W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Outstanding said by amigo_boy:Ed, now you're being intentionally provocative. I've suggested more than once that 2 meter or 70 cm can be used. And I suggested another licensed band that could be used. Now it has become prevocative for a licensed user to want to use one of its bands for its intended purpose?
Fortunately, the hostile takeover you appear to be proposing didn't fare too well in the BPL rulemaking. It would be a major paradigm shift, so if you really want to make it happen, you will need to do more than post articles on BBR.
For local communication, 900 MHz would be a technically feasible choice.
The relay scheme you propose to allow BPL to make strong noise on the Amateur bands, however, is not a viable alternative, IMHO. It presumes that in a Katrina-sized event that all of the resources will be readily available in the 30 miles you propose as a relay distance.
Unless augmented by significant additional infrastructure, the relay process would be one of words only, not actual voices, although completing the development of digital voice coudl store and forward. That, however, would sacrifice some real-time aspects that is possible in direct human communication.
Fortunately, under the present regulatory paradigm, licensed users in the Amateur Radio Service do not have to develop new infrastructure and refine technology to be able to communicate in an emergency or for routine communications. Amateurs have allocations on bands across the spectrum, allowing them to choose the unique spectrum that allows them to communicate directly without intervening infrastructure.
It is clear that you think that this should be changed. I think that your view is not likely to prevail. Even the BPL industry disagrees with you. 
Ed, W1RFI |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by W1RFI:And I suggested another licensed band that could be used. There was no need to since 2m and 70cm are perfectly suited to medium distance relay nets.
said by W1RFI:The relay scheme you propose to allow BPL to make strong noise on the Amateur bands, however, is not a viable alternative, I suspect it's not viable because it would require more than 20-30 hobbyists participating in a disaster like the Northwest floods.
This is becoming quite predictable. Hobby radio should be protected because it serves a public purpose (once every few years). When it's pointed out that only 20-30 people out of 650k licensees participate, the argument in favor of hobby radio changes to something else.
When it's pointed out that actual active users is less than licensed users, the argument turns into "there are a lot of other users like govt."
To me, what this keeps pointing to is that hobby radio is essentially irrelevant. The spectrum wasn't purchased. It's public space like a public park. If circumstances have changed (and they obviously have in the past 2-3 decades, increasing the options for emergency communications) the public can "taketh away." There's no reason for an irrelevant and relatively *tiny* group of people to force the public to continue on an outdated path which increasingly serves less of a public service.
said by W1RFI:It is clear that you think that this should be changed. Nope. Just that nothing's sacred.
Mark |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | said by amigo_boy:This is becoming quite predictable. Of course. What else do you expect when you completely ignore any information provided to you and blithely go about repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Hobby radio should be protected because it serves a public purpose (once every few years). When it's pointed out that only 20-30 people out of 650k licensees participate, the argument in favor of hobby radio changes to something else. Any and all information ignored that shows that far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years.
Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO.
If circumstances have changed (and they obviously have in the past 2-3 decades, increasing the options for emergency communications) the public can "taketh away." The public can taketh away, but primarily by influencing the national treaty that has established the primary use of the spectrum under discussion as being allocated to the Amateur Radio Service.
Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out.
Ed, W1RFI |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by W1RFI:far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years. How many? And, how often?
What I was referring to was the news reports of 20-30 hobbyists performing communications during the recent Northwest flood. That was portrayed (in this forum) as the reason to protect hobby radio.
Most reasonable people would wonder how significant that is relative to the 650k licensees (which isn't representative of actual active users). If public service is a selling point, perhaps it should be mandatory.
said by W1RFI:Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO. Ditto.
said by W1RFI:Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out. Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me like hobbyists would be better served by looking for ways to be more relevant today, including mandatory service. Taunting the public to go further in disrespecting their hobby seems counter-intuitive to me.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by W1RFI:far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years. How many? And, how often? What I was referring to was the news reports of 20-30 hobbyists performing communications during the recent Northwest flood. That was portrayed (in this forum) as the reason to protect hobby radio. Most reasonable people would wonder how significant that is relative to the 650k licensees (which isn't representative of actual active users). If public service is a selling point, perhaps it should be mandatory. said by W1RFI:Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO. Ditto. said by W1RFI:Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out. Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me like hobbyists would be better served by looking for ways to be more relevant today, including mandatory service. Taunting the public to go further in disrespecting their hobby seems counter-intuitive to me. We haven't taunted the public; ironically it seems to be your focus to taunt us. While the amateur service may not garner the same recognition and respect it did in the past, I think it's far from disrespect. You've mischaracterized the focus on the BPL interference issues as public taunting or protecting self interests. This has been an often used tactic against movements which brought to light environmental, industry, or government atrocities; movements that ultimately were right and brought about much needed change. Granted, the BPL interference issue isn't to that level, but you and others have used the same smear tactics in an effort to discredit valid arguments.
Mandatory public service may sound good on paper but in reality it's logistically difficult to administrate. The beauty of the amateur service is that it's not just Emcomm; there's also an educational and personal growth aspect. As the regulations state, one of the purposes is to advance the radio art. Being an amateur doesn't necessarily have to include public service. It's a multi-faceted activity that can be either a service or a hobby and can benefit you personally or the public.
People like you amaze me. Amateur radio is one of the few resources these days that are free and given to the public to enjoy. It's something that you or anyone can do, yet you seem to be bent on seeing it destroyed and indifferent to the value it provides others. It's unfortunate as I've seen this attitude from others here and seems to be a common theme coming from those who want cheap broadband and really couldn't give a damn about much else. |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by W1RFI:Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out. Be careful what you wish for. I think it highly unlikely that we will see you any time soon as a member of the US delegation to the ITU, seeking to change the international treaties that continue the Amateur Radio Service. That is a lot more work than continually referring to a licensed radio service as "a hobby" on an Internet discussion board. A lot can talk that talk, but very few walk it.
If I am wrong, say hello to the ARRL staff who do participate.
Ed, W1RFI |
|
|
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by W1RFI:far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years. How many? And, how often? A snapshot from a list I compiled in 2006:
More articles about Amateur Radio and emergency communications:
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/21/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/0···02/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/07/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/05/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/13/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/09/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/02/28/4/?nc=1
»www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katri···x-b.html
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/12/15/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/30/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/11/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/···/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/24/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/21/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/20/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/19/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/11/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/07/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/30/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/28/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/23/6/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/22/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/19/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/14/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/12/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···03/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···05/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···06/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/02/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/01/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/01/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/30/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/29/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/26/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/25/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/20/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/03/7/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/29/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/27/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/27/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/15/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···04/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/07/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/18/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/28/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/08/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/06/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/01/04/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/features/2004/···/1/?nc=1
A bit more than every 2 or 3 years like one poster misrepresented here...
Ed, W1RFI |
|
