www.devilfinder.com Old Faithful Webcam

I have been to Old Faithful before in Jellystone National Park,in
1956.My family and I spent the night in Jackson Hole,Wyoming.I like Wolf
Creek,Wyoming.Frenchy's restaurant and that Railroad Track that goes
through that tunnel in that Mountain.
cuhulin

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
One more item on this matter -

If I were to buy a license for the operations of these radios, it
would be the first time - EVER - that I had paid more for the license
than for the equipment itself. In this case, about 200% of the
equipment value. When I got my Amateur radio license several years
ago, it didn't cost nearly as much as the used equipment I had
purchased for a decent price. When I got my CB license way back when,
it cost $20 -seemed fairly steep at the time, but still only about
1/6th of what I paid for a single radio, and less than 7% of the
overall investment (two radios plus base/mobile antennas was probably
in the neighborhood of $350 all told).

I got a lot of use out of both of those batches of equipment - thus,
the prices of the licenses were both eminently reasonable.

Now, the license costs twice as much as *two* of the radios
themselves? Which I use a lot less than either of those older radio
systems? This is to say nothing of the fact that a license to operate
a car/boat/etc costs nowhere near the price of the vehicles, all of
which have vastly more potential for abuse and irresponsible
operation, with far greater consequences, than 5-watt walkies talkies
with a two-mile effective range. Heavy equipment operators and truck
drivers would go belly-up instantly if the government tried to charge
a proportionally high kind of license fee. Nowhere is there a license
whose fee is so high in comparison to the equipment being operated.

I think the FCC is off its rocker.

This is really an irrelevant point. The cost of the equipment has nothing
to do with what and why a fee is charged. If you had a $2K gmrs
basestation, then you would pay the fee?? What strange thinking. If you
want a kids toy, change to 49 mhz units. What you want is something that
will go for a good distance. Therefore you need to pay the fee to register.
You did that for your ham license. If you had a fleapower qrp station, you
still would have to pay the fee. Again the cost is totally irrelevant to
the equipment used. As a fellow ham, I would think you would know why the
fee needs to be paid. Although, maybe your a no-code that has no concept of
operating being a privilege and not a right. Maybe the FCC IS off its
rocker, but that is not an excuse to rob the government of a fee. That is
just thievery, plain and simple sir. Again, if you don't like it, do
something to change it besides anarchy.
B

On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, "Brian O" wrote:

This is really an irrelevant point.

No it isn't.

The cost of the equipment has nothing to do with what and why a fee is charged.

It certainly isn't anymore - *now* its to pad someone's pocket.

If you had a $2K gmrs basestation, then you would pay the fee??

I might - but then I'd be using it for something a lot more
substantial with greater reach, wouldn't I?

You know, here in California, there is requirement that any fee has to
have a nexus and a sense of proportion to the activity being
regulated. That's only fair. It requires the fee collector to
perform a rigorous exercise to justify the level of fees. However,
when the fee greatly exceeds the value of the equuipment being
operated, and there seems to be no valuable use for the after the
payment, something's rotten in Denmark.

What strange thinking.

Look who's talking! You sound like a Communist, supporting total
regulation of every damn piddling aspect of your life! By your
arguments, we should submit to whatever fee the government wants us to
pay for anything!

Oh, you bought a new bicycle? $1,000 please. Ah, a toy train? $450
please. A pair of water skis? Wow, that'll be $1,500 please!

If you want a kids toy, change to 49 mhz units. What you want is something that
will go for a good distance.

No, what I want is something that will communicate over short
distances with the OF visitor center. A few times a year. A 27 MHz
or 49 MHz walkie talkie won't do that because they don't have that
equipment in the the VC. If they did, I'd use one.

Therefore you need to pay the fee to register.

Like a good little sheep...right? Since when are you such a
government booster?

You did that for your ham license.

It sure as hell wasn't $800 I paid to use $400 of equipment.

If you had a fleapower qrp station, you still would have to pay the fee.

Still a cheap fee by comparison.

Again the cost is totally irrelevant to the equipment used.

I disagree.

As a fellow ham, I would think you would know why the
fee needs to be paid. Although, maybe your a no-code that has no concept of
operating being a privilege and not a right.

Babble babble babble. I got my license decades ago when the code was
de riguer, and the FCC didn't want to screw people. I think your idea
of why the fee gets paid is pretty vague, and also your understanding
of how fee levels are determined.

Maybe the FCC IS off its rocker, but that is not an excuse to rob the government of a fee. That is just thievery, plain and simple sir.

Like stealing back your wallet after it's been pilfered? You seem to
suuport the government's thievery, but when a citizen refuses to pay
an exorbitant fee, you scold him?

Listen if they want to charge a reasonable fee for small usage, I'll
pay it. When they resort to highway robbery, forget it.

Again, if you don't like it, do
something to change it besides anarchy.

You sound miffed :-) Feelings of inadequacy? Maybe you should send
the FCC guys up to Yellowstone this summer so they can spy on, and get
those scofflaws, screw up the communications and **** off the NPS
visitor center guys - eh? Maybe then you'd have a real feeling of
accomplishment. Proably more than arguing with me, anyway.

The only thing my wasting $85 on a license would do is make Big
Brother complacent enough to ignore me, having gotten their pound of
flesh, and then I could act like a total jackass on the radio - hmmm -
maybe I should - that sounds fun!

I'm done. Say what you like, but you're supporting an unethical and
excessive fee structure that might freeze out some valid users.

Bruce Jensen

On Apr 11, 11:52 am, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

It may. I don't know the full GMRS law or general law on radios. I
was using an extreme example to make a point anyway - if it has holes,
then pick something less extreme.

Interesting that Jackson Hole got it's name from William C. ''Teton''
Jackson,a premier horse thief.I like that.
cuhulin

bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 9, 4:19 pm, (Michael Black) wrote:
"bpnjensen" ) writes:
If you transmit on GMRS without a license, then the rules can't mean
a thing to you since you've already broken the rule that requires
a license to use the band.
This is an unreasonable illogical emotionally-based extrapolation, and
is beside the point. Once again, what effect exactly will the fee
have on my operation of the radio, other than the vague notion that
some bureaucrat knows I exist?
The fee limits who can use the band, so it ensures that it doesn't get
so crowded that it's unuseable.

Oh, I get it. Thus, even if someone has a valid use for the radio, if
they cannot afford it, they are stuck, up the creek without an
aerial. Real sweet, real public-interest minded. I still say, HOW
DOES THIS AFFECT WHETHER THE RADIO IS USED PROPERLY?

Again, that's the same principal as all the radio regulations. Take
them away, and you get a free for all, like in the early days of radio.

A free-for-all with radios that communicate at maximum a few miles?
Yeah, sure. besides a fee is not going to prevent improper use of the
radio.

That ship at sea couldn't send out the SOS because the band was
crowded with land based transmitters. If anyone can use the GMRS
band, then chances are those who were using it for serious use won't
be able to do so because it's either too crowded, or because someone
who doesn't know what they are doing is playing around.

A fee does not mean that someone knows what he is doing. It might
mean that only the rich get to use it, though.



(balance of content stipulated)


Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in
potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The
other is the license.

The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the
spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the
technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within
regulatory limits.

The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and
verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and
other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract
between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator
knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations,
making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the
regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators
not in compliance.

The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract,
ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract
binding. The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the
regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified. The
third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to
discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum
from being overcrowded.

Sometimes there are privileges that are accessible to those
successful enough to afford them.

There is nothing wrong with that.

These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not
guaranteed for every citizen.

And there's nothing wrong with that, either.



p

On Apr 11, 11:52 am, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

I rechecked the GMRS rules - if I read it right, the rules provide
that a licensee may permit a person *not normally authorized to
operate the radio* to use it for emergency communications - like your
buddy or someone else not a family member. The GMRS rules do not, as
far as I can tell, say that an unlicensed owner of a radio may use it
for emergency communication. This could be a technicality, and might
be legally overlooked in real life.

It sure is fun pushing Brian O's buttons, though.

BJ

On Apr 11, 1:56 pm, "Brian O" wrote:

You know, here in California, there is requirement that any fee has to
have a nexus and a sense of proportion to the activity being
regulated. That's only fair.

That doesnt apply to federal fees. California.....now I understand...

Yeah - California gets it *right* - and passes a law keeping
bureaucrats honest - while the feds keep on stealing us blind.

It requires the fee collector to
perform a rigorous exercise to justify the level of fees. However,
when the fee greatly exceeds the value of the equuipment being
operated, and there seems to be no valuable use for the after the
payment, something's rotten in Denmark.

Of course, most stuff in California is rotten...

Oh, yeah, nothing like your vaunted Federal Government where
everything is done according to Hoyle and nobody is dishonest or
underhanded. Sheesh, if that isn't a freaky attitude, I don't know
what is.

Our government was founded on law. When people like you take the law into
their own hands, anarchy erupts.

Founded on law but run by scoundrels.

Sometimes anarchy works. People exceeding the speed limit, for
example. Most speed limits used to be ridiculously low, and almost
nobody observed them...went way too fast, in fact...and despite the
tickets the anarchists got, speeds did not drop. Finally about 12 -
15 years back, the Feds restored sanity to speed limit laws, raised
them for highways, and now most people observe the speed limits, even
if they aren't quite as a fast as folks used to go. It wasn't because
the American motorist rose up and petioned Washingon - it was because
a few smart people paid attention to what the anarchists were saying
with their higher "illegal" speeds.

Stealing is stealing, no matter how you justify it.

That's right - and when the Feds do it, it's still stealing, no matter
how *you* justify it.

Go for it. Illegality breeds irresponsibility.

Nope. Onerous government regs do.

"Brian O" ) writes:

Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or
unethical?

Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for
a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay
or operate illegally.

Actually, the choice can include "finding alternatives". And that's what
blows his justification up.

He has a ham license, yet that's no good for reasons he's bound to
come up with. He could use FRS walkie talkies, an allocation for people
who need some communication capability but don't want to pay a license
fee, and are willing to share with the masses. He can use CB, that
was intended for this sort of thing, and no longer even has a license.
He can use field telephones, complete with the roll of wire. He
can use semaphore, or blinkers. He can write the message down, and
either pass it on later, or use a messenger to deliver it. Undoubtedly
he has all kinds of reasons why none of them work. The problem is, that
once he starts judging that way, it's easy to say "well somewhere in the
aero band would be perfect, I think I'll use that".

And that completely ignores the issue of the ultimate importance
of all this. Obviously if someone is an emergency situation, then
just about anything goes. But, they'd better be careful that they
actually have properly judged the emergency to warrant the use, because
if they think it's okay to use police freqencies to call for someone
to come and repair a flat tire, they'd likely judge wrong. One alone
may not impact on emergency communicaiton, but once everyone starts
doing it, that ruins the frequency.

Even if there were no alternative communcation methods available,
the justification of breaking the law would depend on how important
this is. "But I want to" isn't justification.

Don't be fooled by his references to "civil disobedience". Because
that's about changing things, and all he's doing is conveniencing
himself.

ANd the joke is, since he claims to have a ham license, is that there
have been cases of people losing their ham licenses because they had
disregard for rules in the other services. THe FCC may decide that
if he shows such bad interpretation of the rules with GMRS, then
he can't be trusted with a ham license.


Michael

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:

But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its
what
the law SAYS that matters.

Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters.

No, its not opinion, its legal statute.
It doenst matter what people do. What is legal is legal, no matter WHAT
people do.


What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does
not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if
he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or
slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no
better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in
your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"?

You are not aware of the law. There are circumstances where the law does
allow operations in situations where life or property may be lost. That
doesnt cover what you are doing however.


I know that using it for general public information is not the same as
saving lives - but your assertions that laws must be slavishly
followed for vague and untenable reasons just doesn't cut the
mustard. IMO.

Exactly, in your opinion. But again, its what the law SAYS, not what your
opinion is.


Totally irrelivant. It doesnt matter how you use it, its still illegal
if
youre not following the law by being licensed.

And I say, Big Deal. My otherwise responsible use for valuable
purposes is not harming anybody at all, and is helping many.

You dont know its not harming anyone, and that again is irrelivant to the
point of legality.


The GPs who show up there *with licenses* cannot say as much about
their own transmissions. Luckily, the bands are not crowded at YNP.

Then they should answer to the FCC as the FCC sees fit. You have no room
to
talk.

BS. I can say whatever I want about any topic I wish.

No, not really. And you missed the point. Just because they operate poorly
does not excuse your illegality, that is where you dont have room to talk.


What I know. Now that you have publically stated where you are and when
you
operate and that you have no license, you are exposing yourself to
retribution from the FCC.

I invite them to prove a single incident based on what I've said
here. For all you know, I am lying through my teeth. Also permitted.

Not in court its not. Keep it up. You may wind up there.


It may be wrong, but its not immoral, or unethical

Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or
unethical?

Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for
a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay
or operate illegally.


Here's a definition from Webster hisself:

Wrong: (2) Something wrong, immoral or unethical, esp: principles,
practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law.

"Immoral" and "unethical" are right in there.

therefore you have no moral basis to break that law.

That's what the establishment always says.

If you don't like it, then get off you illegal-operation backside and do
something to change it through the system.

For all you know, I am.

I doubt it or you wouldn't have time to post in here.
B