|
"Dee D. Flint" wrote- I repeat the words in 97.1a amount only to a recognition of the fact that we do public service and encouragement to us to continue. It is not an authorization to do public service. We need no authorization whatsoever to do public service. Amateur radio operators have always participated in public service and have done so since before those words were incorporated into the FCC rules. There is NO mandate. There is NO authorization. You guys are engaged in picking fly**** out of the pepper pot. Since 97.1 is headlined "Basis and Purpose", we can pretty much accept that 97.1(a) is the equivalent of a direct order. Putting it another way, if ARRL BoD at their meeting this weekend passes a resolution that the FCC has not authorized us to public service communications, and therefore hams are no longer mandated to provide it, our continued use of the spectrum would come to a quick end. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: This newsgroup is all about lets-pretend fish-story-tellers trying to put down lots of other amateurs. All amateurishly. You seem confused again, old timer. While you tell your fish stories and put down radio amateurs, you aren't in fact a radio amateur. I'm all for eliminating the morse code test from any radio license examination. That's all. "Go for it, EX purchasing agent..." "Of course you did...right after you accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom for keeping Homeland Security safe through ham radio." "Yeah, like a little few-page weekly is on par with the New York TIMES." "MODERN HF amateur radio: 'What was good in the 1930s is still good in 2000s!'" "Real ham radio is working DX on HF with CW." "Quit trying to be a Host, sweetums. The only "host" you can be is of a communicable disease." "Go get some therapy." Yep, it appears quite evident from the quoted material just from one of your posts, Len. You just want to eliminate a code test. Dave, Remember this gem of an example of "civil debate" from the same author as the above: "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English." (October 28, 2003) |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) We need no authorization whatsoever to do public service. (snip) There is NO mandate. There is NO authorization. How can you sit there and say that, Dee? Again, if you're going to do public service with a Ham radio, you're only allowed to do public service which is authorized. You may not do it for profit. You may not do it for a for-profit business or organization unless it serves the public only, not the for-profit entity. You may not do it for a non-profit entity if it can be used for profit (status reports for a walk-a-thon, for example). You may do it only on the frequencies authorized. And so on. There are rules across the board as to what is and isn't authorized. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: But that is not the context in which you used it. There is nothing in Part 97 authorizing us to do public service. (snip) Okay, lets try a different tact, Dee. If you use your radio for public service, what types of public service are you authorized to do? What frequencies are you authorized to use? What types of transmissions are you authorized to make? What messages are you authorized to transmit? Are you honestly going to say nothing to each of these questions? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Leo" wrote:
The belief that a mandate for amateur radio to participate in public service communications is quite common - just did a quick search on Google, and II have attached an ARRL reference as well as one amateur radio club, who both clearly call it a "mandate". No, the real problem is that some simply don't understand the full meaning of the word "mandate." They feel there is some kind of requirement behind it. So, of course, they get confused when it is used in a non-required context. However, there is no requirements associated associated with the other senses of the word. For example, the president can be given a mandate by the voters to lower taxes, but there is no requirement to do so. Amateur Radio operators have a mandate to perform public service (it's in the basis and purpose of this radio service), but there is no requirement to do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: There is no authorization from the FCC required to do public service. (snip) I give up, Dee. You simply cannot get past the word "required." Again, there is no "required" associated with "mandate" or "authorization" in the sense used. You have just demonstrated how little you know about ARES and RACES. I've said nothing in the message you replied to about ARES or RACES other than "the FCC has set rules on what is and isn't authorized in that situation." Please explain how that demonstrates how little I know about them? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote- I repeat the words in 97.1a amount only to a recognition of the fact that we do public service and encouragement to us to continue. It is not an authorization to do public service. We need no authorization whatsoever to do public service. Amateur radio operators have always participated in public service and have done so since before those words were incorporated into the FCC rules. There is NO mandate. There is NO authorization. You guys are engaged in picking fly**** out of the pepper pot. Since 97.1 is headlined "Basis and Purpose", we can pretty much accept that 97.1(a) is the equivalent of a direct order. Putting it another way, if ARRL BoD at their meeting this weekend passes a resolution that the FCC has not authorized us to public service communications, and therefore hams are no longer mandated to provide it, our continued use of the spectrum would come to a quick end. 73, de Hans, K0HB We only have what we do by the grace on the FCC and Congress. There is no part of part 95 or 97 that is a congress passed law only a rule set up by the FCC. We only have what we do because of the possibility that we may perform a public service. Hans is correct. No public service equals no amateur radio. Most public service today could be carried using Nextel or some other cell. Most PS is auto traffic or weather and could easily be done that way. |
Dwight,
I did some digging on this, and I believe that you are absolutely correct - a mandate is an authorization or an approval. In fact, the word "mandate" can be used to mean either a mandatory requirement or an authorization. The dictionary defines "mandate" as: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0073800.html http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mandate 1. An authoritative command or instruction. 2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1. an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one 2 : an authorization to act given to a representative accepted the mandate of the people Meaning #2, "authorization", would fit the wording and intent of the regs quite well. Cross referencing to the Thesaurus, we find the following synonyms listed for the word "mandate": http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=mandate Entry: mandate Function: noun Definition: authority Synonyms: authorization, behest, bidding, blank check, carte blanche, charge, command, commission, decree, dictate, directive, edict, fiat, go-ahead, green light, imperative, injunction, instruction, order, precept, sanction, warrant, word Concept: authorization Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0) Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Entry: approval Function: noun Definition: authorization Synonyms: acquiescence, assent, bells, blessing, compliance, concurrence, confirmation, consent, countenance, endorsement, finest kind, go-ahead, green light, leave, license, mandate, ok, OK, permission, ratification, recommendation, sanction, support, the nod, validation Antonyms: denial, disapproval, refusal, rejection Concept: authorization Note that both dictionary definitions are represented in the list, but that the root concept of the word is "authorization". "Mandate is also listed as a synonym for the word "approval" The word "mandated" , however, is much clearer - it means "to makes something mandatory", period.. Mandate, however, is not necessarily an imperative. These similarity between these two words (and their interchangeable usage in common speech) may be the source of the confusion here. Based on these references, the reference to authorization in the regs could well be interpreted as a mandate, using the dictionary definition #2 from both sources, and confirmed by the thesaurus. 73, Leo On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:27:36 GMT, "Dwight Stewart" wrote: "Leo" wrote: The belief that a mandate for amateur radio to participate in public service communications is quite common - just did a quick search on Google, and II have attached an ARRL reference as well as one amateur radio club, who both clearly call it a "mandate". No, the real problem is that some simply don't understand the full meaning of the word "mandate." They feel there is some kind of requirement behind it. So, of course, they get confused when it is used in a non-required context. However, there is no requirements associated associated with the other senses of the word. For example, the president can be given a mandate by the voters to lower taxes, but there is no requirement to do so. Amateur Radio operators have a mandate to perform public service (it's in the basis and purpose of this radio service), but there is no requirement to do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
Since 97.1 is headlined "Basis and Purpose", we can pretty much accept that 97.1(a) is the equivalent of a direct order. An order to the entire ARS, not to individual amateurs. Of course, if no individual amateurs do what 97.1(a) says, the ARS doesn't do it either. And a service which doesn't at least fulfill its B&P loses its reason to exist. Putting it another way, if ARRL BoD at their meeting this weekend passes a resolution that the FCC has not authorized us to public service communications, and therefore hams are no longer mandated to provide it, our continued use of the spectrum would come to a quick end. Fortunately, that won't ever happen. But the following might: Last evening I had the pleasure and honor of attending a meeting of a large and well-known radio club. The meeting was well attended due to the excellent program presented by Ed Hare, W1RFI, on BPL. In both simulation and actual measurements, BPL systems cause interference levels that make any affected band virtually useless for communication for amateurs and others near such systems. Depending on the vagaries of HF propagation, amateurs and others may experience harmful interference from systems that are not nearby. ARRL is doing all it can to fight the BPL threat, but there is no guarantee they will be successful. The BPL companies are promising inexpensive broadband access, new jobs, competition, new technology, and all the other electropolitically and econopolitically correct terms folks like to hear. If this sounds like I'm stumping for support for ARRL and the fight against BPL, yer dern right. Because if BPL gets implemented on any sort of wide scale, issues like license tests or the appropriateness of certain callsigns will be academic. What does all this have to do with public service? Simple: The ARS' right to exist is seriously threatened by BPL. The companies pushing it say there are millions of people just begging for the service, more jobs, etc.. And many of the systems work within *existing* Part 15 radiated emission limits. So in some ways it comes down to 'which is more important - this newbroadband technology or ham radio?' Do you want to defend the existence of amateur radio based purely on it being "a fun hobby" with no reference to public service? If it comes down to that, we'll lose. Big time. Some might say "BPL isn't my problem; I don't work those bands". Trouble is, you may have to deal with BPL harmonics. And a precedent that it's OK for an unlicensed unintentional radiator to wipe out hams on HF and low VHF sets up a very grim future for any ham band. Hans is right - take away the public service aspect, and the ARS' reason to exist is radically reduced, if not totally eliminated. Which may be exactly why some nonhams find it necessary to deny that amateur radio provides any public service, and to describe amateur radio as purely "a fun hobby". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... Since 97.1 is headlined "Basis and Purpose", we can pretty much accept that 97.1(a) is the equivalent of a direct order. An order to the entire ARS, not to individual amateurs. Of course, if no individual amateurs do what 97.1(a) says, the ARS doesn't do it either. And a service which doesn't at least fulfill its B&P loses its reason to exist. Putting it another way, if ARRL BoD at their meeting this weekend passes a resolution that the FCC has not authorized us to public service communications, and therefore hams are no longer mandated to provide it, our continued use of the spectrum would come to a quick end. Fortunately, that won't ever happen. But the following might: Last evening I had the pleasure and honor of attending a meeting of a large and well-known radio club. The meeting was well attended due to the excellent program presented by Ed Hare, W1RFI, on BPL. In both simulation and actual measurements, BPL systems cause interference levels that make any affected band virtually useless for communication for amateurs and others near such systems. Depending on the vagaries of HF propagation, amateurs and others may experience harmful interference from systems that are not nearby. ARRL is doing all it can to fight the BPL threat, but there is no guarantee they will be successful. The BPL companies are promising inexpensive broadband access, new jobs, competition, new technology, and all the other electropolitically and econopolitically correct terms folks like to hear. If this sounds like I'm stumping for support for ARRL and the fight against BPL, yer dern right. Because if BPL gets implemented on any sort of wide scale, issues like license tests or the appropriateness of certain callsigns will be academic. What does all this have to do with public service? Simple: The ARS' right to exist is seriously threatened by BPL. The companies pushing it say there are millions of people just begging for the service, more jobs, etc.. And many of the systems work within *existing* Part 15 radiated emission limits. So in some ways it comes down to 'which is more important - this newbroadband technology or ham radio?' Do you want to defend the existence of amateur radio based purely on it being "a fun hobby" with no reference to public service? If it comes down to that, we'll lose. Big time. Some might say "BPL isn't my problem; I don't work those bands". Trouble is, you may have to deal with BPL harmonics. And a precedent that it's OK for an unlicensed unintentional radiator to wipe out hams on HF and low VHF sets up a very grim future for any ham band. Hans is right - take away the public service aspect, and the ARS' reason to exist is radically reduced, if not totally eliminated. Which may be exactly why some nonhams find it necessary to deny that amateur radio provides any public service, and to describe amateur radio as purely "a fun hobby". 73 de Jim, N2EY I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally. I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic that came out when the abomination was first proposed. Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL, FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now "clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements. Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a buffer zone around amateurs houses. Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK! The apparent need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly large range. And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us. Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every* other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just maybe, BPL will work....kinda. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) We need no authorization whatsoever to do public service. (snip) There is NO mandate. There is NO authorization. How can you sit there and say that, Dee? Again, if you're going to do public service with a Ham radio, you're only allowed to do public service which is authorized. You may not do it for profit. You may not do it for a for-profit business or organization unless it serves the public only, not the for-profit entity. You may not do it for a non-profit entity if it can be used for profit (status reports for a walk-a-thon, for example). You may do it only on the frequencies authorized. And so on. There are rules across the board as to what is and isn't authorized. The FCC does not authorize any particular form of public service that we do. By the way whether or not ham radio is involved, public service is by definition not for profit. If it is for profit, it's not public service. I can do public service anytime I want to using ham radio. The club I belong happens to focus especially on public service. We do the diabetes walk-a-thons, the MS walk-a-thons and a plethora of others. I do not need the FCC's authorization or permission to do so. I don't even have to be a member of a club. I can do public service as an individual if I so choose. Nowhere does the FCC state what public service I may or may not do using ham radio. I can use any ham radio frequency that I am licensed for. There are no special frequencies set aside for public service. The not for profit clause (and it's exceptions) applies to all ham radio activities and are not specific to public service. The frequency privileges/restrictions are apply to all ham radio actitivies and are not specific to public service. The FCC regulations in Part 97 apply to all ham radio activities and are not specific to public service. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: But that is not the context in which you used it. There is nothing in Part 97 authorizing us to do public service. (snip) Okay, lets try a different tact, Dee. If you use your radio for public service, what types of public service are you authorized to do? What frequencies are you authorized to use? What types of transmissions are you authorized to make? What messages are you authorized to transmit? Are you honestly going to say nothing to each of these questions? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) I can do any public service that I choose to do. I can use any frequencies that I'm authorized to do. I can make any type of non-profit communications. I can transmit any type of non-profit messages. These rules apply to all ham radio activities. There are no special requirements that apply to public service that are any different than the ham rules. I am authorized to operate as an amateur radio operator. That is all that is needed. How or if I perform public service is entirely up to me. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message k.net... "Leo" wrote: The belief that a mandate for amateur radio to participate in public service communications is quite common - just did a quick search on Google, and II have attached an ARRL reference as well as one amateur radio club, who both clearly call it a "mandate". No, the real problem is that some simply don't understand the full meaning of the word "mandate." They feel there is some kind of requirement behind it. So, of course, they get confused when it is used in a non-required context. However, there is no requirements associated associated with the other senses of the word. For example, the president can be given a mandate by the voters to lower taxes, but there is no requirement to do so. Amateur Radio operators have a mandate to perform public service (it's in the basis and purpose of this radio service), but there is no requirement to do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) And you seem to be unaware of the political fluff that is tossed around by politicians and lobbyists to "prove" their point. You've got to read the rules for any activity. The FCC rules give no mandate or authorization or assignment of public service to the ham operator. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: There is no authorization from the FCC required to do public service. (snip) I give up, Dee. You simply cannot get past the word "required." Again, there is no "required" associated with "mandate" or "authorization" in the sense used. I'm quite aware that authorization does not imply required. However there is nothing in Part 97 that authorizes it either. You have just demonstrated how little you know about ARES and RACES. I've said nothing in the message you replied to about ARES or RACES other than "the FCC has set rules on what is and isn't authorized in that situation." Please explain how that demonstrates how little I know about them? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) And I pointed out that Part 97 does not mention ARES at all and that RACES is a very limited and specialized activity and is really the field of general public service. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"JEP" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote- I repeat the words in 97.1a amount only to a recognition of the fact that we do public service and encouragement to us to continue. It is not an authorization to do public service. We need no authorization whatsoever to do public service. Amateur radio operators have always participated in public service and have done so since before those words were incorporated into the FCC rules. There is NO mandate. There is NO authorization. You guys are engaged in picking fly**** out of the pepper pot. Since 97.1 is headlined "Basis and Purpose", we can pretty much accept that 97.1(a) is the equivalent of a direct order. Putting it another way, if ARRL BoD at their meeting this weekend passes a resolution that the FCC has not authorized us to public service communications, and therefore hams are no longer mandated to provide it, our continued use of the spectrum would come to a quick end. 73, de Hans, K0HB We only have what we do by the grace on the FCC and Congress. There is no part of part 95 or 97 that is a congress passed law only a rule set up by the FCC. We only have what we do because of the possibility that we may perform a public service. Hans is correct. No public service equals no amateur radio. Most public service today could be carried using Nextel or some other cell. Most PS is auto traffic or weather and could easily be done that way. While it is true that public service is one of the stronger justifications for hams being allocated frequencies, it is not the only justification. And a justification for our existence is not the same as having a mandate or authorization to do public service. It is entirely up to the ham community as to how diligently we want to pursue public service and how strong we want this justification to do. Remember it is only ONE of several justifications. Perhaps we need to focus on some of the others. It looks to me like we are falling very short in the technical development area for example. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Leo" wrote in message ... Dwight, I did some digging on this, and I believe that you are absolutely correct - a mandate is an authorization or an approval. In fact, the word "mandate" can be used to mean either a mandatory requirement or an authorization. The dictionary defines "mandate" as: Except that the FCC rules do not grant any authority in anyway to do public service nor do they establish any requirement to do public service. In any sense of the word mandate, there is none in the FCC Part 97. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Leo" wrote in message ... Based on these references, the reference to authorization in the regs could well be interpreted as a mandate, using the dictionary definition #2 from both sources, and confirmed by the thesaurus. The regs have no reference to authorization in them. So the usage of mandate is still incorrect. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... Since 97.1 is headlined "Basis and Purpose", we can pretty much accept that 97.1(a) is the equivalent of a direct order. An order to the entire ARS, not to individual amateurs. Of course, if no individual amateurs do what 97.1(a) says, the ARS doesn't do it either. And a service which doesn't at least fulfill its B&P loses its reason to exist. I strongly support public service. Yet the Basis and Purpose statement speaks of encouragement and enhancement of what we already do. It is not granting us any special authorization or mandate to do what we already do. [snip] Hans is right - take away the public service aspect, and the ARS' reason to exist is radically reduced, if not totally eliminated. Which may be exactly why some nonhams find it necessary to deny that amateur radio provides any public service, and to describe amateur radio as purely "a fun hobby". I have many times in many forums objected to the phrase "it's just a hobby" for this very reason. I strongly believe in public service. I strongly believe that it is one of, but not the only, justification for our existence. However if we are going to put so much emphasis on this particular element we have to face the fact that we are very remiss addressing the other elements listed under Basis and Purpose. But again a justification to exist is neither a requirement nor an authorization. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English." I remember that one well. It is simply another fine example of Len's civil debate on the elimination of morse testing in amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally. Also through membership and well-written comments to NOI and NPRM. I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic that came out when the abomination was first proposed. Maybe it will be trashed - but maybe not. It's not over till it's over, and even then it's not over. For example, even though Japan rejected BPL after trials, the BPL companies there are trying again, claiming "new technology". And remember that the levels of interference at the various test sites conform to existing FCC radiated levels! Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL, FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now "clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements. Could still happen. Most of those folks don't have installations in residential neighborhoods. Most hams, OTOH... Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a buffer zone around amateurs houses. We're not in Austria. The EUs usually are a lot more rejecting of pollution than we are. (BPL's interference is essentially spectrum pollution, wouldn't you agree?) Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK! No, it *does* work! The demo sites are functioning. The apparent need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly large range. In some test sites. But at others, it's a different story. And even such problems are no guarantee that FCC won't allow it. Look at Manassas. And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us. Sure - and hopefully the combined effect of all of them will be enough to convince FCC. But the job isn't done till it's done. Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every* other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just maybe, BPL will work....kinda. Stranger things have happened. Suppose you sit down for a nice bit of PSK and find the waterfall full of noise - and no signals visible. Do you think the power company is going to interrupt service so you can operate? Or suppose you see a signal or two and open up with 100 W. And suppose you dump the system for a radius of a mile from your house.... Or suppose the local gendarmes show up, responding to complaints from many angry citizens that *you* are messing up *their* computers. Do you want to explain Part 15 and Part 97 to them, when they see you as the electronic equivalent of somebody violating the peace? Or suppose any time someone calls the help line, the first question the help person asks is "Is there a ham radio within a mile of your house?" These are not wild scenarios. They're updates of what used to happen when TV first came to some areas. Years ago, one ham, W4GJO, was *sued* for TVI by a nearby bar owner who couldn't get distant TV stations when 'GJO was on the air. FCC's attitude, and statements, were that the ham's rig was clean and so it was the TV owner's problem. Yes, the ham eventually won, but it took many hours and dollars. None of this means we should panic or over react. But neithr can we think the problem is licked or that it will go away on its own. It ain't over till... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: The FCC does not authorize any particular form of public service that we do. (snip) Your argument is evolving as the discussion goes on. Again, I give up. This topic just isn't worth spending anymore time on it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Leo" wrote: (snip) Based on these references, the reference to authorization in the regs could well be interpreted as a mandate, using the dictionary definition #2 from both sources, and confirmed by the thesaurus. Wow. Thanks for looking, and typing, all that up for us, Leo. Words are always modified by the context of the discussion. In one case, a mandate is a command. In another, it's an approval, authorization, or so on. In the context used, knowing most here should know the FCC rules (or could look them up), the sense of that word should have been obvious. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Except that the FCC rules do not grant any authority in anyway to do public service nor do they establish any requirement to do public service. In any sense of the word mandate, there is none in the FCC Part 97. Okay, now that you have accepted the authorization or approval sense of the word, and have acknowledged 97.1 and the regs relating to RACES, go back to my original statement you objected to - "there is nothing in Part 95 that mandates public service like that found in Part 97." Would you now agree there is nothing in Part 95 relating to public service that is like that found in Part 97? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: I'm quite aware that authorization does not imply required. However there is nothing in Part 97 that authorizes it either. (snip) This was addressed in another message. As such, I won't repeat what was said there. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally. Also through membership and well-written comments to NOI and NPRM. I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic that came out when the abomination was first proposed. Maybe it will be trashed - but maybe not. It's not over till it's over, and even then it's not over. For example, even though Japan rejected BPL after trials, the BPL companies there are trying again, claiming "new technology". And remember that the levels of interference at the various test sites conform to existing FCC radiated levels! Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL, FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now "clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements. Could still happen. Most of those folks don't have installations in residential neighborhoods. Most hams, OTOH... Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a buffer zone around amateurs houses. We're not in Austria. The EUs usually are a lot more rejecting of pollution than we are. (BPL's interference is essentially spectrum pollution, wouldn't you agree?) Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK! No, it *does* work! The demo sites are functioning. They are a sort of laboratory condition. If the test results from ARRL are correct, 1 ham with 100 watts can effectively turn off the service for quite some distance around him/her. That's what I mean. The apparent need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly large range. In some test sites. But at others, it's a different story. And even such problems are no guarantee that FCC won't allow it. The market will then take care of it. Look at Manassas. Aww, do I have to? 8^) And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us. Sure - and hopefully the combined effect of all of them will be enough to convince FCC. But the job isn't done till it's done. Sure enough. Remember I'm not arguing against a stand against BPL or the need to fight it. I just want people to not freak. Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every* other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just maybe, BPL will work....kinda. Stranger things have happened. Suppose you sit down for a nice bit of PSK and find the waterfall full of noise - and no signals visible. Do you think the power company is going to interrupt service so you can operate? Or suppose you see a signal or two and open up with 100 W. And suppose you dump the system for a radius of a mile from your house.... Yup, keep on calling CQ. I probably wouldn't go above 50 watts tho' But even that would be enough to disrupt the BPL. On a side note, has there been any tests on what solar storms would do to BPL? Or suppose the local gendarmes show up, responding to complaints from many angry citizens that *you* are messing up *their* computers. Do you want to explain Part 15 and Part 97 to them, when they see you as the electronic equivalent of somebody violating the peace? Or suppose any time someone calls the help line, the first question the help person asks is "Is there a ham radio within a mile of your house?" Sure enough. All good arguments. And the best arguments for being steadfast in the fight against BPL. Even though I am certain that in practice, BPL will fall flat on it's face, that if approved, it will be a nuisance for some hams and others. But I see different levels of concern. Concern at a high level such as at the early part of the fight against BPL, when testing was needed, and arguments presented against BPL. The present situation, when it is being documented that the system is very fragile and has a track record of interference to emergency services (even if it is only a test) allows more leisurely prosecution of the problem. But prosecution has to go on. What do you think the F.C.C's response will be when ARRL or FEMA trots out the Austrian BPL Red Cross interference data? Am I the only one that thinks that case is darn close to a show stopper? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: Except that the FCC rules do not grant any authority in anyway to do public service nor do they establish any requirement to do public service. In any sense of the word mandate, there is none in the FCC Part 97. Okay, now that you have accepted the authorization or approval sense of the word, and have acknowledged 97.1 and the regs relating to RACES, go back to my original statement you objected to - "there is nothing in Part 95 that mandates public service like that found in Part 97." Would you now agree there is nothing in Part 95 relating to public service that is like that found in Part 97? Neither Part 97 or Part 95 mandates or authorizes public service. Part 97 however recognizes and encourages public service which Part 95 does not. That was obvious from the beginning and I never challenged the fact that Part 97 is altogether different than Part 95. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally. Also through membership and well-written comments to NOI and NPRM. I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic that came out when the abomination was first proposed. Agreed! And as Carl, WK3C urges, we must be sure that interference really is BPL or we will lose credibility. Maybe it will be trashed - but maybe not. It's not over till it's over, and even then it's not over. For example, even though Japan rejected BPL after trials, the BPL companies there are trying again, claiming "new technology". And remember that the levels of interference at the various test sites conform to existing FCC radiated levels! Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL, FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now "clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements. Could still happen. Most of those folks don't have installations in residential neighborhoods. Most hams, OTOH... Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a buffer zone around amateurs houses. We're not in Austria. The EUs usually are a lot more rejecting of pollution than we are. (BPL's interference is essentially spectrum pollution, wouldn't you agree?) Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK! No, it *does* work! The demo sites are functioning. They are a sort of laboratory condition. Not really! They are actual residential and business areas, with existing power lines of many types. While the number of customers isn't large, the technology *does* work. It's just leaky. If the test results from ARRL are correct, 1 ham with 100 watts can effectively turn off the service for quite some distance around him/her. That's what I mean. Remember that those results were for a particular kind of system. BPL isn't one company or one technology. There are several different types competing to be "the one". The apparent need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly large range. In some test sites. But at others, it's a different story. And even such problems are no guarantee that FCC won't allow it. The market will then take care of it. Hopefully. But a lot of really bad things have gotten to market. Look at Manassas. Aww, do I have to? 8^) The whole place is getting BPL. And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us. Sure - and hopefully the combined effect of all of them will be enough to convince FCC. But the job isn't done till it's done. Sure enough. Remember I'm not arguing against a stand against BPL or the need to fight it. I just want people to not freak. Of course. But at the same time we mustn't think the job is anywhere near done. Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every* other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just maybe, BPL will work....kinda. Stranger things have happened. Suppose you sit down for a nice bit of PSK and find the waterfall full of noise - and no signals visible. Do you think the power company is going to interrupt service so you can operate? Or suppose you see a signal or two and open up with 100 W. And suppose you dump the system for a radius of a mile from your house.... Yup, keep on calling CQ. I probably wouldn't go above 50 watts tho' But even that would be enough to disrupt the BPL. Maybe. You want to try explaining it the police officer at your door? Or the judge who doesn't want to be told it's not in his jursidiction? On a side note, has there been any tests on what solar storms would do to BPL? Not that I know of. But the effect should not be much. Or suppose the local gendarmes show up, responding to complaints from many angry citizens that *you* are messing up *their* computers. Do you want to explain Part 15 and Part 97 to them, when they see you as the electronic equivalent of somebody violating the peace? Or suppose any time someone calls the help line, the first question the help person asks is "Is there a ham radio within a mile of your house?" Sure enough. All good arguments. And the best arguments for being steadfast in the fight against BPL. Even though I am certain that in practice, BPL will fall flat on it's face, that if approved, it will be a nuisance for some hams and others. More than some hams/ You think that noise won't propagate by sky wave? But I see different levels of concern. Concern at a high level such as at the early part of the fight against BPL, when testing was needed, and arguments presented against BPL. The present situation, when it is being documented that the system is very fragile and has a track record of interference to emergency services (even if it is only a test) allows more leisurely prosecution of the problem. Remember that it's not "a system" but rather several competing systems using different technologies. And recall that the BPL folks are using all then right buzzwords. "Third pipe" "new technologies that foster competition" "increased/smarter utilization of existing infrastructure". Etc., etc., etc.... But prosecution has to go on. Agreed! Recall too some of the experiences that hams have already encountered. When WK3C told the story to a local paper, and demonstrated it, the BPL folks claimed 'he found a neon sign'. In a residential neighborhood at midday. Right. And despite the experiences of Austria, Japan and others, BPL advocates say "there have been no reported interference cases". That's what we're up against. Make no mistake. What do you think the F.C.C's response will be when ARRL or FEMA trots out the Austrian BPL Red Cross interference data? I don't know. Could be that it was an isolated incident. Or that the Austrian system was "different". Never mind that Austrian radiated noise limits are lower than ours... Am I the only one that thinks that case is darn close to a show stopper? I'm not counting on anything yet wrt BPL except that it needs to be fought. Heck, it doesn't take an EE to see that the whole concept is badly flawed but the trials are being allowed to progress anyway. "Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst." 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... On a side note, has there been any tests on what solar storms would do to BPL? Unshielded lines probably means their going to be knocked off line rather easily. On one of the space weather sites, there is a reference to the solar storm equivalent of the "Perfect Storm". This occurred in the mid 1800s and knocked out landline telegraphy and the induced currents on the lines leading to shorts in equipment that started several fires. Wish I still had that URL. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: But that is not the context in which you used it. There is nothing in Part 97 authorizing us to do public service. Public service is briefly mentioned but only in recognition and encouragement. Paragraph 97.1a does not authorize any one to do a thing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE There are a total of FIVE paragraphs under 97.1, double-D. Those are ALL applicable. Do they "not authorize" four other activities? Good luck on this one now... LHA / WMD |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: I have many times in many forums objected to the phrase "it's just a hobby" for this very reason. Okay, it's "not" a hobby. I strongly believe in public service. I strongly believe that it is one of, but not the only, justification for our existence. Okay, the entire justification for amateur radio is "public service." However if we are going to put so much emphasis on this particular element we have to face the fact that we are very remiss addressing the other elements listed under Basis and Purpose. But again a justification to exist is neither a requirement nor an authorization. Okay, so its back to just a hobby again... Gosh, all this circle chasing is getting tiring. :-) LHA / WMD |
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: This newsgroup is all about lets-pretend fish-story-tellers trying to put down lots of other amateurs. All amateurishly. You seem confused again, old timer. While you tell your fish stories and put down radio amateurs, you aren't in fact a radio amateur. And you are not God...despite your claims to same... I'm all for eliminating the morse code test from any radio license examination. That's all. "Go for it, EX purchasing agent..." "Of course you did...right after you accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom for keeping Homeland Security safe through ham radio." "Yeah, like a little few-page weekly is on par with the New York TIMES." "MODERN HF amateur radio: 'What was good in the 1930s is still good in 2000s!'" "Real ham radio is working DX on HF with CW." "Quit trying to be a Host, sweetums. The only "host" you can be is of a communicable disease." "Go get some therapy." Yep, it appears quite evident from the quoted material just from one of your posts, Len. You just want to eliminate a code test. I'd like to concentrate on the SUBJECTS instead of your incessant prussian arrogant order-giving, Herr Robust. If you feel that anyone you don't approve of is offensive to you, your holiness, feel free to have their ISP get rid of their account or at least forbid them to post in this free, open, unmoderated newsgroup. Or just skip over the post. Do you need to change the prescription in your monocle again, Herr Robust? You can't continue to do an impression of a modern prussian officer without it...go rent a DVD with Otto Preminger in "Stalag 17" and study it some more. LHA / WMD |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... Since 97.1 is headlined "Basis and Purpose", we can pretty much accept that 97.1(a) is the equivalent of a direct order. An order to the entire ARS, not to individual amateurs. Of course, if no individual amateurs do what 97.1(a) says, the ARS doesn't do it either. And a service which doesn't at least fulfill its B&P loses its reason to exist. I strongly support public service. Yet the Basis and Purpose statement speaks of encouragement and enhancement of what we already do. It is not granting us any special authorization or mandate to do what we already do. Maybe. Did you know that the B&P boilerplate was only added in 1951? To me, the B&P is essentially a sort of expectation of what FCC wants the ARS to be doing "as a whole". Doesn't mean any particular ham has to do it, but that if we as a group don't do those things, eventually there will be no need for an ARS to exist. [snip] Hans is right - take away the public service aspect, and the ARS' reason to exist is radically reduced, if not totally eliminated. Which may be exactly why some nonhams find it necessary to deny that amateur radio provides any public service, and to describe amateur radio as purely "a fun hobby". I have many times in many forums objected to the phrase "it's just a hobby" for this very reason. Well said! I strongly believe in public service. I strongly believe that it is one of, but not the only, justification for our existence. However if we are going to put so much emphasis on this particular element we have to face the fact that we are very remiss addressing the other elements listed under Basis and Purpose. But again a justification to exist is neither a requirement nor an authorization. I agree 100% - I'd use the word "expectation". 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com