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.



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 =----

We definitely don't need another boy broadcaster. We have had to put
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.

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.

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 -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
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



----== 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 =----

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?

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.

Todd Daugherty wrote:



Try thinking this stuff through, every once in a while."

I have a suggestion for you, just try thinking once in a while.

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.



----== 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 =----

I do might do that too...Do you know if there are any BBS programs for the
MAC??

Todd

"robert casey" wrote in message
k.net...

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.




----== 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 =----

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.

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