"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. There are
some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is
give a signal report, location, ect. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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 =----

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?

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.

"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 =----

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?

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 =----

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

Tony VE6MVP wrote:

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?

Most everything else about Ham radio! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.

When packet first came out, it was fun to do. That's when
dial up modems did 1200 baud. But that was 15 years ago.
If the packet BBSes now did 56K or faster (not by modulation
of the audio feeding an FM rig, but skillful modulation of
the carrier itself (an RF modem)) it might still be interesting.



Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station.

They have the "no pecuniary interest" rule, which is a
regulation on content. Not that I think that that rule is
bad; it protects the ham bands from being taken over
by taxi cab and pizza delivery traffic and such.

But somehow it doesn't have 1st amendment issues.

"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...


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.

When packet first came out, it was fun to do. That's when
dial up modems did 1200 baud. But that was 15 years ago.
If the packet BBSes now did 56K or faster (not by modulation
of the audio feeding an FM rig, but skillful modulation of
the carrier itself (an RF modem)) it might still be interesting.



Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station.

They have the "no pecuniary interest" rule, which is a
regulation on content. Not that I think that that rule is
bad; it protects the ham bands from being taken over
by taxi cab and pizza delivery traffic and such.

But somehow it doesn't have 1st amendment issues.

That's because there are other venues for that. Freedom of speech doesn't
even enter into it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE