"RHF" wrote:

DS et al,

I sorry, I have to Laugh.

But this last couple of posts reads like
the FCC (Gestapo) and the Amateurs
(the Hitler Youth) during the NAZI Era.

Something to Think About ~ RHF


Perhaps one would think that if one considers all forms of restrictions
and enforcement to be Nazi-like. However, most people agree reasonable
restrictions, and enforcement of those restrictions, are necessary for
members of societies to co-exist in any civilized manner. And, unlike Nazi
Germany, we all have a clear say in those FCC restrictions and enforcement,
through public comments over proposed rules and through our election of
those who appoint the commission members and oversee their actions. Most
within the radio community agree restrictions and enforcement are valuable,
and were successful at convincing legislators outside the radio community of
that. You're certainly free to disagree, but your disagreement in itself
doesn't make those restrictions and enforcement Nazi-like. Something for you
to think about.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:

And, unlike Nazi Germany, we all have a clear say in those FCC restrictions and enforcement, through public comments over proposed rules and through our election of those who appoint the commission members and oversee their actions.

When it comes to topics like BPL, the FCC seems more responsive to
industry lobbyists than the public comments.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = hlink.net...
"RHF" wrote:

DS et al,

I sorry, I have to Laugh.

But this last couple of posts reads like
the FCC (Gestapo) and the Amateurs
(the Hitler Youth) during the NAZI Era.

Something to Think About ~ RHF


Perhaps one would think that if one considers all forms of restrictions
and enforcement to be Nazi-like. However, most people agree reasonable
restrictions, and enforcement of those restrictions, are necessary for
members of societies to co-exist in any civilized manner. And, unlike Nazi
Germany, we all have a clear say in those FCC restrictions and enforcement,
through public comments over proposed rules and through our election of
those who appoint the commission members and oversee their actions. Most
within the radio community agree restrictions and enforcement are valuable,
and were successful at convincing legislators outside the radio community of
that. You're certainly free to disagree, but your disagreement in itself
doesn't make those restrictions and enforcement Nazi-like. Something for you
to think about.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


DS - So t all comes down to 'community standards' ;-) ~ RHF

..

"starman" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
And, unlike Nazi Germany, we all have a
clear say in those FCC restrictions and
enforcement, through public comments over
proposed rules and through our election of
those who appoint the commission members
and oversee their actions.


When it comes to topics like BPL, the FCC
seems more responsive to industry lobbyists
than the public comments.


Think about it, Starman. There are only slightly more than a half million
ham operators in the USA, while BPL has to potential to serve the well more
than 150 million internet users. If the FCC is going to kill BPL, it must
have a darn good reason. The "interference with our frequencies" argument
can only go so far if that industry can show it is even taking superficial
steps to minimize that.

The point here is that the FCC doesn't just work for us (a relatively
small group of ham operators), but must take the needs of _all_ Americans
into consideration. As the world changes, with a greater need for more and
more radio frequencies for newer technologies, our small numbers are going
to continue to hurt us. The only solution is to dramatically increase those
numbers, but that will only come with dramatic change in this radio service.
With substantial numbers, the FCC has something substantial to protect.
Sadly, far too many in this radio service are resisting the very changes so
desperately needed.

I won't go into those changes here because it really isn't germane to this
newsgroup.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:01:20 GMT, "Corwin, Prince of Amber"
wrote:

So what if I invent my call sign, learn the lingo, and start using my
2M radio without jumping through all the hoops to get licensed.

Why bother with a drivers license either?

Does anyone *really* care?

Yes. The people who actually are licensed.

Is 'big brother' really going to bust through my front door with a SWAT team?

No. Chances are you'll get a letter from the FCC with a court date and
fine listed.

Of the 1+ million HAM operators, how
many are actually fined each year for doing what I'm considering?

None. Because if they are ham operators, they are licensed.

--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.

You seem to be saying that ham operators are the only ones affected. How
about air traffic control? FEMA? Coast Guard. Many more. All have voiced
their objections but the FCC is still going with the money.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Think about it, Starman. There are only slightly more than a half
million
ham operators in the USA, while BPL has to potential to serve the well
more
than 150 million internet users. If the FCC is going to kill BPL, it must
have a darn good reason. The "interference with our frequencies" argument
can only go so far if that industry can show it is even taking superficial
steps to minimize that.

The point here is that the FCC doesn't just work for us (a relatively
small group of ham operators), but must take the needs of _all_ Americans
into consideration. As the world changes, with a greater need for more and
more radio frequencies for newer technologies, our small numbers are going
to continue to hurt us. The only solution is to dramatically increase
those
numbers, but that will only come with dramatic change in this radio
service.
With substantial numbers, the FCC has something substantial to protect.
Sadly, far too many in this radio service are resisting the very changes
so
desperately needed.

I won't go into those changes here because it really isn't germane to
this
newsgroup.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"starman" wrote:


When it comes to topics like BPL, the FCC
seems more responsive to industry lobbyists
than the public comments.

Think about it, Starman. There are only slightly more than a half million
ham operators in the USA, while BPL has to potential to serve the well more
than 150 million internet users. If the FCC is going to kill BPL, it must
have a darn good reason. The "interference with our frequencies" argument
can only go so far if that industry can show it is even taking superficial
steps to minimize that.

The point here is that the FCC doesn't just work for us (a relatively
small group of ham operators), but must take the needs of _all_ Americans
into consideration. As the world changes, with a greater need for more and
more radio frequencies for newer technologies, our small numbers are going
to continue to hurt us. The only solution is to dramatically increase those
numbers, but that will only come with dramatic change in this radio service.
With substantial numbers, the FCC has something substantial to protect.
Sadly, far too many in this radio service are resisting the very changes so
desperately needed.

I won't go into those changes here because it really isn't germane to this
newsgroup.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

There's no doubt that ham's are in the minority regarding BPL
interference but the FCC has a legal mandate to protect licensed radio
spectrum users, as the law now stands. I suppose they'll change the law
to get around this legal inconvenience for the BPL industry.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

starman wrote in message ...
Dwight Stewart wrote:

"starman" wrote:


When it comes to topics like BPL, the FCC
seems more responsive to industry lobbyists
than the public comments.

Think about it, Starman. There are only slightly more than a half million
ham operators in the USA, while BPL has to potential to serve the well more
than 150 million internet users. If the FCC is going to kill BPL, it must
have a darn good reason. The "interference with our frequencies" argument
can only go so far if that industry can show it is even taking superficial
steps to minimize that.

The point here is that the FCC doesn't just work for us (a relatively
small group of ham operators), but must take the needs of _all_ Americans
into consideration. As the world changes, with a greater need for more and
more radio frequencies for newer technologies, our small numbers are going
to continue to hurt us. The only solution is to dramatically increase those
numbers, but that will only come with dramatic change in this radio service.
With substantial numbers, the FCC has something substantial to protect.
Sadly, far too many in this radio service are resisting the very changes so
desperately needed.

I won't go into those changes here because it really isn't germane to this
newsgroup.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

There's no doubt that ham's are in the minority regarding BPL
interference but the FCC has a legal mandate to protect licensed radio
spectrum users, as the law now stands. I suppose they'll change the law
to get around this legal inconvenience for the BPL industry.

Where is this legal mandate? The FCC has no mandate as the Amateur
Radio Service is experimental in nature and they can't even stop
interference between the hams. How about broadcasters encroaching on
the ham bands? Where is the FCC? Please point exactly where any part
of the FCC rules regarding Amateur Radio Service.
GR


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"no_spam_here" wrote in message
om...


Please point exactly where any part
of the FCC rules regarding Amateur Radio Service.

Part 97

"CW" wrote:

You seem to be saying that ham operators
are the only ones affected. How about air
traffic control? FEMA? Coast Guard.
Many more. All have voiced their objections
but the FCC is still going with the money.


Look, I'm not trying to defend the BPL industry here, so don't jump on me
about it. Instead, I'm simply explaining the realities of the situation. I
limited my prior comments to ham operators because that was the discussion.
Yes, others have expressed concerns about BPL. But, again, without some very
specific problem for the FCC to hang it's hat on, it has no justification
whatsoever to stop BPL. Concerns expressed without substance simply isn't
enough if that industry can shown it has taken reasonable steps to minimize
problems where those concerns exist. When it comes specifically to the
relatively small number of ham operators, even superficial steps to minimize
problems is probably enough.

Your claim the FCC is "going with the money" is patently deceptive, and is
doing nothing to improve our position in this situation. The money is there
solely because the numbers are there. Again, BPL has the potential to serve
many millions of households around the country. And, like any government
agency, the FCC has an obligation to serve the majority (whether money is
there or not). With all that in mind, give me one reason why the FCC should
ignore the greater number that might benefit from BPL and instead cater to
the objections of ham operators - especially if that industry can show it
is, or has, taken steps to minimize the impact to ham radio. You may
disagree those steps are sufficient, but deceptive comments about those we
need on our side isn't going to prove it.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/