Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Daugherty wrote:
Amateur radio operators, The ARRL, and The FCC think that certain things shouldn't air. More correctly, most amateur radio operators, the ARRL, the FCC and most of the public think that certain things shouldn't air. Your choice: To air or to err. Amateur's who can't see the facts are blind by their own stupidity. People who can't spell or construct a sentence should be wary of calling others "stupid". Amateur radio is going to die, regardless to what anyone think. That's your rant and you're sticking with it, despite what the facts say. 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. The FCC can change the system to where all a person has to do is apply for a license and pay a fee but THAT will not save ham radio unless amateur radio has something to offer. The point of this paper is that amateur operators are going to have to get their heads out of their asses and realize they are going to have to compete against the other service like the internet. I find it difficult to carry on a discussion with one who feels that because his cranium is inserted into his rectum, everyone else is in the same fix. Every few months, some boy genius like you shows up in one of the amateur radio newsgroups like a shooting star, only to burn up on enty into Earth's atmosphere. Dave K8MN |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Instead of predicting "The Death Of Amateur Radio" and hashing over useless
statistics -- How about we promote Amateur Radio and mentor new folks? How many doom sayers here help the hobby with training, elmering, and emergency services ? In Southern Calif -- we have three classes running at elementary and high schools, lots of Emergency training as well. I can tell you that Amateur Radio was highly valuable and praised during the Southern Calif fires a few years back -- despite the generalization below of "boring stuff". Its only boring if you are a bore. -- Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) Help The New Hams Someone Helped You Or did You Forget That ? "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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Well lets see if these Ham Radio QSO's that I have had -- would be of
interest to you: 1. A QSO with a Navy dirigible crew member -- flew in the 1930's airships. 2. A QSO with an archeologist in the Central America -- just discovered new ruins. 3. A WWII Luftwaffe pilot - flew a ME-109 4. QSO with a Swedish Ham -- we talked about Soloman Andre's balloon flight to the North pole -- in 1897 5. A QSO with a British soldier in the Falklands -- we talked about Shackletons ordeal in 1908 and the Falkland war 6. An anthropologist in New Guinea -- we talked about a tribe there that was virtually in the stone age 7. A missionary in the Amazon -- we talked about the tribe he was helping 8. A chap in Australia that was in the outback studying the aborigines 9. A Russian officer in an arctic weather station --- brrr -- we talked about the incredible working conditions there Lots more "boring stuff" If the above is of no interest to you I suggest you have very limited interests. -- Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) Help The New Hams Someone Helped You Or did You Forget That ? "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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine. OK, let's see what you've got, Todd. Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree with that statement however, this is a harsh reality. OK - how is it "dying"? 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. How do you define "keep up with"? 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. Why? The internet is pretty much ubiquitous in the USA and other developed countries, if you live where there is reliable telephone service. Broadband access is expanding rapidly and so is mobile access. There's no way hams can match the infrastructure of any internet provider. One amateur radio operator Charles Brabham N5PVL made this statement in responds to mine: N9OGL:" My point is Packet does not have the variety like the internet and when a person comes up with a new idea for packet or a new program idea for packet it is seemed to be frowned upon by other operators. So packet radio will remain in last place behind the Internet, and Wireless systems." N5PVL: "I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a commercial communications network, and so does not "compete" with commercial communications networks in any way. He's right! Packet is for Amateur Radio operators who enjoy digital communications *independent* of commercial communications networks and the Internet. Exactly! Of course it's different... It's supposed to be, for a number of reasons. If it offered exactly the same thing as the commercial nets, there would be no reason for it to exist at all. Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while." Sounds like good advice. Now the reason I bring this up is simply that this misguided amateur radio operator WAS trying to prove a point which he could not; simply for two reasons. Looks to me like he proved his point. If you want packet radio to be something other than it is, lead the way by example. The first is that most of the BBS systems on packet were on the forwarding system and the vast majority of messages on the BBS systems were all the same. Regardless to what Mr. Brabham said this was a harsh reality. What Mr. Brabham didn't realize was at the time of that post I had been running TWO BBS systems on packet. Most packet operators didn't want no "individuals" running a BBS system and not use the forwarding system. Today, here in Illinois packet radio is nothing more then a vast memory. All the Nodes and BBS systems are gone. Gone for two reasons the first is the BBS operators were running their forwarding system on the user frequency. The second reason is as I stated in my post that there was no variety and all amateur radio operators went to the internet. Which proves the point about competition. Packet Radio was a prelude of what will happen to amateur radio. Like N5PVL stated "I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a commercial communications network, and so does not "compete" with commercial communications networks in any way." This seems to be the attitude of all amateur radio operators when it comes to competing with other services. Because it's true. Amateur radio, or *any* radio service, can only survive by offering what other services cannot. I remember a time, perhaps 20 years ago, when a good number of new hams got their licenses for "honeydo" purposes. Today the same communications needs are handled by cell phone. Some of those hams are gone, others discovered that ham radio is more than the reason they were originally licensed. 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. Why? I'm both on the air and online. Each medium offers things the other does not. 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. Of course. Think about *why*. Also - why must it be one or the other? Why not both? 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. That's one reason. Here are some mo 1) Most people already know about the internet and what it can do. Many people do not know amateur radio exists, or have only a vague idea of what it is. 2) Most people access the internet via a personal computer or a wireless-enabled PDA-type device like a Blackberry. Those devices have uses far beyond those of internet access. 3) No license. No antenna. Worldwide access 24/7. 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? Because it's different. And only because it's different. For amateur radio to grow amateur radio operators are going to have to get out of this not competing attitude. Why? One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is both the amateur and FCC's view on content control. 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. Where, exactly, does it prohibit the FCC from controlling content? If so, why does Howard Stern have such problems? Why was there such a flap about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"? The various courts have repeatedly ruled that content control *is* part of FCC's authority. The arguments today are over where the line is, not whether FCC can draw a line. However, this seems NOT to be the case. 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. That was nice of him. He could have just let you break the rules and then started an enforcement proceeding. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech. Sorry, unlimited free speech protection does not extend to the radio spectrum. One of the most known FCC free speech suppression cases is the Liberty Net. Here's an article from Newsline: "FCC vs. The Liberty Net Riley Hollingsworth and the FCC are questioning if a controversial 75 meter SSB net really has any place on the ham bands. The group is called the Liberty Net. It operates nightly at 3.950 MHZ and is primarily an open discussion or right wing politics and conservative causes. But, in a May 7th letter to Victor Misek, W1WCR,Hollingsworth requests that the Hudson NewHampshire ham review the Basis and Purpose of Amateur Radio as outlined in Section 97.1 of the Commissions rules. He then tells Misek to explain to the Commission how the operation of the Liberty Net can be justified. But it's another Hollingsworth statement that draws the proverbial line in the sand between the FCC and the Liberty Net. Hollingsworth tells Misek - and we quote -- "We are unable to determine how transmissions of this group met the standards of, or contribute to the purpose of, the allocation of frequencies for the Amateur Radio Service." In other words, the FCC appears to be questioning whether the content of communications by those involved in the Liberty Net meet the minimum requisite requirements to be transmitted in the ham radio bands.And Hollingsworth goes even further. He suggests that the Liberty Net might want to consider moving to the Internet or wait to wait and see if the Commission creates a low power FM broadcast service. If it does, the net might then want to apply for a broadcasting license grant. (FCC) How is he wrong? I can't do routine business communications on the ham bands, either. The part one should look at is the part in which Hollingsworth stated that the Liberty Net should look at the internet or apply for a low power FM license. Apparently Mr. Hollingsworth never heard of Section 326. I think he knows more about it than you do, Todd. Now Mr. Hollingsworth isn't the only FCC official that has done this; 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. Ding! Godwin's Law violated. You lose, Todd. Stating in ARRL Letter and World Radio "The League maintains that the disputes can resolved by enforcing existing FCC regulations: One-way Broadcast, if they go beyond the accepted norms for such transmissions on the Amateur bands their illegal." So who's to say is the "ACCEPTED NORM"?? FCC, of course. And the accepted norm is pretty well-defined for one-way transmissions: 1) Non-commercial in nature (ever notice how ARRL doesn't use W1AW to solicit memberships or publication sales?) 2) Of *specific* interest to the *amateur radio* community 3) On a published schedule of transmissions (so everybody has a chance to know where and when) Would your transmissions meet all of those criteria? The ARRL, why not the FCC could give the ARRL the power and therefore Free speech could be suppressed. What is it that you want to say? The first Amendment bars the government from stomping on free speech, but it doesn't apply to the ARRL which is a national organization from doing it. Who's the one pushing to K1MAN off the air?? The ARRL and its members. Nope. It's FCC. 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. What is it that you want to say in your bulletin, Todd? How does it meet the criteria listed above? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: The Death of Amateur Radio By Todd Daugherty N9OGL 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. All they have to do is define their activities as bulletins. There are some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is give a signal report, location, ect. I haven't heard any of that. 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. Packet was/is so incredibly slow compared to other digital transmissions. When I became a Ham, I looked at it and decided that at it's transmission speed, there wasn't a lot of use for it. 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. Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal. So I guess we just define everything as an information bulletin! 8^) 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. Hollingsworth has often commented on situations that are detrimental to Ham radio. Certainly the Lib Net is one of those. A parent listening in on that bunch is not likely to want their children having anything to do with the hobby. Again the FCC is barred from controlling the content of any station. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the Internet. Why the one extreme or the other outlook? Suggesting that people make the Ham bands a pleasant place to operate doesn't make for elimination of free speech. Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you realize........ - Mike KB3EIA - 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 =---- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Daugherty wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: The Death of Amateur Radio By Todd Daugherty N9OGL 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? 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. 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. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Todd Daugherty wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Todd Daugherty wrote: The Death of Amateur Radio By Todd Daugherty N9OGL 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. 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. 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. 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. The only content the FCC is allowed to control is obscene and indecent material and that's it. 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. 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. 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 =---- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:23:29 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote: 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. Packet was/is so incredibly slow compared to other digital transmissions. When I became a Ham, I looked at it and decided that at it's transmission speed, there wasn't a lot of use for it. What's better than packet then? Tony |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1415 Â September 24, 2004 | Broadcasting | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1400 Â June 11, 2004 | General | |||
209 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (04-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx |