Amateur radio in the USA is forbidden by law to engage in
broadcasting. Amateur radio in the USA is forbidden by law to
be a public communications common carrier...that is, specifically
as a provider of radio communications services. Amateur radio
regulations even state that amateur communications themselves
are to be of a trivial nature and amateurs themselves are
supposed to avail themselves of commercial communications
services for non-trivial communications.

This rule exists more to protect our bands from being taken over
by commercial interests. Can you imagine getting sued for
QRM?



Physically, the cellular telephone services, an adjunct to the
wired telephone infrastructure, does NOT "go down" either "first"
or last. TELEPHONE communications is "jammed" only by too many
panic-stricken subscribers trying to use it simultaneously at the
onset of some emergency. The TELEPHONE infrastructure would not
have survived as a communications service provider if "all"
subscribers were free to use it simultaneously.

It takes a regional disaster to make that happen, like
earthquakes. Stuff like car accidents is easily taken care
of with cell phones. But a regional disaster may take
out the phone system physically or it gets overloaded.
And many times hams handle the lower priority "health and
welfare" traffic to free up the police and fire comms
for the more important stuff.


" The people who are going to be taking care
of the real communications are sitting right here in this room. It's
the Amateur Radio service. And in the first few days, or the first few
hours of these multi-jurisdictional incidents, it's the amateurs who
keep things going."


In light of recent REAL EMERGENCIES, REAL HISTORY has shown
that the commercial services HAVE CONTINUED TO WORK despite
SOME of their facilities being "downed." Facilities are NOT
RESTRICTED to JUST telephones, wired and/or cellular. There
are, in this nation, literally, hundreds of thousands of OTHER
radios which can, and have, been used for two-way communications.
That is NOT counting CB or the approximately 100 million
cellular telephone radio handsets.

CBs are sometimes useful, but cell phones without the phone
system are useless. They can only talk to a tower, not to
other cell phones. (Not sure of those "walkie talkie" feature
some cell providers supply, but that might require the cell
tower to function as a repeater).




"It puts them in a very difficult position when they have to defend
examples of conduct that other countries hear."

THose third world dictators don't like our ability to
complain about our government.... :-)

wrote:
From: on Mon 27 Jun 2005 03:19

Although several years ago, Riley's comments are worth a look:

"This Amateur Radio service is serious business."

From Riley Hollingsworth's position as Special Counsel to the
FCC Spectral Enforcement office of the Enforcement Bureau,
obeyance of federal law IS "serious business."

That's correct, Len.

Not once in the speech is the word "hobby" used.

?

Hollingsworth is NOT in the FCC "Key People," "Division Chiefs,"
or "Regional Director" listings at the FCC of their Enforcement
Bureau. One has to go deeper into the Spectral office of the
Enforcement Bureau where Hollingsworth is listed as second from
bottom on that office's "key people" listing...as one of two who
are "Special Counsel."

Hollingsworth is NOT over at the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, the one that is immediately responsible for amateur radio
at the FCC.

That's correct, Len.

It is true that nowhere in Title 47 C.F.R. are the words "hobby"
or "ham radio" given.

That's correct, Len.

On the other hand, Part 97 rather
specifically defines amateur radio as an activity done for a
NON-pecuniary reason. That doesn't even mention "money" though
it is obvious that it means that amateur radio CANNOT accept
money for doing any communications service for others.

That's correct, Len.

Amateur radio in the USA is forbidden by law to engage in
broadcasting.

That's correct, Len.

Amateur radio in the USA is forbidden by law to
be a public communications common carrier...that is, specifically
as a provider of radio communications services.

That's not exactly correct, Len.

Amateur radio in the USA cannot provide communications for pecuniary
interest.

Amateur radio
regulations even state that amateur communications themselves
are to be of a trivial nature and amateurs themselves are
supposed to avail themselves of commercial communications
services for non-trivial communications.

Where does it say that in Part 97, Len?

Amateur radio in the USA is NOT a "national service."

That is correct, Len.

Amateur radio is international.

All
throughout Title 47 C.F.R. the word "service" is a regulatory
term denoting a type and kind of radio activity being regulated.

That is correct, Len.

Is the Citizens Band Radio SERVICE a "national service?" No.
Is the Amateur Radio Service a "national service?" No.

There's a difference between words used "de jure" (by law as
stated) and "de facto" (what it really is in practice).

That is correct, Len.

Amateur
radio is a HOBBY...a recreational pursuit done for personal
pleasure, federally regulated only because of the physical nature
of radio wave propagation and possible interference with other
radio users. DE FACTO a HOBBY.

That is incomplete, Len. There are aspects of amateur radio that
go beyond the word "hobby". Unless you would also call volunteer
firefighters "hobbyists".

"...I know that when a natural disaster hits, they're [cell towers]
the first ones to go down. And the few that are remaining are jammed
and you can't get access."

Hollingsworth is "playing to his audience" (to use a show business
phrase).

That's you opinion, Len. Where you at Dayton when he spoke?

Physically, the cellular telephone services, an adjunct to the
wired telephone infrastructure, does NOT "go down" either "first"
or last.

That is incomplete, Len.

The term "go down" means to be unavailable, be it for reasons of
physical damage or overloading by too many simultaneous attempted
calls.

TELEPHONE communications is "jammed" only by too many
panic-stricken subscribers trying to use it simultaneously at the
onset of some emergency. The TELEPHONE infrastructure would not
have survived as a communications service provider if "all"
subscribers were free to use it simultaneously.

That is correct, Len.

" The people who are going to be taking care
of the real communications are sitting right here in this room. It's
the Amateur Radio service. And in the first few days, or the first few
hours of these multi-jurisdictional incidents, it's the amateurs who
keep things going."

In light of recent REAL EMERGENCIES, REAL HISTORY has shown
that the commercial services HAVE CONTINUED TO WORK despite
SOME of their facilities being "downed." Facilities are NOT
RESTRICTED to JUST telephones, wired and/or cellular. There
are, in this nation, literally, hundreds of thousands of OTHER
radios which can, and have, been used for two-way communications.
That is NOT counting CB or the approximately 100 million
cellular telephone radio handsets.

That is correct, Len. But it does not contradict what Mr. Hollingsworth
said.

Eleven and a half years ago, during the Northridge Earthquake in
Los Angeles, NO amateur radio "emergency communications" were
working in the first hours of the earthquake-induced TOTAL AC
POWER OUTAGE.

How do you know, Len?

Were you able to visit every amateur in the affected area and determine
that none of them were involved in emergency communications?

Public safety and utility radio services were
on the air and working despite the total electrical mains supply
being OFF. It took at least six hours for the Los Angeles area
power to BEGIN to be restored to subscribers on that necessary
BLACK START.

How long did it take before all, or nearly all, customers had their
electricity back?

Public safety and utility radios continued to
function, police and fire and paramedics rolled on calls,
hospitals were there with their own electric power and serving
patients. TEN MILLION residents were affected by that quake
and total power outage.

For how long?

What was the extent of the physical damage?

You seem to be saying that you could not see amateur radio playing an
important role in emergency communications during one particular
emergency. Based on that one emergency, you think that amateur radio
plays no important role in emergency communications during any
emergency.

Is that correct, Len?

Hollingsworth is a special counsel to the Enforcement Bureau's
Spectral enforcers.

That is correct, Len.

He should KNOW BETTER than to perpetuate
such myths as he stated.

That's your opinion.

But, Hollingsworth does NOT
specifically speak FOR amateur radio. He is little more than
a "radio cop in a suit."

Perhaps you would like to address those comments to him?

"There was a big newspaper chain that had a reporter with headphones on
listening to the hurricane emergency net. That made us nervous. The
last thing we wanted was some bad publicity for the Amateur Radio
service anywhere."

"Our people that go to these ITU meetings will tell us that it's
often a personal embarassment to them when these countries play back
tapes of what they hear on 75 and 20 Meters in the American amateur
bands."

On the American 'phone subbands. Not CW/data subbands...

Oh, my, another MYTH.

That is not correct, Len.

The tapes described are of voice operations. Not Morse Code operations.
Not digital/data operations. Voice only.

Simon Pure morseman "does not swear with
morse code!"

That is correct, Len.

Can you cite any instances to the contrary? Any examples of FCC
enforcement
for content violations by amateurs using Morse Code?

In the past decade or so, I know of *one* NAL for an amateur using
Morse Code. The amateur in question was transmitting Bible verses
"24/7" in Morse Code on the 40 meter band, as "code practice". But he
did not reply to questions from the FCC about how the station was
controlled. The NAL was for improper station control and failure to
reply, not for the content of the transmissions.

He is "safe to be around the children?"

In 38 years of amateur radio, all of the Morse Code amateur radio
transmissions I have heard had perfectly acceptable content for all
ages. None of them were an embarrassment for the Amateur Radio Service.


The same cannot be said for what I have heard of voice amateur radio
transmissions.

As an active radio amateur for almost four decades, I've heard a *lot*
of amateur radio transmissions - more Morse Code than voice.


[how many children did you say you "parented?"]

I didn't say how many, Len. How many did you say you "parented"?

"It puts them in a very difficult position when they have to defend
examples of conduct that other countries hear."

All those "75 and 20 Meters" radiotelephone users were
CODE TESTED (or had the equivalent of same).

That is correct, Len.

They were also written tested on the requlations.

The CODE TEST does NOT prevent verbal abuse via radio.

Not in 100% of cases, Len. Neither does the written test.

However, it is a fact that enforcement actions by FCC for "verbal abuse
via radio" are practically all about amateurs using voice modes, not
Morse Code. The ratio is far beyond what the relative popularity of the
modes would predict.

Should be "'nuff said".....

Here's another: David Sumner's editorial pieces in QST are done
by David Sumner.

That is correct, Len.

James Miccolis has not been invited to become
any "guest commentator" or "moral guardian" of U.S. amateur radio.

That is correct, Len.

But, he has set himself out as the same sort of "moral guardian"
and "giver of ethos" as if he was "respresentative" of over
700 thousand U.S. amateur radio licensees.

Even then he perpetuates the past with parodic perfidy.

That is your opinion.

Hollingsworth = A low level bureaucrat, whose primary purpose is
to plan for his lavish tax payer financed retirement, and in the interim,
placate cry baby hams with things they want to hear.


Secwet Woger
Pwesident, Secwet Woger Vewy Secwet Cwub

From: "Jim Hampton" on Tues 28 Jun 2005 21:44


wrote in message
oups.com...
From: on Jun 27, 6:11 pm

Jim Hampton wrote:
The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not
about the FCC, it is about international agreements.

It's about both, really.

There we have it from an "insider."

The US delegation to the radio conferences looks to FCC for input,
though. (Not just FCC, of course.) There's a big difference between
what happens if FCC says that 75 is such a mess it isn't worth
defending at the conferences versus the reverse.

WRRRRONNNNNGGGGGGG.

The U.S. delegation to the WRCs IS composed of members from
the FCC, the NTIA, and Department of State. All three. You can
read that on the FCC website or read the Report of the Chairperson
(OF the FCC) on WRC-03.

Jim Hampton, you didn't see the obvious ERROR committed by
another...or the correction issued on it?

The "U.S. delegation" to the World Radio Conferences IS the FCC
and it IS the NTIA and it IS the Department of State. All three.
Not just the WRCs but the North and South Americas' conferences.

The radio frequency recommendations reached on international
agreement cover 9 KHz on up to 300 GHz. The HF band is a drop in
the bucket compared to all that spectrum.

There's also a lesson in human nature in there, too. When Rudy Giuliani
was elected mayor of NYC, one of his priorities was enforcement of

The POLITICAL newsgroups are on the 2nd floor. Go there and
find some Noo Yawk buddies.

Noo Yawk Sitty ain't the center of the universe.

Its politics don't concern amateur radio one bit.



But the Dems have a way of nominating candidates that too many people
won't vote for. They're well on the way to doing it again with Hillary.
She's the best friend the 'pubs ever had!

Friend of mine once said that if you gave the DNC the job of organizing
a firing squad, they'd put the squad in a circle around the condemned
person.

Ain't that cute...sneak in some PERSONAL POLITICAL idea into
an amateur radio policy group. Fat lot of good that does.

Does Hillary Clinton have a HAM LICENSE? No.

Is the DNC (Democratic National Party) concerned with amateur radio?
No. Neither is the GOP, the Republicans.


Hello, Len

Amateur radio policy is *devoid* of politics? ROTFLMAO.

Do NOT put words in my posts that I didn't write.

Did I say that amateur radio policy is "devoid" of anything
(except some ignorant, biased nonsense of some of its
participants)?

AMERICAN NATIONAL POLITICAL matters do NOT belong in here.

The Repooblican party, big business, and frequency allocations have quite a
bit of politics involved, my friend.

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats matter to/from amateur radio.

"Big business" fairly well GAVE UP on using the HF spectrum except
for some RFID purposes at 13 MHz. "Shortwave broadcasting" is NOT
in the category of "big business."

FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS on an international scale DO NOT INVOLVE
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTY actions or policies.

Try to learn to differentiate between political parties in the
USA and on the INTERNATIONAL SCENE where HF use is decided...
along with MF, LF, VLF, ELF, VHF, UHf, and microwave bands.

Let me know when Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton get ham
licenses, okay? Not to mention ANY of the FCC Commissioners
(who are all appointees by whoever is in power in the USA).

On 29 Jun 2005 09:33:06 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
From: on Mon 27 Jun 2005 03:19

snip
That's not exactly correct, Len.
snip

Shall we assume that the decision has been made?

Option 1?

73, Leo

From: Leo on Jun 29, 6:36 pm

On 29 Jun 2005 09:33:06 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
From: on Mon 27 Jun 2005 03:19

snip
That's not exactly correct, Len.
snip

Shall we assume that the decision has been made?

Option 1?

Nah...he hasn't "chosen" anything but "business as usual."

Jimmie's technique goes something like this:

He picks out phrases, sentences, or (rarely) whole paragraphs
and then asks "pointed questions" as if he is a "prosecuting
attorney" or as the "judge" of this less-than-noble Moot Court.
Then he will belabor those specific points in long, voluminous
postings, probably hoping the subject will get tired, get angry,
make a dumb comment. If a "dumb comment" is made, he will then
belabor THAT in the usual absurb minutae. The subject eventually
just gives up bothering to post and Jimmie feels vindicated; he
has established HE is "right." Smirk time.

If challenged on any point, he will belabor that with/without
misdirection onto similar but not directly related subjects.
Or he will simply state the challenger is "in error," "doesn't
have 'parenting experience'," or just doesn't know as much as
the "judge/prosecutor." That goes into minutae and misdirection
again until the challenger just gives up. More smirks, more
feelings of Jimmie's vindication. He emerges "triumphant."

Now, in his reply to challenges on his partly wrong statement,
plus misdirection into some American national politics (out of
place, but then that doesn't matter to USA amateur extras), he
does NOT acknowledge he was in error of anything. He simply
issues the imperious "you are right" or "you are incorrect" or
(in some mollifying attempt at partial appeasement from another
thread) he STATES "that's not exactly correct!" He has fashioned
his personna into the LAWGIVER, the one who judges but is never,
ever himself judged.

Radio regulation in the USA is governed by the entirety of Title
47, Code of Federal Regulation. Amateur radio is not solely
confined to Part 97 of that Title...yet he keeps referring solely
to that one Part. [that one Part is available on the ARRL web-
site...but in various pieces, albeit complete, on the U.S.
Government Printing Office archives page for Titles of the Codes
of Federal Regulations] He regards only the ARRL copy as "the
reference," thus forgetting several other Parts in Title 47 which
do, definitely apply in LAW here.

But, if Jimmie is challenged again, he goes deeper into absurd
minutae, perhaps wandering into phrase meanings in the law as if
he is one of the Supreme Court judges. [Lawgivers get like that]
[in the U.S. Army we called them "barracks room lawyers"] [but
Jimmie was never IN the military in the USA] [we don't even know
how many children he has "parented"...he won't say, yet demands
that of others]

Lawgivers sometimes get lost in their own self-appointed, self-
grandiose rhetoric...such as the one who started this particular
thread using what amounts to a Consultant to the FCC in the
Enforcement Bureau Spectral Enforcement Division...Riley
Hollingsworth. Hollingsworth has law credentials. The Lawgiver
does not. Hollingsworth is NOT a Commissioner, isn't on any of
the Commissioners' special Staffs, yet the Lawgiver makes Riley
a big, important guru status. A status almost as great as the
ARRL's "CEO" (probably "President for Life" soon), Dave Sumner.
One can almost see the editorial page in QST forming as the
Lawgiver extolls his mighty rhetoric upon the masses at the
beginning of this thread.

Woe be unto the Disbelievers of the Lawgiver, for they shall be
forever known as WRRRONNNNGGGGGG.

"Ask not for whom the bel tolls, it tolls for thee, A. G."

[the humor impaired will not notice the "bel" so I won't explain]

Business as usual.

buy, buy,