KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


But seriously folk, this whole "They just don't get it!" jeremiad, is
just that - a jeremiad.



Damn, Mike, you're a flip-flopper to rival Senator Kerry. Back about
2-1/2 years ago when I made this same pitch almost verbatim, your
flattery was almost embarrassing when you said:

One shouldn't ever change their mind. As a newly minted Extra lite, I
had some thoughts about the matter.

But these days, one must make up their mind about something
immediately, and any change is a sign of weakness, moral ineptitude, and
a lot of other bad things.

Stay the course.

Sorry, but in my time since then, I've learned a lot. I learned that I
was wrong then. That may not fit in with your politics, but so be it.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...adelphia .net


Gee Hans, sensible talk like that, and rrap might just
dissapear! 8^)

Excellent post, and I suggest that we take it to heart. That is if we
care about the future of the ARS.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Watsa matta --- you don't "care about the future of the ARS" anymore?

I don't think your idea that we should abandon political action for
scientific reporting only (you do realize that that is just more
politics don't you?) is a great way to lose a lot of things.

We deal with regulators, and they are a branching of the political
process. It's there, and it's a fact of life. Notice how we give
feedback to the FCC on various subjects? That is political input. We are
a technical service trying to convince non-technical people of our opinions.


Put in reverse order, do you think that if we had prepared and
presented a technical report on the subject, that BPL would have been
discarded?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Put in reverse order, do you think that if we had prepared and
presented a technical report on the subject, that BPL would have been
discarded?


Of course I don't think that, and neither did I say that.

What I DID say is that I believe that ARRL is wasting our money
trying to be a political force, and (MORE IMPORTANTLY) that I think that
the same money would be better spent on efforts which renewed the
Amateur Radio reputation for technical innovation.

You keep trying to twist it into "what has Hans done lately?".

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Our President says BPL is a good thing and is needed for
techno-economic
prosperity. He and his appointees at FCC and NTIA say that any
interference can
be managed.

Are you saying Our President and his advisors and regulators are
wrong?

Leading question noted. Sorry, Jim, but 7th grade debating tactics
don't cut it in the grownup world.

I've said nothing about the president, his advisors, or his regulators.

They support at least the concept of BPL. That's abundantly clear. There was a
time when FCC would have laughed the whole BPL concept out the door - not
because it interfered with hams but because it was just not a good idea
technically. Ask K2ASP.

To refresh your memory and to save you the effort of Goggling is up,
HERE is what I said:

"Rather than (ARRL) spending hundreds of thousands of our dollars
chasing a POLITICAL resolution to this issue where they have gained no
traction and which they can't possibly win, why don't we take the money
we spend on Sumner and Imlay and hire a bunch of Ed Hare's and do the
SCIENCE necessary to discredit BPL. Haynie/Sumner/Imlay are political
lightweights giving Amateur Radio the image of a bunch of obstructionist
amateurs (lower case amateur)."

The SCIENCE has already been done. By W1RFI, NTIA, and others.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

I believe that ARRL is wasting our money
trying to be a political force,

I disagree, Hans. Without some political action, ham radio will simply be
legislated out of existence - eventually.

We haven't gotten everyhting we wanted in the BPL fight. Neither did the BPL
folks get everything *they* wanted.

and (MORE IMPORTANTLY) that I think that
the same money would be better spent on efforts which renewed the
Amateur Radio reputation for technical innovation.

Why can't there be money to do both?

More important:

What, exactly, should we hams be doing to renew that reputation?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


What, exactly, should we hams be doing to renew that reputation?


If I knew "what exactly" it would already have been done.

And I'm not talking about individual hams here, but how the ARRL focuses
its (our) resources.

If ARRL redirected half of the millions (yes, millions) it spends in
Washington towards fostering a renewal of the technical reputation which
we have lost, we'd have both credibility at the regulatory level, and
respect in industry.

ARRL (as the "national organization of amateur radio" which they bill
themselves) is the only one with the resources to bring "tinkering and
inventing" back into the forefront.

Encouraging innovation isn't tough --- in my engineering group I ask
each engineer to spend 10% of their time (4 hours per week) as "PBI"
time ("Partially Baked Idea"). This is time to pursue personally
selected pet projects unrelated to their primary tasking, even unrelated
to our groups tasking. Once a quarter we hold a one day "off site in
blue jeans" meeting where individuals can grab the spotlight and "show
and tell" their PBI to the rest of the group. The effect on creativity
is marvelous, and also a great tool for identifying "up and comers"
whose creativity might be otherwise masked by the day-to-day drudge of
assigned tasking.

Can you imagine what might happen if ARRL spent perhaps $500,000/annum
on "PBI" conferences, and made some "folk heroes" out of some tinkerers
and expermenters. Hey, they do it for DXers and contesters!

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


Put in reverse order, do you think that if we had prepared and
presented a technical report on the subject, that BPL would have been
discarded?



Of course I don't think that, and neither did I say that.

What I DID say is that I believe that ARRL is wasting our money
trying to be a political force, and (MORE IMPORTANTLY) that I think that
the same money would be better spent on efforts which renewed the
Amateur Radio reputation for technical innovation.

You keep trying to twist it into "what has Hans done lately?".

Twist? A large part of your post was quoting:

"I would urge you to continue shifting towards more
spectrally efficient communications techniques - especially
digital techniques. Such a shift has a number of benefits:

"- First of all, it demonstrates to POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS
that you are good stewards of the public's airwaves even without
direct economic incentives.

"- Second, by using what you have efficiently, it strengthens
your case when you need to ask for additional spectrum.

"- Third, by allowing more users to access the available
allocations simultaneously, it improves the amateur experience and
ultimately increases the attractiveness of the service to new and
old users alike."

I'll assume that you believe what you posted? (correct me if I'm wrong)

I would hope you would set a good example by taking the lead.

Of course an alternative might be like a person that I know that had
the cojones to declare that their role in life was to point out others
shortcomings, not to do anything about them.

Or are we only supposed to talk about the ARRL political funding and
not the other ports of your post? You quoted the "digital techniques"
again yourself while trying to discredit me for changing my position.

Between Lenover21 and yourself, I'm beginning to think my posts are a
real irritant! 8^) You two need to get together and write up some
posting rules fer me!! HA!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Twist? A large part of your post was quoting:


The quotes (of the FCC officials) were selected to point out what the
regulators seem to be expecting of us.


I'll assume that you believe what you posted? (correct me if I'm
wrong)


Yes, I believe that is what those regulators said.


I would hope you would set a good example by taking the lead.


I did take the lead, by trying to point out what seems to be the
prevailing regulatory attitude towards us. I further took the lead by
pointing out that I feel the ARRL ought to shift some of the 'political'
spending into programs which sponsor and nuture an attitude of tinkering
and experimenting among amateurs.

73, de Hans, K0HB

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote

So BPL at this point is *all* a political and legal problem.

If that's true, then the money we've spent on lobbying by Hainie,
Sumner, and Imlay has been wasted, and any more spent would be further
waste.

Disagree. Strongly.

Here, from the FCC R&O, is what that money bought us:

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio
frequencies warrant the special protection afforded
frequencies reserved for international aeronautical
and maritime safety operations. While we
recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist
in providing emergency communications," it described
typical amateur operations as "routine communications and hobby
activities."

I don't have a problem with that.

Face it, Brian, we've been marginalized,

We've been continuously marginalized ever since the commercial and
government services and the technologies they used passed ham radio as
a source of emergency comms and new technologies starting in the
1920s.

and for years the FCC has been
trying to get our attention. Way back in June of 2000 FCC'er Dale N.
Hatfield (W0IFO) Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology made
these comments in a speech to AMRAD:

"I would urge you to continue shifting towards more
spectrally efficient communications techniques - especially
digital techniques. Such a shift has a number of benefits:

"- First of all, it demonstrates to POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS
that you are good stewards of the public's airwaves even without
direct economic incentives.

Then the same "POLICYMAKERS and REGULATORS" dumped BPL all over the HF
and beyond spectrum which essentially precludes the introduction of
new "spectrally efficient HF communications techniques" by any
service.

"- Second, by using what you have efficiently, it strengthens your
case when you need to ask for additional spectrum.

The last couple times we asked for more HF spectrum space we got it,
30, 17, 24 and 60 meters and none of it had anything to do with
"spectrum efficiency". Had to do with hams jumping into open spectrum
space abandoned by other services which moved to higher slots in the
spectrum.

"- Third, by allowing more users to access the available
allocations simultaneously,

What BPL "allocations"?

it improves the amateur experience and
ultimately increases the attractiveness of the service to new and old
users alike."

How in the hell does sharing 30M & 440 with the commercials "improve
the amateur experience"?

I have a 12 year old grandson who got his first peek at ham radio this
past July when I still had the FD station running in his aunt's garage
and was doing a bit of dxing and he started asking questions. I tuned
around 20M and explained what was going on and how it happens. His
opinion of ssb was that it sounded like a waste of time. I tuned some
RTTY and PSK31 which he immediately likened to his Internet
connection, "I can already do that", then I worked a couple Euros with
CW. That grabbed him and he bored into the subject. Ditto SWLing the
foreign broadcast stations. I bought him a copy of the ARRL primer on
ham radio, a copy of Passport and I need to dredge up a half-decent
rcvr for cheap, toss some wire up and I'll see what happens.

Then a couple of weeks later FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH, made some
chillingly similar comments in a public speech.

"Take nothing for granted. Bill Gates can't, and you can't either."

"You're at a crossroads now. An old Chinese philosopher (or my
grandmother--I can never remember which!) said, "Be careful what
you wish for. You may get it." Seize the moment, and make this
your finest hour. Ham radio has been at a crossroads before and
has thrived. Continue that tradition."

"Make sure that, on your watch, Amateur Radio never becomes
obsolete."

Where's he been?

From those two FCC speeches, it ought to be clear to all of us that
Amateur Radio does *not* have a "free pass" to spectrum, not will our
current allocations be "protected" when other applications come
looking for a place to operate.

What "other applications" besides BPL are out there looking for HF
space? The Radio Mondiale SW broadcasters? Which want to use 10 Khz
wide digital signals to replace their existing 6 Khz wide AM signals?
There's a great example of "modern spectral efficiency".

The handwriting is on the wall --- the FCC isn't much interested in
what we used to do,

Welp, I guess that means that they're not interested in what 99.9% of
us hams do huh?

but is intensely watching our current stewardship of the
resources that are so highly coveted by other services. Regretably I
think we've been found, in Riley's words, "obsolete", and financing a
rearguard legal and political maneuvering by Haynie and Imlay is
pretty much ****ing money down a rathole.

Point 1: The FCC's formal rationale for the existence of ham radio is
what's actually obsolete. The whole pile of nonsense about justifying
ham radio based on ham emergency comms and "advancing the state of the
art" is farcical at best and needs to be recognized as such so that we
get that silly old baggage out of the way. The HF spectrum is a
protected and regulated natural resource which needs to be shared by
both common citizens like hams and others who need access to the
resource for their particular purposes. The ham spectrum spaces need
to be protected on the same bases as the national parks are protected
and for the same reasons. One big difference between ham radio and the
national park system of course is that we don't cost the gummint squat
compared to what it spends to provide hiking trails for users of other
"antiquated technologies" like feet. Hypocrites.

Point 2: The coming of BPL is exactly analogous to the timber
companies clear-cutting anywhere they choose to do so. We're now in a
position to get clear-cut ourselves, that's WRONG and it's coming from
the same bunch of politicians who have the worst environmental record
and big-biz "connections" in recent times. The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies by leaning on the politicians and the
courts and now it's our turn.

Point 3: With respect specifically to funding the ongoing ARRL battle
against BPL note that we managed to get the FCC to recognize that yes,
BPL does have the potential to generate harmful interference and they
handed us a few tools to deal with it as best we can. The League is
going to spend money on that effort and I continue to support their
efforts.

"Quitters don't win."

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv


Brian, you're right!

The issue is not that we are relevant or up to date. We're not. The issue
is that we are the public. Hobby use of the radio spectrum is justifiable
on it's own terms, and that is a matter of politics, not technology. CB and
FRS are parts of the same thing, whether we like to admit it or not, and
amateur radio is for the few who know a kilocycle from a bicycle!

The parks argument is a good one. The spectum is a natural resource like
the forest and the shoreline, and like those it shouldn't be for business
use only.

73 de Alun, N3KIP, G8VUK

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article . net,
"KØHB" writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Our President says BPL is a good thing and is needed for
techno-economic prosperity. He and his appointees at FCC and NTIA say
that any interference can
be managed.

Are you saying Our President and his advisors and regulators are
wrong?

Leading question noted. Sorry, Jim, but 7th grade debating tactics
don't cut it in the grownup world.

I've said nothing about the president, his advisors, or his regulators.

They support at least the concept of BPL. That's abundantly clear.
There was a time when FCC would have laughed the whole BPL concept out
the door - not because it interfered with hams but because it was just
not a good idea technically. Ask K2ASP.

To refresh your memory and to save you the effort of Goggling is up,
HERE is what I said:

"Rather than (ARRL) spending hundreds of thousands of our dollars
chasing a POLITICAL resolution to this issue where they have gained no
traction and which they can't possibly win, why don't we take the money
we spend on Sumner and Imlay and hire a bunch of Ed Hare's and do the
SCIENCE necessary to discredit BPL. Haynie/Sumner/Imlay are political
lightweights giving Amateur Radio the image of a bunch of
obstructionist amateurs (lower case amateur)."

The SCIENCE has already been done. By W1RFI, NTIA, and others.

73 de Jim, N2EY


BPL is junk from a pure technical POV, but what can you expect from the
GOP?

"We the People" can only speak any more--but that's about it. Organizations
who have "our" money, Presidents who are elected, Senators and
Congresspersons who are elected, and on and on, represent and act upon
nothing but whatever big fish is out there with more money for them.


"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"N2EY" wrote


What, exactly, should we hams be doing to renew that reputation?


If I knew "what exactly" it would already have been done.

And I'm not talking about individual hams here, but how the ARRL focuses
its (our) resources.

If ARRL redirected half of the millions (yes, millions) it spends in
Washington towards fostering a renewal of the technical reputation which
we have lost, we'd have both credibility at the regulatory level, and
respect in industry.

ARRL (as the "national organization of amateur radio" which they bill
themselves) is the only one with the resources to bring "tinkering and
inventing" back into the forefront.

Encouraging innovation isn't tough --- in my engineering group I ask
each engineer to spend 10% of their time (4 hours per week) as "PBI"
time ("Partially Baked Idea"). This is time to pursue personally
selected pet projects unrelated to their primary tasking, even unrelated
to our groups tasking. Once a quarter we hold a one day "off site in
blue jeans" meeting where individuals can grab the spotlight and "show
and tell" their PBI to the rest of the group. The effect on creativity
is marvelous, and also a great tool for identifying "up and comers"
whose creativity might be otherwise masked by the day-to-day drudge of
assigned tasking.

Can you imagine what might happen if ARRL spent perhaps $500,000/annum
on "PBI" conferences, and made some "folk heroes" out of some tinkerers
and expermenters. Hey, they do it for DXers and contesters!

73, de Hans, K0HB