|
Greg wrote:
Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X? Sssssshhhhhh!! Not everyone knows about that. |
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
Todd Daugherty wrote: No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official quotes from the FCC? I'm still waiting for something that shows the FCC wants to keep communications on the ham bands to just signal reports and location. |
wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: The Death of Amateur Radio It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your "Death of Amateur Radio" in my opinion. If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that they need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and more Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as they have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free speech transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into some sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band. No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. "amateurs should broadcasting"? There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. That's simply not true! I've had many long and enjoyable QSOs on a variety of subjects, with never a problem on content from FCC. The only limits on content were "no pecuniary interest" and keeping it "G-rated". As I stated in my paper a good example of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups. Such as? A BBS with discussion on antenna designing, Another BBS with discussion on on experimenting. Another BBS with amaeur policy. These are just to name a few there was a issue CQ VHF that went into greater detail about the set up. The point is to have all the for sale stuff on one BBS and a diverse of other BBS on other subjects. Sounds good in theory. But in practice, how would that work? Could hams all over the world, or even all over the USA, access that particular BBS? If so, how? Well, it could be set up on VHF and HF allow. I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is interferning with their system. How many years ago? And would it have interfered? It was a while back, around 1997. would it have interfered?? no, if you know anything about packet; packet time shares a frequency. This guy and his little group were nothing more then assholes. It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you could use a voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet would have moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would mean someone would actually have to build a radio to do it... There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech? Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone believes. If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post, they're legal. The problem is however, that there are amateur radio operators who feel that information bulletins which deal with amateur radio issues shouldn't be opinionated and it is those same amateurs operators when the bulletin is transmitting then begin jamming the Information bulletin because they feel the transmission is illegal. Jamming is an enforcement issue. Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal. Agreed! I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached. Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the air, just suggesting a better venue for their views. The FCC shouldn't even suggest it. Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental to the ARS. Which they do. Again the FCC is barred from controlling the content of any station. That's simply not true. yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to control the content of any station. I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that? Well here's the rule read it for yourself (47 USC 326) § 326. Censorship Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. the only content the FCC is allowed to control is obscene and indecent material and that's it. How about commercial content on the ham bands? How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes? Are those things allowed under 326? Those are under other rules and regulation. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the Internet. For certain subjects, that's the right medium. Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you realize........ Interesting! In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet" - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become disenchanted with it. I really dout the internet will die. Me too. But I see its potential dying. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime soon. If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original. If you want different content than what is found on current amateur packet, why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks, but on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more features? Because the cost would be too much. There is no packet network around here any more and the cost would be too high. A let's not forget some competition in a service good be a good thing Todd N9OGL 73 de Jim, N2EY ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Todd Daugherty wrote: No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official quotes from the FCC? I'm still waiting for something that shows the FCC wants to keep communications on the ham bands to just signal reports and location. I don't know, that comment that Hollingsworth sent to me I think would constitute what your looking for. Todd N9OGL ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php |
Charles Brabham wrote: wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! Ya missed the point, Charles. 1200 baud packet is a make-do, chosen to be quick and cheap. All you have to do is interface to an FM voice radio. Getting a significant improvement in bandwidth would mean actually *building radios* designed for the purpose. Which simply hasn't happened in large numbers. Kind of a sad commentary. When SSB became popular in amateur radio, hams built entire transmitters, receivers and transceivers for the mode. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed. When VHF/UHF FM voice became popular in amateur radio, there was a mix of homebrew and converted-land-mobile equipment used by hams. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed. But from what I can see, the packet folks aren't much interested in *building radios* from scratch. That's why the old standards are still in use. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:58:27 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:
There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. For our county-wide ARES/RACES operation we have a four-node local network that uses four VHF packet frequencies (1200 baud) and four pairs of UHF frequencies (9600 baud), the latter for inter-node and backbone automatic forwarding. We have about 40 users - ten "served agencies" and thirty individual participants. The net is "up" 24/7 and carries a fair amount of inter-user messages -- classic ham radio traffic handling. Several of us including myself have a dedicated radio/TNC/computer running 24/7 just for this purpose. No reason that it can't work. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ganews.com... On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:58:27 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote: There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. For our county-wide ARES/RACES operation we have a four-node local network that uses four VHF packet frequencies (1200 baud) and four pairs of UHF frequencies (9600 baud), the latter for inter-node and backbone automatic forwarding. We have about 40 users - ten "served agencies" and thirty individual participants. The net is "up" 24/7 and carries a fair amount of inter-user messages -- classic ham radio traffic handling. Several of us including myself have a dedicated radio/TNC/computer running 24/7 just for this purpose. No reason that it can't work. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Well, the problem here was the operators of the BBS's were told to move their fowarding to the backbone system but they wouldn't. So the guy who ran the vast majority of nodes here in the state of Illinois got basically ****ed off and turned the whole system off. that was back around 1998. I think a newer system would work instead of the "old" packet system. First the Speed 1200 baud is ok, it work. However, I think if amateur's could figure out how these wireless networks work and apply that to the amateur radio service. Instead of having a bunch of "nodes" going across the United States on a radio frequency have only a "Local Access" point say on a 2 meter frequency which would go from that node through the internet and backout on 2 meters. Instead of having traditional BBS software remove it and use a Peer to Peer (P2P) this would be more practical in the sense that all a person has to do is search for something and get a list. A bbs would inpractical because in sense that a person would have to monitor the hard driveand clean it out when it gets full and BBS's uses fowarding while a P2P system there is no fowarding all the forsale stuff and stupid jokes stays in the users share file. Just an Idea.... Todd N9OGL ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Charles Brabham wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! I thought the topic was how slow packet is compared to just about everything else. Not hooking a phone modem to a rig. - Mike KB3EIA - |
wrote in message ups.com... Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! Ya missed the point, Charles. Nope... You did, along with quite a few others. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php |
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:29:51 GMT, "Charles Brabham" wrote: I have a 1-meter rig that works on 2-metres. What does the one meter say, when you are on two metres? Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Charles Brabham wrote: Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! I thought the topic was how slow packet is compared to just about everything else. Not hooking a phone modem to a rig. The "hooking a phone modem to a rig" part was me making fun of the "how slow packet is" whiners. Packet is (within reason) as fast as you want it to be. The whiners here are upset because not everyone shares their desires and expectations. - The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Packet users just don't give a hoot about high-speed Packet, or IP either. It's always been that way and will probably continue to be that way for a very long time. They whine and they complain... Why, they'll do just about anything - as long as it is negative and reflects poorly upon the hobby. One thing you won't see them doing is transforming Packet over to high-speed and IP. - It's so much easier and natural for them to whine because somebody else ( or everybody else ) hasn't done it for them. Meanwhile - Life goes on, and the whining of frustrated protocol warriors is really a very little thing. "How I Won the Protocol Wars" - http://www.uspacket.org/l_protowars.htm Charles Brabham, N5PVL Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php |
"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message ... Well here's the rule read it for yourself (47 USC 326) § 326. Censorship Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. However, requiring the various radio services to stick to the rules for their particular radio service is not censorship. For example, the amateur radio service is defined as a two way communications service with a very strict limitation on broadcasting or one way only transmissions. This in no way limits the content of those two way communications. Two or more hams engaged in a discussion can talk about any subject they want to so long as they do not use obscenity (and note that the courts have upheld that obscenity is not protected by free speech). Naturally people can also be held liable in civil court if they engage in slander and the slandered party chooses to sue. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... Dave Heil wrote: If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. Oh, Lord. That would be a sight and a half! Dee D. Flint, N8UZE ULX would chew toddyboy up and spit him out in a Nu York minute. So? |
bb wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... Dave Heil wrote: If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the above. Dave K8MN |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:10:01 -0500, "Weebus RF Meter"
wrote: "Greg" wrote in message ... Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X? Unfortunatly.....yes. We were hoping that there was a Planet X. This way if there was, when it appears there would be another group like the Heaven's Gate cultists that would go and perform some kind of a mass suicide for our mutual viewing and reading enjoyment of the same. (see http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/hale.html ) Untill then however, we'll just have to settle for right wing militialoons that get their sorry ass shot out from under them or tossed into jail, along with the occasional loon who goes apeshi+ and shoots up a suburban shopping mall someplace. (I don't think we'll be seeing another 9/11 for a very long time to come) Oh well, as Andy Warhol said - "15 Minutes of Fame is our mutual allocation" Ciao baby! xoxoxo Here's everything you need to know about "Planet X" http://www.planet-x.150m.com/ |
Todd Daugherty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: The Death of Amateur Radio It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your "Death of Amateur Radio" in my opinion. If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that they need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and more Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as they have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free speech transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into some sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band. No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. "amateurs should broadcasting"? There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. That's simply not true! I've had many long and enjoyable QSOs on a variety of subjects, with never a problem on content from FCC. The only limits on content were "no pecuniary interest" and keeping it "G-rated". As I stated in my paper a good example of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups. Such as? A BBS with discussion on antenna designing, Another BBS with discussion on on experimenting. Another BBS with amaeur policy. These are just to name a few there was a issue CQ VHF that went into greater detail about the set up. The point is to have all the for sale stuff on one BBS and a diverse of other BBS on other subjects. Sounds good in theory. But in practice, how would that work? Could hams all over the world, or even all over the USA, access that particular BBS? If so, how? Well, it could be set up on VHF and HF allow. I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd. I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is interferning with their system. How many years ago? And would it have interfered? It was a while back, around 1997. would it have interfered?? no, if you know anything about packet; packet time shares a frequency. Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience "interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise. This guy and his little group were nothing more then assholes. Well, that's *your* opinion... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you could use a voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet would have moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would mean someone would actually have to build a radio to do it... There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right? The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. You mean, set up the way you'd like. It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system to see it your way, rather than creating a new system. You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech? Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone believes. If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post, they're legal. The problem is however, that there are amateur radio operators who feel that information bulletins which deal with amateur radio issues shouldn't be opinionated and it is those same amateurs operators when the bulletin is transmitting then begin jamming the Information bulletin because they feel the transmission is illegal. Jamming is an enforcement issue. Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal. Agreed! I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached. Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the air, just suggesting a better venue for their views. The FCC shouldn't even suggest it. Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental to the ARS. Which they do. Again the FCC is barred from controlling the content of any station. That's simply not true. yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to control the content of any station. I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that? Well here's the rule read it for yourself (47 USC 326) =A7 326. Censorship Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. OK, fine. Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours. the only content the FCC is allowed to control is obscene and indecent material and that's it. How about commercial content on the ham bands? How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes? Are those things allowed under 326? Those are under other rules and regulation. Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of amateur radio are under other rules and regulations. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the Internet. For certain subjects, that's the right medium. Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you realize........ Interesting! In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet" - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become disenchanted with it. I really dout the internet will die. Me too. But I see its potential dying. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime soon. If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original. If you want different content than what is found on current amateur packet, why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks, but on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more features? Because the cost would be too much. Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'. Nor should it. There is no packet network around here any more and the cost would be too high. For whom? The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon individuals or small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by others. So the people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how they are used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it? A let's not forget some competition in a service good be a good thing If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost? K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area. Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others assholes. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message ... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Todd Daugherty wrote: No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official quotes from the FCC? I'm still waiting for something that shows the FCC wants to keep communications on the ham bands to just signal reports and location. I don't know, that comment that Hollingsworth sent to me I think would constitute what your looking for. Todd N9OGL Which is? |
I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd. Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience "interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise. If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting" system. A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency isn't being used. This is called time-shifting. This guy and his little group were nothing more then assholes. Well, that's *your* opinion... It's not my opinion it a fact. Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right? 1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the higher speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb. The problem isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up fast enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. You mean, set up the way you'd like. It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system to see it your way, rather than creating a new system. NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here in Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't move their fowarding to the backbone system. Instead they were running it on the Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So the BBS were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out of packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the network got ****ed off about it and shut it down.SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN ILLINOIS! You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech? Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone believes. If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post, they're legal. The problem is however, that there are amateur radio operators who feel that information bulletins which deal with amateur radio issues shouldn't be opinionated and it is those same amateurs operators when the bulletin is transmitting then begin jamming the Information bulletin because they feel the transmission is illegal. Jamming is an enforcement issue. Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal. Agreed! I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached. Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the air, just suggesting a better venue for their views. The FCC shouldn't even suggest it. Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental to the ARS. Which they do. Again the FCC is barred from controlling the content of any station. That's simply not true. yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to control the content of any station. I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that? Well here's the rule read it for yourself (47 USC 326) § 326. Censorship Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. OK, fine. Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours. the only content the FCC is allowed to control is obscene and indecent material and that's it. How about commercial content on the ham bands? How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes? Are those things allowed under 326? Those are under other rules and regulation. Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of amateur radio are under other rules and regulations. The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and Indecent material and Commerical type messages. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the Internet. For certain subjects, that's the right medium. Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you realize........ Interesting! In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet" - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become disenchanted with it. I really dout the internet will die. Me too. But I see its potential dying. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime soon. If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original. If you want different content than what is found on current amateur packet, why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks, but on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more features? Because the cost would be too much. Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'. Nor should it. Then amateur's are doomed, Living with and uses outdated modes of communication in a digital age aren't going to cut it because nobody will want to go into a service that that's (useless Modes) is all their going to get. Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get more people into it. There is no packet network around here any more and the cost would be too high. For whom? The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon individuals or small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by others. So the people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how they are used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it? Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there is no Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on the user frequency. A let's not forget some competition in a service good be a good thing If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost? K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area. Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others assholes. What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new idea's and new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him. As for that *asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming "Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from the packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a ASSHOLE. Todd N9OGL 73 de Jim, N2EY ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Todd Daugherty wrote: I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd. Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF Ah! Now I understand. Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience "interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise. If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting" system. A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency isn't being used. This is called time-shifting. Of course. Now suppose there are three stations on a frequency, each with about the same level of traffic. Each will wind up with about 1/3 of the time on the air. But if a new station comes on frequency with a lot of stuff to send, those existing stations will have to wait and wait for the frequency to be quiet. While that's not "interference" in the classical QRM sense, it *is* interference in the sense that throughput is reduced. This guy and his little group were nothing more then assholes. Well, that's *your* opinion... It's not my opinion it a fact. It's an opinion, noting more. That's a fact! ;-) Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right? 1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the higher speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb. Of course! The problem isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up fast enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet. So build new radios specifically for high speed packet. We're radio amateurs, right? We're one of the few - maybe the only! - radio services that even *allow* licensees to build radios without a whole bunch of certifications and such. So what's the big deal about building your own highspeed packet radio from scratch? I've built several HF rigs from scratch.... The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. You mean, set up the way you'd like. It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system to see it your way, rather than creating a new system. NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here in Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't move their fowarding to the backbone system. Why wouldn't they move it to the backbone system? Isn't the "user frequency" for users? If so, it seems to me that the forwarding should go by the backbone system. To do otherwise is like putting the locals and expresses all on the same track, and then complaining because there are so many late trains. Instead they were running it on the Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So the BBS were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out of packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the network got ****ed off about it and shut it down. Ah! Now I understand. Why wouldn't the BBS folks use the backbone system? And do you blame the *owner* of the nodes for shutting them down? They're *his* nodes, right? He's got the responsibility for them, right? SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN ILLINOIS! That's sad. Is there no one in IL who will put up some nodes? Again the FCC is barred from controlling the content of any station. That's simply not true. yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to control the content of any station. I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that? Well here's the rule read it for yourself (47 USC 326) =A7 326. Censorship Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. OK, fine. Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours. the only content the FCC is allowed to control is obscene and indecent material and that's it. How about commercial content on the ham bands? How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes? Are those things allowed under 326? Those are under other rules and regulation. Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of amateur radio are under other rules and regulations. The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and Indecent material and Commerical type messages. But who decides what is obscene and indecent? Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the Internet. For certain subjects, that's the right medium. Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you realize........ Interesting! In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet" - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become disenchanted with it. I really dout the internet will die. Me too. But I see its potential dying. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime soon. If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original. If you want different content than what is found on current amateur packet, why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks, but on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more features? Because the cost would be too much. Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'. Nor should it. Then amateur's are doomed, Living with and uses outdated modes of communication in a digital age aren't going to cut it because nobody will want to go into a service that that's (useless Modes) is all their going to get. What "useless modes"? Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get more people into it. Oddly enough, most of the new hams I know are fascinated by both the old and the new. There is no packet network around here any more and the cost would be too high. For whom? The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon individuals or small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by others. So the people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how they are used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it? Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there is no Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on the user frequency. That's not a cost issue; it's an organization issue. A let's not forget some competition in a service good be a good thing If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost? K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area. Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others assholes. What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new idea's and new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him. Will do. But it seems to me that if you want new modes, you should be leading the way, not demanding others do it. As for that *asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming "Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from the packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a ASSHOLE. Or maybe he's just ignorant of what a good receiver can do... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... Dave Heil wrote: If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the above. Dave K8MN David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb |
wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd. Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF Ah! Now I understand. Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience "interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise. If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting" system. A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency isn't being used. This is called time-shifting. Of course. Now suppose there are three stations on a frequency, each with about the same level of traffic. Each will wind up with about 1/3 of the time on the air. But if a new station comes on frequency with a lot of stuff to send, those existing stations will have to wait and wait for the frequency to be quiet. While that's not "interference" in the classical QRM sense, it *is* interference in the sense that throughput is reduced. That's what on VHF here in Illinois So much qrm and interference from fowarding. This guy and his little group were nothing more then assholes. Well, that's *your* opinion... It's not my opinion it a fact. It's an opinion, noting more. That's a fact! ;-) Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right? 1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the higher speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb. Of course! The problem isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up fast enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet. So build new radios specifically for high speed packet. We're radio amateurs, right? We're one of the few - maybe the only! - radio services that even *allow* licensees to build radios without a whole bunch of certifications and such. So what's the big deal about building your own highspeed packet radio from scratch? I've built several HF rigs from scratch.... better yet idea is to figure out how those wireless cards operate and a way to convert them into the ham bands. The problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would work if the network was set up right. You mean, set up the way you'd like. It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system to see it your way, rather than creating a new system. NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here in Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't move their fowarding to the backbone system. Why wouldn't they move it to the backbone system? I really have no idea but I have a system that would resolve all those problems. Isn't the "user frequency" for users? If so, it seems to me that the forwarding should go by the backbone system. To do otherwise is like putting the locals and expresses all on the same track, and then complaining because there are so many late trains. So true. Instead they were running it on the Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So the BBS were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out of packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the network got ****ed off about it and shut it down. Ah! Now I understand. Why wouldn't the BBS folks use the backbone system? And do you blame the *owner* of the nodes for shutting them down? They're *his* nodes, right? He's got the responsibility for them, right? SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN ILLINOIS! That's sad. Is there no one in IL who will put up some nodes? No one wants to get back into packet...to them packet is dead and a useless system (this idea is based on how the network was set up) Again the FCC is barred from controlling the content of any station. That's simply not true. yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to control the content of any station. I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that? Well here's the rule read it for yourself (47 USC 326) § 326. Censorship Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. OK, fine. Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours. the only content the FCC is allowed to control is obscene and indecent material and that's it. How about commercial content on the ham bands? How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes? Are those things allowed under 326? Those are under other rules and regulation. Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of amateur radio are under other rules and regulations. The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and Indecent material and Commerical type messages. But who decides what is obscene and indecent? The Supreme court pretty much defined obscene and in indecent in MillerVs California, it's that three prong that the courts and the govenment looks at. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the Internet. For certain subjects, that's the right medium. Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you realize........ Interesting! In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet" - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become disenchanted with it. I really dout the internet will die. Me too. But I see its potential dying. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime soon. If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original. If you want different content than what is found on current amateur packet, why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks, but on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more features? Because the cost would be too much. Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'. Nor should it. Then amateur's are doomed, Living with and uses outdated modes of communication in a digital age aren't going to cut it because nobody will want to go into a service that that's (useless Modes) is all their going to get. What "useless modes"? Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get more people into it. Oddly enough, most of the new hams I know are fascinated by both the old and the new. There is no packet network around here any more and the cost would be too high. For whom? The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon individuals or small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by others. So the people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how they are used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it? Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there is no Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on the user frequency. That's not a cost issue; it's an organization issue. It is a cost issue because if you were set up node the old way you have to pay for radio's, TNC, computers, space, antenna, coax. A let's not forget some competition in a service good be a good thing If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost? K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area. Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others assholes. What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new idea's and new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him. Will do. But it seems to me that if you want new modes, you should be leading the way, not demanding others do it. I'm not demanding but one person can't do it all.. As for that *asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming "Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from the packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a ASSHOLE. Or maybe he's just ignorant of what a good receiver can do... 73 de Jim, N2EY ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
bb wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... Dave Heil wrote: If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the above. Dave K8MN David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... Dave Heil wrote: If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the above. Dave K8MN David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Dave K8MN Who you gonna believe? |
bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Who you gonna believe? Yeah Dave...You gonna believe an archiving system known for it's flawless recordkeeping, or a guy caught in numerous mistruths, deceit and blatant lies? Think reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal hard....... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote:
Who you gonna believe? GHOST BUSTERS! - Mike KB3EIA - |
bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Todd Daugherty wrote: The reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has nothing to offer. There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you. Feel free to move on. Find another interest. Heil actually has a point, smug as it is. I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little dance. If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. Can you figure out the attributions? |
bb wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... Dave Heil wrote: If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the above. David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Who you gonna believe? Given your track record, especially in recent times (see: """.....""" posts by "bb"), I'm going to have to believe my eyes. You have an attribution problem. You can attempt to argue the point if you like. That won't change what was posted. Dave K8MN |
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Who you gonna believe? Yeah Dave...You gonna believe an archiving system known for it's flawless recordkeeping, or a guy caught in numerous mistruths, deceit and blatant lies? Think reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal hard....... I'm going to give "bb" a break here. I'm discounting all of his deliberate untruths and misstatements. This looks like simple incompetence on "bb's" part. It is similar to his recent posts which shows quoted material in triple quotation marks. Other recent posts have been what appear to be responses to the posts of another, but which contained no quoted material at all to provide the reader any context. "BB" made an error which made it appear that I wrote something which I did not write. It is incumbent upon him to be more careful. Dave K8MN |
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Charles Brabham wrote: wrote in message groups.com... It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is that it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago. Heck, even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup modems for almost a decade! Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago! Ya missed the point, Charles. 1200 baud packet is a make-do, chosen to be quick and cheap. All you have to do is interface to an FM voice radio. Getting a significant improvement in bandwidth would mean actually *building radios* designed for the purpose. Which simply hasn't happened in large numbers. Arrgh. I havn't thought much about it, but yes, you are right. A rig with both fetures could be designed without too much trouble. One of the things that has been repeatedly promised and predicted for the various license test changes was that we'd get more 'technically inclined' new hams, who would revolutionize ham radio with 'new modes and modulations' and other neat stuff. Yet when it comes to actually *building radios*, we see even the self-proclaimed 'professionals in radio' buying them ready-made. And ginving those who *do* build their own rigs a raft of $&!# about doing so. Kinda makes ya wonder.... Kind of a sad commentary. When SSB became popular in amateur radio, hams built entire transmitters, receivers and transceivers for the mode. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed. When VHF/UHF FM voice became popular in amateur radio, there was a mix of homebrew and converted-land-mobile equipment used by hams. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed. But from what I can see, the packet folks aren't much interested in *building radios* from scratch. That's why the old standards are still in use. Bingo! I recall reading some *years* back about how TAPR was developing a UHF SS radio for packet. Don't recall that it ever got finished. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Do not forget that in addition to banning certain types of content, the FCC also forces certain types of content such as transmitting station ID at specified times in specific format. It's even worse for broadcasters who also have to transmit EAS material, renewal filing notices, and sponsorship notices in addition to station ID. Remember when stations had to do "public service" or "community" programs, usually played on Sunday morning? Stuff nobody ever listened to. There was a time when you could not find anything at all to listen to on the radio Sunday morning. None of the above are the "censorship" which is envisioned in Sec. 326, though. Be happy for what we have and don't have. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
bb wrote:
bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Todd Daugherty wrote: The reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has nothing to offer. There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you. Feel free to move on. Find another interest. Heil actually has a point, smug as it is. I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little dance. If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. Can you figure out the attributions? From what you've come up with this time, you again have me writing: "If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX." "Heil actually has a point, smug as it is." "I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little dance." The only problem is, I didn't write any of those things. You're drifting farther off course, "bb". Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Todd Daugherty wrote: The reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has nothing to offer. There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you. Feel free to move on. Find another interest. Heil actually has a point, smug as it is. I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little dance. If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. Can you figure out the attributions? From what you've come up with this time, you again have me writing: Not. Why do you say that I'm doing it? I merely hit the reply button and google performs the attributions. And it was after the Buzz Lightyear post that you commented about the attributions being wrong. I think you just need something to complain about. |
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "bb" wrote in message ups.com... Dave Heil wrote: If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX. You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the above. David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb The attributions say otherwise, "bb". Who you gonna believe? Given your track record, especially in recent times (see: """.....""" posts by "bb"), I'm going to have to believe my eyes. You have an attribution problem. You can attempt to argue the point if you like. That won't change what was posted. Dave K8MN David, no argument. I'm merely using googles "reply" button. I think the goofed attribution came in after Commander Buzz Corey's comment. |
Well let's look at some numbers shall we....
The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio service: DATE TOTAL -------------------------------------- 12/04/04 671,837 01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275 01/09/05 668,051 up by 489 01/16/05 668,750 up by 735 TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015 The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the service is still down from the previous month Todd "Bathrooman" wrote in message ups.com... For more than 50 years, some hams have been yelling "Ham Radio is Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates, collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what? What more do you want it to be? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: The Death of Amateur Radio By Todd Daugherty N9OGL I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the FCC's suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to write this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio operators who will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some crack pot. Well, Todd, I've read the entire thing and I've not written it off "as the writes by some crack pot". I've written it off "as the writes by some" special crackpot. But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine. ...and you aren't one to allow reality to stand in your way. Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree with that statement however, this is a harsh reality. Well let's look at some numbers shall we.... The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio service: DATE TOTAL -------------------------------------- 12/04/04 671,837 01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275 01/09/05 668,051 up by 489 01/16/05 668,750 up by 735 TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015 The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the service is still down from the previous month Many radio amateurs would disagree with your statement because it has no basis in fact. Now THAT is harsh reality. Now as I stated above I have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do. Amateur radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial services. Amateur radio isn't a commercial service and isn't in competition with commercial services. It has no reason to "keep up". And it's THAT attitude that will kill amateur radio. No one will come to the service if there is something BETTER out there. On February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the heck is Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named "Inquisitor" anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically compete with the internet. Packet radio is not the internet. It has no reason to become like the internet. That's YOUR opinion, Packet could be better then the Internet but wait dumbass like you don't want that. For amateur radio to survive they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be no amateur radio in near future. Sure, Todd--and amateur astronomy is going to have to compete with roller blading or there will be no amateur astronomy in the future. Not comparable, what you are comparing is two hobbies while I'm comparing two communication system, One dominate (internet) and the other is a third class communication system (amateur radio). As I stated on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy look at it this way. Go to streets of your town as ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast majority of people would pick the internet. The reason is the internet provides a vast variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via email, chat rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more. Ask the average man on the street to choose between the stamp collecting and the internet and he'll likely choose the internet. He knows more about the internet and stamp collecting has no provision for downloading pirated music or pornography. The majority of people don't what amateur radio is...and the vast majority of people don't care. Amateur radio has variety of information unlike the internet. People can talk via their voices, via Morse, via keyboard modes, via television. The two are not the same thing. That's why I'm introducing Amateur Radio II, aka Amateur Radio Lite. It'll be like amateur radio but without all of the icky stuff like "RF", "IF", fomulae and morse code. It'll draw those folks who are "otherwise qualified" and mildly interested. Voice, Morse code, television on and on can ALL be done on the internet. what amateurs need to is advance and come up with something a lot new...My packet idea is one way. Why should someone take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world via radio when they can do it on the internet? Why would someone take up tightrope walking when there are perfectly good sidewalks? Why would anyone walk when they can drive a car? One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is both the amateur and FCC's view on content control. Ahhhh. This is where Todd gets into his favorite rant. Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC for controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to the amateur radio service. However, this seems NOT to be the case. You've been given free advice from a professional in the field. You've chosen to ignore the advice because it conflicts with your rather uneducated view of the regulations. No but this bull**** idea that you have to be a lawyer to read rules and regulation which are straight forward is that bull****. When I announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a post from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can send me a "QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning letter. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech. A smarter fellow would have taken the hint which Mr. Hollingsworth dropped. First off the system wasn't up and running so he should of shut his ****ing mouth because information bulletins are LEGAL. My information bulletins run on one day, for one hour and deal with amateur radio issues....thus legal. If it's interfering with transmission (which it isn't) fine then go after the interference but to get on a newsgroups and intimidate a system BEFORE IT'S EVEN ON is showing how he and the ****ing FCC really are...ASSHOLES! In 1990 the FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and of course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick their Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it. I doubt that the ARRL "deiced" anything. Your choice of nicknames further marks you as a very special crackpot. I was asked on the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have a FCC official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information bulletin which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech by a Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion is being suppressed by the FCC. You were repeatedly asked which things you were being prevented from saying over the air via amateur radio. You never bothered to reply. You've provided the FCC enough ammunition through your public statements here, to nail your hide to the barn door if you decide that you want to play boy broadcaster. Intimidate someone before they have the system is even up and running is a form of suppression. secondly if you didn't read above my information bulletins are legal. My information bulletins run on one day, for one hour and deal with amateur radio issues. They are legal regardless of what you think. Todd N9OGL Dave K8MN ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message ... Well let's look at some numbers shall we.... The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio service: DATE TOTAL -------------------------------------- 12/04/04 671,837 01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275 01/09/05 668,051 up by 489 01/16/05 668,750 up by 735 TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015 The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the service is still down from the previous month Todd And as any competent statistician can tell you, a variation over this short time frame for this type of data is not likely to be significant. You have to look at longer term data. In addition, changes of less than 1% are seldom signficant. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com