Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mtune!codas!killer!usl!elg
From: elg@usl (Eric Lee Green)
Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio.packet,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Gilmore responds...
Message-ID: <154@usl>
Date: Fri, 4-Sep-87 13:24:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.154
Posted: Fri Sep  4 13:24:15 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Sep-87 04:08:12 EDT
References: <115@splut.UUCP>
Reply-To: elg@killer.UUCP
Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA
Lines: 57
Summary: ham requirements need updating
Xref: mnetor rec.ham-radio.packet:503 comp.dcom.modems:925

In article <115@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) writes:
>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.

All REAL networks that I've noticed lately have a provision for "broadcast"
packets, that is, packets of interest to more than one machine. For example,
BSD4.x regularly broadcasts "rwho" data onto our local Ethernet. This doesn't
make our Ethernet a common carrier! But if we generalize and substitute
"packet-radio network" for "Ethernet" in the above, we get all sorts of
bullcr*p about it... apparently, the packeteers are content with a LESS
efficient usage of the airwaves (that is, sending the same packet several
times to several different machines, as vs. putting it where those several
different machines can pick it up).

>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?

I do agree that unlimited access to the radio waves would be a major disaster.
I just have some misgivings about the focus of the current restrictions.
Instead of focusing on excellence in technology and communications, they seem
more designed to turn ham radio into a hobby to rival underwater
basket-weaving in usefulness.

>> > 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.

No, because the FCC is trying to beat us to it! (See FCC proposal to assess a
500% "access fee" on interstate "enhanced services").

>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. 

My whole argument is that instead of the current inflexible method of earning
the "privilige of access", we should be using criteria of importance to the
particular part of the ham radio hobby that the person wants to access. If I
am interested in packet radio, sure, I need to know the technical aspects of
radio equipment. But morse code???? If I'm aiming for a higher ticket, I can
understand the need for morse code, because morse code IS part of amateur
radio, and supposedly when you're "expert", your knowledge is about ALL
aspects of ham radio... but for novices and technicians?

(NOTE THE ADDRESS!!!!)

  Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg
             elg@usl.CSNET