"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.


Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott


Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

-Chuck

The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought.

--

Clif Holland KA5IPF
www.avvid.com

Chuck Harris wrote:

Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress,
though.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the
spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all
seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing
broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country
spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate
Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.


This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress,
though.

Being easier doesn't make it more effective. Would you boycott
Chevrolet because someone robbed your favorite bank and used a Chevy
as a get-away car?

UPS thought they needed some spectrum, and they asked for it. FCC
didn't see significant usage of the 220 band, and offered it up.
FCC could just as easily have offered up a small chunk of some
microwave band.

All votes are equal in value, but not all voters. Some just
vote what the newspapers, and the parties say they should, others
write letters, make phone calls, create blogs, ... They get more
political power than the usual voter. If you want to get the spectrum
back, start lobbying for it. Come up with a reason why hams should
have it back... We probably won't get it back, on account of ham
radio being among the "walking-dead". (and yes, I am a ham, so I
get to make observations like that.)

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.


Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the
spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all
seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing
broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country
spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate
Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart.

They don't violate part 15! They are perfectly in complience. The
violation comes when the user doesn't prevent his device from interferring
with any service. It was idiotic of the Congress, and the FCC to allow
that wording, but they did...and we didn't hold them to task for it.

-Chuck

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:11:33 -0700, Earl Needham wrote:


What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

"They"? UPS never applied for any 220 MHz license nor do they
operate on 220 MHz, then or now.

The culprit was a certain "also-ran" equipment manufacturer who had
a bright idea (and whose CEO had "juice" with the FCC from whence he
came) but never could produce equipment that worked on that band.
They approached UPS to get them interested, but UPS got tired of
waiting for working equipment and looked elsewhere (800 MHz).

Gotta keep the urban legends straight!! ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote:

The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought.

The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level
management, all political appointees who do not understand what
the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and
equipment) should be expended on it.

I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is
not charmed by what the agency has become lately.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Not picking on the "grunts" but the upper level would be hard pressed to
find the bathroom.

--

Clif Holland KA5IPF
www.avvid.com


"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ast.net...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote:

The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought.

The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level
management, all political appointees who do not understand what
the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and
equipment) should be expended on it.

I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is
not charmed by what the agency has become lately.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Phil Kane wrote:


I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is
not charmed by what the agency has become lately.


Hmmm....I probably have a notice here somewhere with your autograph

Does the FCC still go after Novices with 40m harmonics falling out of
band on 10 meters or has the freeband CB QRM covered up all of the
violations?

Just kidding. Well, no...not really.

-Bill ex-WN4SXX

"-=H=-" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from
Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used
FedEx Ground. Here's why:

Two packages:
(1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900
(2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100

FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77
UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07

UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost
45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive.
To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money.

Something to think about next time you're shipping packages!

73,
Dean K5DH

AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear!
"Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab!

73

Jerry

I received a roll of guy cable (almost like a block of iron) today via
UPS and would you believe they damaged it. Nothing gets shipped UPS from
this person.



Jerry wrote:
"-=H=-" wrote in message
...

Hi all,

I shipped two boxes of amateur radio equipment yesterday from
Lewisville, Texas to Cooper City, Florida. As always, I used
FedEx Ground. Here's why:

Two packages:
(1) weight 33.60 lbs, size 24 x 21 x 16 inches, insured $900
(2) weight 13.95 lbs, size 22 x 22 x 14 inches, insured $100

FedEx Ground, delivery in 3 business days, cost $38.77
UPS Ground, delivery in 4-5 business days, cost $56.07

UPS would have charged $17.30 more than FedEx (that's almost
45 percent) and would have taken 1-2 days longer to arrive.
To me, $17.30 is not a trivial amount of money.

Something to think about next time you're shipping packages!

73,
Dean K5DH


AND UPS will destroy a cinder block, much less your valuable ham gear!
"Reasonable Care" in handling is not in UPS's vocab!

73

Jerry

I agree. I shipped a 25 pound package to Rome Italy via USPS and the cost
was only $42.00. I was told that it would go air and be delivered within 5
days. Had confirmation from recipient in Rome in 4 days!

--
Richard D. Reese
http://www.wa8dbw.ifip.com
"Simon" wrote in message
...
Hi

Can any US readers of this thread explain why Fedex or UPS is so
popular compared with the much cheaper US Mail?

Here in Australia Fedex and UPS offer a service, but few private
individuals would consider using them due to high costs and the
inconvenience when delivery is a problem if people are away at work.
With normal post, we have post offices in all suburbs where
undelivered mail can conveniently be picked up or items posted.

I have never had loss or damage problems with ordinary mail to and
from the US.

Simon