|
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 |
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. I thought everybody knew KARL was just looking for a FREE RIDE to HF. he could care less about but his FREE RIDE. |
"N2EY" wrote Am I "obsolete" because of what I like to do, and what I believe in? Jim, your message is a classic collection of "shoot the messenger". The comments in my message aren't mine; they are direct quotes from hams inside the FCC. I think it's safe to say they reflect 'official' regulatory views. Further, it is my opinion that those comments weren't meant as "handwriting on the wall" but as huge billboards painted in international-orange to send our service an unmistakeable message. Distill it all down, and the essence of that message is "You guys have a playground which is a prime piece of RF "real estate". Unless we see some 'contributions to the radio art' pretty damn soon, we're going to bulldoze the place and put it up for sale to commercial interests." In a misdirdected response ARRL has erected an expensive political soapbox on the street corner with huge banners saying "Save Our Playground". The FCC is ignoring that soapbox and putting up more billboards with unflattering descriptions like "routine communications and hobby activities". It is the contention of a growing number of active and concerned hams that ARRL needs to quit spending our money on political posturing, and redirect their attention and our money into regrowing the technological reputation which earned us that playground in the first place. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"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 |
N2EY wrote:
"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"? Right! Porn surfers need that access! 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." Whoaaa there! We need the names and specs of those more spectrally efficient digital techniques! Why aren't hams using them? Are they stupid? Are they technologically retarded? 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. Heck, why don't we just do everything via Echolink? That's the internet. That's high-tech and thoroughly modern. "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? Snort! First they'll have to be told that Ham radio exists! "- 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? New speak, I guess? "- 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 almost didn't become a ham, because I found out about feld-hell! I mean *really*, just how unattractive a mode can you get? But seriously folk, this whole "They just don't get it!" jeremiad, is just that - a jeremiad. Yapping at us about not using newfangled digital techniques without naming what those modes might be is not a way to lend credence to the lecturer. Later on in this post, I'll do something like that. 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. I believe that he is a great guy. I'll also believe he changes his mind a lot, even when he says he never will. 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." What's with the Chinese philosopher does the Battle of Britain stuff? Our finest hour might be our last. So which way do we go, Hans? Turn left at Orion? "Make sure that, on your watch, Amateur Radio never becomes obsolete." OK, fine - how do we do that? Who defines "obsolete"? I will. All modes in use more than ten years ago shall be outlawed. All modes shall be digital, as that is high-tech. In order to avoid future obsolescence, no mode shall be allowed to be in use more than ten years. To encourage compliance, and to allow for manufacturers to continue to make high quality equipment available, all equipment shall be destroyed at the end of it's allotted life, and all new digital modes shall be proprietary to the manufacturers. 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"? Remember that the Internet is High tech and should always be used in preference to radio modes, which are old and stodgy. Why don't hams get that through their head? We could move the CW SS to the internet. A clever programmer could write propagation conditions for each faux band, and random propagation conditions for the contest. Noise and QRM (QRpR for programmed interference?) There ya go! A Contest that uses absolutely no HF bandwidth, and is done via the web, therefore is modern and Hi-tech. Heck, the smart ham should be able to auto send and receive and auto log to boot. This would allow him or her to do something else, while the computer does the contest. 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? Live in the now, Jim! This whole discussion sounds like I'm being told what I should enjoy and what I shouldn't. Jeremiads often work that way. That hams might be exhorted to try new technologies is in itself not a bad thing. To threaten them is quite another. To make *weird* arguments such as using less bandwidth can get you more spectrum is positively nonsensical, aside from being an argument against AM or WBFM! So here we are. Considering that most of us here are RF type people, this means that digital equipment will most likely be in the form of add ons to existing equipment, unless we follow my draconian suggestion from a few paragraphs back. And most of what I've seen leaves a lot to be desired. One I was reading about recently sounded promising, until I found out that you have to be on the same frequency as the other station when they start transmitting, elswise you won't be able to pick up the signal. Nothing, not gibberish, or noise or anything. Channelized HF for us, folks? Maybe all comms by Sked? Other thoughts are that many digital voice modes take up as much or more space than a properly modulated SSB signal. What's with that? So we need to look at a successful digital mode. Probably the best one to use is PSK31. Low BW usage, works pretty well, as long as monster high power and BW grabbing other signals don't open up right next door. PSK31 can be performed by any amateur with a rig, computer, sound card and interface. The parts for the interface can be assembled for a few dollars, or purchased for not a whole lot of money. Software can be free. There are others out there to type to. Very important, yaknow. So I made my interface, plugged it in, and was having QSO's in short order. That's a successful mode. Probably more successful than a relatively expensive box that plug into your computer between mic and rig, and requires the guy or gal on the other end to know your frequency and when you are going to start transmitting. We have (most of us) a digital processing box sitting on our desks right now. A lot of us already have it hooked to the rig. Here's a potential voice mode that utilizes psk31: Voice recognition software that you speak into a mic. the output is modulated using psk31, and after received on the other end, is text to speached by the other computer. Probably would take two sound cards, and would be slow, but that is probably as little BW as voice could take. So there. I have offered my opinion, and a possible mode, not just a general jeremiad on how Hams need to keep up. 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? Report for decommissioning, Jim! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
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.. RIIIIIGHT! . . . sheesh . . how more obvious can it get?! - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
"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! See you in the contest this weekend. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Report for decommissioning, Jim! Hold that thought! On March 4th, 1913 when hams were banished to "200 meters and down", the service would have gone extinct if the prevailing attitude had been similar to you guys' head in the sand stance, and the ARRL "We can do this through political pressure" pipe dream. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"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: 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? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote Am I "obsolete" because of what I like to do, and what I believe in? Jim, your message is a classic collection of "shoot the messenger". The comments in my message aren't mine; they are direct quotes from hams inside the FCC. I think it's safe to say they reflect 'official' regulatory views. Further, it is my opinion that those comments weren't meant as "handwriting on the wall" but as huge billboards painted in international-orange to send our service an unmistakeable message. So.... What new digital mode are you moving to, Hans? Distill it all down, and the essence of that message is "You guys have a playground which is a prime piece of RF "real estate". Unless we see some 'contributions to the radio art' pretty damn soon, we're going to bulldoze the place and put it up for sale to commercial interests." THat may be so. But looking at what was said, then the loss is inevitable. When we get contradictory statements that we have to conserve bandwidth to get bandwidth, it ain't good, or likely true. HF isn't prime real estate anyhow. In a misdirdected response ARRL has erected an expensive political soapbox on the street corner with huge banners saying "Save Our Playground". The FCC is ignoring that soapbox and putting up more billboards with unflattering descriptions like "routine communications and hobby activities". You are seriously saying that we would sway politicians, and regulators that simply try to figure out what the regulates tell them to do - with science rather than more politics? Better go read what the scientists have to say about that sort of thing. Today, if the science does not fit the agenda, it is discarded. It is the contention of a growing number of active and concerned hams that ARRL needs to quit spending our money on political posturing, and redirect their attention and our money into regrowing the technological reputation which earned us that playground in the first place. Okay. Tell us what they must do. I hear a lot of posturing, but it is all of the political sort. Give me some real projects, and where the ARS should go, and what they should do, in hard form, not hand wringing. - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote Report for decommissioning, Jim! Hold that thought! Okay, but only until after this weekend! ;^) On March 4th, 1913 when hams were banished to "200 meters and down", the service would have gone extinct if the prevailing attitude had been similar to you guys' head in the sand stance, and the ARRL "We can do this through political pressure" pipe dream. Not hardly. If the ARS were to be banished to a few bands, and allowed only digital signals of very small BW, I had come up with a method of doing voice comms using hardly any BW at all. Hardly cutting edge stuff, but cutting edge stuff isn't our province (on the ham bands) anymore. That's more than what I hear from anyone else. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 |
|
|
"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 |
|
"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 |
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 - |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 - |
"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 |
|
"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 03:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com