| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Riley Hollingsworth speaks...
I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF
will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: John The only "vision" Hollingsworth has is a lavish tax payer finance retirement. |
Lloyd:
I don't doubt that everything you do is as simple as it looks, I don't think you are devious, cunning or stealthy--however, don't be fool enough to think everyone else the same--you will make one grave error... Yanno, my life is a conspiracy, and it is my family, my friends and me against the world. In my job, we have trade secrets and act in the companies best interests--we don't disclose these interests or our long range plans--however, you can bet that we do NOT feel obligated to look out for others best interests--that is their responsibility... .... perhaps you are just one simple guy--but you make a grave error if you think that applies to all others... now, go back to sleep--don't worry, be happy--others will take care of things for you... John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: John The only "vision" Hollingsworth has is a lavish tax payer finance retirement. |
old friend:
Well, I am a bit suspicious if my gov't is not worried about people here firing up a rig and sending encoded text and documents to other countries. And, it has been my experience that if you are willing to give up rights there will be no end to those taking them away. However, I'd love to see that VHF rig you fire up to chat with the Antarctica or the aussies on a reg basis with the sun spot cycle... well, there is always moon bounce and the internet... John "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
Taking HF away from the ARS is not going to stop that or even affect it it s howver VHF and UHF that comercail interest are interested in they don't seem to want hf with its interesting varriations John Smith wrote: old friend: Well, I am a bit suspicious if my gov't is not worried about people here firing up a rig and sending encoded text and documents to other countries. And, it has been my experience that if you are willing to give up rights there will be no end to those taking them away. Which has wht to do with the topic However, I'd love to see that VHF rig you fire up to chat with the Antarctica or the aussies on a reg basis with the sun spot cycle... well, there is always moon bounce and the internet... John "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
Our opinions differ, we shall now watch the future for the real
answer... John "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Taking HF away from the ARS is not going to stop that or even affect it it s howver VHF and UHF that comercail interest are interested in they don't seem to want hf with its interesting varriations John Smith wrote: old friend: Well, I am a bit suspicious if my gov't is not worried about people here firing up a rig and sending encoded text and documents to other countries. And, it has been my experience that if you are willing to give up rights there will be no end to those taking them away. Which has wht to do with the topic However, I'd love to see that VHF rig you fire up to chat with the Antarctica or the aussies on a reg basis with the sun spot cycle... well, there is always moon bounce and the internet... John "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
Although several years ago, Riley's comments are worth a look:
"This Amateur Radio service is serious business." Not once in the speech is the word "hobby" used. "...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. 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." "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... "It puts them in a very difficult position when they have to defend examples of conduct that other countries hear." Should be "'nuff said"..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
If you are going to mouth off, stop top posting, and use the
correct headers. 73, Lloyd "John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: I don't doubt that everything you do is as simple as it looks, I don't think you are devious, cunning or stealthy--however, don't be fool enough to think everyone else the same--you will make one grave error... Yanno, my life is a conspiracy, and it is my family, my friends and me against the world. In my job, we have trade secrets and act in the companies best interests--we don't disclose these interests or our long range plans--however, you can bet that we do NOT feel obligated to look out for others best interests--that is their responsibility... ... perhaps you are just one simple guy--but you make a grave error if you think that applies to all others... now, go back to sleep--don't worry, be happy--others will take care of things for you... John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: John The only "vision" Hollingsworth has is a lavish tax payer finance retirement. |
The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not
about the FCC, it is about international agreements. What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80 meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country). If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it. If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles. Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz. 300 GHz in far infra-red light! Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do (and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on all users to use it (effectively) or loose it. As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't carry world-wide. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. Big business and the Republicans rule. Next time be careful of who you vote for. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
Lloyd:
Quit expecting everyone to format your text the way you would like it--if you like it a particular way--format it that way. Get a new generation news reader! Usenet is NOT what it used to be... if you only have a 300 baud modem, upgrade! Next thing you will want is your welfare check delivered with your morning paper! John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... If you are going to mouth off, stop top posting, and use the correct headers. 73, Lloyd "John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: I don't doubt that everything you do is as simple as it looks, I don't think you are devious, cunning or stealthy--however, don't be fool enough to think everyone else the same--you will make one grave error... Yanno, my life is a conspiracy, and it is my family, my friends and me against the world. In my job, we have trade secrets and act in the companies best interests--we don't disclose these interests or our long range plans--however, you can bet that we do NOT feel obligated to look out for others best interests--that is their responsibility... ... perhaps you are just one simple guy--but you make a grave error if you think that applies to all others... now, go back to sleep--don't worry, be happy--others will take care of things for you... John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: John The only "vision" Hollingsworth has is a lavish tax payer finance retirement. |
Jim Hampton wrote: The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not about the FCC, it is about international agreements. What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80 meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country). If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it. If the world decides and we decide to go along with it and... If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles. Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz. 300 GHz in far infra-red light! Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do (and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on all users to use it (effectively) or loose it. agreed which is agood resaon to stopp using Morse code and realy use HF As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't carry world-wide. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. Big business and the Republicans rule. Next time be careful of who you vote for. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: Quit expecting everyone to format your text the way you would like it--if you like it a particular way--format it that way. Get a new generation news reader! Usenet is NOT what it used to be... if you only have a 300 baud modem, upgrade! Next thing you will want is your welfare check delivered with your morning paper! John To paraphrase Stagger Lee, I accept your humble apolgy and hope you have learned something. 73, Lloyd |
Jim:
Yes, you touch on globalization and "one world order" and/or "new order" (hey, wasn't that a phrase invented by Adolph Hitler's klick?) Seems like a little more thought on "sovereign nation" and just exactly what that is might be to our best interest. Also, seems with each passing day "they" are anxious to give us reasons why we should lose respect for gov't and authority and, the effects of this are rather frightening--it even touches my neighborhood--a place which was once safe and secure. I can hardly see how this is not having an effect on this great hobby--amateur radio is not an isolated island. John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not about the FCC, it is about international agreements. What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80 meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country). If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it. If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles. Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz. 300 GHz in far infra-red light! Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do (and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on all users to use it (effectively) or loose it. As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't carry world-wide. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. Big business and the Republicans rule. Next time be careful of who you vote for. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John |
Lloyd:
Come back when the effects of those drugs have worn off... if this condition of your is organic in nature, seek help from a qualified professional. Here is wishing for your speedy recovery... John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: Quit expecting everyone to format your text the way you would like it--if you like it a particular way--format it that way. Get a new generation news reader! Usenet is NOT what it used to be... if you only have a 300 baud modem, upgrade! Next thing you will want is your welfare check delivered with your morning paper! John To paraphrase Stagger Lee, I accept your humble apolgy and hope you have learned something. 73, Lloyd |
John Smith wrote: Lloyd: Come back when the effects of those drugs have worn off... if this condition of your is organic in nature, seek help from a qualified professional. Here is wishing for your speedy recovery... John No, little girl Lloydie will always be a 6 year old little girl deep down inside. He also spent a year in an Iowa metnal ward after he tried to kill himself (after stealing money from his mommy's purse and slapping her around). Too bad he didn't succeed. |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: Come back when the effects of those drugs have worn off... if this condition of your is organic in nature, seek help from a qualified professional. Here is wishing for your speedy recovery... John An additional humble apology from you is not necessary. I accepted your first apology. Now it appears you may not have learned anything. Sad. 73, Lloyd |
wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Lloyd: Come back when the effects of those drugs have worn off... if this condition of your is organic in nature, seek help from a qualified professional. Here is wishing for your speedy recovery... John No, little girl Lloydie will always be a 6 year old little girl deep down inside. He also spent a year in an Iowa metnal ward after he tried to kill himself (after stealing money from his mommy's purse and slapping her around). Too bad he didn't succeed. Oh my John, I had no idea that Woger was your fwiend. All bets are now off. I am shocked that you keep such company. It says much about you. 73, Lloyd |
Lloyd swallowed some of his african american HUD apartment complex neighbor's cum and whined: wrote in message oups.com... John Smith wrote: Lloyd: Come back when the effects of those drugs have worn off... if this condition of your is organic in nature, seek help from a qualified professional. Here is wishing for your speedy recovery... John No, little girl Lloydie will always be a 6 year old little girl deep down inside. He also spent a year in an Iowa metnal ward after he tried to kill himself (after stealing money from his mommy's purse and slapping her around). Too bad he didn't succeed. Oh my John, I had no idea that Woger was your fwiend. Hey, Lardass get help for your lisp from cocksucking, you 31 year old virgin (because you are a FAGGOT). |
Lloyd wrote:
If you are going to mouth off, stop top posting, and use the correct headers. 73, Lloyd "John Smith" wrote in message ... Just like you top-posted? ....... |
Lloyd:
Mixing LSD with Psilocybin and Mescaline is dangerous--I must caution against such abuse... John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: Come back when the effects of those drugs have worn off... if this condition of your is organic in nature, seek help from a qualified professional. Here is wishing for your speedy recovery... John An additional humble apology from you is not necessary. I accepted your first apology. Now it appears you may not have learned anything. Sad. 73, Lloyd |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Jim Hampton wrote: The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not about the FCC, it is about international agreements. What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80 meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country). If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it. If the world decides and we decide to go along with it and... If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles. Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz. 300 GHz in far infra-red light! Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do (and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on all users to use it (effectively) or loose it. agreed which is agood resaon to stopp using Morse code and realy use HF As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't carry world-wide. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. Big business and the Republicans rule. Next time be careful of who you vote for. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... I doubt it HF is all but useless to the FCC they want peiecs of VHF etc John Smith wrote: I think anyone over-looking the bigger picture has to suspect that HF will, rather quickly, be taken from amateurs. The abundance of techs is being created to drop the percentage of hams using HF. At some point I suspect a "move" will be made on these all important HF bands and they will be removed from amateur service. I suspect that techs account for about 50% of activity on the bands now--when that reaches 66%, and certainly 75%, I think HF will be pulled... Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it differently: http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/article...longbeach.html John Other than PSK-31, name me a mode that takes less bandwidth than Morse code. The silence is deafening. Morse is very spectrum efficient; it only uses perhaps 100 Hertz (200 with harsher keying to accommodate high speeds). SSB occupies up to 3,000 Hz, enough room to accommodate 30 Morse QSOs. AM occupies more than twice the space of SSB. FM occupies even more (which is why it is restricted to the upper portion of 10 meters and VHF and above). Your point about the world and "if the FCC decides to go along with it" has no bearing. The FCC will have *nothing* to say about world-wide allocations on HF and below. The United States is but one voice of many. Majority rule s. The FCC can hand out authorizations based upon the framework of the world agreements, but they can't step outside of that framework. Should the world take away the 75/80 meter amateur allocation, the FCC could *not* allocate those frequencies to American hams. Of course, if you are a die-hard Republican, you either won't or can't understand that concept. The spectrum below 30 MHz is decided between many countries. Unless, of course, those countries are hiding all those weapons of mass destruction :))) In that case, maybe we could get involved in a 10 or 20 year war. Good for business, I guess. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Hello, John
You are correct - HF (and MF) amateur radio is not isolated. Signals cross international boundaries. As to "sovereign nation, it sounds good and is, except that what we are discussing crosses international boundaries. The international agreements will have to happen - or would you prefer that Radio Moscow rear it's head on a directional array running 5,000,000 watts in the middle of our AM broadcast band? VHF and above does not often stray far (although the stuff from 30 MHz to perhaps a bit above 6 meters can and does at times, especially during the peak of the sunspot cycle); therefore the FCC is very free to rearrange things that don't affect satellite transmission/reception. Heck, when you said "one world order", I thought you were going to mention our friend, GW 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Yes, you touch on globalization and "one world order" and/or "new order" (hey, wasn't that a phrase invented by Adolph Hitler's klick?) Seems like a little more thought on "sovereign nation" and just exactly what that is might be to our best interest. Also, seems with each passing day "they" are anxious to give us reasons why we should lose respect for gov't and authority and, the effects of this are rather frightening--it even touches my neighborhood--a place which was once safe and secure. I can hardly see how this is not having an effect on this great hobby--amateur radio is not an isolated island. John |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: Mixing LSD with Psilocybin and Mescaline is dangerous--I must caution against such abuse... John John, You apologized twice, when only once was necessary. Now you are groveling. AND, worst of all, Secwet Woger is your fwiend. I cannot help you any further, perhaps someone else here can. 73, Lloyd |
|
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. What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80 meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country). If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it. 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. I think the main point of all this is that it's really up to *us hams* to show that we're worth our allocations. That's one reason on-air behavior really matters! 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 "minor" laws, like going after turnstile-jumpers, graffiti and trash/rubbish violations. Some people asked if tax money wouldn't be better spent going after drug dealers and murderers. RG's theory was that if you allow the "little stuff" to get slack, the big stuff gets slack too. In any event, NYC's crime, large and small, went down. Same principle applies on the ham bands. But FCC can't do it all - there's the question of what we hams consider acceptable behavior. FCC enforcement is complaint-driven - just ask K1MAN. A key factor in his case is that many, many hams complained about his violations over a long period of time. If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF. I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles. Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz. 300 GHz in far infra-red light! Sure - but isn't that the way it's always been? Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for long-distance communications. When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929, 40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz - exact harmonics of 80! Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do (and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on all users to use it (effectively) or loose it. I agree up to a point. Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio. It's all about fiber optics. Heck, I bet that the vast majority of telecommunications today (in terms of bits/mile) does *not* go by radio, but by copper or glass. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc. are simply a way of getting the last mile without a wire or fiber. Broadcasting as we knew it will probably morph into something aimed mostly at mobile users. Heck, the real value of HF (as perceived by regulators) is demonstrated by BPL. As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't carry world-wide. *Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146 is worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. They took eminent domain to a new high - or low. Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who wants to put up McMansions. Big business and the Republicans rule. "What's good for General Bullmoose...." Next time be careful of who you vote for. I've always been careful that way... 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. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mean ole K1MAN is playing in my part of the
sandbox BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Why wont mr Riley get him away from me? BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH The shrill whining & crying of cry baby hams goes on and on. If there was ever a hobby of immature selfish whining cry babies, then ham radio is it. Grown men who continually whine and cry about one ham radio operator in Maine. BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH |
Jim:
Well, go take of your french buddies, maybe you will want to appease the muslims too... John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Hello, John You are correct - HF (and MF) amateur radio is not isolated. Signals cross international boundaries. As to "sovereign nation, it sounds good and is, except that what we are discussing crosses international boundaries. The international agreements will have to happen - or would you prefer that Radio Moscow rear it's head on a directional array running 5,000,000 watts in the middle of our AM broadcast band? VHF and above does not often stray far (although the stuff from 30 MHz to perhaps a bit above 6 meters can and does at times, especially during the peak of the sunspot cycle); therefore the FCC is very free to rearrange things that don't affect satellite transmission/reception. Heck, when you said "one world order", I thought you were going to mention our friend, GW 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Yes, you touch on globalization and "one world order" and/or "new order" (hey, wasn't that a phrase invented by Adolph Hitler's klick?) Seems like a little more thought on "sovereign nation" and just exactly what that is might be to our best interest. Also, seems with each passing day "they" are anxious to give us reasons why we should lose respect for gov't and authority and, the effects of this are rather frightening--it even touches my neighborhood--a place which was once safe and secure. I can hardly see how this is not having an effect on this great hobby--amateur radio is not an isolated island. John |
N2Ey:
Yep, the little stuff really matters... while you chase mice the elephants trample the village--gee, I think I seen that movie before... John wrote in message ps.com... 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. What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80 meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country). If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it. 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. I think the main point of all this is that it's really up to *us hams* to show that we're worth our allocations. That's one reason on-air behavior really matters! 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 "minor" laws, like going after turnstile-jumpers, graffiti and trash/rubbish violations. Some people asked if tax money wouldn't be better spent going after drug dealers and murderers. RG's theory was that if you allow the "little stuff" to get slack, the big stuff gets slack too. In any event, NYC's crime, large and small, went down. Same principle applies on the ham bands. But FCC can't do it all - there's the question of what we hams consider acceptable behavior. FCC enforcement is complaint-driven - just ask K1MAN. A key factor in his case is that many, many hams complained about his violations over a long period of time. If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF. I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles. Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz. 300 GHz in far infra-red light! Sure - but isn't that the way it's always been? Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for long-distance communications. When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929, 40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz - exact harmonics of 80! Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do (and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on all users to use it (effectively) or loose it. I agree up to a point. Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio. It's all about fiber optics. Heck, I bet that the vast majority of telecommunications today (in terms of bits/mile) does *not* go by radio, but by copper or glass. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc. are simply a way of getting the last mile without a wire or fiber. Broadcasting as we knew it will probably morph into something aimed mostly at mobile users. Heck, the real value of HF (as perceived by regulators) is demonstrated by BPL. As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't carry world-wide. *Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146 is worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. They took eminent domain to a new high - or low. Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who wants to put up McMansions. Big business and the Republicans rule. "What's good for General Bullmoose...." Next time be careful of who you vote for. I've always been careful that way... 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. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA 73 de Jim, N2EY |
.... when lost in "La La Land" just follow the yellow brick road...
John "Lloyd" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message ... Lloyd: Mixing LSD with Psilocybin and Mescaline is dangerous--I must caution against such abuse... John John, You apologized twice, when only once was necessary. Now you are groveling. AND, worst of all, Secwet Woger is your fwiend. I cannot help you any further, perhaps someone else here can. 73, Lloyd |
John,
You must realize that I *love* the United States. It is because of that love that I am very afraid of GW. The attack on Afghanistan was fully justified, especially since they wanted to protect Bin Laden. The attack on Iraq seems more than a bit muddied. Now that one or two generals mentioned what was needed and that things were not going as expected, I'd expect heads to roll (their heads). I have great faith and trust in our military. GW was not listening to his military advisors as to what was needed in the first place, and I shan't mention the missing weapons. Many members of the military who have been in the military for a couple of decades have experienced war. The high ranking officers likely have lead in some of those ... um ... skirmishes? I suspect they have a far better idea as to what it takes than someone who apparently found a way to avoid military service almost entirely (except for, perhaps, a week). High ranking military officials have input that is sorely needed in the White House; unfortunately, they were ignored. I have no desire to appease either the French or the Muslims. I do wish, however, that I could go back to my grandfather's native Scotland if only to visit. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Well, go take of your french buddies, maybe you will want to appease the muslims too... John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Hello, John You are correct - HF (and MF) amateur radio is not isolated. Signals cross international boundaries. As to "sovereign nation, it sounds good and is, except that what we are discussing crosses international boundaries. The international agreements will have to happen - or would you prefer that Radio Moscow rear it's head on a directional array running 5,000,000 watts in the middle of our AM broadcast band? VHF and above does not often stray far (although the stuff from 30 MHz to perhaps a bit above 6 meters can and does at times, especially during the peak of the sunspot cycle); therefore the FCC is very free to rearrange things that don't affect satellite transmission/reception. Heck, when you said "one world order", I thought you were going to mention our friend, GW 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Yes, you touch on globalization and "one world order" and/or "new order" (hey, wasn't that a phrase invented by Adolph Hitler's klick?) Seems like a little more thought on "sovereign nation" and just exactly what that is might be to our best interest. Also, seems with each passing day "they" are anxious to give us reasons why we should lose respect for gov't and authority and, the effects of this are rather frightening--it even touches my neighborhood--a place which was once safe and secure. I can hardly see how this is not having an effect on this great hobby--amateur radio is not an isolated island. John |
Jim:
Yes, the bush is a bit of a worry... Rummy said we will be in Iraq another 12 years--I expect they will have just finished stealing their oil by then... John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... John, You must realize that I *love* the United States. It is because of that love that I am very afraid of GW. The attack on Afghanistan was fully justified, especially since they wanted to protect Bin Laden. The attack on Iraq seems more than a bit muddied. Now that one or two generals mentioned what was needed and that things were not going as expected, I'd expect heads to roll (their heads). I have great faith and trust in our military. GW was not listening to his military advisors as to what was needed in the first place, and I shan't mention the missing weapons. Many members of the military who have been in the military for a couple of decades have experienced war. The high ranking officers likely have lead in some of those ... um ... skirmishes? I suspect they have a far better idea as to what it takes than someone who apparently found a way to avoid military service almost entirely (except for, perhaps, a week). High ranking military officials have input that is sorely needed in the White House; unfortunately, they were ignored. I have no desire to appease either the French or the Muslims. I do wish, however, that I could go back to my grandfather's native Scotland if only to visit. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Well, go take of your french buddies, maybe you will want to appease the muslims too... John "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Hello, John You are correct - HF (and MF) amateur radio is not isolated. Signals cross international boundaries. As to "sovereign nation, it sounds good and is, except that what we are discussing crosses international boundaries. The international agreements will have to happen - or would you prefer that Radio Moscow rear it's head on a directional array running 5,000,000 watts in the middle of our AM broadcast band? VHF and above does not often stray far (although the stuff from 30 MHz to perhaps a bit above 6 meters can and does at times, especially during the peak of the sunspot cycle); therefore the FCC is very free to rearrange things that don't affect satellite transmission/reception. Heck, when you said "one world order", I thought you were going to mention our friend, GW 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Yes, you touch on globalization and "one world order" and/or "new order" (hey, wasn't that a phrase invented by Adolph Hitler's klick?) Seems like a little more thought on "sovereign nation" and just exactly what that is might be to our best interest. Also, seems with each passing day "they" are anxious to give us reasons why we should lose respect for gov't and authority and, the effects of this are rather frightening--it even touches my neighborhood--a place which was once safe and secure. I can hardly see how this is not having an effect on this great hobby--amateur radio is not an isolated island. John |
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. 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. If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF. Low end of L-Band, in the microwaves. Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for long-distance communications. 1912 was NINETY THREE YEARS AGO, senior. The "audion" was only six years old and "electronics professionals" were still trying to figure out how to make them. When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929, 40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz - exact harmonics of 80! Got any more CUT AND PASTE from "200 Meters and Down?" Anybody in here born BEFORE 1929, senior? Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio. It's all about fiber optics. Really?!? "Nothing to do with radio" yet it is a main subject of the following trade magazines: "Microwaves and RF," "RF Design." Not to mention the big Microwave Symposium recently in Long Beach, CA. The 100 MILLION plus 2-way RADIO handsets (called "cell phones") don't have any "fiber" attached to them. GPS doesn't work by "fiber." Those hundreds of thousands of public safety, utility, transport companies, businesses of all sizes, in VHF-UHF aren't communicating via "fiber." WLANS are RADIO since they were done to get AWAY from "fiber." RFID tag interrogators are working in RADIO frequencies in stores all over the USA and possessions. No "fiber." Bluetooth devices are short-range two-way RADIOS without "fiber" and most of those work with fiber-less cell phones. YOU need more mental fiber in your knowledge diet. Big business and the Republicans rule. "What's good for General Bullmoose...." Next time be careful of who you vote for. I've always been careful that way... 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. The POLITICAL newsgroups are up on the other floor. This one is about AMATEUR RADIO. Go join your "friend" there, okay? |
bb wrote: wrote: Although several years ago, Riley's comments are worth a look: "This Amateur Radio service is serious business." Not once in the speech is the word "hobby" used. Must be why this newsgroup is on "rec" along with all the other hobbies. Guess it's because someone OTHER than an FCC operative had to make that call? Steve, K4YZ |
wrote: From: on Mon 27 Jun 2005 03:19 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." And this has what to do with his impact on Amateur Radio? At least he's ON a "list, Lennie... You're not even an "also ran..." It is true that nowhere in Title 47 C.F.R. are the words "hobby" or "ham radio" given. 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. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..............THAT'S it! No Money = Doesn't Count. Alllllllllllllllll riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighty then! 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. However the FCC ALSO says that Amateur Radio is a pool of radio operators for EMERGENCY communications, and both history and current events bears out that Amateur Radio is/was/and shall continue for the foreseeable future to be the resource of choice for numerous disaster relief providers and agencies, public and private. Amateur radio in the USA is NOT a "national service." Sure it is. All throughout Title 47 C.F.R. the word "service" is a regulatory term denoting a type and kind of radio activity being regulated. Keep repeating that to yourself over and over, Lennie. Is the Citizens Band Radio SERVICE a "national service?" No. Sure it is. Is the Amateur Radio Service a "national service?" No. Sure it is. There's a difference between words used "de jure" (by law as stated) and "de facto" (what it really is in practice). Neither of THOSE terms show up in Part 97 either! 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. Wrong. Amateur Radio is a radio service that may be USED as a hobby, and virtually is. However there are a great many things in this Nation of ours that it's citizens do for their own personal gratification (ie: hobby) that I seriously doubt anyone would consider a "hobby"...EMS, or Emergency Medical Services, for example. Depending on whose numbers you like better, anywhere from 55% to 75% of EMS is provided by volunteers. Ditto fire suppression...(yes, even in Southern California, Lennie...) By YOUR rationalization, Lennie, we can call EMS and fire suppression "hobbies". How assinine would THAT be...?!?! "...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). No. It's documented fact. Physically, the cellular telephone services, an adjunct to the wired telephone infrastructure, does NOT "go down" either "first" or last. No...In Southern Florida this most recent past hurricaine season, many of the towers WENT DOWN...Not meaning "for maintenance" or due to "overload"...They were toppled. TELEPHONE communications is "jammed" only by too many panic-stricken subscribers trying to use it simultaneously at the onset of some emergency. That too. But inoperative is inoperative. " 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." And some have not...In some cases for WEEKS. In those cases, Amateur Radio was asked to and did fill those gaps. 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. "We" know that...because "we" are asked to man those other facilities...Hospitals, fire stations, Red Cross offices. That is NOT counting CB or the approximately 100 million cellular telephone radio handsets. CB is useless as anything other than an ancilliary function, and cellphones have too many of their own inadequacies to "go the distance". Proven. Eleven and a half years ago...(SNIP) Lennie, yuo keep citing ONE instance where there was no MAJOR implementation of Amateur Radio as an interim communications resource. One example in over 90 years of history does NOT a trend make. Hollingsworth is a special counsel to the Enforcement Bureau's Spectral enforcers. He should KNOW BETTER than to perpetuate such myths as he stated. But, Hollingsworth does NOT specifically speak FOR amateur radio. He is little more than a "radio cop in a suit." He did not lie. He did NOT "perpetuate such myths"... You are welcome to try and refute his comments, Lennie, but there's tons of historical (and yes CURRENT historical) evidence to support eacn and every word. "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. Simon Pure morseman "does not swear with morse code!" He is "safe to be around the children?" [how many children did you say you "parented?"] What myth? Unfortunatley there ARE some very ill-mouthed persons just as Jim described. And in over 30+ years as an Amateur, mos tof which was HF-CW, I have never "heard" a profanity... I can't say that of phone operations. If you had any practical experience, Lennie, you'd know. Heck, if you even tuneded that antiquated R-70 down band a bit you'd know better... "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). The CODE TEST does NOT prevent verbal abuse via radio. WHO said it did? However it DOES appear as though code USE at least minimizes if not prevents "verbal" abuse...Whether it's just a better class of people or the "effort" one has to put into it makes it less attractive to potential abusers. Should be "'nuff said"..... Here's another: David Sumner's editorial pieces in QST are done by David Sumner. James Miccolis has not been invited to become any "guest commentator" or "moral guardian" of U.S. amateur radio. 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. Can we add that certain ex-radio technician and his Army days to that? Seems he has HIS weaknesses about wanting to be the "moral guardian" of a radio service that he haas NO licensure or vested interest in... Steve, K4YZ |
From: K4YZ on Jun 28, 7:05
am Is the Citizens Band Radio SERVICE a "national service?" No. Sure it is. Is the Amateur Radio Service a "national service?" No. Sure it is. Waaaa, waaaa, liddle Stebie stamps his feet and yells "is too! is too!" :-) "We" know that...because "we" are asked to man those other facilities...Hospitals, fire stations, Red Cross offices. Heroes to a man, Medal of Honor winners, Nobel Laureates and forever in the hearts of their countrymen.....yawwwwn. "The patriotic bunting is up, the bunting is waving...the bunting is down...you have twenty seconds..." One example in over 90 years of history does NOT a trend make. Jimmie Grasshopper always says that. Unfortunatley there ARE some very ill-mouthed persons just as Jim described. And in over 30+ years as an Amateur, mos tof which was HF-CW, I have never "heard" a profanity... "Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!" :-) "Mos Tof?" Is that a sister planet to "Mos Eisely" in "Star Wars?" "Unfortunatley" poor Stebie is mad as hell again and can't take his spelling again... Heck, if you even tuneded that antiquated R-70 down band a bit you'd know better... Samantha needs to cast a "spell" on Stebie... Should be easy, everyone else wrinkling their nose when Stebie writes... However it DOES appear as though code USE at least minimizes if not prevents "verbal" abuse...Whether it's just a better class of people or the "effort" one has to put into it makes it less attractive to potential abusers. Morse code is safe for CHILDREN? Yes. All morsemen can behave as children safely...in here. And some do! :-) A jolly Foxtrot Uniform to you, too, hero of "seven hostile actions!" Temper fry. |
wrote in message ps.com... 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. What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80 meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country). If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it. 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. I think the main point of all this is that it's really up to *us hams* to show that we're worth our allocations. That's one reason on-air behavior really matters! 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 "minor" laws, like going after turnstile-jumpers, graffiti and trash/rubbish violations. Some people asked if tax money wouldn't be better spent going after drug dealers and murderers. RG's theory was that if you allow the "little stuff" to get slack, the big stuff gets slack too. In any event, NYC's crime, large and small, went down. Same principle applies on the ham bands. But FCC can't do it all - there's the question of what we hams consider acceptable behavior. FCC enforcement is complaint-driven - just ask K1MAN. A key factor in his case is that many, many hams complained about his violations over a long period of time. If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF. I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles. Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz. 300 GHz in far infra-red light! Sure - but isn't that the way it's always been? Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for long-distance communications. When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929, 40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz - exact harmonics of 80! Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do (and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on all users to use it (effectively) or loose it. I agree up to a point. Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio. It's all about fiber optics. Heck, I bet that the vast majority of telecommunications today (in terms of bits/mile) does *not* go by radio, but by copper or glass. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc. are simply a way of getting the last mile without a wire or fiber. Broadcasting as we knew it will probably morph into something aimed mostly at mobile users. Heck, the real value of HF (as perceived by regulators) is demonstrated by BPL. As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't carry world-wide. *Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146 is worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. They took eminent domain to a new high - or low. Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who wants to put up McMansions. Big business and the Republicans rule. "What's good for General Bullmoose...." Next time be careful of who you vote for. I've always been careful that way... 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. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA 73 de Jim, N2EY Hello, Jim LOL, I got a chuckle from your post. You are right; I was generalizing. Of course, the FCC has input, but international agreements we have to follow (I hope). I'm glad you have enjoy 'lil Abner in the past. I always loved that strip. What's good for ..... LOL Fortunately, in this country we are free to disagree, rather than being placed in a tree grinder or whatever ;) As to the Democrats, I hate to admit it but you just may have hit the nail on the head. Point well taken :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
wrote in message ups.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. 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. If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies. Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF. Low end of L-Band, in the microwaves. Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for long-distance communications. 1912 was NINETY THREE YEARS AGO, senior. The "audion" was only six years old and "electronics professionals" were still trying to figure out how to make them. When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929, 40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz - exact harmonics of 80! Got any more CUT AND PASTE from "200 Meters and Down?" Anybody in here born BEFORE 1929, senior? Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio. It's all about fiber optics. Really?!? "Nothing to do with radio" yet it is a main subject of the following trade magazines: "Microwaves and RF," "RF Design." Not to mention the big Microwave Symposium recently in Long Beach, CA. The 100 MILLION plus 2-way RADIO handsets (called "cell phones") don't have any "fiber" attached to them. GPS doesn't work by "fiber." Those hundreds of thousands of public safety, utility, transport companies, businesses of all sizes, in VHF-UHF aren't communicating via "fiber." WLANS are RADIO since they were done to get AWAY from "fiber." RFID tag interrogators are working in RADIO frequencies in stores all over the USA and possessions. No "fiber." Bluetooth devices are short-range two-way RADIOS without "fiber" and most of those work with fiber-less cell phones. YOU need more mental fiber in your knowledge diet. Big business and the Republicans rule. "What's good for General Bullmoose...." Next time be careful of who you vote for. I've always been careful that way... 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. The POLITICAL newsgroups are up on the other floor. This one is about AMATEUR RADIO. Go join your "friend" there, okay? Hello, Len Amateur radio policy is *devoid* of politics? ROTFLMAO. The Repooblican party, big business, and frequency allocations have quite a bit of politics involved, my friend. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message ps.com... Jim Hampton wrote: *Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146 is worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it. Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business. Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to someone else. They took eminent domain to a new high - or low. Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who wants to put up McMansions. I saw a headline that some private developer wants to use the new ruling to get some private property eminent-domained so he can build on it. The land currently belongs to one of the Supremes (and I don't mean the singers) see: www.fark.com (very good site, btw) Big business and the Republicans rule. "What's good for General Bullmoose...." Next time be careful of who you vote for. I've always been careful that way... 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! Of course I could be wrong. When she carpetbagged to New York State I was sure there was no way she could get elected. But ya gotta ask - is HRC the best the Dems can do for 2008? Sheesh! (then again, look at what the 'pubs have offered us....) 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. Hello, Jim LOL, I got a chuckle from your post. You are right; I was generalizing. Of course, the FCC has input, but international agreements we have to follow (I hope). At least so far as frequency allocations are concerned. I'm glad you have enjoy 'lil Abner in the past. One wonders if it could be done today. Moonbeam McSwine, Stupefyin' Jones, and my personal favorite, Appassionata Von Climax. I heard the Broadway soundtrack album as a kid many, many times. I always loved that strip. What's good for ..... LOL Art imitates life. Panfried shmoos, anyone? Then there was Pogo.... Fortunately, in this country we are free to disagree, rather than being placed in a tree grinder or whatever ;) At least for now, anyway. As to the Democrats, I hate to admit it but you just may have hit the nail on the head. Point well taken :) The sad part of it for me is that Bill Clinton was perhaps the biggest factor in all of it. Normally an incumbent VP should have won in a walk, but Bill's misbehavior in office forced Algore to lose all coattails. Which set the stage for Shrub to win. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA I still miss Palmyra 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com