RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   They just don't get it! (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27881-they-just-dont-get.html)

Mike Coslo November 7th 04 01:23 AM



Alun wrote:
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?



It is what happens when any group allows ideology to trump everything
else. Not the sole province of the GOP.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Brian Kelly November 7th 04 03:29 AM

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

The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies
by leaning on the politicians and the
courts and now it's our turn.


Good luck on that one now!


You bet . . #@!MF*#% sumbitches . . .

Would you believe I'm a REPUBLICAN for Gawd's sake?!

.. . . to a point . . "they" crossed the #@!MF*#% point with BPL . .

See you in the contest this weekend.


I don't do SS. Couldn't do it anyway, 9 + 20 neighborhood QRN here
7-29 Mhz and I don't have the room for 80/160 antennas.

Go for it and GL Hans, I'll seeya 19-20 Feb. in that bash come hell or
high water even if I gotta do it from a #@!MF*#% tent somewhere quiet.

73, de Hans, K0HB


w3rv

Mike Coslo November 7th 04 03:32 AM

Brian Kelly wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...

"Brian Kelly" wrote


The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies
by leaning on the politicians and the
courts and now it's our turn.


Good luck on that one now!



You bet . . #@!MF*#% sumbitches . . .

Would you believe I'm a REPUBLICAN for Gawd's sake?!

. . . to a point . . "they" crossed the #@!MF*#% point with BPL . .


Better get used to it, Brian. The country has turned a corner.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Len Over 21 November 7th 04 09:03 PM

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


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!


You wouldn't accept such rules, Mike. You are so sensitive to
comments that slight negativism against your thoughts are
"getting your chops busted."

NOBODY is trying to censor you, Mike. Understand that some will
just not agree to your opinions. They aren't required to agree. If you
are overly sensitive to others' opinions on subjects, another venue
would be suggested.

Hans Brakob is perfectly able to comment independently of what
I think about some subjects. [he often does...:-) ]

In the case of the ARRL's actions on the political side of BPL,
I will agree with Hans' statement...whether or not your "chops"
are affected in any way.



Len Over 21 November 7th 04 09:03 PM

In article , Alun
writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
. com:

"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.


A few years ago, the Academy of Model Aeronautics lobbied for,
and received, bandspace just under 75 MHz for model radio control.
The FCC even made a new radio service within Part 95 for it.

Flying, driving, sailing models is purely a hobby and no such hobby
organization has ever claimed any "great need for the country" in
any way, certainly not in terms of being some kind of "aid in any
emergency." The Model Hobby Association members continue to
prosper with standardized and legal radio control equipment.

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!


Tsk. :-) Only old-timers ever used "kilocycle." :-)

Some radio amateurs are "far superior" to evil CB or sissy FRS. They
will argue its NOT the "same thing." :-)

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.


Thank you for saying that, Alun. Sincere thanks.

About six years ago (or so) in here I tried to point out that there is a
good analogue between the hobby of amateur radio and the national
park service. The U.S. Park Service has a million acres (give or take)
which is reserved for ALL the citizenry to enjoy for their recreation.

U.S. amateur radio is decades past the point of acknowledging that
the hobby IS a hobby. The biggest national membership organization
is stil clinging to old, old standards dating from before WW2. It
cannot effectively lobby for its "constituency" using old, outdated
reasons. The league is guilty of starting to believe its own
propaganda and that is NOT a good thing.




William November 7th 04 11:08 PM

Alun wrote in message . ..
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

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?


The biggest lump of junk science is promoted by the Greenies in the
UK.

The big antenna tower at Byrd station is barely poking out of the ice
these days, but I'm supposed to believe that the ice caps are melting.

Hi, hi.

Mike Coslo November 8th 04 01:42 AM



Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote



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!



You wouldn't accept such rules, Mike. You are so sensitive to
comments that slight negativism against your thoughts are
"getting your chops busted."


Do you understand what the term "getting (my, your) chops busted means?
You seem to think it is some sort of drastic thing. Taint so! 8^)

NOBODY is trying to censor you, Mike. Understand that some will
just not agree to your opinions. They aren't required to agree. If you
are overly sensitive to others' opinions on subjects, another venue
would be suggested.


Blocking is not censoring. We have the right to say whatever we want
within reasonable limits. Blocking is not censorship. Blocking is just a
way for you to not have to put up with the posts I make that bother you
as per your comments. I will still exercise my constitutional right to
read your posts. Yours do not bother me, even if what I post bothers
you. You wrote it, not me.

Hans Brakob is perfectly able to comment independently of what
I think about some subjects. [he often does...:-) ]


That's nice!

In the case of the ARRL's actions on the political side of BPL,
I will agree with Hans' statement...whether or not your "chops"
are affected in any way.


Gee Len, I don't understand that at all. My chops are doing just fine,
thankyouverymuch! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


KØHB November 8th 04 04:56 AM



"Len Over 21" wrote

Only old-timers ever used "kilocycle."


What I wanna know is what happened signals in transit when the change
was made from "cycle" to "hertz". How did a signal which left the
transmitter thinking it was 2716 kilocycles find it's way to a receiver
which was tuned to 2716 kilohertz.

Triva question: What worldwide allocation was 2716 kilo(cycles)(hertz)?

73, de Hans, K0HB







Alun November 8th 04 05:40 AM

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

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

The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies
by leaning on the politicians and the courts and now it's our turn.


Good luck on that one now!


You bet . . #@!MF*#% sumbitches . . .

Would you believe I'm a REPUBLICAN for Gawd's sake?!

. . . to a point . . "they" crossed the #@!MF*#% point with BPL . .

See you in the contest this weekend.


I don't do SS. Couldn't do it anyway, 9 + 20 neighborhood QRN here
7-29 Mhz and I don't have the room for 80/160 antennas.

Go for it and GL Hans, I'll seeya 19-20 Feb. in that bash come hell or
high water even if I gotta do it from a #@!MF*#% tent somewhere quiet.

73, de Hans, K0HB


w3rv


I beleive that you are a Republican, but I have my doubts as to whether
George Bush is one.

Brian Kelly November 8th 04 01:15 PM

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"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.


Of the 120,000 ARRL members how many do you suppose have any interest
at all in tinkering vs. the number who depend on the League to defend
our spectrum spaces? How many NRA members do you suppose would support
a shift in NRA funds from their PACs into more tinkering with loads?


73, de Hans, K0HB


w3rv


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com