|
N2EY:
I don't imagine any can argue amateur radio has "evolved", sometimes faster, sometimes slower. Now is just another step in that evolution... Amateur history can be read on the web, or a book from amazon, your local library, etc, a few authors give a few different viewpoints also... John On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:22:10 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: Phil: At the core of the "Radio Act of 1912", and grossly paraphrased here by me, seems the statement, "Here you guys sign up and get registered, then take this range of freqs and see what you can do with them. See if you can come up with ideas which advance the use of radio and we can use in the benefit of america and its' citizens." Except for "Here you guys sign up and get registered", that's not what it was about at all. What the 1912 act did was to organize what had been a haphazard system. While the Titanic disaster gave them the impetus to act, the legislation had been developed and discussed for years before. Amateurs (meaning stations that were not commercial, government or maritime) were pushed to 200 meters and beyond, because those wavelengths were considered to be relatively useless by the professionals. Licenses were made mandatory to keep tabs on all transmitting stations. But the "200 Meters And Down" spectrum was not limited to amateurs. Any radio service could use it - all they needed was a station license. Few except amateurs even tried. Amateurs did not have free reign, either. Back then a station's wavelength was specified on the station license. If a ham wanted to try, say, 110 meters, s/he needed a license specifying 110 meters. Somehow, along the way, things got bogged down and an abundance of people came to the hobby who wanted a set of rules which they could religiously worship and practice and invoke for disciplinary actions to be taken on others not holding a religious reverence for such, this has been detrimental to the original purpose and goals... That's just nonsense. What happened was that the regulations evolved over time, driven by a number of forces. This now lays at the extreme end where you must be careful what experiments you undertake, how you undertake them and why you can't undertake them... How? What experiments are you kept from undertaking, and by whom? in someways there are "guards" on the bands as exist in prisons, and you are "allowed out in the yard" if you obey all the rules... FCC makes the rules. Are you advocating ignoring those rules? strange for a hobby first created as a means to try new ideas which could possibly lead somewhere... So what's your proposal? BPL is perhaps a very good example, where arrl and other "status quo" forces banded together and ended up having the effect of saying, "We already know that won't work! Don't attempt any experiments, don't do any testing, don't gather any data, don't lay any plans. Don't plan on being able to change and redesign hardware/software to attempt to make it work! Cease and desist immediately, we so command you!" The interference provided by BPL systems has been observed and demonstrated. It's a fact. One doesn't have to be a radio genius to see that power lines with HF on them will radiate like mad and interfere with licensed radio stations. Would you rather that nobody opposed BPL? |
On 17 Aug 2005 12:36:57 -0700, N9OGL wrote:
The problem I have with some of the rules is that they are too vague. Gee...I don't have any problem reading the rules (and interpreting them correctly) and thus knowing what is allowed and not allowed. The problem isn't in the rules.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
On 18 Aug 2005 03:01:44 -0700, K4YZ wrote:
Is Congressman Sherman NOT elected for the purpose of representing your issues and concerns to the government? Is there some list of topics somewhere that says you can't discuss federal regulations with your elected representitive in a public forum? Such discussion is futile unless the parties involved are educated in the specifics of the field under discussion. I and a lot of my counterparts have had to educate more than one elected/appointed representative (local, state, Federal) about what professional and proper radio regulation is all about to avoid them embarrasing themselves in public. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
From: on Thurs 18 Aug 2005 14:45
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large It was large enough and organized enough for its issue. And being a single issue organization, the membership was in agreement about its issue. Heck, agreement was/is a condition of membership! Oh, my, watch out everyone, Jimmie is tossing them old red herrings around again! :-) It's interesting that NCI was and is so secretive about its numbers. Why? You sound worried. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie, you were all a-twitter about that back in the days of "No SSB International" and "Know Code International"! :-) I'm a member of NCI. Carl Stevenson is a mamber of NCI. Bill Sohl is a member of NCI. Last I heard, it amounted to less than 7000 members worldwide. You MIGHT try the entire International Amateur Radio Union as far as no-code-test advocacy. Remember them? IARU? ALL the REST of the amateur radio organizations in the world? Tsk, tsk, tsk, the IARU came out in favor of DROPPING the morse code test about two years BEFORE WRC-03. Really! It was on their website and everything! Ya know what, yanno, S25 got REWRITTEN at WRC-03 and S25.5 had the compulsory everybody-gotta test for morse for privileges below 30 MHz licenses. By the way, the membership of the ARRL is or rather was 149,583 as of 30 June 2005. Ya wanna know how easy it was to find that out, yanno? NOT easy. The ONLY place it was in was the "Publisher's Sworn Statement" under the Advertising page of the QST page of the Services page. The ARRL can't be up-front about it. Even so, those "Publisher's Sworn Statement" numbers come out only twice a year. Based on www.hamdata.com statistics of a month ago (18 July 2005), about as close to 30 June as anything, the total INDIVIDUAL U.S. amateur radio licenses then were 721,953 (731,543 with the 9,590 "club" licenses added on). That means that only 20.72% of all U.S. licensees are League members...roughly one out of five. -- I think that crediting NCI for the code test reduction/elimination is a bit like crediting the rooster for the dawn. Look at the history: Yawn, Jimmie crack corn and I don't care... :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk...forgetting that the rest of the world "didn't do anything" are you? :-) 1990: FCC creates medical waivers at White House request, to do a favor for a foreign head of state. Tsk, tsk, tsk...UNVERIFIED urban myth, Jimmie. You FORGOT one very important little detail: The NPRM on creation of the no-code-test Technician class was released. 1991: FCC creates a nocodetest ham license in USA by simply eliminating code test from Technician. "Simply?" :-) It was called a REPORT and ORDER. That no-code-test Technician class accounted for about 200 K *new* amateur licensees in its 14 year span...many, many more than any OTHER *new* class licensees. 1996: NCI formed By Bruce Perens, a 20 WPM code-tested Extra. Tsk, you really ought to credit "No SSB International" and "Know Code International" for something, shouldn't you? :-) 2000: FCC reduces code testing to 5 wpm for all classes requiring a code test despite majority of comments supporting 2 or 3 code test speeds. States that treaty requirement is only reason 5 wpm was kept. Also reduces written testing. Oh, my, "the majority wanted lots of code testing" urban myth surfaces again! Maybe you ought to look at LeRoy (Larry) Klose III exhibits back in 1999 again? I have them. Need a copy because you can't find them on the ECFS? 2001: The IARU comes out against compulsory amateur radio code testing, wanting to rewrite S25 to make it optional for any administration. 2002: The IWG 6 group handling amateur radio matters for the WRC discusses the S25 revision and Carl Stevenson, then-chief of NCI was present at those discussions (plural, you can find the minutes on the FCC website under International Bureau documents). 2003: WRC-2003 eliminates treaty requirement for code test. Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT the IARU input to WRC-03, Jimmie. Best you read the FCC International Bureau REPORT on WRC-03 again (if you ever did). The report was written by the leader of the U.S. Administration team that was there. ALSO in that year marked the first of the 18 Petitions for various "restructurings" of U.S. amateur regulations, the majority of those Petitions favoring No Code Test either entirely or in part. 2004: The rest of the 18 Petitions show up with the VEC wanting NO CODE TEST whatsoever. 2005: FCC proposes complete elimination of code testing, as proposed by several petitions. ...and you see "NO" influence of NCI at all, do you? Tsk, tsk, tsk. The trend to nocodetest, and to less testing overall, was clear long before NCI appeared on the scene. Yawn, yanno. What next? Dropping code testing was controlled by the Trilateral Commission or the Illuminati?!? :-) con gam |
wrote in message Yawn |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com