Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 2nd 04, 05:41 PM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



  #2   Report Post  
Old November 3rd 04, 07:41 AM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default



--
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





  #3   Report Post  
Old November 3rd 04, 10:41 PM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"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



  #4   Report Post  
Old November 3rd 04, 11:20 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 01:33 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #6   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 02:11 AM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"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



  #7   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 04:19 AM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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



  #8   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 04:56 AM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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 -

  #9   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 08:10 AM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"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.


A good summation of the scene, Hans.

Regardless of the high opinion so many hobbyists have of their
rank/status/nobility of amateur radio, it is still only ONE radio
service among MANY others. It must therefore compete with all
the others...but won't if the approach is based on old, half-century
old "reasons" for existance ('raison d'etre' in French).

Too many of the old-timers concentrate solely on HF bands as
the end-all, be-all of ham radio. The government and commercial
users have already staked out their claims on HF long ago and
maintain them...plus adding the newer data modes as required.

It is the spectral territory ABOVE 30 MHz which so many other
radio services covet...and that is where the radio action IS and
worldwide. The number of items in regards to HF were very few
at WRC-03 and they've been getting smaller and smaller in
number since WARC-79...while the VHF-and-up spectrum area
items at World Conferences have been getting more and more
numerous.




  #10   Report Post  
Old November 5th 04, 06:00 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017