|
They just don't get it!
The league just doesn't "get it", do they? See
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/11/01/4/?nc=1 Rather than 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). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
-- My name is Hans and I improved this message. "N2EY" wrote Haynie/Sumner/Imlay are political lightweights giving Amateur Radio the image of a bunch of obstructionist amateurs (lower case amateur). *Anyone* who stands in the way of "progress" will be portrayed that way. They aren't being 'portrayed' that way --- they are deliberately cultivating the image on their own (using our money!). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Brian Kelly" wrote So BPL at this point is *all* a political and legal problem. I won't argue the point. I can, but I won't. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
-- My name is Hans and I improved this message. "N2EY" wrote Haynie/Sumner/Imlay are political lightweights giving Amateur Radio the image of a bunch of obstructionist amateurs (lower case amateur). *Anyone* who stands in the way of "progress" will be portrayed that way. They aren't being 'portrayed' that way --- they are deliberately cultivating the image on their own (using our money!). That's unavoidable, Hans. NTIA's report showed how harmful interference would result from BPL. So did W1RFI's report and analysis, and the measurements and observations of many commenters to FCC. It's not about the "science" at all, but about the politics. And it goes to the very top; Shrub himself likes BPL. His administration is willing to pollute HF with BPL noise to get the perceived benefits of BPL. It's that simple, and that political. The reality of the situation is simply that BPL systems using HF leak like mad, because the power lines act like antennas. Heck, that's why the losses are so high - the lost energy is radiated, not absorbed! It doesn't take an EE to see that, and also to see that the ubiquity of power wiring makes it impossible for most hams to get far enough away from a BPL system to avoid interference. More "science" isn't what's needed. The folks who make the rules have their lawyer hats on, not their engineer hats. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: - My name is Hans and I improved this message. "N2EY" wrote Haynie/Sumner/Imlay are political lightweights giving Amateur Radio the image of a bunch of obstructionist amateurs (lower case amateur). *Anyone* who stands in the way of "progress" will be portrayed that way. They aren't being 'portrayed' that way --- they are deliberately cultivating the image on their own (using our money!). 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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. 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)." 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"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. 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." Face it, Brian, we've been marginalized, 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. "- 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." 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." 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. The handwriting is on the wall --- the FCC isn't much interested in what we used to do, 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. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote: "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. 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)." Science is not the answer to political situations. Unless of course, the political situationists want it to be. It is clear that the powers that be want BPL to happen. So it will happen. They may run into economic or scientific reality, but it won't fail because of lack of political desire for it to happen.. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"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. 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." That's because: 1) If an international safety frequency was interfered with, there'd be some pretty knotty legal situations. 2) Most amateur radio communications *is* routine. Always been that way. 3) Amateur communications cannot, be law, be commercial. They are also not the first choice for emergency communications if other means are available (because of the non-secure nature of amateur radio communications). The current batch of politician/regulators thinks BPL is needed enough that it's worth polluting the RF spectrum to get it. That's a political issue, not a scientific one, because the science and experience have already shown what experience results. And it goes right to the top. What sort of communications goes over the BPL systems? Wanna bet most of it is "routine communications and hobby activities"? Face it, Brian, we've been marginalized, 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." OK, hold it right there. What, exactly, does that mean to Joe Average Hamm? Does it mean no more AM voice on HF, because it takes up so much spectrum? How about FM on VHF/UHF? Is Baudot RTTY still OK, or should PSK-31 be the standard? Is this what the push for WINLINK is all about? Perhaps we should automate HF completely. "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. How do they know unless the monitor the bands? "- Second, by using what you have efficiently, it strengthens your case when you need to ask for additional spectrum. So if we use less spectrum, we get more? "- 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." Yet there are petitions out there to widen the subbands intended for spectrally inefficient modes at the expense of spectrally efficient ones. I recall some years back when a certain poster here was haranging us about "better modes and modulations" and how we should be using DSSS on HF. He was/is Executive Director of a lobbying group called "No Code International" IIRC. He gave us the essentially the same speech over and over. He also spoke out forcefully against "wallpaper hunting" and "electronic paintball wars" (his terms for award-seeking and contesting). Then restructuring came, and he eventually got his Extra. Last I heard, his major ham activity was chasing HF DX - on SSB. With a manufactured transceiver. He did some really great work on BPL - work which may have had some effect, but not as much as we'd like. Remember this, too: The BPL folks wanted the Part 15 limits *raised*, and also wanted *protection from interference*. They didn't get either. 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." In what context was he speaking? "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." So which way do we go, Hans? "Make sure that, on your watch, Amateur Radio never becomes obsolete." OK, fine - how do we do that? Who defines "obsolete"? 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. Of course! It's *always* been that way - which is why we need a strong national organization like ARRL. And the fact is that we can't expect to win every battle, no matter what happens. The handwriting is on the wall --- the FCC isn't much interested in what we used to do, 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. Then what do we do, Hans? This weekend is CW SS. I plan to get on the air, probably with my homebrew 100 W transceiver and inverted V, and try to make as many QSOs as possible. Because I think it's fun to do so. Is that OK? Am I being a good steward of the resources by domestic contesting on CW? Heck, I'll bet 99% of the amateurs I work this weekend could have been reached by email in a fraction of the time and with no use of the radio spectrum at all - so is SS "obsolete"? Is it OK for me to homebrew rigs the way I do? Or must it be electropolitically correct, using only SMT and the latest goodies in the Digi-Key catalog? This whole discussion sounds like I'm being told what I should enjoy and what I shouldn't. There was a classic original "Twilight Zone" episode starring Burgess Meredith and Dennis Weaver. Called "The Obsolete Man", about a future society in which books had been declared "obsolete". A librarian (Meredith) is declared "obsolete" because he has preserved some books and actually reads them - an activity declared to be wasteful of resources by The State. So he is eliminated. Am I "obsolete" because of what I like to do, and what I believe in? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com