| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
February 14th 05, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#2
February 14th 05, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 =---- |
|
#3
February 15th 05, 01:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:17:56 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:
. 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. I fail to see what the content of your erstwhile BBS had to do with interference, which is a spectrum-sharing problem. As all experienced lawyers know all too well, folks threaten to go to "the authorities" or to "file suit" with no basis in their claim whatsoever. Ah, the American legal system!! -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
#4
February 15th 05, 03:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? 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 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... 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? 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? 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
February 16th 05, 05:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 =---- |
|
#7
February 16th 05, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
February 16th 05, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 =---- |
|
#9
February 16th 05, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#10
February 17th 05, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
