Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!lll-lcc!well!rab From: rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio.packet,comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: John Gilmore switches feet! Message-ID: <3788@well.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Aug-87 03:14:19 EDT Article-I.D.: well.3788 Posted: Fri Aug 21 03:14:19 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 19:53:26 EDT References: <171@ers.UUCP> Reply-To: rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Lines: 137 Keywords: [Lyndon is] stupid stupid stupid Summary: Lyndon pokes his head out his a**! Xref: mnetor rec.ham-radio.packet:460 comp.dcom.modems:845 In the referenced article Lyndon Nerenberg writes: [John Gilmore's comments deleted] >Perhaps you consider federal legislation "mickey mouse." The rest >of the world (for the most part) does not (thank God). Of course >in California murder is also a "mickey mouse" law ("don't change lanes >so close to me a**hole or I'll blow your brains out!"). Let me see if I follow this. "I've heard that there are people in California who are nutso enough to take potshots at passing motorists. Therefore, I can dismiss anything said by a Californian as nutso." That's not it? Hmmm... Let's try again: "Saying that some certain Federal regulations are mickey-mouse is similar to saying that there ought to be no laws." Is that what you meant? Gee, I seem to be having a lot of trouble following you here..... >I hate to make you face reality John, but most things in life are >under control of gov't regulations. It's a good thing there are >"reactionary spies" to keep people operating within the rules. If the >FCC is faced with having to enforce the regs in the ham bands, there >won't be hams bands in very short order (in the US anyway... hey, that's >not a bad idea). Oh, boy, now you've lost me again. Lessee, "because lots of things are currently regulated by government(s), they *ought* to be regulated." And "if it weren't for the all-wise and benevolent government's rules, there would necessarily be unrestricted chaos". Is that what you mean? >>In contrast, the computer fraternity is seriously radical. New ideas >>and new people are welcomed. Experimentation is encouraged. If you >>get a good idea and you do it, people are free to do things the old way >>or do it your new way. You don't need to ask the FCC whether you can >>plug a better printer or piece of software into your computer, or whether >>you are permitted double the speed of your machine. If you can afford >>to buy it or have enough imagination to create it, you can use it. > >The only time you need to ask the FCC about hooking up a piece of >equipment is when the act of "hooking it up" might effect another >persons ability to use whatever it is you are hooking up to. If you >wire your printer cable wrong, you will zap your own computer - not >someone elses. If you wire your phone wrong you could impact all >the users on your exchange. If you transmit spurs and/or harmonics >you are going to bother a lot of non-hams. The regulations are in >place to ensure that these other users have some recourse in the >event you interfere with them. Hmmmm.... "there is no possible solution to the problem of allocating and using radio spectrum space except government regulation." >>I was interested in packet radio as a vehicle for carrying data for >>computer users. While at least 4 or 5 people in the Pacific Packet Radio >>Society (the local ham digital-radio group) agreed, the rest of the >>hams were solidly against the idea of computer users being able to just >>send their data through the ether without going through all the hassle that >>THEY had had to go through. They wanted to use their new, experimental >>packet radios for the same old shit -- ragchewing (ham-ese for shooting >>the bull over the radio). > >Sounds like you want to become a common carrier. If you think getting >a ham license is so damn difficult, then you should get a license to >become a common carrier. I would be interested in talking to you >about the application process when you're done (you should be finished >in about 1990). The cost of the application should not be a problem. >As you indicated above, the nice thing about the computing hobby is >that you can buy anything if you have the money. C'mon John, let's >see you finance a country wide packet network. Clever, switching the subject of the discussion like that. Notice that John did not allude to "getting a license" (in fact, below he makes clear that he already has one) but to "the hassle". Red tape. Bullshit from the Fancy Candy Company. And other HAMs. ------- Here, Lyndon goes on at great length about his heroic efforts during a recent natural disaster, concluding with: >I operated a total of almost 72 hours over that weekend. I don't >recall hearing you volunteer to handle any traffic to the US. Great. I'm proud of you. I'm sure lots of people are and were grateful. Now please tell me how that justifies the HAM community's total monopoly on literally billions of channels of radio space. Tell me how that justifies locking out the wonderful advances that are possible by marrying computer technology with radio communications. Also, don't bother playing "holier than thou". For one thing, you won't win, and for another, it smells bad. ----- Here, John makes some excellent criticisms of the existing packet radio networks.... Lyndon replies with: >Well John, CP/M and Apple DOS 3.x are pretty crude too. I wonder why >the people using these systems are not burning them and running out >to buy the latest, greatest Sun workstations? Could it be that they >are content with what they have? It's funny, but as I look out the >window I see a lot of four and six cylinder cars driving around, but >very few dragsters. You seem to be confusing John's frustration with the HAM fraternity's hatred of change, with some sort of desire to "replace everything". As far as I can tell the latter idea exists only in your fevered mind. >> I figure about 20 years' worth of old hams will have to >>die before it becomes possible to do anything interesting with the >>amateur spectrum space. I'd be glad if somebody would prove me wrong. > >The world owes you a living? If you don't like it, why don't you >DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? Intriguing. You're the one who wants government regulations to "protect" your hobby, and you're accusing John of thinking the world owes him a living? Gee, I think you've lost me again... Unlike loud-mouthed clods such as yourself, some of us ARE doing something about it. Unfortunately, the HAM fraternity (with the help of it's Big Brother the FCC) is doing it's level best to *prevent* anyone from doing any development of packet radio with computers. Just think, if we could form a club and BUY the rights to a particular frequency band in a particular geographical area, we could transmit anything we want (so long as we don't interfere with anyone else, of course). Just imagine the experimentation that could be done then! Kinda like the HAMs used to do.... 30 years ago. >>{dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu >Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM >alberta!ncc!lyndon pyramid!ncc!lyndon winfree!ncc!lyndon Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/ -- Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab /-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\ | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President | \-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/