Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!think!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio.packet,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Gilmore responds...
Message-ID: <115@splut.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Aug-87 18:36:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: splut.115
Posted: Sun Aug 30 18:36:14 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Sep-87 01:13:12 EDT
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 157
Keywords: public access to ham spectrum
Xref: utgpu rec.ham-radio.packet:451 comp.dcom.modems:808

Here's John's response to my posting, with my comments added:

(> > = me, > = John Gilmore)
> > There's no real reason yu can't innovate in ham radio, either. If you want
> > to experiment, go right ahead - and, as long as you don't cause a real
> > interference problem, nobody will stop you. If you want to do something that
> > might cause interference, but it's a technical advance, the mechanism is
> > there - and the FCC is liberal in granting STAs to reasonable requests.
> 
> What I wanted to do was send computer data through the airwaves.  Funny,
> a bunch of people wanted to stop me.  I wasn't planning to interfere with
> anybody, but for some reason they wanted me to learn morse code and apply
> to the government for "permission".

From your comments, I suspect strongly that you wanted to provide an
unlimited bridge between computer networks and the packet network. There are
real problems with that approach, and amateur radio is not the appropriate
place to set up a common carrier.

Learning the code and applying to the government for a ticket are
responsibilities that go along with the privilege of reasonably unfettered
access to the radio spectrum. There's exactly one radio service that
requires no license of any kind to operate. Have you listened on 27
megahertz lately?

> We are just coming from opposite points of view; you obviously can't see
> how the requirement for a ham ticket is a limitation on innovation.  Just
> like a curb is no problem for somebody in a wheelchair; if they really
> want to get up that curb, they sure can.

This analogy is fatally flawed: it's not like a curb for someone in a
wheelchair, but it's the wheelchair itself for a paraplegic. Without the
ticket, you can't legally get on and experiment, just like a paraplegic
can't get around (easily) without a wheelchair.

The requirement for a license is written in the Communications Act of 1934.
If you dislike it that much, write your Congressmen - but don't expect to
get very far.

> > There IS a problem with letting the world flow data on an amateur link:
> > Amateur radio is a non-commercial service. Hams can use cheaper equipment,
> > more frequencies, and higher power than their commercial counterparts. If
> > the entire world was permitted to use the packet network to pass any data
> > they wished, what would stop GTE from having its employees get ham licenses
> > and use the packet network as part of Telenet?
> 
> Good question.  Except if anybody could use the packet network to pass any
> data they wished, why would we need GTE?

Are you out to put GTE out of business? Good luck....the FCC won't sit still
for that.

> You mention another problem with ham radio as a means for computer data
> sharing -- its "non-commercial" orientation.  I got the impression that if
> I logged into my employer's machine and did some work via packet radio,
> some of the "mickey mouse" rulewatchers would "try to stop me" again.
> What good is it to build a network if you can't use it for any real work?

Because ham radio is a hobby. Pure and simple. That has been built into the
very bedrock of the service, from its earliest origins. Using the packet
network to log on to your employer's machine puts the packet network in
direct competition with the common carriers, and that's illegal and unfair
competition.

> > ) [They claim to be practicing for providing emergency communications
> > ) service.  However, if the public was permitted to use the airwaves for
> > ) REGULAR communications service, then no EMERGENCY service would be
> > ) needed, since the regular service would continue to work in
> > ) emergencies.
> > I've addressed this one before, but I'll repeat myself: Public service
> > agency communications are fine for the normal case. When all hell breaks
> > loose, though, their channels fill up rapidly and become unusable. Who do
> > they turn to for their enhanced communications needs? Hams.
> 
> I wasn't talking about public service agencies using the airwaves.
> I was talking about THE PUBLIC using the airwaves.  Certainly in a disaster
> all the phones fill up, all the CB's fill up, all the hams get on the air,
> everything gets busier.  A well designed public radio network would have
> provisions for dealing with high congestion -- the same as the phone
> company does, or the military phone systems do.  The cellular phone systems
> also have provisions like this.

Public radio networks, no matter how well designed, will fill to unusability
during a disaster...or, again, have you listened to 27 megahertz? The public
using the airwaves leads inevitably to anarchy and uselessness in times of
stress. The phone company doesn't do all that well a job in preparing for
heavy network loading during a disaster; have you tried to call into, or
even out of, a disaster area? I have. It's no picnic - in fact, most of the
time it's downright impossible.

This is a nice, motherhood-and-apple-pie argument - but it simply will not
work.

> > The proposal was very badly thought out. It would have given wide-ranging
> > radio privileges to someone based on a simple written test, and did not even
> > try to see that they had the minimal technical knowledge to operate their
> > equipment within the bounds of the rules.
> 
> I challenge you to find a group of 50 hams where at least 25 of them could
> tell if their equipment was operating within the rules or not.  Most people
> go for the "study for the test then forget it" approach.  And few of them
> have the equipment to verify correct operation anyway, e.g. spectrum
> analyzers.

I don't know about the hams in Southern California, but I'll pick any ham
club in the Houston area, and let you run that test. You'd lose big. By far
and away most hams I know take great pride in emitting a clean signal and
following the rules.

> > The Morse Code objection is a red herring. Anyone can, with a minimal amount
> > of study, learn the code. Are you trying to suggest that computer types
> > aren't intelligent enough to do so?
> 
> I've heard this one before, it's not my experience, and I reject the
> implication that anyone who doesn't want to waste their time on Morse
> is unintelligent.

I wasn't trying to imply that they were. I was asking if you were implying
they weren't. I repeat my earlier contention: ANYONE can learn the code. All
it takes is a minimal amount of time and work.

Your whole argument is that anyone should be able to get a ham license,
thereby earning the privilege of access to some of the choicest spectrum
available, without having to work for it. Then they should be able to use
these new privileges to bypass the telephone and other common carrier
networks and do whatever they wish.

Why? Why should a network of volunteer ham radio operators try to compete
with commercial interests? Worse, why should hams allow these commercial
interests to take over our spectrum, with all the impact on the public
interest that that entails? Hams have a long and shining history of public
service. Does GTE Telenet? Would they suddenly get the desire to unselfishly
serve the public by going out and passing a written test only?

I suggest instead that allowing commercial use of amateur spectrum would
result in the death of any public service that the amateur service provides.
That service is the ONLY reason we still have the wide range of frequencies
that we do. That is what is remembered by the delegates to the World
Administrative Radio Conferences. Commercial interests have no reason to
unselfishly pursue the public welfare. Amateurs do.

I take more pride in the fact that I use my radio expertise to advance the
public welfare than in the fact that I hold an Extra class license. The look
on a motorist's face as I stand there and call an ambulance with my handheld
is worth all the work I had to do to get there. Public service is highly
rewarding - but not in the only way that interests a commercial entity:
money. Therefore, why should they do it?

(Apologies to comp.dcom.modems readers; I haven't seen John respond to any
of the comments on this subject posted on rec.ham-radio.packet, so I
crossposted to make sure John could read it and respond. Replies have been
directed to rec.ham-radio.packet [I think].)
-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC...>splut!< | uucp: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
"Don't ask ME about Unix...  | (or sun!housun!nuchat)       CI$: 71036,1603
I speak SNA!"                | internet: beats me         GEnie: JAYMAYNARD
The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.