all of that time, I would make your "5 years" into 20 or 25 years. The pro telecommunications and radio-electronics industries were established and grown by NON-amateurs from the get-go, despite all the legendary hoopla from old-timer-hams. This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother", and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately calculated to raise our "bother quotient". The ARRL (I am a voting member) rather blew it big-time with their "Regulation By Bandwidth" proposal. Both their original petition and subsequent retraction of that looked to my non-legal eyes as written by undergrad law students. Real attorneys would have fun with such things and would have to really work to try to find out what those documents were trying to say or convey. One of the signs of the Newington group feeling their own mortality is the "Diamond Terrace" proposal and "membership (for extra money)." [call it the mausoleum syndrome] I have nothing against a building reconstruction or spiffying-up a place of work. But buying a brick for cash just to have some quasi-immortality by members? Okay, if they need cash inflow so much, then the League ought to cater towards those three-fourths of all US ham licensees who are NOT members. We should expect no support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a hastening of that event. I don't share your gloom and doom there. I say US amateur radio will NOT suffer any near-future demise. The FCC full well recognizes that amateur radio IS a hobby (even if they don't say so outright). The FCC also recognizes that other RF emitters are also for hobby activities; see the 100 channels allocated for model radio control use at 72+ MHz, well after the first HF CB creation. Hobbyists are ALSO citizens and the federal government is obliged to listen to them as well as the evil big-money capitalists (who are also citizens). If there be danger, then it is to future allocations of and about amateur radio. WARC-79 gave international hams new bands in HF. But, that was 28 years ago. What have the US hams gotten lately? A few individual channels at "60m?" Those 60m channels was originally a League proposal for a whole band, not a few channels. Newington has always been oriented to HF. That's not where the future of radio is...the future is above 30 MHz where most of the rest of the radio world has gone and expanded. If the ARRL wants to concentrate on spectrum territory where their core membership operates at and using old tried-and-true modes, fine, but I see that as just catering to a minority of a minority. I see it as just plain IGNORING the majority of licensees. That ain't leadership. Sincerely, Len, AF6AY |
A plea for civility
"Phil Kane" wrote in message [snip] My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. Ok, I'll bite..! What is "BPL"..?! Everyone seems to think everyone knows, but I am devoid of clue..! Can someone enlighten me..? I assume something specific to the US or surely I would have heard of it..?! 73 Ivor G6URP |
A plea for civility
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:41:55 EDT, "Ivor Jones"
wrote: Ok, I'll bite..! What is "BPL"..?! Everyone seems to think everyone knows, but I am devoid of clue..! Can someone enlighten me..? I assume something specific to the US or surely I would have heard of it..?! It's a US acronym for Broadband over Power Lines. The European term and acronym (which I can't recall right now) is something different(Power Line Carrier ??), but the process is the same. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
A plea for civility
"Phil Kane" wrote in message On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:41:55 EDT, "Ivor Jones" wrote: Ok, I'll bite..! What is "BPL"..?! Everyone seems to think everyone knows, but I am devoid of clue..! Can someone enlighten me..? I assume something specific to the US or surely I would have heard of it..?! It's a US acronym for Broadband over Power Lines. The European term and acronym (which I can't recall right now) is something different(Power Line Carrier ??), but the process is the same. Ah, ok, thanks. The idea has been put forward in the UK but I don't think anyone has taken it up. 73 Ivor G6URP |
A plea for civility
On Jun 19, 8:48 pm, AF6AY wrote:
to prove they still "have what it takes to lead their membership." But Newington (and the BoD) are not there to lead the membership (memberships don't need to be led). They are there to serve the membership. In any case, engaging the FCC in court battles on hollow issues like BPL neither leads NOR serves the Amateur Radio service. It needlessly squanders what modest remaining remaining respect we have at the government agency we depend on for our continued existence. (Can you say "bite the hand which feeds us"?) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
A plea for civility
KØHB wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:48 pm, AF6AY wrote: to prove they still "have what it takes to lead their membership." But Newington (and the BoD) are not there to lead the membership (memberships don't need to be led). They are there to serve the membership. In any case, engaging the FCC in court battles on hollow issues like BPL neither leads NOR serves the Amateur Radio service. It needlessly squanders what modest remaining remaining respect we have at the government agency we depend on for our continued existence. (Can you say "bite the hand which feeds us"?) My assessment of the situation is that the efforts - especially the ones by W1RFI, have paid off. There appears to have been a push for BPL that was based on other than technical rationale. When other rationales than technology are used to promote a technical solution, we sometimes get white elephant solutions. Like BPL. We have the luxury of looking at the situation as it exists now, not as it would be if no effort was spent in opposition to it. I find the situation similar to childhood vaccinations. Children were dying or being harmed by various diseases, so we came up with vaccines. They worked, and many lives were saved. Now some people question just why we should be vaccinating children. "Gee, no one is getting sick, why do we have to do this?" Just a thought. Without any ARRL protest, it is very likely that there would have been a lot more deployment of BPL. A lot of Amateurs would be having their service disrupted by BPL. A lot of BPL customers would be having their service disrupted by amateurs. Problem is that management technique is to not step back and reassess, not to stop digging when they find themselves in a hole; but to stick to their guns.The promoters would ride BPL right into the ground. With no opposition, (ARRL keeping out of the issue) what would be the response to the BPL promoters to the fact that we would shut down BPL every time we keyed up? I'll bet it would be an attempt to disallow the Amateur communications. We can talk about licensed services and part 15, but that would not stop the issue from going to court. And if the ARRL kept out of that, is there any doubt of who would win? Maybe we could get a public defender to do something pro bono for us? A likely scenario would be an injunction against amateur operation in areas served by BPL until they figured things out. At that point, Hams would be sending angry emails wondering "Just where on earth was the ARRL in this mess? They should have been doing something!" So while I agree that BPL is a technical failure, and will eventually go away, it had/has the potential to wreak a lot of havoc over a long period, if not opposed. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
A plea for civility
On Jun 20, 2:43 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
My assessment of the situation is that the efforts - especially the ones by W1RFI, have paid off. I agree to the point that the science and technical work done by Ed Hare was members money well spent. We (ARRL) should have spent more money in this area, the practical technical evaluation of the BPL. This was/is useful work. But I stand on both sides of this issue, as a licensed Amateur, a former elected ARRL official, and as a technically involved member the telecommunications industry. From the aspect of a former elected ARRL official and a long-time loyal ARRL member, I view all the "whipping up the troops", long jeremiads in QST, nasty letters to the FCC Chair, Federal lawsuits, etc., as ill-advised posturing which has no practical influence on the business decisions of telecommunications providers, and only serves to alienate our regulators over a technology which is ALREADY DOA. From the aspect of a player in the telecommunications industry, I see K1ZZ and the BoD which supports his Quixotic crusade as comically amateur (in the Webster definition of "without skill") medlers in a game where they have only enough political power to be nothing more than a pest. This misbegotten adventure WILL be remembered in the wrong places when we need some favor down the road. All of this, over a still-born technology without any practical possibility of gaining the traction necessary to become a market reality. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
BPL
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: .... My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. Not competitive is my take, other methods will bet it and it will die -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com