| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#26
November 8th 04, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Alun wrote in message . ..
(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. Christmas is coming, do it soon! Just don't get him some "worldband" POJ. He might actually enjoy an older receiver (!) simply because it's different and not like everything else in RatShack. He sounds like the kind of kid who may be specifically attracted to the uniqueness of HF radio. 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? Not unless we promote it! 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. It's just incomplete, that's all. Too narrowly focused. It's like saying the only reason for sex is to make babies. 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. Hams still do *public service* comms (covers emergency comms and more) and also "advance the state of the art" in some ways. But that view is way too limited. The HF spectrum is a protected and regulated natural resource *THAT* is the hard sell to the antiscience folks. It's clear from the comments of BPL folks that they just don't understand HF radio. 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. That idea needs to be pushed as part of the definition of ham radio. "Radio for its own sake" is the phrase I use. See below for more on the parks concept. 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. Yup. And it's not just timber companies; all sorts of commercial interests want to "develop" the "wilderness". Remember Storm King. 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. One of the main things the eco-folk do is to politically battle with the regulators. We antenna-huggers need to do the same. "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. I disagree! We *are* relevant, simply because we are "the public"! And we are as "up to date" as we need to be. The issue is that we are the public. BINGO! Hobby use of the radio spectrum is justifiable on it's own terms, and that is a matter of politics, not technology. I'd use words like "noncommercial/recreational" or "avocational" rather than "hobby", but the concept is valid. There should be a place for folks to enjoy radio for its own sake. As its own justification. That does *not* mean there should be no rules or standards, however. CB and FRS are parts of the same thing, Not really. Those services are meant for specific comms purposes. That's why they're channelized, used only approved equipment (in theory anyway) and are restricted in other ways (you're not going to work the world on FRS or CB). 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. I agree 100%. But we have to be careful in how we present the idea. First off, amateur radio is more than "just a hobby" because of the public service comms, technical innovation, and educational angles. We must not lose those things - we're adding, not subtracting. Second, although millions of acres are preserved as parks in the USA, the total percentage of area in that system isn't very large, compared to how big the USA is. If we try to sell ham radio on the park idea alone, we might find ourselves with a tiny percentage of the spectrum we now have. Third, it's a political process, as noted above. That said, some interesting results naturally follow from the parks concept. For example, although parks are theoretically open to all citizens, there are usually requirements to be met for access - particularly to the most unique places. Sounds like licenses, multiple classes of license, tests, etc. Also fees, but the park system is not expected to be a revenue source. Many parks exist to preserve natural/wilderness locations. To do this, a lot of technology is specifically prohibited (motor vehicles, etc.) or severely restricted. This makes a lot of folks unhappy because you can't just drive the RV or SUV everywhere. Recreational technology usually doesn't exactly compare to commercial or military technology. Sailing ships are all but gone from the commercial shipping and fishing venues, and from the world's navies as well. But they are all over the place in recreation. There's also the issue of historic preservation. Often this takes the form of preserving skills, methods, and similar things from "modernization". For example, in Ridley Creek State Park there is a "Colonial Plantation" where things are done as close to 18th century ways as possible. What makes the parks system work is that it offers experiences which *cannot* be had other ways. No simulator or modern technology can replace early morning on a pristine mountain lake, or sleeping under the stars, or climbing a mountain under your own power. Most of all, it's a constant political struggle. There are always folks who want to cut the trees, dam the rivers, grade the roads, drill for oil, mine the minerals, and otherwise "develop" the open spaces. Or make them more "accessible", even though it is their wild nature which makes them attractive in the first place. Here's another concept to add to the pie - sports. Look at the London, Boston and New York City marathons (just to name three) - they involve the use of public facilities (roads) for a use that is basically recreational for 99+% of the participants. Some folks would rather that all those marathoners just run on treadmills rather than tying up traffic for a day. Radiosport is a big part of amateur radio. Now - how do we sell that package? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Threaded Mode
