I for one do feel fortunate. And am sorry that your government has done this
to a good bunch of hams!
73 de Jim, KI7AY
-----Original Message-----
From: Bown, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Mark Schoonover' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'Karl F. Larsen' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 3:43 AM
Subject: RE: A dose of reality
>Why should you be any different that side of the pond ?
>In the UK we have already lost huge chunks of 13 cms, 3 cms, due to lose
>part of 70 cms, and some of what's left has been rendered unusable by
shared
>services which use spread spectrum.
>Who's bright idea was it to start selling user bandwidth ??
>You should appreciate how much band space you have in the US, Region 1 has
>already been hit hard and there's more to come.
>It is however ironic that the perpetrator is now becoming the victim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Schoonover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: 08 March 1999 19:55
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Karl F. Larsen'
>Subject: RE: A dose of reality
>
>
>Karl and the Group:
>
> I do see some possibilities in what Karl is saying. Loosing 70cm??
>Possible given enough time, loosing 2m? Kinda doubt it. What industry
>would want 2m?? Consider the millions of radios out there on 2 and it
>would be like Gates and company going after 11m. I see hams loosing the
>vast majority of the unused microwave stuff first, before any attempt is
>made to go after highly populated bands. I think this is where hams need
>to build independant, high speed networks using 10 GHz, standard
>ethernet cards, etc for local stuff. Probably 95% of traffic that is
>generated is for local use only. Just think about forgetting ISPs, phone
>companys, ARINC et el. The higher speed could support voice, video, etc
>just fine. Use HF for the things that don't need lots of bandwidth,
>email is about the only example I can think of right now. Why settle for
>using a proprietary protocol?? What's wrong with developing open source
>protocols?? Aside from fighting the FCC on this, example, trying out
>PSK31 - is that legal in the US?? All development done on DSP with
>frequency agile radios, etc to adapt to changing HF propagation?? I'm
>not talking HF spread, just the ability to change bands when condx at a
>remote site degrade. Almost all newer rigs can be controlled via a
>serial port. Amateurs world wide are going to have to adapt to the
>changing landscape, just like in the past. How about open source
>hardware?? Nothing is really different here, other than the passing of
>time.
>
>Just my $.02! es 73!
>
>.mark
>
>=================================================
> Mark Schoonover KA6WKE IS Manager
> Trail Runner,HAM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ka6wke@wb6dgr.#sca.ca.usa.noam
> http://www.qsl.net/ka6wke ka6wke-1 145.05
> Mobile: 146.52 & 28.470
> Long: 32.85380 Lat: -117.00980 Grid: DM12LU
>=================================================
>
>
>
>
>>----------
>>From: Karl F. Larsen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 5:47 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: A dose of reality
>>
>>
>> The End of VHF/UHF
>>
>> Karl Larsen K5DI
>>
>> March 7, 1999
>>
>>
>> Last summer the President of ARRL spoke at the Alamogordo NM
>>Ham-fest and said the ARRL legal team is busy daily around the year
>>fighting companies that want to co-use or take away our VHF and UHF
>>Ham bands.
>>
>> I talked to my Senator Pete Domenici and he said Motorola
>>and Microsoft are spending big money in congress this year and
>>pushing "reform of the FCC rules". It is a matter of the greatest
>>good for the largest number of people that drives Congress.
>>
>> To get a feel for the kind of money I am talking about,
>>Microsoft is spending 12 Billion Dollars on their near earth system
>>and Motorola has spent 9 Billion and is spending at the rate of 2
>>Billion per year.
>>
>> It is common to spend 5-10% of a projects money on obtaining
>>the proper Government lean towards the companies work. So assuming
>>they use only 5% you still have at least one Billion dollars for
>>getting Government on your side. That is 1000 Million Dollar bribes
>>or like that.
>>
>> Now we Hams have history and a few good lawyers on our side.
>>We will not be a push-over to beat but the fact is we will lose. I
>>expect the method will be to "share" frequencies. And after just a
>>few years we will lose it all.
>>
>> My guess is the first to go will be the 420-450 MHz band. We
>>share it with the Defense Dept. and while Defense was strong we were
>>safe. But now Defense is weaker and I believe industry will get
>>420-430 MHz in the year 2000.
>>
>> Then 144-148 MHz will be hit with industry getting 146-148
>>MHz and this will happen around 2003. As time passes industry will
>>get more and more until there is no more.
>>
>> For good technical reasons industry doesn't want the HF
>>bands. They are noisy and un-reliable and not useful for wide band
>>data. So my Ham activities are going towards HF, and by accident the
>>bands are getting better.
>>
>> The cute idea of using HF packet called PACTOR to send and
>>receive Internet e-mail to mobile hams looks good and I plan to try
>>it. Alas at this time the only PACTOR driver I can find is high
>>priced from Kantronics and WinLink which is free and both run in
>>Windows 98. I d/l Winlink and it's very nice software. Done in Visual
>>C and the loader looks like any of the new Microsoft software and it
>>does run.
>>
>> Looking at PACTOR II which seems to be the very best HF
>>system but can't yet get a price from PacComm for the modem. And when
>>I get the price that may make straight PACTOR more attractive...:-) I
>>can get a MFJ 1276 "Packet/Pactor controller" for $139.95 from AES
>>and that is quite cheap. This is what most people are using I think.
>>
>> I hope someone good at programing gets interested and writes
>>a driver for Pactor in Linux. I get my Internet e-mail on Linux and
>>use procmail to sort it. So no problem putting mail to me in a
>>special place.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>> - Karl F. Larsen, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (505) 524-3303 -
>>
>>
>
