Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!ron
From: ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio.packet,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Gilmore responds...
Message-ID: <14492@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 6-Sep-87 14:24:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.14492
Posted: Sun Sep  6 14:24:50 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Sep-87 21:21:17 EDT
References: <115@splut.UUCP> <154@usl>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 17
Xref: mnetor rec.ham-radio.packet:507 comp.dcom.modems:929

This is one of the most absurd comments yet.  The problems
with using HAM radio has nothing to do with broadcast datagrams.
HAM Packet Radio can use datagrams addressed to all receivers
when it is appropriate.  RWHO packets would fly just as legally
on a ham packet system as on your ethernet (which is not a common
carrier because you own both the sending and receiving stations
and operate the carrier in the middle).

HAM radio can not be a common carrier (i.e. send other peoples)
datagrams around other than the amateurs themselves) because they
convinced the FCC and the other common carriers that they were not
going to compete that way.  This is why they are allowed to exist
at all.  Otherwise, HAM's would all be down on 27 MHz with everyone
else or would have to fight an even tougher battle than they already
do to maintain their portion of the spectrum from commercial interests.

-Ron