|
here is an issue, Operating and the Rules
Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just
obey the letter? Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong Are we self policing or not? Should we be self policing? |
AOF:
The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:58:12 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just obey the letter? Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong Are we self policing or not? Should we be self policing? |
AOF:
You know, there is an experiment which was done in the pursuit of studying animal behavior and psychology: (and lets' face it, humans are animals) A frog was tossed into a pan of water which was dis-comfortably warm--he jumped out immediately to seek a cooler spot. A frog was tossed into a pan of water which as dangerously warm--same occurred, frog left for cooler areas. Now, a frog is placed into a pan of nice cool water to its' liking, and the water ever so slowly warmed. Even when the temperature climbs to the point where the frog expires, rolls over, and becomes SK (no more croaks ever!) it remains within the pan of water. All of the biological safeguards which uncounted eons of time had given that frog to escape danger have been defeated, and all because it happened so gradually... So is the saga of amateur radio... and it has taken decades... now comes the wake-up call. John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:58:12 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just obey the letter? Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong Are we self policing or not? Should we be self policing? |
an_old_friend wrote: Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just obey the letter? Where does it suggest in FCC rules that you are allowed to deviate from the letter, Mark? And who's going to be the arbitrator of what is "rule" and what is "intent"? Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations are set up to do both, but on a limited basis. The "Basis and Purpose" of the ARS as defined in 97.1 establishes "intent" for the deployment of the Amateur Radio service. But in that "intent" does not set any "rules" for operating. The remainder of Part 97, for the most part, makes specific do's and don'ts, ie: operating bands, power limits, identification, etc. The Constitution of the United States is a document drawn up in such a way as to be intentionally susceptible to "interpretation" and change as current needs dictate. RULES are just that...rules. They usually specify certain things you MUST do, things you MAY do and certain things you must NOT do. Although not always successful, they are written so as to be as unambiguous as possible. Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong That's what the rule making process is all about, and people already use it every day. As for "hiding", what are you talking about? You either comply with what is written or you don't. Are we self policing or not? To the degree allowed by law. Then the law steps in. Should we be self policing? What's your alternative? Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just obey the letter? Where does it suggest in FCC rules that you are allowed to deviate from the letter, Mark? Excellent question And who's going to be the arbitrator of what is "rule" and what is "intent"? Excellent question Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations are set up to do both, but on a limited basis. The "Basis and Purpose" of the ARS as defined in 97.1 establishes "intent" for the deployment of the Amateur Radio service. But in that "intent" does not set any "rules" for operating. The remainder of Part 97, for the most part, makes specific do's and don'ts, ie: operating bands, power limits, identification, etc. The Constitution of the United States is a document drawn up in such a way as to be intentionally susceptible to "interpretation" and change as current needs dictate. RULES are just that...rules. They usually specify certain things you MUST do, things you MAY do and certain things you must NOT do. Although not always successful, they are written so as to be as unambiguous as possible. Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong That's what the rule making process is all about, and people already use it every day. As for "hiding", what are you talking about? You either comply with what is written or you don't. Trifle touchy arent we Are we self policing or not? To the degree allowed by law. Then the law steps in. Should we be self policing? What's your alternative? Excellent question Steve, K4YZ |
an_old_friend wrote: Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just obey the letter? IMHO, hams should respect the intent of the rules as well as the exact letter of the rules. The trouble is that different hams have different ideas as to what the intent really is. Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong If someone thinks a rule can be improved, they should say so. However, they should understand that simply because they think a rule isn't the way it should be doesn't make it 'wrong'. I don't see how someone can "hide behind the rules". Are we self policing or not? Should we be self policing? A lot depends on what is meant by "self-policing". IMHO, hams themselves can do the following: - Inform fellow hams of observed or suspected violations ("Did you know your signal is so wide it's bringing up the repeater on the adjacent frequency?" - Set a good example in rules compliance - Inform FCC of uncorrected violations - Have nothing to do with those who commit repeated and/or serious violations. But enforcement by FCC is still needed. That doesn't mean FCC is expected to do everything, however. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 17 Aug 2005 09:36:19 -0700 wrote:
| I don't see how someone can "hide behind the rules". How about someone operating in such a way that they are in literal compliance with the rule, but many others believe they are violating the intent. Sorry, I can't give an example of such a situation; maybe one can be found from other people's experience. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ | | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
John I have had to sit in class and watch that one on film, I dropped
the class the next day |
AOF:
Well, the experiment is continuing. Such an experiment began with the "Radio Act of 1912" when the first amateur license was issued, it continues to this day and beyond... a review of the data gained after close to 100 years should show us what has been done right, and what is in need of change... John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:15:30 -0700, an old friend wrote: John I have had to sit in class and watch that one on film, I dropped the class the next day |
AOF:
.... make note, I do see your point. The poor frog gave its' all to teach us an important lesson--and so few have ever paid attention... waste of a damn good frog if you ask me! John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:15:30 -0700, an old friend wrote: John I have had to sit in class and watch that one on film, I dropped the class the next day |
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." 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... 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... 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... strange for a hobby first created as a means to try new ideas which could possibly lead somewhere... 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!" John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:14:57 +0000, phil-news-nospam wrote: On 17 Aug 2005 09:36:19 -0700 wrote: | I don't see how someone can "hide behind the rules". How about someone operating in such a way that they are in literal compliance with the rule, but many others believe they are violating the intent. Sorry, I can't give an example of such a situation; maybe one can be found from other people's experience. |
an old friend wrote: Excellent question Excellent question Trifle touchy arent we Excellent question Well that was a meaningful exchange. Steve, K4YZ |
an_old_friend wrote: Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just obey the letter? Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong Are we self policing or not? Should we be self policing? The problem I have with some of the rules is that they are too vague. Todd N9OGL |
N9OGL keyed in his worry of, "The problem I have with some of the rules is
that they are too vague." John thought, "Well, that beats those who don't like the rules because they don't demand what the person in questions believes "should be." Or, wants rules instituted which are conductive to that persons wants and personal desires." John further hoped this was no ones intent here, control and establishing rules for personal likes/dis-likes of that person and/or his group of "good ole buddies"--but being of a naturally suspicious nature, John kept one eye open... John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:36:57 -0700, N9OGL wrote: The problem I have with some of the rules is that they are too vague. |
wrote maybe one can be found from other people's experience. K1MAN? |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. John It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices. One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
You are, as quite often happens, correct... John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:13:57 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. John It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices. One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06
AOF: The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel. :-) In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... Before about 1993 (give or take), the only effective organization for anything before the government was the one with a lobbyist or legal representative IN the DC area. The ARRL has TWO, a legal firm and a lobbying firm (its on their federal tax forms filed with the government...public documents, not privileged). The GPO printed up the Federal Register in the late night before and in the wee small hours of the morning of the day a Register was released. Wasn't like a magazine printed one to two months before its issue date. Postal service was only as swift as anyone could afford: USPS, FedEx, UPS all charged more for overnight delivery...but otherwise were the same speed for regular surface mail - at least three days. If you didn't have anyone able to get into the FCC Reading Room then you waited days and days to get news or information. After the Internet went public in 1991, the U.S. government jumped onto the Internet (with the help of leadership for that from Algore) with all four paws. Suddenly the government AND the military was all over the 'Net. What we got (in what seems like "overnight") was something we did NOT have befo Instant access to OUR government from our homes and businesses with none of the (formerly) necessary middleman to go through like a membership organization or special interest group. NO waiting for days and days to get a response by mail, NO need to rack up expensive minutes waiting for some long-distance telephonic answers, NO possible distortion of news through anyone. The information was now THERE...from the agency/office that created the news! Remarkable stuff! In one way, it was like the maritime world of 1900. Ships at sea just did NOT have any way to communicate over the horizon quickly before radio. Suddenly they GOT a means to do that and it was ten kinds of wonderful, even if the average rate was 10 words per minute (faster than signal flags and semaphores in optical sighting to the horizon). In the same way, we citizens (in many lands) can communicate DIRECTLY with OUR governments. No "horizon blockage" from middlemen groups that acted as quasi-governmental "representatives" (which weren't government and thus without any security that they were honest). a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. What MUST be done is to de-brainwash, de-toxify all that conditioned thinking put there by special interest groups. To those NOT of the congregation of the Church of St. Hiram, we can see the fantastic propaganda opportunity of having a combination PUBLISHING HOUSE and a membership organization. It's a guaranteed built-in brainwashing attachment to have almost COMPLETE control of that publishing output. The ARRL has been doing publishing - with complete CONTROL of ALL contents - since the end of World War One, roughly 85 years or more than four generations and longer than most folks' lifespan. With such a long-running TOTALLY CONTROLLED information source, the League has established themselves as a virtual monopoly on "what is good for amateurism." [the League knows what is best for you...etc., etc., etc] With such a fantastic environment for conditioned thinking, it is NOT remarkable that lots of folks Believe in all that the ARRL dictates. They became a virtual Big Brother for U.S. amateur radio, a personification of Orwell's "1984" novel of the 1920s. It's not a "conspiracy theory." It is out in the open and has been for years. Before the Internet went public in 1991 the ARRL was *the* interface for the radio amateur and his/her government radio regulating agency. Times have changed remarkably. First of all, the REST of the radio world wasn't looking to any ARRL to advance the state of the art of radio communication...they simply went ahead and DID it. The REST OF THE RADIO WORLD pioneered the "shortwaves", SSB radio, TTY-RTTY-RATT, FM voice, TV and facsimile, microwave and orbiting satellite radio relay, moon bounce...and international networks as public access communications providers before the amateur "NTS" became successful. The maritime world now uses SSB voice and TOR data on open water...and VHF voice on inland, in-shore communications...the "sparkies" are a memory. Police departments were testing FM voice radios before we got into WW2 and set the pattern for ALL public safety agencies' mobile radio communications; they just didn't bother with any morsemanship (except in certain reported midwestern states) for 24/7 emergency communications (that happen every day across the country). The brainwashing that "CW is necessary for emergency comms" is TOTAL MORSE MYTH a la conditioned thinking in this new millennium; the Titanic tragedy happened 93 years ago, two years before the ARRL was ever formed (originally as a private group to hack telegraphic providers by doing their own "message relay" - from ARRL's own history). The history of the REST of the radio world has been made and is documented fact for anyone who bothers to look... there's an enormous amount of it. The ARRL, if it bothers to mention any of it at all, will gloss over that and imply that "amateurs pioneered it all" which is patently untrue. But, the myths still exist in many minds who accept the conditioned thinking wash-and-scrub as "fact" because anything else is Against what they WANT to Believe. Some want the amateur radio hobby to be something noble, glorious, and IMPORTANT...perhaps with TITLES so that they can be "better" than others. They are wannabe SERVICEMEN in some imaginary uniform "serving their country" by doing a radio hobby! [they are either on a round-the-world ego trip or need to rationalize all the money and time spent on the hobby] THAT sort of thinking can't be over- come by logic or normal reasoning...without having the medical psychiatric smarts to restore sanity. Ain't enough gray-cell soap in the world to make them come clean in a short time. Gonna take a lonnnnng period of scrubbing. boo ego |
wrote: From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06 AOF: The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel. Poor Lennie. Can't stand it that there ARE other avenues "where ideas for change, restructuring and progress" may be "introduced". Means he can't remind us of how impotent he is. Snipped 107 lines of ranting about the discussion procees and Lennie's trademark swipes and insults at Amateur Radio. Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Should Hams in their operator respect the intent of the rules or just obey the letter? Should hams Hide behind the rules or stand up and say you know I think this is right and the rules are wrong Are we self policing or not? Should we be self policing? It is all mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - I'll still hammer the ssb station that tries to qrm me. I switch to cw. :))) pps- assuming the other station can copy at a reasonable rate. 20 or more. |
well stveie hacks a post apart
K4YZ wrote: an old friend wrote: Excellent question Excellent question Trifle touchy arent we Excellent question Well that was a meaningful exchange. Gee even when a guy agrees with you, you flame him Steve, K4YZ |
From: "Dee Flint" on Wed 17 Aug 2005 18:13
"John Smith" wrote in message In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices. One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it. It "won't do it?!?" Oh, my, but you've been saying it WOULD! Okay, the ARRL has been in existance since 1914 and they've been a PUBLISHING BUSINESS as well since the mid-1920s. So, the ARRL has had a bit over 80 years to publish its little maxims (pun not quite intended) for all "good" hams to follow for four generations now. Note that INCOME from the publishing business supports more of the ARRL activities than any amount of "membership dues" can do. A few years ago the ARRL declared on their federal income tax forms that their total income was $12.5 MILLION that year. Note also that legal representation is NOT inexpensive...Chris Imlay's law firm going to do all its ARRL legal work pro bono? [inconceivable in American law practice! :-) ] Do the math. The League would have to get EVERY licensed U.S. radio amateur to join up at the current dues rates in order to come CLOSE to that sort of income. All those ARRL Life Members paid a one-shot fee and are no longer required to pay anything more so their dues won't show up on the annual League budget now. Can ANY *new* amateur radio membership organization come close to the ARRL's penetration of U.S. ham radio? Not at the grass- roots level, not after the League has had an existance of four generations just as a publishing business (91 years as an incorporated membership entity). This *new* membership organization MUST have some significant monetary support at the START in order to survive. That's very, very difficult today. There have been several tries in the past three decades (give or take) and none have been successful in coming close to the League establishment. Can one join the League and "effect change from within" (that's your repeated mantra stated several times before) ? I doubt that from the simple reason of reading all those ARRL BoD minutes, seeing all those same names showing up for so many years. The public does NOT see EVERYTHING going on in Newington nor at those aperiodic gatherings of wheeler-dealer junkets at various cities. What we do see are nice, formal gatherings of Good Old Boys discussing very, very little new that will affect a majority of American radio amateurs (remember that the ARRL says it "represents all amateurs"...ahem, koff koff). ARRL membership figures show that only one out of five U.S. radio amateurs are members. 20%. They've almost had 25% at one point in their 91 years. The League keeps asking for more money...such as the "Spectrum Defense Fund." Ahem, it didn't get a whole BAND at 60 meters, did it? Guess they "didn't SPEND enough" lobbying for one? The IARU managed to press home a sort-of future solution for 40 meters that has been lingering since WARC-79 (that's now shown up in the Federal Register as the big WRC-03 Omnibus action that is an Order). The League keeps supporting all those olde-tymers of their core membership...the Lifers, the Belivers...and ignores the 48% of all U.S. amateur licensees who are Technician class. Of course, you will trumpet "join the League, start changing from the 'inside'"...which means PAYING to get in...which means all joiners will be on Address Lists they can sell for more INCOME. Lovely legal scam-equiivalent. shrug No problem, Dee. You aren't reading this anyway. Others do. Others have already known about it for years. That may be one reason the membership doesn't reflect a greater percentage of the total licensees... now pay |
From: "K4YZ" on Wed, Aug 17 2005 4:01 pm
wrote: From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06 The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel. Poor Lennie. I'm not "poor," little Stebie, rather reasonably well-off, NO liens at all, wife and I just bought a new car, we both have income other than Social Security. We own two houses, one in Los Angeles, the other in Kitsap County, WA...no mortgages on either. Can't stand it that there ARE other avenues "where ideas for change, restructuring and progress" may be "introduced". Incorrect. There are MANY avenues for change, restructuring and progress. For civilian radio there is ONLY ONE and that ONE is the Federal Communications Commission for U.S. citizens. In recent amateur radio history, FCC 99-412 was the Report and Order that ordered the latest "Restructuring" of U.S. amateur radio regulations. That was commented on by over 2300 documents from citizens under WT Docket 98-143. More recent were the EIGHTEEN Petitions for Rulemaking, some of which were DENIED in FCC 05-143 and the International Morse Code test element 1 elimination being THE singular topic of WT Docket 05-235. As of midnight EDT 16 August 2005 there were no less than 1646 documents filed in WT Docket 05-235. Amateur radio regulations were NOT a topic of discussions at a neighborhood meeting of our City Councilwoman two weeks ago at the All-Saints Church parish hall. They won't be at Congressman Brad Sherman's Town Meeting next week in Northridge, CA. Do you think amateur radio regs SHOULD be discussed there? If so, state WHY. Means he can't remind us of how impotent he is. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not to worry, LITTLE Stebie, in a real discussion of real issues affecting the community, I can "get it up" (so to speak) on DISCUSSIONS with relevant facts and figures to support my views. I'm used to it, can do it effectively. One thing I do NOT do is - like your sexual innuendo misdirection - try to divert the discussion into some mean-spirited self-frustrated ATTACK on other personalities. While that serves to temporarily HIDE YOU on your lack of facts and logic on the SUBJECT under discussion, it is by no means any sort of positive attribute for yourself. It is rather a negative attribute that shows how shallow and ignorant you are with all that emotional instability of hatred manifesting itself at every opportunity. Putz. Giving it back to you in your own style - 4 Q :-) own imp |
Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. John It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices. One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it. Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. John It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices. One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it. 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. Dee D. Flint, |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... cuting 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. membership in the sates was a few thousand(Bill, or Carl any numbers) was more or less organized here on RRAP, much smaller than the ARRL Indeed NCI makes a good case that any wel organized group with a clear and convincing idea can effect change, and with far smaller numbers than ARRL Dee D. Flint, |
From: "K4YZ" on Thurs 18 Aug 2005 03:01
wrote: From: "K4YZ" on Wed, Aug 17 2005 4:01 pm wrote: From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06 The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel. Poor Lennie. I'm not "poor," little Stebie, rather reasonably well-off, NO liens at all, wife and I just bought a new car, we both have income other than Social Security. We own two houses, one in Los Angeles, the other in Kitsap County, WA...no mortgages on either. Sure you are. Agreement is always agreeable... :-) Oh, I am sure you have the material things you claim, but that's ALL you have. Considerably MORE, but then, as usual, you are turning this thread into your own Personal Attack forum, away from the subject. You're a proven liar, a miscreant who's word is worthless. It's quite obvious to all that your sentence quoted above, taken in context, shows your personal hatred of any opponent. So congratulations on your wise financial investments. Because your "word" wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee in a free soup kitchen. More of your personal hatred coming to a boil. Get some ashes and sackcloth to complete the picture, Job. Can't stand it that there ARE other avenues "where ideas for change, restructuring and progress" may be "introduced". Incorrect. There are MANY avenues for change, restructuring and progress. For civilian radio there is ONLY ONE and that ONE is the Federal Communications Commission for U.S. citizens. Your "incorrect" is untrue. The Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is LAW and establishes the Federal Communications Commission as the ONLY civil radio regulating agency in the United States of America. What I wrote is TRUE. That there are discussions in THIS forum for those very issues disproves your assertion. NOTHING in this forum carries any weight of LAW. Try to keep a sense of reality however unstable that seems to YOU. The LAW of the United States of America is established. It is ALSO law that the same Constitution that established the laws of this nation carries with it the mechanism for changing those laws at the will of the people of the United States of America. But does that make "untrue" my claim that there ARE other avenues for change of Amateur regulations? The ONLY OTHER "avenues for change" are revolt, insurrection, and an overthrow of the government of the United States of America. Are you advocating such revolt, insurrection, and overthrow of the government of the United States of America? That it eventually winds up in the FCC's lap is a certainty, but is it your contention that the FCC's NPRM/R&O is the ONLY forum for those changes? In regards to a change of regulations as ordered by the Federal Communications Commission under a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of that very same Federal Communications Commission, YES. If you would take the time to read Parts 0 and 1 of Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, you would understand the organization and the methods of change of regulations that makes it possible and lawful to effect a change in those same regulations. They won't be at Congressman Brad Sherman's Town Meeting next week in Northridge, CA. Do you think amateur radio regs SHOULD be discussed there? If so, state WHY. Why not? You did not state any "why." 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? Sigh...one has to repeat very basic Civics to those who only wish to argue... Hello? The Communications Act of 1934 was passed by the Congress of the United States of America. That Congress is composed of two "houses," the Senate and the House of Representatives. A Congressman is a member of the House of Representatives. That Communications Act of 1934 (and as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) made the Federal Communications Commission an independent federal agency with the capability to establish rules and regulations pertaining to all civil radio and certain other communications means...and to have them enforced by the federal government. The Congress of the United States does NOT NORMALLY micro-manage the duties it granted to the Federal Communications Commission by the Laws it passed to create that Commission and that Commission's sphere of authority. Try, TRY to understand that NPRM 05-143 and WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a concern for the general public nor is it a topic for banner headlines in major newspapers. Yes, it could be, but then amateur radio is NOT a major public topic for citizens such as the "deregulation" of the telephone infrastructure that began about four decades ago. TRY to understand that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking put forth by the Federal Communications Commission is FOR such rulemaking as established by the same Federal Communications Commission. The mechanism of such changes has been established by law of the United States of America through the Congress of the United States. Congress has, through a law, granted the Federal Communications Commission certain powers of regulation of civil radio services in the United States. Congress did NOT grant any such powers to the ARRL or any other private organization nor did the Telecommunications Act of 1996 grant any powers to Internet discussion groups to change any Law. The Federal Communications Commission has created, by regulation, the mechanism by which the citizens of the United States of America may discuss, seek changes to, amend, or propose regulations established by the Federal Communications Commission. That same Commission also has established the report of any Report and Order which formally establishes any change in its own regulations. Means he can't remind us of how impotent he is. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not to worry, LITTLE Stebie, in a real discussion of real issues affecting the community, I can "get it up" (so to speak) on DISCUSSIONS with relevant facts and figures to support my views. I'm used to it, can do it effectively. Some of the worlds most destructive powers got to be that way with the spoken word, not a gun. Tsk, little Stebie trying to sound like Tom Paine and winding up a Paine in the ass... That you can "baffle 'em with BS" doesn't make it true...It just means you baffle well. I understand the LAW of the United States of America enough to work within it, using those means lawfully available to me to support or seek changes to laws of the United States of America. That is NOT any sort of "bafflement" and certainly no "lie." The basics of that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and maintained by the Congress of the United States, overseen by the Supreme Court of the United States. One thing I do NOT do is - like your sexual innuendo misdirection - try to divert the discussion into some mean-spirited self-frustrated ATTACK on other personalities. THAT'S ONE OF YOUR MOST OUTRAGEOUS, ABSOLUTLEY IDIOTIC AND TRANSPARENT LIES E V E R LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! This thread began on "issues" of concern over the policies in regard to amateur radio. As usual, little Stebie has turned it into his own "battleground" wherein he is only concerned with his hatred and frustrations against his "opponents" on anything. While that serves to temporarily HIDE YOU on your lack of facts and logic on the SUBJECT under discussion, it is by no means any sort of positive attribute for yourself. READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE THEN TRY TO LIVE IT, LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! ! You have been reminded of the structure of laws of the United States of America. That may be reviewed by yourself from documents established by the government of the United States of America. The common problem with the egocentric opinions of some, such as evident of yourself, is that they cannot abide in ANY opinion contrary to their own personal fanciful interpretation. They, like yourself, become frustrated, angry, and seek to denigrate, humiliate, and insult the persons who do not agree with them. That is NOT debate, NOT discussion, NOT even any civil argument. It is simply the puerile schoolyard-bully tactics of the sociopath, the maladjusted, those frustrated by everyday life who take out their aggressions on others for purely personal reasons. It is clearly evident to any reader of this newsgroup that YOU exist solely to heap abuse on all those you hate, all those who do not agree with you. The SUBJECT is just something you use as a springboard to begin more personal attacks on others. You cannot discuss anything civilly without launching into yet-another-attack on the persons who do not agree with you. you hat |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress can be introduced. In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night. John It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices. One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it. 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! It's interesting that NCI was and is so secretive about its numbers. Last I heard, it amounted to less than 7000 members worldwide. -- 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: 1975: FCC first proposes a nocodetest ham license in USA. 1983: FCC again proposes nocodetest ham license in USA. Early 1980s: FCC "waives" (eliminates) code sending test, allows multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank code tests as well as 1-minute-solid-copy test. 1990: FCC creates medical waivers at White House request, to do a favor for a foreign head of state. 1991: FCC creates a nocodetest ham license in USA by simply eliminating code test from Technician. 1996: NCI formed 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. 2003: WRC-2003 eliminates treaty requirement for code test. 2005: FCC proposes complete elimination of code testing, as proposed by several petitions. The trend to nocodetest, and to less testing overall, was clear long before NCI appeared on the scene. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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? |
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 04:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com