The Death of Amateur Radio
Todd Daugherty
By
Todd Daugherty N9OGL
I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy
to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the FCC's
suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to write
this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio operators who
will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some crack
pot. But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine.
Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree with
that statement however, this is a harsh reality. Now as I stated above I
have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do. Amateur
radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial services. On
February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the heck is
Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named "Inquisitor"
anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically compete with
the internet. One amateur radio operator Charles Brabham N5PVL made this
statement in responds to mine:
N9OGL:" My point is Packet does not have the variety like the internet and
when a person comes up with a new idea for packet or a new program idea for
packet it is seemed to be frowned upon by other operators. So packet radio
will remain in last place behind the Internet, and Wireless systems."
N5PVL: "I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a
commercial communications network, and so does not "compete" with commercial
communications networks in any way.
Packet is for Amateur Radio operators who enjoy digital communications
*independent* of commercial communications networks and the Internet.
Of course it's different... It's supposed to be, for a number of reasons. If
it offered exactly the same thing as the commercial nets, there would be no
reason for it to exist at all.
Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while."
N9OGL "Variety does not have to be a new idea or program but a BBS with it's
own stuff in it and not some Forwarded stuff from other places have BBS
systems for just for sale stuff and another BBS for Digital communication
idea or
one with General Amateur radio stuff but leave all the for sale stuff in the
for sale BBS."
N5PVL "That's up to the individual BBS SYSOP. My BBS has offered a good
variety of info above and beyond the daily bulletins for over a decade
now... So what?"
N9OGL "Give the BBS a variety and its own individualism. Stuff on BBS doesn'
t have to be just "For Sale" and jokes On Amateur radio you
can talk about anything not just radio. But again you have Amateurs who
don't want change whether it packet or anything in the Amateur radio
service. So Packet will be like ancient modes of communication it will die
out because those people will not accept changing the system"
N5PVL "Blah blah blah... Yah yah yah... Too lazy and stupid to do anything
yourself, but you have plenty of energy at hand for the purpose of
denigrating the efforts of others. Maybe you should just stick your head in
the toilet...Flush twice! It's a long way to Washington D.C.!
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
Now the reason I bring this up is simply that this misguided amateur radio
operator WAS trying to prove a point which he could not; simply for two
reasons. The first is that most of the BBS systems on packet were on the
forwarding system and the vast majority of messages on the BBS systems were
all the same. Regardless to what Mr. Brabham said this was a harsh reality.
What Mr. Brabham didn't realize was at the time of that post I had been
running TWO BBS systems on packet. Most packet operators didn't want no
"individuals" running a BBS system and not use the forwarding system. Today,
here in Illinois packet radio is nothing more then a vast memory. All the
Nodes and BBS systems are gone. Gone for two reasons the first is the BBS
operators were running their forwarding system on the user frequency. The
second reason is as I stated in my post that there was no variety and all
amateur radio operators went to the internet. Packet Radio was a prelude of
what will happen to amateur radio. Like N5PVL stated "I hate to be the one
to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a commercial communications
network, and so does not "compete" with commercial communications networks
in any way." This seems to be the attitude of all amateur radio operators
when it comes to competing with other services. For amateur radio to survive
they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be no
amateur radio in near future. As I stated on the newsgroup
rec.radio.amateur.policy look at it this way. Go to streets of your town as
ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast majority of
people would pick the internet. The reason is the internet provides a vast
variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via email, chat
rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more. Why should someone
take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world via
radio when they can do it on the internet? For amateur radio to grow amateur
radio operators are going to have to get out of this not competing attitude.
One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is both
the amateur and FCC's view on content control.
Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC for
controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to the
amateur radio service. However, this seems NOT to be the case. When I
announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a post
from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can send me a
"QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
letter. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech. One of the most known FCC free speech
suppression cases is the Liberty Net. Here's an article from Newsline:
"FCC vs. The Liberty Net Riley Hollingsworth and the FCC are questioning if
a controversial 75 meter SSB net really has any place on the ham bands. The
group is called the Liberty Net. It operates nightly at 3.950 MHZ and is
primarily an open discussion or right wing politics and conservative causes.
But, in a May 7th letter to Victor Misek, W1WCR,Hollingsworth requests that
the Hudson NewHampshire ham review the Basis and Purpose of Amateur Radio as
outlined in Section 97.1 of the Commissions rules. He then tells Misek to
explain to the Commission how the operation of the Liberty Net can be
justified. But it's another Hollingsworth statement that draws the
proverbial line in the sand between the FCC and the Liberty Net.
Hollingsworth tells Misek - and we quote -- "We are unable to determine how
transmissions of this group met the standards of, or contribute to the
purpose of, the allocation of frequencies for the Amateur Radio Service."
In other words, the FCC appears to be questioning whether the content of
communications by those involved in the Liberty Net meet the minimum
requisite requirements to be transmitted in the ham radio bands.And
Hollingsworth goes even further. He suggests that the Liberty Net might
want to consider moving to the Internet or wait to wait and see if the
Commission creates a low power FM broadcast service. If it does, the net
might then want to apply for a broadcasting license grant. (FCC)
The part one should look at is the part in which Hollingsworth stated that
the Liberty Net should look at the internet or apply for a low power FM
license. Apparently Mr. Hollingsworth never heard of Section 326. Now Mr.
Hollingsworth isn't the only FCC official that has done this; in 1990 the
FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and of
course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick their
Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it. Stating in ARRL Letter and World
Radio "The League maintains that the disputes can resolved by enforcing
existing FCC regulations: One-way Broadcast, if they go beyond the accepted
norms for such transmissions on the Amateur bands their illegal." So who's
to say is the "ACCEPTED NORM"?? The ARRL, why not the FCC could give the
ARRL the power and therefore Free speech could be suppressed. The first
Amendment bars the government from stomping on free speech, but it doesn't
apply to the ARRL which is a national organization from doing it. Who's the
one pushing to K1MAN off the air?? The ARRL and its members. I was asked on
the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have a FCC
official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information bulletin
which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech by a
Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion is being
suppressed by the FCC.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Bathrooman
up with K1MAN for far too long. Think back to the beginnings of ham
radio. Everyone wanted to be a broadcaster, so off they went to the
broadcast band, and the ham bands were saved for 2-way ham radio
communications. No one cares about your opinion. If you insist upon
expressing it, engage someone in a normal QSO. Is it that you don't
want someone refuting your stupid ideas? Sure, let's get 100,000 hams
broadcasting to no one all the time on every frequency. blah blah
blah. Do something useful and volunteer at your local kindergarten and
express your opinions there. Better yet, do something more useful than
that and help the janitor clean the restrooms.
Mike Coslo
> The Death of Amateur Radio
>
> By
>
> Todd Daugherty N9OGL
It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your "Death
of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.
If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that they
need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and more
Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as they
have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free speech
transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into some
sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.
You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN
doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those
who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that
anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech?
I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.
Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting
their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the
air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.
Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
realize........
- Mike KB3EIA -
Todd Daugherty
news:KdCdnUThdbC...@adelphia.com...
> Todd Daugherty wrote:
> > The Death of Amateur Radio
> >
> > By
> >
> > Todd Daugherty N9OGL
>
> It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your "Death
> of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.
>
> If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that they
> need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and more
> Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as they
> have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free speech
> transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into some
> sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.
No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. There are
some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is
give a signal report, location, ect. As I stated in my paper a good example
of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all
of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if
BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.
> You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN
> doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those
> who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that
> anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech?
>
Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone believes.
Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.
> I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
> speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.
>
> Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting
> their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
> suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the
> air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.
The FCC shouldn't even suggest it. Again the FCC is barred from controlling
the content of any station. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the
Internet.
> Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
> realize........
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>
Todd N9OGL
robert casey
> Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting
> their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
> suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the
> air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.
>
Actually, packet BBS messages would be a better method. It's
store and forward, and won't clog HF. Anyone (on packet and
any gateways to the 'net) can read your messages if they so
choose. Just no pecuniary interest and no dirty words.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
>
> No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting. There are
> some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is
> give a signal report, location, ect.
You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official
quotes from the FCC?
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
>
> Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while."
I have a suggestion for you, just try thinking once in a while.
Todd Daugherty
It seems that SOME amateur radio operators misunderstood my original post.
Somehow this crap about information bulletins and broadcast came up. This
paper had NOTHING to do with Information Bulletins, K1MAN or Broadcasting.
The main theme of that paper is that if Amateur Radio doesn't change the
service will die.
Amateur radio operators, The ARRL, and The FCC think that certain
things shouldn't air. This can be proven by the FCC action against the
Liberty Net, The FCC actions against 19 NETS and BBS back in 1990 as well as
cases of the FCC going after people over content back in the 80's. As well
as the death of packet radio. The death of Packet radio was just a prelude
of things to come. Amateur's who can't see the facts are blind by their own
stupidity.
Amateur radio is going to die, regardless to what anyone think. The
reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has nothing to
offer. The FCC can change the system to where all a person has to do is
apply for a license and pay a fee but THAT will not save ham radio unless
amateur radio has something to offer. The point of this paper is that
amateur operators are going to have to get their heads out of their asses
and realize they are going to have to compete against the other service like
the internet. If amateur radio is to survive they are going to have to
compete. To do that amateur radio is going to have to get rid of some of
this idea's regarding different things. As I stated before Packet radio died
because of that. People used packet for a long time but like all thing the
novelty of it wore off. The reason was packet radio didn't have anything
more to offer so people got rid of their TNC's and went to do something
else. The same is happening to amateur radio as a whole. The vast majority
of stuff amateurs can do is now capable through other services like the
internet. Amateur radio is going to have to come up new stuff to offer
people to get them into the service.
Todd Daugherty
MAC??
Todd
"robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ChWPd.1398$SO....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Dave Heil
> Amateur radio operators, The ARRL, and The FCC think that certain
> things shouldn't air.
More correctly, most amateur radio operators, the ARRL, the FCC and most
of the public think that certain things shouldn't air. Your choice: To
air or to err.
> Amateur's who can't see the facts are blind by their own
> stupidity.
People who can't spell or construct a sentence should be wary of calling
others "stupid".
> Amateur radio is going to die, regardless to what anyone think.
That's your rant and you're sticking with it, despite what the facts
say.
> The
> reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has nothing to
> offer.
There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe
what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you.
Feel free to move on. Find another interest.
> The FCC can change the system to where all a person has to do is
> apply for a license and pay a fee but THAT will not save ham radio unless
> amateur radio has something to offer. The point of this paper is that
> amateur operators are going to have to get their heads out of their asses
> and realize they are going to have to compete against the other service like
> the internet.
I find it difficult to carry on a discussion with one who feels that
because his cranium is inserted into his rectum, everyone else is in the
same fix.
Every few months, some boy genius like you shows up in one of the
amateur radio newsgroups like a shooting star, only to burn up on enty
into Earth's atmosphere.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
>
> The Death of Amateur Radio
>
> By
>
> Todd Daugherty N9OGL
>
> I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy
> to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the FCC's
> suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to write
> this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio operators who
> will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some crack
> pot.
Well, Todd, I've read the entire thing and I've not written it off "as
the writes by some crack pot". I've written it off "as the writes by
some" special crackpot.
> But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine.
...and you aren't one to allow reality to stand in your way.
> Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree with
> that statement however, this is a harsh reality.
Many radio amateurs would disagree with your statement because it has no
basis in fact. Now THAT is harsh reality.
> Now as I stated above I
> have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do. Amateur
> radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial services.
Amateur radio isn't a commercial service and isn't in competition with
commercial services. It has no reason to "keep up".
> On
> February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the heck is
> Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named "Inquisitor"
> anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
> internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically compete with
> the internet.
Packet radio is not the internet. It has no reason to become like the
internet.
> For amateur radio to survive
> they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be no
> amateur radio in near future.
Sure, Todd--and amateur astronomy is going to have to compete with
roller blading or there will be no amateur astronomy in the future.
> As I stated on the newsgroup
> rec.radio.amateur.policy look at it this way. Go to streets of your town as
> ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
> Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast majority of
> people would pick the internet. The reason is the internet provides a vast
> variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via email, chat
> rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
> Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more.
Ask the average man on the street to choose between the stamp collecting
and the internet and he'll likely choose the internet. He knows more
about the internet and stamp collecting has no provision for downloading
pirated music or pornography.
Amateur radio has variety of information unlike the internet. People
can talk via their voices, via morse, via keyboard modes, via
television. The two are not the same thing. That's why I'm introducing
Amateur Radio II, aka Amateur Radio Lite. It'll be like amateur radio
but without all of the icky stuff like "RF", "IF", fomulae and morse
code. It'll draw those folks who are "otherwise qualified" and mildly
interested.
> Why should someone
> take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world via
> radio when they can do it on the internet?
Why would someone take up tightrope walking when there are perfectly
good sidewalks? Why would anyone walk when they can drive a car?
> One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is both
> the amateur and FCC's view on content control.
Ahhhh. This is where Todd gets into his favorite rant.
> Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC for
> controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to the
> amateur radio service. However, this seems NOT to be the case.
You've been given free advice from a professional in the field. You've
chosen to ignore the advice because it conflicts with your rather
uneducated view of the regulations.
> When I
> announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a post
> from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
> service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can send me a
> "QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
> letter. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
> the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.
A smarter fellow would have taken the hint which Mr. Hollingsworth
dropped.
> In 1990 the
> FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and of
> course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick their
> Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it.
I doubt that the ARRL "deiced" anything. Your choice of nicknames
further marks you as a very special crackpot.
> I was asked on
> the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have a FCC
> official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information bulletin
> which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech by a
> Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion is being
> suppressed by the FCC.
You were repeatedly asked which things you were being prevented from
saying over the air via amateur radio. You never bothered to reply.
You've provided the FCC enough ammunition through your public statements
here, to nail your hide to the barn door if you decide that you want to
play boy broadcaster.
Dave K8MN
Bathrooman
Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright
ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study
guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and
on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with
the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up
antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates,
collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is
this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what?
What more do you want it to be?
Caveat Lector
statistics --
How about we promote Amateur Radio and mentor new folks?
How many doom sayers here help the hobby with training, elmering, and
emergency services ?
In Southern Calif -- we have three classes running at elementary and high
schools, lots of Emergency training as well.
I can tell you that Amateur Radio was highly valuable and praised during the
Southern Calif fires a few years back -- despite the generalization below of
"boring stuff".
Its only boring if you are a bore.
--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?
"Bathrooman" <drl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1108402983....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Caveat Lector
interest to you:
1. A QSO with a Navy dirigible crew member -- flew in the 1930's airships.
2. A QSO with an archeologist in the Central America -- just discovered new
ruins.
3. A WWII Luftwaffe pilot - flew a ME-109
4. QSO with a Swedish Ham -- we talked about Soloman Andre's balloon flight
to the North pole -- in 1897
5. A QSO with a British soldier in the Falklands -- we talked about
Shackletons ordeal in 1908 and the Falkland war
6. An anthropologist in New Guinea -- we talked about a tribe there that was
virtually in the stone age
7. A missionary in the Amazon -- we talked about the tribe he was helping
8. A chap in Australia that was in the outback studying the aborigines
9. A Russian officer in an arctic weather station --- brrr -- we talked
about the incredible working conditions there
Lots more "boring stuff"
If the above is of no interest to you I suggest you have very limited
interests.
--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?
"Bathrooman" <drl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1108402983....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
N2...@aol.com
Todd Daugherty wrote:
> The Death of Amateur Radio
>
> By
>
> Todd Daugherty N9OGL
>
> I've been asked on the newsgroup rec.radio.amateur.policy
> to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the
FCC's
> suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to
write
> this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio
operators who
> will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some
crack
> pot. But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to
be mine.
OK, let's see what you've got, Todd.
>
> Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree
with
> that statement however, this is a harsh reality.
OK - how is it "dying"?
> Now as I stated above I
> have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do.
Amateur
> radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial
services.
How do you define "keep up with"?
> On
> February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the
heck is
> Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named
"Inquisitor"
> anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
> internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically
compete with
> the internet.
Why?
The internet is pretty much ubiquitous in the USA and other developed
countries, if you live where there is reliable telephone service.
Broadband access is expanding rapidly and so is mobile access. There's
no way hams can match the infrastructure of any internet provider.
> One amateur radio operator Charles Brabham N5PVL made this
> statement in responds to mine:
>
> N9OGL:" My point is Packet does not have the variety like the
internet and
> when a person comes up with a new idea for packet or a new program
idea for
> packet it is seemed to be frowned upon by other operators. So packet
radio
> will remain in last place behind the Internet, and Wireless systems."
>
> N5PVL: "I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Packet Radio is
not a
> commercial communications network, and so does not "compete" with
commercial
> communications networks in any way.
He's right!
> Packet is for Amateur Radio operators who enjoy digital
communications
> *independent* of commercial communications networks and the Internet.
Exactly!
>
> Of course it's different... It's supposed to be, for a number of
reasons. If
> it offered exactly the same thing as the commercial nets, there would
be no
> reason for it to exist at all.
>
> Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while."
Sounds like good advice.
>
> Now the reason I bring this up is simply that this misguided amateur
radio
> operator WAS trying to prove a point which he could not; simply for
two
> reasons.
Looks to me like he proved his point. If you want packet radio to be
something other than it is, lead the way by example.
> The first is that most of the BBS systems on packet were on the
> forwarding system and the vast majority of messages on the BBS
systems were
> all the same. Regardless to what Mr. Brabham said this was a harsh
reality.
> What Mr. Brabham didn't realize was at the time of that post I had
been
> running TWO BBS systems on packet. Most packet operators didn't want
no
> "individuals" running a BBS system and not use the forwarding system.
Today,
> here in Illinois packet radio is nothing more then a vast memory. All
the
> Nodes and BBS systems are gone. Gone for two reasons the first is the
BBS
> operators were running their forwarding system on the user frequency.
The
> second reason is as I stated in my post that there was no variety and
all
> amateur radio operators went to the internet.
Which proves the point about competition.
> Packet Radio was a prelude of
> what will happen to amateur radio. Like N5PVL stated "I hate to be
the one
> to break it to you, but Packet Radio is not a commercial
communications
> network, and so does not "compete" with commercial communications
networks
> in any way." This seems to be the attitude of all amateur radio
operators
> when it comes to competing with other services.
Because it's true. Amateur radio, or *any* radio service, can only
survive by offering what other services cannot.
I remember a time, perhaps 20 years ago, when a good number of new hams
got their licenses for "honeydo" purposes. Today the same
communications needs are handled by cell phone. Some of those hams are
gone, others discovered that ham radio is more than the reason they
were originally licensed.
> For amateur radio to survive
> they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be
no
> amateur radio in near future.
Why? I'm both on the air and online. Each medium offers things the
other does not.
> Go to streets of your town as
> ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
> Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast
majority of
> people would pick the internet.
Of course. Think about *why*.
Also - why must it be one or the other? Why not both?
> The reason is the internet provides a vast
> variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via
email, chat
> rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
> Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more.
That's one reason. Here are some more:
1) Most people already know about the internet and what it can do. Many
people do not know amateur radio exists, or have only a vague idea of
what it is.
2) Most people access the internet via a personal computer or a
wireless-enabled PDA-type device like a Blackberry. Those devices have
uses far beyond those of internet access.
3) No license. No antenna. Worldwide access 24/7.
> Why should someone
> take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world
via
> radio when they can do it on the internet?
Because it's different. And only because it's different.
> For amateur radio to grow amateur
> radio operators are going to have to get out of this not competing
attitude.
Why?
> One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude
is both
> the amateur and FCC's view on content control.
>
> Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC
for
> controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to
the
> amateur radio service.
Where, exactly, does it prohibit the FCC from controlling content? If
so,
why does Howard Stern have such problems? Why was there such a flap
about
Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"?
The various courts have repeatedly ruled that content control *is* part
of
FCC's authority. The arguments today are over where the line is, not
whether
FCC can draw a line.
> However, this seems NOT to be the case. When I
> announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a
post
> from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
> service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can
send me a
> "QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
> letter.
That was nice of him. He could have just let you break the rules and
then
started an enforcement proceeding.
> This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works for
> the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.
Sorry, unlimited free speech protection does not extend to the radio
spectrum.
How is he wrong? I can't do routine business communications on the
ham bands, either.
> The part one should look at is the part in which Hollingsworth stated
that
> the Liberty Net should look at the internet or apply for a low power
FM
> license. Apparently Mr. Hollingsworth never heard of Section 326.
I think he knows more about it than you do, Todd.
> Now Mr.
> Hollingsworth isn't the only FCC official that has done this; in 1990
the
> FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and
of
> course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick
their
> Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it.
Ding! Godwin's Law violated. You lose, Todd.
> Stating in ARRL Letter and World
> Radio "The League maintains that the disputes can resolved by
enforcing
> existing FCC regulations: One-way Broadcast, if they go beyond the
accepted
> norms for such transmissions on the Amateur bands their illegal." So
who's
> to say is the "ACCEPTED NORM"??
FCC, of course. And the accepted norm is pretty well-defined for
one-way transmissions:
1) Non-commercial in nature (ever notice how ARRL doesn't use W1AW to
solicit memberships or publication sales?)
2) Of *specific* interest to the *amateur radio* community
3) On a published schedule of transmissions (so everybody has a chance
to know where and when)
Would your transmissions meet all of those criteria?
> The ARRL, why not the FCC could give the
> ARRL the power and therefore Free speech could be suppressed.
What is it that you want to say?
> The first
> Amendment bars the government from stomping on free speech, but it
doesn't
> apply to the ARRL which is a national organization from doing it.
Who's the
> one pushing to K1MAN off the air?? The ARRL and its members.
Nope. It's FCC.
> I was asked on
> the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have
a FCC
> official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information
bulletin
> which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech
by a
> Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion
is being
> suppressed by the FCC.
What is it that you want to say in your bulletin, Todd? How does it
meet the criteria listed above?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Michael Coslo
> "Mike Coslo" <mco...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:KdCdnUThdbC...@adelphia.com...
>
>>Todd Daugherty wrote:
>>
>>>The Death of Amateur Radio
>>>
>>>By
>>>
>>> Todd Daugherty N9OGL
>>
>>It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your "Death
>>of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.
>>
>>If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that they
>>need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and more
>>Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as they
>>have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free speech
>>transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into some
>>sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.
>
> No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting.
All they have to do is define their activities as bulletins.
> There are
> some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you do is
> give a signal report, location, ect.
I haven't heard any of that.
> As I stated in my paper a good example
> of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all
> of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if
> BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.
Packet was/is so incredibly slow compared to other digital
transmissions. When I became a Ham, I looked at it and decided that at
it's transmission speed, there wasn't a lot of use for it.
>
>>You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what? K1MAN
>>doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens those
>>who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide that
>>anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free speech?
>>
>
> Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone believes.
> Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.
So I guess we just define everything as an information bulletin! 8^)
>
>>I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
>>speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.
>>
>>Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of getting
>>their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
>>suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off the
>>air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.
>
>
> The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.
Hollingsworth has often commented on situations that are detrimental to
Ham radio. Certainly the Lib Net is one of those. A parent listening in
on that bunch is not likely to want their children having anything to do
with the hobby.
> Again the FCC is barred from controlling
> the content of any station. Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
> amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the alternative....the
> Internet.
Why the one extreme or the other outlook? Suggesting that people make
the Ham bands a pleasant place to operate doesn't make for elimination
of free speech.
N2...@aol.com
Todd Daugherty wrote:
> "Mike Coslo" <mco...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:KdCdnUThdbC...@adelphia.com...
> > Todd Daugherty wrote:
> > > The Death of Amateur Radio
> > >
> > > By
> > >
> > > Todd Daugherty N9OGL
> >
> > It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your
"Death
> > of Amateur Radio" in my opinion.
> >
> > If we get a few hundred more such as yourself that believe that
they
> > need to broadcast their opinions over the amateur bands, more and
more
> > Amateurs will find something else to do with their leisure time, as
they
> > have no room to transmit as the bands fill up with "bulletin free
speech
> > transmissions. All the while transforming the Amateur bands into
some
> > sort of mutant version of the AM broadcast band.
>
> No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting.
"amateurs should broadcasting"?
> There are
> some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all
you do is
> give a signal report, location, ect.
That's simply not true! I've had many long and enjoyable QSOs on a
variety of subjects, with never a problem on content from FCC. The only
limits on content
were "no pecuniary interest" and keeping it "G-rated".
> As I stated in my paper a good example
> of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here
because all
> of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive
if
> BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.
Such as?
> > You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what?
K1MAN
> > doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens
those
> > who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide
that
> > anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free
speech?
> >
> Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone
believes.
If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post,
they're legal.
> Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.
Agreed!
> > I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
> > speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.
> >
> > Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of
getting
> > their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
> > suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off
the
> > air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.
>
> The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.
Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental
to the ARS. Which they do.
> Again the FCC is barred from controlling
> the content of any station.
That's simply not true.
> Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
> amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the
alternative....the
> Internet.
For certain subjects, that's the right medium.
>
> > Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
> > realize........
> >
Interesting!
In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet"
- or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity
theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become
disenchanted with it.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Todd Daugherty
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1108413593.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
on experimenting. Another BBS with amaeur policy. These are just to name a
few there was a issue CQ VHF that went into greater detail about the set up.
The point is to have all the for sale stuff on one BBS and a diverse of
other BBS on other
subjects. I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is
interferning with their system.
> > > You note that you look for a free space to transmit in. So what?
> K1MAN
> > > doesn't. He opens up on whoever is on the frequency and threatens
> those
> > > who don't move. How many more "free speech advocates" will decide
> that
> > > anyone on "their frequency" is an infringement on their free
> speech?
> > >
> > Information Bulletins are legal no matter what you or anyone
> believes.
>
> If the bulletins meet the specific criteria I outlined in another post,
> they're legal.
>
information bulletins which deal with amateur radio issues shouldn't be
opinionated and it is those same amateurs operators when the bulletin is
transmitting then begin jamming the Information bulletin because they feel
the transmission is illegal.
> > Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.
>
> Agreed!
>
> > > I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons free
> > > speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be reached.
> > >
> > > Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of
> getting
> > > their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is a
> > > suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them off
> the
> > > air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.
> >
> > The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.
>
> Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as detrimental
> to the ARS. Which they do.
>
> > Again the FCC is barred from controlling
> > the content of any station.
>
> That's simply not true.
>
yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is barred to
control the content of any station. The only content the FCC is allowed to
control is obscene and indecent material and that's it.
> > Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
> > amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the
> alternative....the
> > Internet.
>
> For certain subjects, that's the right medium.
> >
> > > Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
> > > realize........
> > >
> Interesting!
>
> In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the internet"
> - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity
> theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to become
> disenchanted with it.
>
I really dout the internet will die. As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now
out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and government
agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to three
years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading will
be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie within
minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die anytime
soon.
Todd N9OGL
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
Tony VE6MVP
<mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote:
>> As I stated in my paper a good example
>> of this was packet radio. Packet is pretty much died around here because all
>> of the content on them was "For Sale" stuff. Packet would of survive if
>> BBS's were set up to cater to certain topics or discussion groups.
>
> Packet was/is so incredibly slow compared to other digital
>transmissions. When I became a Ham, I looked at it and decided that at
>it's transmission speed, there wasn't a lot of use for it.
What's better than packet then?
Tony
bb
Dave Heil wrote:
> Todd Daugherty wrote:
> > The
> > reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has
nothing to
> > offer.
>
> There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd. Maybe
> what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer you.
> Feel free to move on. Find another interest.
Heil actually has a point, smug as it is.
I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little
dance.
If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.
Mike Coslo
Most everything else about Ham radio! ;^)
- Mike KB3EIA -
Phil Kane
>. I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
>local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is
>interferning with their system.
I fail to see what the content of your erstwhile BBS had to do with
interference, which is a spectrum-sharing problem.
As all experienced lawyers know all too well, folks threaten to go to
"the authorities" or to "file suit" with no basis in their claim
whatsoever. Ah, the American legal system!!
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Dee Flint
"bb" <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1108424935....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oh, Lord. That would be a sight and a half!
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
robert casey
>
> Packet was/is so incredibly slow compared to other digital
> transmissions. When I became a Ham, I looked at it and decided that at
> it's transmission speed, there wasn't a lot of use for it.
When packet first came out, it was fun to do. That's when
dial up modems did 1200 baud. But that was 15 years ago.
If the packet BBSes now did 56K or faster (not by modulation
of the audio feeding an FM rig, but skillful modulation of
the carrier itself (an RF modem)) it might still be interesting.
>
>> Again the FCC is barred from controlling
>> the content of any station.
They have the "no pecuniary interest" rule, which is a
regulation on content. Not that I think that that rule is
bad; it protects the ham bands from being taken over
by taxi cab and pizza delivery traffic and such.
But somehow it doesn't have 1st amendment issues.
Charles Brabham
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org
Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com
Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php
Weebus RF Meter
"Michael Coslo" <mj...@enoughalready.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:cuqtri$m7k$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
> Hollingsworth has often commented on situations that are detrimental to
> Ham radio. Certainly the Lib Net is one of those. A parent listening in
> on that bunch is not likely to want their children having anything to do
> with the hobby.
The Lib Net are a bunch of aging lightweight crackerheads compared
to something called The Eastern Regional Patriot Net.
You can catch these ultra-goofballs right now, every evening at
7:00 PM Central Time (8 PM Eastern) on 3.860 LSB.
This bunch is your genuine core-group of ultra-paranoid misfits
what seems to believes in chemtrails, colloidal-silver, the Protocols of
Zion, Planet X and Aryan purity among other such longtime short-wave
radio crapola, what everyone else knows is both pure bullshit and
the rantings of screwballs. The ERPN itself was started by noneother
than famous UPR Radio goofball Steve Anderson (..currently incarcerated
for firing a fully automatic AK-47 at a Kentucky State Police
officer during a MVA stop) who once broadcast from his home in
Northern Kentucky. Steve's eventual arrest and conviction has
not stopped these fruits and nuts which still meet nightly on 3.860 for
passing of Militia-related "traffic" on a nightly basis, some check-in's
of which have included known Militia members and several others
using both bootleg or invalid made-up ham callsigns. Of late however
check-in's to the ERPN have been sparse or made up of valid ham
radio callsign holders, as the word was out that both RH and a certain
"Homeland Security" type Agency of the US Govt. (hint) has taken recent
'interest' in some of the traffic being passed on this so-called net, or so
it was alleged at a midwestern ham club recently...........
Then again, that's is the consistent & nice thing about your average
right-wing Domestic Kookinschlong...every one of em LOVES to blabber
their openly Seditious and Insurrectionist incitement either thru a
telephone
to a kook call-in short-wave radio show, (..like Alex Jones' daily hit
parade
of paranoia) or from behind a ham radio microphone live and nightly like
they've been doing on the ERPN for several years now. What a bunch
of sloop head dopes, poebuckers and moe-rons! SWL them now boys while
you can, before they operate "dx" later at Guatananamo Bay or some
other similar 'amusing' place. ; )
[viktor-lima-bravo-two...grin....grin...]
N2...@aol.com
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1108413593.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Todd Daugherty wrote:
> > > "Mike Coslo" <mco...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > > news:KdCdnUThdbC...@adelphia.com...
> > > > Todd Daugherty wrote:
> > > > > The Death of Amateur Radio
> > > > It is interesting that what you propose to do would hasten your
> > "amateurs should broadcasting"?
> > Such as?
Sounds good in theory. But in practice, how would that work? Could hams
all over the world, or even all over the USA, access that particular
BBS? If so, how?
> I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
> local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is
> interferning with their system.
How many years ago? And would it have interfered?
It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is
that
it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago.
Heck,
even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup
modems for almost a decade!
Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you could
use a
voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet
would have
moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would mean
someone
would actually have to build a radio to do it...
Jamming is an enforcement issue.
> > > Interference which K1MAN is doing is not legal.
> > Agreed!
> > > > I wonder if wattage limits are an infringement on a persons
free
> > > > speech? Limiting it limits the number of people who can be
reached.
> > > > Suggestion that Lib net members use an alternative method of
> > > > getting
> > > > their views out is not infringement of their free speech, it is
a
> > > > suggestion. And not a bad one at that. No one is forcing them
off
> > > > the air, just suggesting a better venue for their views.
> > > The FCC shouldn't even suggest it.
> > Yes, they should, if they see the content and behavior as
detrimental
> > to the ARS. Which they do.
> > > Again the FCC is barred from controlling
> > > the content of any station.
> > That's simply not true.
> yes and no Under Section 326 of the Communication Act the FCC is
barred to
> control the content of any station.
I'll ask again: What exact verbiage says that?
> The only content the FCC is allowed to
> control is obscene and indecent material and that's it.
How about commercial content on the ham bands?
How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes?
Are those things allowed under 326?
>
> > > Again if they can have alternative perhaps ALL
> > > amateurs should move off the radio spectrum and uses the
> > > alternative....the Internet.
> > For certain subjects, that's the right medium.
>
> > > > Death of Amateur Radio? Perhaps you have a bigger part than you
> > > > realize........
> > Interesting!
> >
> > In fact, we're starting to see what may be the "death of the
internet"
> > - or at least the death of its potential. Viruses, popups, identity
> > theft and other shenanigans are causing many people I know to
become
> > disenchanted with it.
> I really dout the internet will die.
Me too. But I see its potential dying.
> As a matter of fact Internet 2 is now
> out (well right now only some Universities (206 to be exact) and
government
> agencies have it...it will probably be commercialized in about two to
three
> years.). Internet 2 will have a lot more applications and downloading
will
> be faster. (people will be able to download a full length movie
within
> minutes instead of days) so I really dout the Internet will die
anytime
> soon.
If "internet 2" catches on, it will replace the original.
If you want different content than what is found on current amateur
packet,
why not provide it yourself? Not in competition with the forsale folks,
but
on a different frequency or even band. With much higher speed and more
features?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Caveat Lector
> Someone wrote;
> Q codes are for morse only. People who use Q codes on voice or text are
> boring.
I agree that generally there is no reason to use Q-codes on voice.
But there are 600,000 + hams in the USA most using Q-Codes on voice even
VHF, and ya ain't gonna change that, so I suggest you know the basic ones
when they come at you.
Example: New folks coming on repeaters will hear about 5 or 6 commonly used
Q-codes - best learn them or wonder what the hell they are talking about.
QSL, QSY, QTH, QRM, QRN, QRX, etc
Q-Signals are brevity codes as is the 10 codes. They are useful to increase
thruput and clarity, that is why the police and RACES use them on voice.
With Hams it is mostly jargon and tradition. Just like the rest of our
language -- if ya get my drift - OK.
You will have an impossible task trying to eliminate Q-signals on Ham radio
voice modes --- QSL ?
P.S. Do you still say DMV instead of Department Of Motor Vehicles ------
IMI
--
73 de Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Todd Daugherty
There are many ham radio operators who misunderstand this paper so I'll give
a little example. Say I run a store, and in this store is empty boxes for
sale. Now often I would get someone to come into my store but no one would
buy my boxes. The reason for that is all I offer..the boxes. Now if I had a
variety of stuff to offer the business would pickup and I would be able to
compete with other stores. The same is true with amateur radio. If amateur
radio is to survive in the digital age outdated modes of communication won't
cut it. For amateur radio to survive they are going to have to offer
something besides an easy way to get a license. Amateurs will have to
compete in the sense that they are going to have to offer something that
would get people to join the service. Like I said for amateurs to compete in
the digital era out dated modes of communication and half ass forms of
communication aren't going to cut. Amateur radio will die because amateur
radio will have nothing to offer except those half ass modes and outdated
communications
Todd N9OGL
Bathrooman
Caveat Lector
Hasn't happened yet in fact increased enormously
Please give a date for the The Death of Amateur Radio
And we will take a dollar for every year it continues --- OK
Interesting that we have dozens of new hams that got a license to beat the
cell phone rates
--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:42125294$1...@127.0.0.1...
N2...@aol.com
Caveat Lector wrote:
> > Someone wrote;
> > Q codes are for morse only. People who use Q codes on voice or text
are
> > boring.
>
> I agree that generally there is no reason to use Q-codes on voice.
>
> But there are 600,000 + hams in the USA most using Q-Codes on voice
even
> VHF, and ya ain't gonna change that, so I suggest you know the basic
ones
> when they come at you.
I don't use Q-codes on voice.
But it's a good idea to know them anyway.
>
> Example: New folks coming on repeaters will hear about 5 or 6
commonly used
> Q-codes - best learn them or wonder what the hell they are talking
about.
> QSL, QSY, QTH, QRM, QRN, QRX, etc
Yes.
>
> Q-Signals are brevity codes as is the 10 codes. They are useful to
increase
> thruput and clarity, that is why the police and RACES use them on
voice.
Except in may cases they are *longer* on voice than the equivalent
words. For example, "QSL" is three syllables but "roger" is only two.
"QRX" is three but "wait" is one. Etc.
> With Hams it is mostly jargon and tradition. Just like the rest of
our
> language -- if ya get my drift - OK.
Exactly. I don't use 'em on voice but I'm not going to get upset with
someone who does.
>
> You will have an impossible task trying to eliminate Q-signals on Ham
radio
> voice modes --- QSL ?
roger!
The best way to eliminate their use on voice is simply to set an
example. What a concept, huh?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Mike Coslo
>>Someone wrote;
>>Q codes are for morse only. People who use Q codes on voice or text are
>>boring.
>
>
> I agree that generally there is no reason to use Q-codes on voice.
>
> But there are 600,000 + hams in the USA most using Q-Codes on voice even
> VHF, and ya ain't gonna change that, so I suggest you know the basic ones
> when they come at you.
It is jargon, just like RAM, ROM, HDD, CD, DVD, and all the computer
alphabet soup.
THe only one that bothers me is when someone says HI HI. The CW use is
obviously needed, but if you can't actually laugh at what somone said in
conversation, it couldn't be very funny.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Dee Flint
"robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:AGdQd.1003$9J5...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
That's because there are other venues for that. Freedom of speech doesn't
even enter into it.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Mike Coslo
I don't know, but if someone did do something like that on Packet, I
would definitely be interested.
>
>>I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
>>local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is
>>interferning with their system.
>
>
> How many years ago? And would it have interfered?
>
> It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is
> that
> it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago.
> Heck,
> even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup
> modems for almost a decade!
Spot on!
> Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you could
> use a
> voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet
> would have
> moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would mean
> someone
> would actually have to build a radio to do it...
Agreed.
I would second that, Jim. Todd, I'll go on record noting that you could
be at the vanguard of something that could serve more hams than your
proposed bulletins and eventually be a great part of the service.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Mike Coslo
> Hmmm I read something like this in about 1950
> Hasn't happened yet in fact increased enormously
> Please give a date for the The Death of Amateur Radio
> And we will take a dollar for every year it continues --- OK
>
> Interesting that we have dozens of new hams that got a license to beat the
> cell phone rates
That is why I got my ticket. At least because one of my hobbies is off
road 4WD'ing. More often than I care to admit, I get stuck in the woods,
and have to call my XYL to let her know I'm going to be late for dinner.
Eventually I found out what fun the hobby is, and went from there.
p.s. Don't you have a name besides your screen name? Seems kinda odd
calling you "caveat"! 8^)
- Mike KB3EIA -
Greg
> From: "Weebus RF Meter" <voordvi...@yahoo.com>
> Organization: voord
> Reply-To: "Weebus RF Meter" <voordvi...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.shortwave
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:26:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: The Death of Amateur Radio
Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X?
Weebus RF Meter
"Greg" <gfi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BE3816AC.34642%gfi...@tampabay.rr.com...
> Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X?
Unfortunatly.....yes.
We were hoping that there was a Planet X.
This way if there was, when it appears there
would be another group like the Heaven's Gate cultists
that would go and perform some kind of a mass suicide
for our mutual viewing and reading enjoyment of the same.
(see http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/hale.html )
Untill then however, we'll just have to settle for right wing
militialoons that get their sorry ass shot out from under them
or tossed into jail, along with the occasional loon who goes
apeshi+ and shoots up a suburban shopping mall someplace.
(I don't think we'll be seeing another 9/11 for a very long time to come)
Oh well, as Andy Warhol said - "15 Minutes of Fame is our mutual
allocation"
Ciao baby!
xoxoxo
----------------
"I like to go to Wal-Mart, find some doofus guy shopping alone, wait until
he isn't looking, toss a Summers Eve douche bag in his cart, get behind
him in line and wait to see the look on his face when the cashier scans
it at the checkout"
- Mollie in alt.sex.lesbians
"You finally found your pacifier; keep sucking on it. Like your hero
Alexander the Homo, the spreader of Greek Syphilisization, you will be
rewarded soon with a mouthfull."
- Susan Cohen the spammer in soc.culture.greek
Funny Network News Moment of the day: Dan Rather,Peter Jennings and Tom
Brokaw couldn't keep a straight face when telling the world that Michael
Jackson
had to go to the ER today because he's got the runs and shi+ his pants in
court.
(I nearly died laughing at this one folks)
Cmd Buzz Corey
ULX would chew toddyboy up and spit him out in a Nu York minute.
Cmd Buzz Corey
> There are many ham radio operators who misunderstand this paper so I'll give
> a little example. Say I run a store, and in this store is empty boxes for
> sale. Now often I would get someone to come into my store but no one would
> buy my boxes. The reason for that is all I offer..the boxes. Now if I had a
> variety of stuff to offer the business would pickup and I would be able to
> compete with other stores. The same is true with amateur radio. If amateur
> radio is to survive in the digital age outdated modes of communication won't
> cut it. For amateur radio to survive they are going to have to offer
> something besides an easy way to get a license. Amateurs will have to
> compete in the sense that they are going to have to offer something that
> would get people to join the service. Like I said for amateurs to compete in
> the digital era out dated modes of communication and half ass forms of
> communication aren't going to cut. Amateur radio will die because amateur
> radio will have nothing to offer except those half ass modes and outdated
> communications
>
> Todd N9OGL
????????? How does empty boxes relate to Amateur Radio. I do know of
stores that make quite a bit of money selling empty boxes, so you must
be doing something terribly wrong toddyboy.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>>
>
> Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X?
>
Sssssshhhhhh!! Not everyone knows about that.
Cmd Buzz Corey
> Todd Daugherty wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting.
>> There are
>> some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you
>> do is
>> give a signal report, location, ect.
>
>
> You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official
> quotes from the FCC?
>
I'm still waiting for something that shows the FCC wants to keep
communications on the ham bands to just signal reports and location.
Todd Daugherty
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1108481168.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Well, it could be set up on VHF and HF allow.
> > I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
> > local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the system is
> > interferning with their system.
>
> How many years ago? And would it have interfered?
It was a while back, around 1997. would it have interfered?? no, if you know
anything about packet; packet time shares a frequency. This guy and his
little group were nothing more then assholes.
> It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is
> that
> it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago.
> Heck,
> even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup
> modems for almost a decade!
>
> Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you could
> use a
> voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet
> would have
> moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would mean
> someone
> would actually have to build a radio to do it...
There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The
problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's
automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would
work if the network was set up right.
Well here's the rule read it for yourself
(47 USC 326)
§ 326. Censorship
Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals
transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be
promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right
of free speech by means of radio communication.
> > the only content the FCC is allowed to
> > control is obscene and indecent material and that's it.
>
> How about commercial content on the ham bands?
>
> How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes?
>
> Are those things allowed under 326?
Those are under other rules and regulation.
Because the cost would be too much. There is no packet network around here
any more and the cost would be too high. A let's not forget some competition
in a service good be a good thing
Todd N9OGL
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
Todd Daugherty
"Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@that.net> wrote in message
news:5JKdnbKBvbC...@gbronline.com...
I don't know, that comment that Hollingsworth sent to me I think would
constitute what your looking for.
Todd N9OGL
Charles Brabham
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1108481168.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is
> that
> it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago.
> Heck,
> even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup
> modems for almost a decade!
Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! -
Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago!
N2...@aol.com
Charles Brabham wrote:
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1108481168.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio
is
> > that
> > it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years
ago.
> > Heck,
> > even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k
dialup
> > modems for almost a decade!
>
> Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig?
Wow! -
> Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago!
Ya missed the point, Charles.
1200 baud packet is a make-do, chosen to be quick and cheap. All you
have to do is interface to an FM voice radio.
Getting a significant improvement in bandwidth would mean actually
*building radios* designed for the purpose. Which simply hasn't
happened in large numbers.
Kind of a sad commentary. When SSB became popular in amateur radio,
hams built entire transmitters, receivers and transceivers for the
mode. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed.
When VHF/UHF FM voice became popular in amateur radio, there was a mix
of homebrew and converted-land-mobile equipment used by hams. Once its
popularity was established, manufacturers followed.
But from what I can see, the packet folks aren't much interested in
*building radios* from scratch. That's why the old standards are still
in use.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Phil Kane
>There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and 56K. The
>problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by BBS's
>automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200 baud would
>work if the network was set up right.
For our county-wide ARES/RACES operation we have a four-node local
network that uses four VHF packet frequencies (1200 baud) and four
pairs of UHF frequencies (9600 baud), the latter for inter-node and
backbone automatic forwarding. We have about 40 users - ten "served
agencies" and thirty individual participants. The net is "up" 24/7
and carries a fair amount of inter-user messages -- classic ham radio
traffic handling. Several of us including myself have a dedicated
radio/TNC/computer running 24/7 just for this purpose.
No reason that it can't work.
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon
Todd Daugherty
"Phil Kane" <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote in message
news:cuvyxnansvbet....@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Well, the problem here was the operators of the BBS's were told to move
their fowarding to the backbone system but they wouldn't. So the guy who ran
the vast majority of nodes here in the state of Illinois got basically
pissed off and turned the whole system off. that was back around 1998. I
think a newer system would work instead of the "old" packet system.
First the Speed 1200 baud is ok, it work. However, I think if amateur's
could figure out how these wireless networks work and apply that to the
amateur radio service. Instead of having a bunch of "nodes" going across the
United States on a radio frequency have only a "Local Access" point say on a
2 meter frequency which would go from that node through the internet and
backout on 2 meters. Instead of having traditional BBS software remove it
and use a Peer to Peer (P2P) this would be more practical in the sense that
all a person has to do is search for something and get a list. A bbs would
inpractical because in sense that a person would have to monitor the hard
driveand clean it out when it gets full and BBS's uses fowarding while a P2P
system there is no fowarding all the forsale stuff and stupid jokes stays in
the users share file.
Just an Idea....
Todd N9OGL
Mike Coslo
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1108481168.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio is
>>that
>>it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years ago.
>>Heck,
>>even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k dialup
>>modems for almost a decade!
>
>
> Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig? Wow! -
> Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago!
I thought the topic was how slow packet is compared to just about
everything else. Not hooking a phone modem to a rig.
- Mike KB3EIA -
Charles Brabham
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5f611lcp3omqnvc5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:29:51 GMT, "Charles Brabham" <n5...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> I have a 1-meter rig that works on 2-metres.
>
What does the one meter say, when you are on two metres?
Charles Brabham
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1108569735....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig?
> Wow! -
>> Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago!
>
> Ya missed the point, Charles.
Nope... You did, along with quite a few others.
Charles Brabham
> Charles Brabham wrote:
>>
>> Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig?
>> Wow! - Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago!
>
> I thought the topic was how slow packet is compared to just about
> everything else. Not hooking a phone modem to a rig.
The "hooking a phone modem to a rig" part was me making fun of the "how slow
packet is" whiners.
Packet is (within reason) as fast as you want it to be.
The whiners here are upset because not everyone shares their desires and
expectations. - The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of
Packet users just don't give a hoot about high-speed Packet, or IP either.
It's always been that way and will probably continue to be that way for a
very long time.
They whine and they complain... Why, they'll do just about anything - as
long as it is negative and reflects poorly upon the hobby.
One thing you won't see them doing is transforming Packet over to high-speed
and IP. - It's so much easier and natural for them to whine because somebody
else ( or everybody else ) hasn't done it for them.
Meanwhile - Life goes on, and the whining of frustrated protocol warriors is
really a very little thing.
"How I Won the Protocol Wars" - http://www.uspacket.org/l_protowars.htm
Dee Flint
>
>
> Well here's the rule read it for yourself
> (47 USC 326)
> § 326. Censorship
> Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the
> Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
> signals
> transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be
> promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the
> right
> of free speech by means of radio communication.
>
>
However, requiring the various radio services to stick to the rules for
their particular radio service is not censorship. For example, the amateur
radio service is defined as a two way communications service with a very
strict limitation on broadcasting or one way only transmissions. This in no
way limits the content of those two way communications. Two or more hams
engaged in a discussion can talk about any subject they want to so long as
they do not use obscenity (and note that the courts have upheld that
obscenity is not protected by free speech). Naturally people can also be
held liable in civil court if they engage in slander and the slandered party
chooses to sue.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
bb
So?
Dave Heil
bb wrote:
>
> Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
> > Dee Flint wrote:
> >
> > > "bb" <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1108424935....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >>Dave Heil wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.
You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not write the
above.
Dave K8MN
Ham Guy
<voordvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Greg" <gfi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:BE3816AC.34642%gfi...@tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> Now wait, are you saying there really is no Planet X?
>
>Unfortunatly.....yes.
>
>We were hoping that there was a Planet X.
>This way if there was, when it appears there
>would be another group like the Heaven's Gate cultists
>that would go and perform some kind of a mass suicide
>for our mutual viewing and reading enjoyment of the same.
>
>(see http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/hale.html )
>
>Untill then however, we'll just have to settle for right wing
>militialoons that get their sorry ass shot out from under them
>or tossed into jail, along with the occasional loon who goes
>apeshi+ and shoots up a suburban shopping mall someplace.
>
>(I don't think we'll be seeing another 9/11 for a very long time to come)
>
>Oh well, as Andy Warhol said - "15 Minutes of Fame is our mutual
>allocation"
>
>Ciao baby!
>xoxoxo
Here's everything you need to know about "Planet X"
N2...@aol.com
I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.
>
> > > I tried years ago to set something up like that however a few
> > > local amateurs threated to go to the FCC and claim that the
system is
> > > interferning with their system.
> >
> > How many years ago? And would it have interfered?
>
> It was a while back, around 1997. would it have interfered?? no, if
you know
> anything about packet; packet time shares a frequency.
Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for
the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
"interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.
> This guy and his
> little group were nothing more then assholes.
Well, that's *your* opinion...
> > It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio
is
> > that
> > it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years
ago.
> > Heck,
> > even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k
dialup
> > modems for almost a decade!
> >
> > Wasn't amateur packet originally set up for 1200 baud because you
could
> > use a
> > voice FM 2 m radio without any mods? You'd think that by now packet
> > would have
> > moved to much higher speeds and much higher bands...but that would
mean
> > someone
> > would actually have to build a radio to do it...
>
> There are radio that allow higher speed packet including 9600 and
56K.
Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?
> The
> problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by
BBS's
> automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200
baud would
> work if the network was set up right.
You mean, set up the way you'd like.
It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.
OK, fine.
Now you have to define "free speech" and "censorship". Obviously the
FCC's and Supreme's definitions aren't the same as yours.
> > > the only content the FCC is allowed to
> > > control is obscene and indecent material and that's it.
> >
> > How about commercial content on the ham bands?
> >
> > How about using radio to help with the commission of crimes?
> >
> > Are those things allowed under 326?
>
> Those are under other rules and regulation.
Thank you for proving my point! The content and other restrictions of
amateur radio are under other rules and regulations.
Then there's no way amateur radio can 'compete with the internet'. Nor
should it.
> There is no packet network around here
> any more and the cost would be too high.
For whom?
The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon
individuals or
small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by
others. So the
people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how
they are
used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?
> A let's not forget some competition
> in a service good be a good thing
If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?
K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others
assholes.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Cmd Buzz Corey
> "Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@that.net> wrote in message
> news:5JKdnbKBvbC...@gbronline.com...
>
>>Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Todd Daugherty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>No where in my paper do I state that amateurs should broadcasting.
>>>>There are
>>>>some including the FCC who wishes to keep the service to where all you
>>>>do is
>>>>give a signal report, location, ect.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have some facts to back up that dumb statement? Have some official
>>>quotes from the FCC?
>>>
>>
>>I'm still waiting for something that shows the FCC wants to keep
>>communications on the ham bands to just signal reports and location.
>
>
>
> I don't know, that comment that Hollingsworth sent to me I think would
> constitute what your looking for.
> Todd N9OGL
Which is?
Todd Daugherty
I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.
Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF
Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait for
the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
"interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.
If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting" system.
A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency isn't
being used. This is called time-shifting.
> This guy and his
> little group were nothing more then assholes.
Well, that's *your* opinion...
It's not my opinion it a fact.
>Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?
1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the higher
speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb. The problem
isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up fast
enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet.
> The
> problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran by
BBS's
> automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200
baud would
> work if the network was set up right.
You mean, set up the way you'd like.
It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.
NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here in
Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't move
their fowarding to the backbone system. Instead they were running it on the
Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So the BBS
were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out of
packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the network
got pissed off about it and shut it down.SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN
ILLINOIS!
The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and
Indecent material and Commerical type messages.
Then amateur's are doomed, Living with and uses outdated modes of
communication in a digital age aren't going to cut it because nobody will
want to go into a service that that's (useless Modes) is all their going to
get. Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get more
people into it.
> There is no packet network around here
> any more and the cost would be too high.
For whom?
The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon
individuals or
small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by
others. So the
people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how
they are
used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?
Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there is no
Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on the
user frequency.
> A let's not forget some competition
> in a service good be a good thing
If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?
K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling others
assholes.
What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new idea's and
new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him. As for that
*asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming
"Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from the
packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a ASSHOLE.
N2...@aol.com
Todd Daugherty wrote:
> I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.
>
> Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF
>
>
> Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait
for
> the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
> "interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.
>
> If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting"
system.
> A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency
isn't
> being used. This is called time-shifting.
Of course.
Now suppose there are three stations on a frequency, each with about
the same level of traffic. Each will wind up with about 1/3 of the time
on the air.
But if a new station comes on frequency with a lot of stuff to send,
those existing stations will have to wait and wait for the frequency to
be quiet. While that's not "interference" in the classical QRM sense,
it *is* interference in the sense that throughput is reduced.
> > This guy and his
> > little group were nothing more then assholes.
>
> Well, that's *your* opinion...
>
> It's not my opinion it a fact.
It's an opinion, noting more. That's a fact! ;-)
>
> >Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?
>
> 1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the
higher
> speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb.
Of course!
> The problem
> isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up
fast
> enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet.
So build new radios specifically for high speed packet. We're radio
amateurs, right? We're one of the few - maybe the only! - radio
services
that even *allow* licensees to build radios without a whole bunch of
certifications and such.
So what's the big deal about building your own highspeed packet radio
from scratch? I've built several HF rigs from scratch....
> > The
> > problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran
by
> > BBS's
> > automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200
> > baud would
> > work if the network was set up right.
>
> You mean, set up the way you'd like.
>
> It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
> to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.
>
> NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here
in
> Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't
move
> their fowarding to the backbone system.
Why wouldn't they move it to the backbone system?
Isn't the "user frequency" for users? If so, it seems to me that the
forwarding should go by the backbone system. To do otherwise is
like putting the locals and expresses all on the same track, and
then complaining because there are so many late trains.
> Instead they were running it on the
> Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So
the BBS
> were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out
of
> packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the
network
> got pissed off about it and shut it down.
Ah! Now I understand.
Why wouldn't the BBS folks use the backbone system? And do you blame
the
*owner* of the nodes for shutting them down? They're *his* nodes,
right?
He's got the responsibility for them, right?
> SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN ILLINOIS!
That's sad. Is there no one in IL who will put up some nodes?
But who decides what is obscene and indecent?
What "useless modes"?
> Again Amateur's have to come up with something new to offer to get
more
> people into it.
>
Oddly enough, most of the new hams I know are fascinated by both the
old and
the new.
> > There is no packet network around here
> > any more and the cost would be too high.
>
> For whom?
>
> The problem with any amateur network is that you're dependent upon
> individuals or
> small groups to put up stations that cost $$ but are mostly used by
> others. So the
> people who actually put the stations on the air want control over how
> they are
> used. Which is perfectly reasonable, isn't it?
>
> Like I stated above the Packet network here in Illinois is gone there
is no
> Packet here in Illinois due to problem of BBS operators fowarding on
the
> user frequency.
That's not a cost issue; it's an organization issue.
>
> > A let's not forget some competition
> > in a service good be a good thing
>
> If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?
> K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
> Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling
others
> assholes.
> What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new
idea's and
> new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him.
Will do. But it seems to me that if you want new modes, you should be
leading the way, not demanding others do it.
> As for that
> *asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming
> "Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from
the
> packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a
ASSHOLE.
Or maybe he's just ignorant of what a good receiver can do...
73 de Jim, N2EY
Michael Coslo
> Charles Brabham wrote:
>
>><N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>news:1108481168.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>It seems to me that one of the limitations of amateur packet radio
>
> is
>
>>>that
>>>it hasn't evolved much past the 1200 baud/BBS mindset of 20+ years
>
> ago.
>
>>>Heck,
>>>even trailingedge computer types like me have been running 56k
>
> dialup
>
>>>modems for almost a decade!
>>
>>Does your 56kb dialup modem work pretty good with your 2-meter rig?
>
> Wow! -
>
>>Why didn't we BBS operators think of this YEARS ago!
>
>
> Ya missed the point, Charles.
>
> 1200 baud packet is a make-do, chosen to be quick and cheap. All you
> have to do is interface to an FM voice radio.
>
> Getting a significant improvement in bandwidth would mean actually
> *building radios* designed for the purpose. Which simply hasn't
> happened in large numbers.
Arrgh. I havn't thought much about it, but yes, you are right. A rig
with both fetures could be designed without too much trouble.
> Kind of a sad commentary. When SSB became popular in amateur radio,
> hams built entire transmitters, receivers and transceivers for the
> mode. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed.
> When VHF/UHF FM voice became popular in amateur radio, there was a mix
> of homebrew and converted-land-mobile equipment used by hams. Once its
> popularity was established, manufacturers followed.
>
> But from what I can see, the packet folks aren't much interested in
> *building radios* from scratch. That's why the old standards are still
> in use.
Bingo! - mike KB3EIA -
bb
David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb
Todd Daugherty
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1108666987.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Todd Daugherty wrote:
> I have no idea what you're saying there, Todd.
>
> Packet can be ran on both VHF, UHF, and HF
>
Ah! Now I understand.
>
> Who decides how much time each system gets? If systems have to wait
for
> the frequency to be quiet, the existing systems could experience
> "interference" if they can't get a byte in edgewise.
>
> If you know anything about Packet...Packet runs on a "time-shifting"
system.
> A tnc will listen on the frequency and transmit when the frequency
isn't
> being used. This is called time-shifting.
Of course.
Now suppose there are three stations on a frequency, each with about
the same level of traffic. Each will wind up with about 1/3 of the time
on the air.
But if a new station comes on frequency with a lot of stuff to send,
those existing stations will have to wait and wait for the frequency to
be quiet. While that's not "interference" in the classical QRM sense,
it *is* interference in the sense that throughput is reduced.
That's what on VHF here in Illinois So much qrm and interference from
fowarding.
> > This guy and his
> > little group were nothing more then assholes.
>
> Well, that's *your* opinion...
>
> It's not my opinion it a fact.
It's an opinion, noting more. That's a fact! ;-)
>
> >Sure - but 1200 lives on as the most popular, right?
>
> 1200 baud is popular so is 300 baud on HF. look THC's can go the
higher
> speeds; there are TNC's out there that can do 14.4K and 56kb.
Of course!
> The problem
> isn't the TNC's; the problems is the radio. Radio's can not key up
fast
> enough that has always been the main problem with high speed packet.
So build new radios specifically for high speed packet. We're radio
amateurs, right? We're one of the few - maybe the only! - radio
services
that even *allow* licensees to build radios without a whole bunch of
certifications and such.
So what's the big deal about building your own highspeed packet radio
from scratch? I've built several HF rigs from scratch....
better yet idea is to figure out how those wireless cards operate and a way
to convert them into the ham bands.
> > The
> > problem with packet here was the user frequency was being over ran
by
> > BBS's
> > automatic fowarding and that's what drove off all the users. 1200
> > baud would
> > work if the network was set up right.
>
> You mean, set up the way you'd like.
>
> It still seems to me that what you wanted was for the existing system
> to see it your way, rather than creating a new system.
>
> NO, Look I know the guy who ran and owned the majority of nodes here
in
> Illinois. He shut the system down because The BBS operators wouldn't
move
> their fowarding to the backbone system.
Why wouldn't they move it to the backbone system?
I really have no idea but I have a system that would resolve all those
problems.
Isn't the "user frequency" for users? If so, it seems to me that the
forwarding should go by the backbone system. To do otherwise is
like putting the locals and expresses all on the same track, and
then complaining because there are so many late trains.
So true.
> Instead they were running it on the
> Users frequency. (in Illinois there was only ONE USER FREQUENCY) So
the BBS
> were fowarding the vast majority of the time and it drove people out
of
> packet here in Illinois and they guy who owned the majority of the
network
> got pissed off about it and shut it down.
Ah! Now I understand.
Why wouldn't the BBS folks use the backbone system? And do you blame
the
*owner* of the nodes for shutting them down? They're *his* nodes,
right?
He's got the responsibility for them, right?
> SO NOW THERE IS NO PACKET IN ILLINOIS!
That's sad. Is there no one in IL who will put up some nodes?
No one wants to get back into packet...to them packet is dead and a useless
system (this idea is based on how the network was set up)
The Supreme court pretty much defined obscene and in indecent in MillerVs
California, it's that three prong that the courts and the govenment looks
at.
What "useless modes"?
It is a cost issue because if you were set up node the old way you have to
pay for radio's, TNC, computers, space, antenna, coax.
>
> > A let's not forget some competition
> > in a service good be a good thing
>
> If it costs too much, doesn't that mean the competition is lost?
> K2ASP has described a system that is functioning *today* in his area.
> Sounds pretty good. Betcha it didn't get built by people calling
others
> assholes.
> What I was refering to when I'm talking about Competition is new
idea's and
> new modes of communication. I suggest you read my repond to him.
Will do. But it seems to me that if you want new modes, you should be
leading the way, not demanding others do it.
I'm not demanding but one person can't do it all..
> As for that
> *asshole* I was refering to wasn't even on packet. He was claiming
> "Interference" to his station which was sitting 1.905MHZ away from
the
> packet frequency. Again he wasn't even on packet he was and is a
ASSHOLE.
Or maybe he's just ignorant of what a good receiver can do...
73 de Jim, N2EY
Phil Kane
>> The only REAL content amateurs have that is restricted is Obscene and
>> Indecent material and Commerical type messages.
>
>But who decides what is obscene and indecent?
There are specific case opinions of the Supreme Court of the United
States which define same.
Do not forget that in addition to banning certain types of
content, the FCC also forces certain types of content such as
transmitting station ID at specified times in specific format.
It's even worse for broadcasters who also have to transmit EAS
material, renewal filing notices, and sponsorship notices in
addition to station ID.
None of the above are the "censorship" which is envisioned in Sec.
326, though.
Be happy for what we have and don't have.
Dave Heil
The attributions say otherwise, "bb".
Dave K8MN
bb
Who you gonna believe?
K4YZ
> Who you gonna believe?
Yeah Dave...You gonna believe an archiving system known for it's
flawless recordkeeping, or a guy caught in numerous mistruths, deceit
and blatant lies?
Think reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal hard.......
73
Steve, K4YZ
Michael Coslo
>
> Who you gonna believe?
GHOST BUSTERS!
- Mike KB3EIA -
bb
bb wrote:
> Dave Heil wrote:
>
> > > The
> > > reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio has
> nothing to
> > > offer.
> >
> > There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd.
Maybe
> > what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer
you.
> > Feel free to move on. Find another interest.
>
> Heil actually has a point, smug as it is.
>
> I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken
little
> dance.
>
> If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.
Can you figure out the attributions?
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote:
> > bb wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave Heil wrote:
> > > > bb wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
> > > > > > Dee Flint wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "bb" <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> news:1108424935....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Dave Heil wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be having attribution problems, "bb". I did not
> write
> > > the
> > > > above.
> > > David, I have no attribution problem. I know who said what. bb
> >
> > The attributions say otherwise, "bb".
> Who you gonna believe?
Given your track record, especially in recent times (see: """....."""
posts by "bb"), I'm going to have to believe my eyes. You have an
attribution problem. You can attempt to argue the point if you like.
That won't change what was posted.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
I'm going to give "bb" a break here. I'm discounting all of his
deliberate untruths and misstatements. This looks like simple
incompetence on "bb's" part. It is similar to his recent posts which
shows quoted material in triple quotation marks. Other recent posts
have been what appear to be responses to the posts of another, but which
contained no quoted material at all to provide the reader any context.
"BB" made an error which made it appear that I wrote something which I
did not write. It is incumbent upon him to be more careful.
Dave K8MN
N2...@aol.com
One of the things that has been repeatedly promised and predicted for
the
various license test changes was that we'd get more 'technically
inclined'
new hams, who would revolutionize ham radio with 'new modes and
modulations' and other neat stuff. Yet when it comes to actually
*building radios*, we
see even the self-proclaimed 'professionals in radio' buying them
ready-made.
And ginving those who *do* build their own rigs a raft of $&!# about
doing so.
Kinda makes ya wonder....
> > Kind of a sad commentary. When SSB became popular in amateur radio,
> > hams built entire transmitters, receivers and transceivers for the
> > mode. Once its popularity was established, manufacturers followed.
> > When VHF/UHF FM voice became popular in amateur radio, there was a
mix
> > of homebrew and converted-land-mobile equipment used by hams. Once
its
> > popularity was established, manufacturers followed.
> >
> > But from what I can see, the packet folks aren't much interested in
> > *building radios* from scratch. That's why the old standards are
still
> > in use.
>
> Bingo!
I recall reading some *years* back about how TAPR was developing a UHF
SS radio for packet. Don't recall that it ever got finished.
73 de Jim, N2EY
robert casey
> Do not forget that in addition to banning certain types of
> content, the FCC also forces certain types of content such as
> transmitting station ID at specified times in specific format.
>
> It's even worse for broadcasters who also have to transmit EAS
> material, renewal filing notices, and sponsorship notices in
> addition to station ID.
Remember when stations had to do "public service" or
"community" programs, usually played on Sunday morning?
Stuff nobody ever listened to. There was a time when
you could not find anything at all to listen to on the
radio Sunday morning.
Dave Heil
From what you've come up with this time, you again have me writing:
"If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX."
"Heil actually has a point, smug as it is."
"I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken little
dance."
The only problem is, I didn't write any of those things. You're
drifting
farther off course, "bb".
Dave K8MN
bb
Dave Heil wrote:
> bb wrote:
> >
> > bb wrote:
> > > Dave Heil wrote:
> > > > Todd Daugherty wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The
> > > > > reason amateur radio is going to die is because Amateur radio
has
> > > nothing to
> > > > > offer.
> > > >
> > > > There are thousands and thousands who disagree with you, Todd.
> > Maybe
> > > > what you really mean is that amateur radio has nothing to offer
> > you.
> > > > Feel free to move on. Find another interest.
> > >
> > > Heil actually has a point, smug as it is.
> > >
> > > I think what we are seeing is the start of this decade's chicken
> > little
> > > dance.
> > >
> > > If only we could introduce Todd to WA8ULX.
> >
> > Can you figure out the attributions?
>
> From what you've come up with this time, you again have me writing:
Not.
Why do you say that I'm doing it? I merely hit the reply button and
google performs the attributions.
And it was after the Buzz Lightyear post that you commented about the
attributions being wrong. I think you just need something to complain
about.
bb
David, no argument. I'm merely using googles "reply" button. I think
the goofed attribution came in after Commander Buzz Corey's comment.
Todd Daugherty
The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio service:
DATE TOTAL
--------------------------------------
12/04/04 671,837
01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275
01/09/05 668,051 up by 489
01/16/05 668,750 up by 735
TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015
The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is
on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the
service is still down from the previous month
Todd
"Bathrooman" <drl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1108402983....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> For more than 50 years, some hams have been yelling "Ham Radio is
> Dying!" "Ham Radio is Dying!" They came up with all kinds of bright
> ideas. Incentive licensing...school clubs...extra-easy study
> guides...dumbing down the licensing tests...no code licenses...on and
> on. Why do some hams believe ham radio is dying? They are bored with
> the hobby themselves! They put together some equipment, strung up
> antennas, exchanged signal and weather reports, chased certificates,
> collected QSL cards and after a few years or more of this they ask: "Is
> this all there is?" Bah Humbug...yup that's about all it is. So what?
> What more do you want it to be?
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> One of the things that has been repeatedly promised and predicted for
> the
> various license test changes was that we'd get more 'technically
> inclined'
> new hams, who would revolutionize ham radio with 'new modes and
> modulations' and other neat stuff. Yet when it comes to actually
> *building radios*, we
> see even the self-proclaimed 'professionals in radio' buying them
> ready-made.
> And ginving those who *do* build their own rigs a raft of $&!# about
> doing so.
>
> Kinda makes ya wonder....
You can forget about hams becoming more technical, that is a thing of
the past. Todays hams are strictly plug and play appliance operators,
the most technical they get now is how many push buttons are on the
front panel and how many memories in the radio. The best we can hope for
is that the test be geared such that they learn the rules and proper
operating procedures.
>
Todd Daugherty
"Dave Heil" <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4210C97A...@earthlink.net...
> Todd Daugherty wrote:
> >
> > The Death of Amateur Radio
> >
> >
> > Todd Daugherty N9OGL
> >
> > I've been asked on the newsgroup
rec.radio.amateur.policy
> > to back up my statements regarding the death of amateur radio and the
FCC's
> > suppression of free speech on the radio. Therefore, I've deiced to write
> > this paper on the subject. Now, I know there are amateur radio operators
who
> > will not read this article or will write it off as the writes by some
crack
> > pot.
>
> Well, Todd, I've read the entire thing and I've not written it off "as
> the writes by some crack pot". I've written it off "as the writes by
> some" special crackpot.
>
>
> > But one must remember everyone has an opinion; this happens to be mine.
>
> ...and you aren't one to allow reality to stand in your way.
>
> > Amateur radio is slowing dying; now many amateurs would disagree
with
> > that statement however, this is a harsh reality.
>
Well let's look at some numbers shall we....
The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio service:
DATE TOTAL
--------------------------------------
12/04/04 671,837
01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275
01/09/05 668,051 up by 489
01/16/05 668,750 up by 735
TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015
The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is
on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the
service is still down from the previous month
> Many radio amateurs would disagree with your statement because it has no
> basis in fact. Now THAT is harsh reality.
>
> > Now as I stated above I
> > have been asked to "prove it" so that what I'm attending to do. Amateur
> > radio is dying because it is unable to keep up with commercial services.
>
> Amateur radio isn't a commercial service and isn't in competition with
> commercial services. It has no reason to "keep up".
And it's THAT attitude that will kill amateur radio. No one will come to the
service if there is something BETTER out there.
> > On
> > February of 2000 I participated in a discussion entitled "What the heck
is
> > Packet radio go for anyway" which was started by someone named
"Inquisitor"
> > anyway I pointed out that Packet Radio didn't have the variety as the
> > internet. If packet was to grow packet would have to basically compete
with
> > the internet.
>
> Packet radio is not the internet. It has no reason to become like the
> internet.
That's YOUR opinion, Packet could be better then the Internet but wait
dumbass like you don't want that.
> > For amateur radio to survive
> > they are going to have to compete with the internet or there will be no
> > amateur radio in near future.
>
> Sure, Todd--and amateur astronomy is going to have to compete with
> roller blading or there will be no amateur astronomy in the future.
Not comparable, what you are comparing is two hobbies while I'm comparing
two communication system, One dominate (internet) and the other is a third
class communication system (amateur radio).
>
> > As I stated on the newsgroup
> > rec.radio.amateur.policy look at it this way. Go to streets of your town
as
> > ask the average person on the street if they had a choice between the
> > Internet and Amateur radio which one would they pick? The vast majority
of
> > people would pick the internet. The reason is the internet provides a
vast
> > variety of information unlike amateur radio. People can talk via email,
chat
> > rooms, voice communication and other systems over the internet. With
> > Internet 2 coming out the Internet with grow ever more.
>
> Ask the average man on the street to choose between the stamp collecting
> and the internet and he'll likely choose the internet. He knows more
> about the internet and stamp collecting has no provision for downloading
> pirated music or pornography.
The majority of people don't what amateur radio is...and the vast majority
of people don't care.
> Amateur radio has variety of information unlike the internet. People
> can talk via their voices, via Morse, via keyboard modes, via
> television. The two are not the same thing. That's why I'm introducing
> Amateur Radio II, aka Amateur Radio Lite. It'll be like amateur radio
> but without all of the icky stuff like "RF", "IF", fomulae and morse
> code. It'll draw those folks who are "otherwise qualified" and mildly
> interested.
Voice, Morse code, television on and on can ALL be done on the internet.
what amateurs need to is advance and come up with something a lot new...My
packet idea is one way.
> > Why should someone
> > take the time to get a license to talk to people all over the world via
> > radio when they can do it on the internet?
>
> Why would someone take up tightrope walking when there are perfectly
> good sidewalks? Why would anyone walk when they can drive a car?
>
>
> > One of the problems that helps propagate this no competing attitude is
both
> > the amateur and FCC's view on content control.
>
> Ahhhh. This is where Todd gets into his favorite rant.
>
> > Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC for
> > controlling the content of ANY radio station. This also applies to the
> > amateur radio service. However, this seems NOT to be the case.
>
> You've been given free advice from a professional in the field. You've
> chosen to ignore the advice because it conflicts with your rather
> uneducated view of the regulations.
No but this bullshit idea that you have to be a lawyer to read rules and
regulation which are straight forward is that bullshit.
> > When I
> > announced on the newsgroup about my Information bulletin I received a
post
> > from Riley Hollingsworth the FCC chief enforcer of the amateur radio
> > service. Telling me to let him know when I go on the air so he can send
me a
> > "QSL CARD". The QSL card he was of course talking about was a warning
> > letter. This of course is not the first time Mr. Hollingsworth who works
for
> > the FCC tried to suppress Free Speech.
>
> A smarter fellow would have taken the hint which Mr. Hollingsworth
> dropped.
First off the system wasn't up and running so he should of shut his fucking
mouth because information bulletins are LEGAL. My information bulletins run
on one day, for one hour and deal with amateur radio issues....thus legal.
If it's interfering with transmission (which it isn't) fine then go after
the interference but to get on a newsgroups and intimidate a system BEFORE
IT'S EVEN ON is showing how he and the Fucking FCC really are...ASSHOLES!
> > In 1990 the
> > FCC sent letters out to 19 Net and Bulletin stations on 20 meters and of
> > course the ARRL a.k.a. The Amateur Radio Nazi Party deiced to stick
their
> > Gestapo free speech suppression nose in it.
>
> I doubt that the ARRL "deiced" anything. Your choice of nicknames
> further marks you as a very special crackpot.
>
> > I was asked on
> > the newsgroup to prove how I'm being suppressed. Well, when you have a
FCC
> > official threaten you with a warning letter over your Information
bulletin
> > which hadn't even begun. Then the idea if suppression of Free Speech by
a
> > Federal agency is a primary example of my right to voice my opinion is
being
> > suppressed by the FCC.
>
> You were repeatedly asked which things you were being prevented from
> saying over the air via amateur radio. You never bothered to reply.
> You've provided the FCC enough ammunition through your public statements
> here, to nail your hide to the barn door if you decide that you want to
> play boy broadcaster.
Intimidate someone before they have the system is even up and running is a
form of suppression. secondly if you didn't read above my information
bulletins are legal. My information bulletins run on one day, for one hour
and deal with amateur radio issues. They are legal regardless of what you
think.
Todd N9OGL
> Dave K8MN
Dee Flint
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:4216c40a$1...@127.0.0.1...
> Well let's look at some numbers shall we....
>
>
> The following are the Numbers of people entering the amateur radio
> service:
>
> DATE TOTAL
> --------------------------------------
> 12/04/04 671,837
> 01/02/05 667,562 down by 4,275
> 01/09/05 668,051 up by 489
> 01/16/05 668,750 up by 735
> TOTAL STILL DOWN 3,015
>
> The bottom line numbers really don't lie...people can say amateur radio is
> on the rise but the actually truth is the number of people getting in the
> service is still down from the previous month
>
> Todd
And as any competent statistician can tell you, a variation over this short
time frame for this type of data is not likely to be significant. You have
to look at longer term data. In addition, changes of less than 1% are
seldom signficant.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dan
It has always been so. I got on in 1961 and heard the same garbage.
Most hams are indeed plug and play specialists. But SOME of us actually
learn something.
As with everything else, it is up to the individual.
Dan/W4NTI
Mike Coslo
Some are, some aren't. I build everything I can, and a first class
techno-weenie. Rumors of the demise of the technical ham are greatly
exxagerated!
- Mike KB3EIA -
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
>
> And it's THAT attitude that will kill amateur radio. No one will come to the
> service if there is something BETTER out there.
>
Getting too many in ham radio like you will kill ham radio.
Todd Daugherty
Todd
"Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@that.net> wrote in message
news:rc-dnaXr-4x...@gbronline.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Bathrooman
Todd Daugherty
which one of you the butch and which one is the bitch???
Todd N9OGL
"Bathrooman" <drl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1108931506.6...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Attract em with some kinda new fangled packet racket. Yeah right.
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Bathrooman
Cmd Buzz Corey
Very mature reply toddyboy.
Bathrooman
will survive a snow storm.
Todd Daugherty
hate.
N9OGL
"Bathrooman" <drl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1108931506.6...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Attract em with some kinda new fangled packet racket. Yeah right.
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Bathrooman
it? Exchange signal reports & wx? It's for girly men.
Todd Daugherty
The Advanced Amateur Radio Packet Network (AARPN) will NOT be setup like the
known packet system. The network will be set up like this; One centralized
node will serve a community and the surrounding area. An amateur opeator
would click on a Peer to Peer (P2P) icon on their computers and it will
connect them to the centralized node. An amateur would then would type in
the search engine in the P2P software what they are looking for like a Icom
for sale or a tech manual. This system has a huge advantage over the old
system. first it would be operating at 1 to 11megabits per second. Second
there would be no fowarding because if you have something to sale like a
radio, you can but a little description and put it in your share file
folder.Or a tech manual you would also put it in your share file folder. The
centralized node would be hooked up to the internet and the internet would
be used as a high speed "backbone" systerm. This in turn would connecting
all the radio nodes together. Other applications like email, chat and later
virtual reality programs could be used. Girly you say, well I would this
system over any system. Like I said you whiney like bitch whore I fucking
dare you come up with something different.
Todd N9OGL
"Bathrooman" <drl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1108951108.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Advanced Packet System... Okey dokey, now what are you going to do with
> it? Exchange signal reports & wx? It's for girly men.
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
robert casey
>>Someone wrote;
>>Q codes are for morse only. People who use Q codes on voice or text are
>>boring.
>
>
> I agree that generally there is no reason to use Q-codes on voice.
>
Well I use phonetics on CW. ;-)
bb
So do I. Sending CW is so much fun that I spell everything out
phonetically in Morse Code.
For instance, CQ is sent "c h a r l e y q u e b e c" It just makes
the good times last longer.
Caveat Lector
"bb" <billy...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1109026631....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
An efficient use of your time I assume (;-)
Phil Kane
>N9OGL ADVANCE PACKET NETWORK
>
>
>The Advanced Amateur Radio Packet Network (AARPN) will NOT be setup like the
>known packet system. The network will be set up like this; One centralized
>node will serve a community and the surrounding area. An amateur opeator
>would click on a Peer to Peer (P2P) icon on their computers and it will
>connect them to the centralized node. An amateur would then would type in
>the search engine in the P2P software what they are looking for like a Icom
>for sale or a tech manual. This system has a huge advantage over the old
>system. first it would be operating at 1 to 11megabits per second. Second
>there would be no fowarding because if you have something to sale like a
>radio, you can but a little description and put it in your share file
>folder.Or a tech manual you would also put it in your share file folder. The
>centralized node would be hooked up to the internet and the internet would
>be used as a high speed "backbone" systerm. This in turn would connecting
>all the radio nodes together. Other applications like email, chat and later
>virtual reality programs could be used.
All you have described is a wireless WAN - no big deal, it's in use
in large industrial campuses such as between the three Intel Corp.
facilities in Washington County here. There even is a ham band not
that far from the commercial microwave band which they use. It
ain't gonna' work on 2 meters, though. You need far too much rf
bandwidth.
>Girly you say, well I would this
>system over any system. Like I said you whiney like bitch whore I fucking
>dare you come up with something different.
Here's where you lose any credibility that you may have had. Grow
up if you want to be listened to.
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon