RadioBanter - Handheld works, Cell Phone Doesn't

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Handheld works, Cell Phone Doesn't (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/28020-handheld-works-cell-phone-doesnt.html)

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Really? "Hams used to do the 911 communications?"

Misquote, Len. Jim wrote "reporting". In that he is correct. Since so
many (most?) people have a cell phone, it stands to reason that the
initial report is more likely to be made by a person using a cell phone.

Here's a "plain simple fact:" I replied to J.P.Miccolis' message
and quoted his EXACT WORDS.

Ain't no "misquote."

Now you go read my reply and, if you have arguments, you can
go off and argue with the U.S. Census Bureau, NASA, the FCC,
and, for emotional finger-pointing, the families of the astronauts
killed in the shuttle burn-up. Whoever.

Just don't give us this bullsnit about "misquoting."

I don't think so. That's a fantasy brag far above the membership
agitprop of the ARRL.

'Cept it was a misquote.

Except it was NOT a "misquote."

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

http://www.arrl.org/?news_list_off=15

KA4NMA was in an accident recently and used his handheld on two meters
to call for help.

And I thought that there was no use for the things since we all have
cell phones now.

Who said that?

Certainly Lenover21 and William have said words to that effect.

If they did say such things, they're just plain wrong. Not that either one
will ever admit to it ;-)

Tsk. The "massager" (of raw license data) is ALWAYS correct and
ALWAYS the judge of what is "right" and what is "wrong." :-)

So...there's a dispute with the U.S. Census Bureau on the number
of cell phone subscribers in the USA? [about 100 million]

Tsk. Naturally our regular is more correct than the lawful, official
source of population data in the USA. All others disagreeing with
him are "just plain wrong."

And that's a plain, simple fact. Doesn't mean ham radio plays no role at all,
just that in many places and situations, a cell phone will make a 911 call
that used to be made by a ham with a handheld.

So...a "ham with a handheld" was the previous source of "911 calls?"

That's strange because the "911" emergency number is intended to
be used solely with the telephone infrastructure. There's no (and
never was) any provision in the U.S. amateur radio regulations to
tie "911" (or even an equivalent) into any Public Safety
communications.

Those who are able to contact "911" through amateur radio repeaters
can do so solely because the repeater controller has added such
features to the repeater. Not all repeaters are so equipped every
place in the country.

Agreed! But a lot of that isn't about the mountains - it's about the customer
density and how fast they are building up the cell networks.

Four years ago my wife and I drove back to the midwest. We had
not done so (together or separately) since more than ten years
past. The number of quite obvious Cell Sites seen just from the
highway were astounding in comparison to the past decade.

Here's a "plain simple fact:" The U.S. Census Bureau reported that
the number of cellular telephone subscribers in the USA amounted
to one in three citizens two years ago. At approximately 300 million
population, that is 100 million subscribers. [at least one cell phone
for each subscriber... :-) ]

Denial that the cellular telephone system is BIG doesn't say much
for your credibility. It is FAR bigger than the number of U.S. hams
with handheld transceivers.

Remember when the shuttle burned up on reentry, and volunteers went out in
search of shuttle pieces? Turned out that ham radio was better suited to the
search parties' comm needs than cell phones were.

Tsk, tsk. Sinning by omission.

Here's a plain, simple fact: The shuttle's re-entry debris "footprint"
was nearly a thousand miles long, mostly over the sunbelt area of
the USA.

The MAJORITY of debris recovery groups were or were under the
guidance of government personnel. [as it should be considering
the STS is a government project]

The ARRL (who regularly slants "news" highly in favor of amateurs)
did not point out that a FEW areas used radio amateurs for help
in locating shuttle debris. [go argue with NASA if there is
personal disagreement with that statement]

THOUSANDS of non-radio-amateur citizens helped in searching
for shuttle re-entry debris. Quite a few more than hams. You do
a disservice to those citizens by not acknowledging their voluntary
contributions of time and effort.

Yes, SOME radio amateurs did help in the shuttle debris recovery
effort. Agreed. However, to say that "amateur radio was better
suited" to that is a dumb thing to say considering the higher number
of already-available, already-proven capability of government and
public safety agency handheld transceivers used every day.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len, for some reason you are double posting. Though you might want to
know...

I'm not responsible for that. AOL is responsible since they had
messed up the bits on my account. AOL was notified and they
cleared up things but apparently resent old posts waiting to go.

I just send them. If you no like them, hit the ENTER key and go
to the next message.

Lenof21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len, for some reason you are double posting. Though you might want to
know...

I'm not responsible for that. AOL is responsible since they had
messed up the bits on my account. AOL was notified and they
cleared up things but apparently resent old posts waiting to go.

Why would they resent your old posts? 8^)

I just send them. If you no like them, hit the ENTER key and go
to the next message.

So what you're saying is that you *don't* want to know, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA

Lenof21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Really? "Hams used to do the 911 communications?"

Misquote, Len. Jim wrote "reporting". In that he is correct. Since so
many (most?) people have a cell phone, it stands to reason that the
initial report is more likely to be made by a person using a cell phone.

Here's a "plain simple fact:" I replied to J.P.Miccolis' message
and quoted his EXACT WORDS.

Do you mean when Jim posted:

Jim What *has* happened is that cell phones do much if not most of the
911-type
Jim reporting that we hams used to do.

and you wrote:

Lenover21Really? "Hams used to do the 911 communications?"

Ain't no "misquote."

Jim wrote:

Jim What *has* happened is that cell phones do much if not most of the
911-type
Jim reporting that we hams used to do.

and you wrote:

Lenover21Really? "Hams used to do the 911 communications?"

Where exactly did Jim say that Hams used to do the 911 communications?

Now you go read my reply and, if you have arguments, you can
go off and argue with the U.S. Census Bureau, NASA, the FCC,
and, for emotional finger-pointing, the families of the astronauts
killed in the shuttle burn-up. Whoever.

I read your reply. I don't understand why you think that I should
bother all those people when Jim wrote:

Jim What *has* happened is that cell phones do much if not most of the
Jim 911-type reporting that we hams used to do.

and you wrote:

Lenover21Really? "Hams used to do the 911 communications?"

Just don't give us this bullsnit about "misquoting."

Is it bullsnit when Jim wrote:

I don't think so. That's a fantasy brag far above the membership
agitprop of the ARRL.

A brag that was never written.

'Cept it was a misquote.

Except it was NOT a "misquote."

It would appear to me, that it is very much a misquote.

Here however is an exact quote that is quite applicable:

I just send them. If you no like them, hit the ENTER key and go
to the next message.

If you don't like my messages, I suggest you do the same.

- Mike KB3EIA -