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