amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Mactron
Re: Nice
said by Mactron  :So folks are suppose to invest time, money, and effort into something that can only be used when BPL is down ? Pretty hard to setup, test, and regularly verify a setup that's being Jammed by BPL 99.99 % of the time. Your thought needs some more practical thinking I believe. Just use the other frequencies that aren't affected by BPL. It will make communication in a disaster more challenging (relay nets, etc.). But, we're always treated to this cheerleading for hobby radio, about how it serves a valuable public service. If that's true, it should be desirable to get more hobbyists engaged as a team.
From my perspective, there are a lot of hobbyists who are so just for the hobby, not the public service we're always hearing about. Maybe public service participation should be mandatory. That would go a long way to prove there is a responsibility that comes with using the public's airwaves.
This is where those with a vested interest will say the government will be effected by BPL, therefore hobbyists are just riding on the coattails of legitimate users. If that's true, why parade public service around? Just say HF isn't going anywhere, and therefore hobbyists can use it for whatever they want?
Mark |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| said by amigo_boy :Just use the other frequencies that aren't affected by BPL. Mark Your many Anti Ham, BPL Cheerleader Biased posts here precede you. No response required. 
Why don't don't YOU go use another means of communication other than the Internet...
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
4 edits | said by Mactron :Your many Anti Ham, BPL Cheerleader Biased posts here precede you. No response required. FYI. I'm not pro-BPL. Just not buying the sales job radio hobbyists would like everyone to accept, unchallenged. Hobby radio may serve a valuable purpose. Maybe more should be expected from it. Maybe everyone can get by with FRS and CBRS.
Everything should be on the table. And, question everything. Especially those with a vested interest in the position they want everyone else to accept.
This is about the time someone will say "but it's an international treaty, so you'll have to change that. Until then, leave us alone." Ok. But, like the argument that HF is used by the government (therefore, radio hobbyists are deriving a coattail protection from interference), why go into all the self-ingratiating backslapping about serving a public service? Just say it's protected by an international treaty? Why the sales job? If you're going to put on lipstick, cover blemishes and wear a push-up bra, expect someone to ask questions. 
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by Mactron :Your many Anti Ham, BPL Cheerleader Biased posts here precede you. No response required. FYI. I'm not pro-BPL. Just not buying the sales job radio hobbyists would like everyone to accept, unchallenged. Hobby radio may serve a valuable purpose. Maybe more should be expected from it. Maybe everyone can get by with FRS and CBRS. You're anti-ham and anti-fact, history has proven that. We've been down the same road again and again arguing with you, so it's no use debating with you leading statements like "maybe everyone can get by with FRS and CBRS". You rarely back up what you say and when you do it's usually your own made up "facts". |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Mactron :So folks are suppose to invest time, money, and effort into something that can only be used when BPL is down ? Pretty hard to setup, test, and regularly verify a setup that's being Jammed by BPL 99.99 % of the time. Your thought needs some more practical thinking I believe. Just use the other frequencies that aren't affected by BPL. It will make communication in a disaster more challenging (relay nets, etc.). But, we're always treated to this cheerleading for hobby radio, about how it serves a valuable public service. If that's true, it should be desirable to get more hobbyists engaged as a team. From my perspective, there are a lot of hobbyists who are so just for the hobby, not the public service we're always hearing about. Maybe public service participation should be mandatory. That would go a long way to prove there is a responsibility that comes with using the public's airwaves. This is where those with a vested interest will say the government will be effected by BPL, therefore hobbyists are just riding on the coattails of legitimate users. If that's true, why parade public service around? Just say HF isn't going anywhere, and therefore hobbyists can use it for whatever they want? Mark Fine, what other frequencies are useful?
Do your research then get back to us. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by moonpuppy :Fine, what other frequencies are useful? Do your research then get back to us. It's been discussed many times before. 2 meter and 70 cm would work fine. Of course, it would require hobbyists to really turn out and participate in civil service (forming nets back to undamaged locations where mainstream communications can be performed.). But, that shouldn't be a problem since we're always treated to these stories about hobbyists serving a valuable purpose. We just need to require more.
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by moonpuppy :Fine, what other frequencies are useful? Do your research then get back to us. It's been discussed many times before. 2 meter and 70 cm would work fine. In your simplistic imaginary world it would be fine. And yes, it's been discussed many times before and you've been questioned many times before on how 2 meters and 70 centimeters could take the place of HF spectrum, considering neither band can travel around the world like HF. Still no answer.
On to the next recycled wrong solution from amigo_boy.... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer :how 2 meters and 70 centimeters could take the place of HF spectrum, considering neither band can travel around the world like HF. Still no answer. Misdirection. Global communications weren't necessary for the Northwest floods, or Katrina. Just local communication back outside the disaster area where mainstream communications are available.
This is about the time hobbyists talk about extinction events like "Planet-X," meteor hits, nuclear war, etc. Uh huh.
Mark |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :how 2 meters and 70 centimeters could take the place of HF spectrum, considering neither band can travel around the world like HF. Still no answer. Misdirection. Global communications weren't necessary for the Northwest floods, or Katrina. Just local communication back outside the disaster area where mainstream communications are available. This is about the time hobbyists talk about extinction events like "Planet-X," meteor hits, nuclear war, etc. Uh huh. Mark Wrong again. Katrina affected a very large area where 2m communications (the band with more range than 70cm) would not have been practical or feasible.
Go troll somewhere else.  |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by moonpuppy :Katrina affected a very large area where 2m communications (the band with more range than 70cm) would not have been practical or feasible. Feasible under *your* terms. Terms that include *not* requiring everyone everyone to participate by forming relay nets. Terms that exclude the use of sat phones.
Sure, it would be different. Sure, it would expect more from those who slap themselves on their backs (because a handful volunteered during an emergency). Different isn't necessarily bad. Unless it goes against *your* vested interests.
Mark |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by amigo_boy :said by moonpuppy :Katrina affected a very large area where 2m communications (the band with more range than 70cm) would not have been practical or feasible. Feasible under *your* terms. Terms that include *not* requiring everyone everyone to participate by forming relay nets. Terms that exclude the use of sat phones. Sure, it would be different. Sure, it would expect more from those who slap themselves on their backs (because a handful volunteered during an emergency). Different isn't necessarily bad. Unless it goes against *your* vested interests. Mark Sat phones are an extra cost that no one wants to bear (not even the government.)
Your lack of communications knowledge is very evident in your posts. Please come back with a more logical argument. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :how 2 meters and 70 centimeters could take the place of HF spectrum, considering neither band can travel around the world like HF. Still no answer. Misdirection. Global communications weren't necessary for the Northwest floods, or Katrina. Just local communication back outside the disaster area where mainstream communications are available. No misdirection. HF can be used for regional communications as well and could be of value in a northwest flood or Katrina situation. Read up on NVIS antennas and learn about 80 and 40 meters. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by rf_engineer :No misdirection. HF can be used for regional communications as well and could be of value in a northwest flood or Katrina situation. Read up on NVIS antennas and learn about 80 and 40 meters. Could be of more value. So could additional bandwidth. It's just a matter of where the line is drawn. 2 meter and greater hobbyist participation (augmented by sat phones owned by the Natl. Guard and/or Red Cross) could be be where the line is drawn.
Just saying there's nothing sacred about hobby use of HF in emergencies. (But, they may derive a coattail effect from government use, or international treaty. But, then there's no reason to use public service as PR against interference.).
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :said by amigo_boy :said by moonpuppy :Katrina affected a very large area where 2m communications (the band with more range than 70cm) would not have been practical or feasible. Feasible under *your* terms. Terms that include *not* requiring everyone everyone to participate by forming relay nets. Terms that exclude the use of sat phones. Sure, it would be different. Sure, it would expect more from those who slap themselves on their backs (because a handful volunteered during an emergency). Different isn't necessarily bad. Unless it goes against *your* vested interests. Mark Sat phones are an extra cost that no one wants to bear (not even the government.) Does he pay taxes? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by rf_engineer :Does he pay taxes? He might but I doubt he wants the massive increases that come with what he is proposing. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by moonpuppy :He might but I doubt he wants the massive increases that come with what he is proposing. It shouldn't take that many sat phones. Remember, the bulk of communications would be from radio hobbyists forming relay nets on 2 meter and 70cm back to areas where traditional communication exists. During Katrina, that would have been Baton Rouge?
It would also be possible to have a couple sets of phones and same-day fedex them to the appropriate people for use in the disaster area. Something like that could have occurred in advance of Katrina.
Mark |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by amigo_boy :It shouldn't take that many sat phones. Remember, the bulk of communications would be from radio hobbyists forming relay nets on 2 meter and 70cm back to areas where traditional communication exists. During Katrina, that would have been Baton Rouge? It would also be possible to have a couple sets of phones and same-day fedex them to the appropriate people for use in the disaster area. Something like that could have occurred in advance of Katrina. Mark Pray tell, how do you FedEx something to someone is a disaster area? Please explain that one.
You see how prepared the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana was prepared. Buses underwater, the stadium in a state of chaos, looters all over the place, etc.
As for not needing that many, you would need at least 1 per jurisdiction. And with many of the New Orleans Police Department either running away or looting the stores, i can imagine those sat phones gone before the first call is made. You also forgot to add the cost for calls since the government would have to pay for those too.
Baton Rogue was also pretty much devastated. I knew 3 co-workers who had to go down there just to get the place somewhat operational. I was scheduled to go down 2 days after them but the damage was so great, they got up what they could and left. There was still no power in the area. Cell phones did not work even after a week.
Your fantasies have barely any basis in fact.
Try again. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :No misdirection. HF can be used for regional communications as well and could be of value in a northwest flood or Katrina situation. Read up on NVIS antennas and learn about 80 and 40 meters. Could be of more value. So could additional bandwidth. By additional bandwidth, you mean BPL? For emergency communications?
Just saying there's nothing sacred about hobby use of HF in emergencies. (But, they may derive a coattail effect from government use, or international treaty. How can it be "hobby use" if it's passing traffic during an emergency situation? (BTW, I get your tactic of putting "hobby" in front of terms. Nice way to antagonize.)
But, then there's no reason to use public service as PR against interference.).
It's not PR against interference, it's illustrating value of the spectrum and the amateur service.
Again, I'm at a loss why you and others are so against amateur radio and using a self-trained group of citizens equipping and training themselves at little to no expense to the general public to provide a public service. It would seem like a win-win situation, but instead you seem bent on dismantling this with a system that costs money and depends on infrastructure prone to capacity issues and failure. And why risk an infrastructure-free communications system for a technically challenged broadband solution that has been a marketing and business failure?
But of course, you're just here to protect unsuspecting people from being taken advantage of by hobbyists |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer :Again, I'm at a loss why you and others are so against amateur radio and using a self-trained group of citizens equipping and training themselves at little to no expense to the general public to provide a public service. It would seem like a win-win situation, I'm not against it. Just not sold on the win-win aspect. Maybe there should be more responsibility expected for the use of public airwaves. Maybe mandatory participation in emergency or other civil uses. Maybe it's outlived its usefulness and folks can get by with FRS and CBRS.
I'm just not sold on the hobbyist (and it is a hobby, nothing denigrating about that term) argument that the way it is right now is perfect.
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :Again, I'm at a loss why you and others are so against amateur radio and using a self-trained group of citizens equipping and training themselves at little to no expense to the general public to provide a public service. It would seem like a win-win situation, I'm not against it. Just not sold on the win-win aspect. Maybe there should be more responsibility expected for the use of public airwaves. Maybe mandatory participation in emergency or other civil uses. Maybe it's outlived its usefulness and folks can get by with FRS and CBRS. There's plenty of responsibility there, read Title 47 Part 97.1. As far as getting by with FRS and "CBRS", it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
If you want more responsibility, feel free to petition the FCC. You're going to need some more worthy material than you've posted here.
I'm just not sold on the hobbyist (and it is a hobby, nothing denigrating about that term) argument that the way it is right now is perfect.
That's fine. We're not sold on your "not every ham does emergency communications" argument, the "2m and 70 cm can replace HF", your "relay net" solution, the "sat phone" solution or the several other items you repetitively post here. We're communications hobbyists who are licensed, provide public service, and explore new communications methods and techniques. Many of us are also communications professionals during the day. You're a guy with a web browser and a blog login. |
|
