[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
If opposing the relaxation of regulations that control unqualified semi-automatic stations makes me "want to be Luddite" from your perspective, Howard, so be it. >From my point of view, the retention of these regulations for unqualified software and the introduction of a qualification process would encourage innovation by incentivizing the development of busy frequency detectors and more sophisticated station automation software by those interested in access to more spectrum for semi-automatic operation. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave: > > I actually don't agree that "Such Regulations are initially required". > > However as a compromise, I would be willing to accept some limited form of "Such Regulations" if it means that we can get out of "Technology Jail". > > I use Luddites as a generic term to describe those who oppose innovation...and want to maintain the status quo... > > Dave, as much as you may want to be, you are not a Luddite... > > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > > From: Dave Bernstein The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
Dave: I actually don't agree that "Such Regulations are initially required". However as a compromise, I would be willing to accept some limited form of "Such Regulations" if it means that we can get out of "Technology Jail". I use Luddites as a generic term to describe those who oppose innovation...and want to maintain the status quo... Dave, as much as you may want to be, you are not a Luddite... __ Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" From: Dave Bernstein To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:23 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference That's two messages in a row inveighing against modern-day Luddites holding back bandwidth-based allocation without citation of anyone actually taking this position. Perhaps this is another example of "If you hold a weak position, attack an imaginary enemy". The true obstacle to bandwidth-based allocation is its linkage to unlimited semi-automatic operation. If we are jailed, to use your florid analogy, this is the key. As for voluntary band plans making regulation of semi-automatic operation unnecessary, you need look no further than the Winlink web site to find many examples of semi-automatic stations using frequencies proscribed by current IARU band plans. For whatever reason, voluntary band plans are demonstrably ineffective at establishing semi-automatic sub-bands. All that said, I appreciate your acknowledging the need to constrain unqualified semi-automatic operation, Howard. While we may diagree on the longevity of the regulations required to implement this, we at least agree that such regulations are initially required. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the historical perspective.. I am fortunate enough to have studied English History many years ago where I learned the term... Luddites are those "who distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new > technology" and in the end "the Luddite Movement ceased to be active" > > While I obviously would prefer a voluntary bandplan with FCC regulation of only Bandwidth... I can live with temporary regulation of "non qualified automatic modes" as I realize that in the long run that even those unnecessary regulations will have to die a natural death. > > Again.. I have seen voluntary bandplans with Bandwith only regulation work in many countries already...they work well... they free up the ham population to innovate.. while the Luddites in the USA want to keep us in Technology jail with their fears of the future. > > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > > > - Original Message - > From: obrienaj > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:33 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Just who are these Luddites you're so fond of attacking, Howard? > > Finally, an chance to use the information from those seemingly > useless history classes I endured while frowning up in the UK. > Andy K3UK > > From http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html > > Luddism > and the Neo-Luddite Reaction > > Cultural change necessarily involves resistance to change. The term > Luddite has been resurrected from a previous era to describe one who > distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new > technology. The original Luddite revolt occurred in 1811, an action > against the English Textile factories that displaced craftsmen in > favor of machines. Today's Luddites continue to raise moral and > ethical arguments against the excesses of modern technology to the > extent that our inventions and our technical systems have evolved to > control us rather than to serve us and to the extent that such > leviathans can threaten our essential humanity. > > and from > > http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm > > > In the early months of 1811 the first threatening
Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
1.yes I am very active on all the modes but I also spend a lot of my spare time experimenting with new modes such as SCAMP, etc... 2.While I value a statistically sound poll, such a poll as you suggest would be totally unscientific and the results unreliable... 3.You miss the point of Luddites.. they favored the status quo and opposed technological innovation.. While it may seem to be counter intuitive, fortunately for the workers they lost and in the long run everyone's standard of living (including the workers) improved as a result of the technical innovation... [if you want to get into a historical side discussion of innovation and economics, email me off the reflector] 4.While you may have no use for Email over ham Radio, many people travelling in RV's and boats use it every day.. further it is ideally suited to EMCOMM where it can replace the last mile communications in an emergency... 5. By comparison, I have no use for CW which is an incredibly inefficient mode and is especially disruptive of digital modes during CW contests...yet many hams get a great deal of pleasure using it... I feel they have every right to continue to use it as long as it fits in our bandwidth... __ Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" - Original Message - From: Ed To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Howard Why don't you start a poll and see just how many on this group (under FCC regulations) would be in favor of what you suport. By the way, are you active on the various modes that this reflector encourages. MFSK PSK31 and others? I for one, am on tha air daily and see the result of semi automatic operations. I do see value in your point of view, but find no use for services that allow for personal Email or messages from the internet to be broadcast on Amatuer Radio. I also have no use for the constant contest operation that spreads out to the exclusion of other modes. Some rules are always needed. I am having a hard time getting the connection between rich factory owners and a government that would allow its populace to starve by its actions and ham operators who have a point of view that is different than yours. Ed > Again.. I have seen voluntary bandplans with Bandwith only regulation work in many countries already...they work well... they free up the ham population to innovate.. while the Luddites in the USA want to keep us in Technology jail with their fears of the future. > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada -- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
That's two messages in a row inveighing against modern-day Luddites holding back bandwidth-based allocation without citation of anyone actually taking this position. Perhaps this is another example of "If you hold a weak position, attack an imaginary enemy". The true obstacle to bandwidth-based allocation is its linkage to unlimited semi-automatic operation. If we are jailed, to use your florid analogy, this is the key. As for voluntary band plans making regulation of semi-automatic operation unnecessary, you need look no further than the Winlink web site to find many examples of semi-automatic stations using frequencies proscribed by current IARU band plans. For whatever reason, voluntary band plans are demonstrably ineffective at establishing semi-automatic sub-bands. All that said, I appreciate your acknowledging the need to constrain unqualified semi-automatic operation, Howard. While we may diagree on the longevity of the regulations required to implement this, we at least agree that such regulations are initially required. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the historical perspective.. I am fortunate enough to have studied English History many years ago where I learned the term... Luddites are those "who distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new > technology" and in the end "the Luddite Movement ceased to be active" > > While I obviously would prefer a voluntary bandplan with FCC regulation of only Bandwidth... I can live with temporary regulation of "non qualified automatic modes" as I realize that in the long run that even those unnecessary regulations will have to die a natural death. > > Again.. I have seen voluntary bandplans with Bandwith only regulation work in many countries already...they work well... they free up the ham population to innovate.. while the Luddites in the USA want to keep us in Technology jail with their fears of the future. > > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > > > - Original Message - > From: obrienaj > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:33 AM > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Just who are these Luddites you're so fond of attacking, Howard? > > Finally, an chance to use the information from those seemingly > useless history classes I endured while frowning up in the UK. > Andy K3UK > > From http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html > > Luddism > and the Neo-Luddite Reaction > > Cultural change necessarily involves resistance to change. The term > Luddite has been resurrected from a previous era to describe one who > distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new > technology. The original Luddite revolt occurred in 1811, an action > against the English Textile factories that displaced craftsmen in > favor of machines. Today's Luddites continue to raise moral and > ethical arguments against the excesses of modern technology to the > extent that our inventions and our technical systems have evolved to > control us rather than to serve us and to the extent that such > leviathans can threaten our essential humanity. > > and from > > http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm > > > In the early months of 1811 the first threatening letters from > General Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers, were sent to employers > in Nottingham. Workers, upset by wage reductions and the use of > unapprenticed workmen, began to break into factories at night to > destroy the new machines that the employers were using. In a three- > week period over two hundred stocking frames were destroyed. In > March, 1811, several attacks were taking place every night and the > Nottingham authorities had to enroll four hundred special constables > to protect the factories. To help catch the culprits, the Prince > Regent offered £50 to anyone "giving information on any person or > persons wickedly breaking the frames". > > Luddism gradually spread to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire > and Derbyshire. In Yorkshire, croppers, a small and highly skilled > group of cloth finishers, turned their anger on the new shearing > frame that they feared would put them ou
Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
And while you are at it... Ask how many work such modes as Packet, Amtor, Pactor and RTTY * WITH * a TNC ... I for one would love to see just how many even own a TNC.. (guess <5%) Let's see the big picture here. At 03:19 PM 2/20/05, you wrote: >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Howard > >Why don't you start a poll and see just how many on this group >(under FCC regulations) would be in favor of what you suport. The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
I knew about *those* Luddites, Andy; I was wondering to whom Howard was referring in drawing his analogy. But thanks for the excellent overview... 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Just who are these Luddites you're so fond of attacking, Howard? > > Finally, an chance to use the information from those seemingly > useless history classes I endured while frowning up in the UK. > Andy K3UK > > From http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html > > Luddism > and the Neo-Luddite Reaction > > Cultural change necessarily involves resistance to change. The term > Luddite has been resurrected from a previous era to describe one who > distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new > technology. The original Luddite revolt occurred in 1811, an action > against the English Textile factories that displaced craftsmen in > favor of machines. Today's Luddites continue to raise moral and > ethical arguments against the excesses of modern technology to the > extent that our inventions and our technical systems have evolved to > control us rather than to serve us and to the extent that such > leviathans can threaten our essential humanity. > > and from > > http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm > > > In the early months of 1811 the first threatening letters from > General Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers, were sent to employers > in Nottingham. Workers, upset by wage reductions and the use of > unapprenticed workmen, began to break into factories at night to > destroy the new machines that the employers were using. In a three- > week period over two hundred stocking frames were destroyed. In > March, 1811, several attacks were taking place every night and the > Nottingham authorities had to enroll four hundred special constables > to protect the factories. To help catch the culprits, the Prince > Regent offered £50 to anyone "giving information on any person or > persons wickedly breaking the frames". > > Luddism gradually spread to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire > and Derbyshire. In Yorkshire, croppers, a small and highly skilled > group of cloth finishers, turned their anger on the new shearing > frame that they feared would put them out of work. In February and > March, 1812, factories were attacked by Luddites in Huddersfield, > Halifax, Wakefield and Leeds. > > In February 1812 the government of Spencer Perceval proposed that > machine-breaking should become a capital offence. Despite a > passionate speech by Lord Byron in the House of Lords, Parliament > passed the Frame Breaking Act that enabled people convicted of > machine-breaking to be sentenced to death. As a further precaution, > the government ordered 12,000 troops into the areas where the > Luddites were active. > > On of the most serious Luddite attacks took place at Rawfolds Mill > near Brighouse in Yorkshire. William Cartwright, the owner of > Rawfolds Mill, had been using cloth-finishing machinery since 1811. > Local croppers began losing their jobs and after a meeting at Saint > Crispin public house, they decided to try and destroy the cloth- > finishing machinery at Rawfolds Mill. Cartwright was suspecting > trouble and arranged for the mill to be protected by armed guards. > > Led by George Mellor, a young cropper from Huddersfield, the attack > on Rawfolds Mill took place on 11th April, 1812. The Luddites failed > in gain entry and by the time they left, two of the croppers had > been mortally wounded. Seven days later the Luddites killed William > Horsfall, another large mill-owner in the area. The authorities > rounded up over a hundred suspects. Of these, sixty-four were > indicted. Three men were executed for the murder of Horsfall and > another fourteen were hung for the attack on Rawfolds Mill. > > Throughout 1812 there were attacks on Lancashire cotton mills. Local > handloom weavers objected to the introduction of power looms. On > 20th March, 1812 the warehouse of William Radcliffe, one of the > first manufacturers to use the power-loom, was attacked in > Stockport. > > Wheat prices soared in 1812. Unable to feed their families, workers > became desperate. There were food riots in Manchester, Oldham, > Ashton, Rochdale, Stockport and Macclesfield. On 20th April several > thousand men attacked Burton's Mill at Middleton near Manchester. > Emanuel Burton, who knew that his policy of buying power-looms had > upset local handloom weavers, had recruited armed guards and three > members of the crowd were killed by musket-fire. The following day > the men returned and after failing to break-in to the mill, they > burnt down Emanuel Burton's house. The military arrived and another > seven men were killed. > > Three days later, Wray & Duncroff's Mill at W
[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Howard Why don't you start a poll and see just how many on this group (under FCC regulations) would be in favor of what you suport. By the way, are you active on the various modes that this reflector encourages. MFSK PSK31 and others? I for one, am on tha air daily and see the result of semi automatic operations. I do see value in your point of view, but find no use for services that allow for personal Email or messages from the internet to be broadcast on Amatuer Radio. I also have no use for the constant contest operation that spreads out to the exclusion of other modes. Some rules are always needed. I am having a hard time getting the connection between rich factory owners and a government that would allow its populace to starve by its actions and ham operators who have a point of view that is different than yours. Ed > Again.. I have seen voluntary bandplans with Bandwith only regulation work in many countries already...they work well... they free up the ham population to innovate.. while the Luddites in the USA want to keep us in Technology jail with their fears of the future. > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
Thanks for the historical perspective.. I am fortunate enough to have studied English History many years ago where I learned the term... Luddites are those "who distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new technology" and in the end "the Luddite Movement ceased to be active" While I obviously would prefer a voluntary bandplan with FCC regulation of only Bandwidth... I can live with temporary regulation of "non qualified automatic modes" as I realize that in the long run that even those unnecessary regulations will have to die a natural death. Again.. I have seen voluntary bandplans with Bandwith only regulation work in many countries already...they work well... they free up the ham population to innovate.. while the Luddites in the USA want to keep us in Technology jail with their fears of the future. __ Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" - Original Message - From: obrienaj To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:33 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just who are these Luddites you're so fond of attacking, Howard? Finally, an chance to use the information from those seemingly useless history classes I endured while frowning up in the UK. Andy K3UK From http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html Luddism and the Neo-Luddite Reaction Cultural change necessarily involves resistance to change. The term Luddite has been resurrected from a previous era to describe one who distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new technology. The original Luddite revolt occurred in 1811, an action against the English Textile factories that displaced craftsmen in favor of machines. Today's Luddites continue to raise moral and ethical arguments against the excesses of modern technology to the extent that our inventions and our technical systems have evolved to control us rather than to serve us and to the extent that such leviathans can threaten our essential humanity. and from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm In the early months of 1811 the first threatening letters from General Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers, were sent to employers in Nottingham. Workers, upset by wage reductions and the use of unapprenticed workmen, began to break into factories at night to destroy the new machines that the employers were using. In a three- week period over two hundred stocking frames were destroyed. In March, 1811, several attacks were taking place every night and the Nottingham authorities had to enroll four hundred special constables to protect the factories. To help catch the culprits, the Prince Regent offered £50 to anyone "giving information on any person or persons wickedly breaking the frames". Luddism gradually spread to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. In Yorkshire, croppers, a small and highly skilled group of cloth finishers, turned their anger on the new shearing frame that they feared would put them out of work. In February and March, 1812, factories were attacked by Luddites in Huddersfield, Halifax, Wakefield and Leeds. In February 1812 the government of Spencer Perceval proposed that machine-breaking should become a capital offence. Despite a passionate speech by Lord Byron in the House of Lords, Parliament passed the Frame Breaking Act that enabled people convicted of machine-breaking to be sentenced to death. As a further precaution, the government ordered 12,000 troops into the areas where the Luddites were active. On of the most serious Luddite attacks took place at Rawfolds Mill near Brighouse in Yorkshire. William Cartwright, the owner of Rawfolds Mill, had been using cloth-finishing machinery since 1811. Local croppers began losing their jobs and after a meeting at Saint Crispin public house, they decided to try and destroy the cloth- finishing machinery at Rawfolds Mill. Cartwright was suspecting trouble and arranged for the mill to be protected by armed guards. Led by George Mellor, a young cropper from Huddersfield, the attack on Rawfolds Mill took place on 11th April, 1812. The Luddites failed in gain entry and by the time they left, two of the croppers had been mortally wounded. Seven days later the Luddites killed William Horsfall, another large mill-owner in the area. The authorities rounded up over a hundred suspects. Of these, sixty-four were indicted. Three men were executed for the murder of Horsfall
[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just who are these Luddites you're so fond of attacking, Howard? Finally, an chance to use the information from those seemingly useless history classes I endured while frowning up in the UK. Andy K3UK >From http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html Luddism and the Neo-Luddite Reaction Cultural change necessarily involves resistance to change. The term Luddite has been resurrected from a previous era to describe one who distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new technology. The original Luddite revolt occurred in 1811, an action against the English Textile factories that displaced craftsmen in favor of machines. Today's Luddites continue to raise moral and ethical arguments against the excesses of modern technology to the extent that our inventions and our technical systems have evolved to control us rather than to serve us and to the extent that such leviathans can threaten our essential humanity. and from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm In the early months of 1811 the first threatening letters from General Ned Ludd and the Army of Redressers, were sent to employers in Nottingham. Workers, upset by wage reductions and the use of unapprenticed workmen, began to break into factories at night to destroy the new machines that the employers were using. In a three- week period over two hundred stocking frames were destroyed. In March, 1811, several attacks were taking place every night and the Nottingham authorities had to enroll four hundred special constables to protect the factories. To help catch the culprits, the Prince Regent offered £50 to anyone "giving information on any person or persons wickedly breaking the frames". Luddism gradually spread to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. In Yorkshire, croppers, a small and highly skilled group of cloth finishers, turned their anger on the new shearing frame that they feared would put them out of work. In February and March, 1812, factories were attacked by Luddites in Huddersfield, Halifax, Wakefield and Leeds. In February 1812 the government of Spencer Perceval proposed that machine-breaking should become a capital offence. Despite a passionate speech by Lord Byron in the House of Lords, Parliament passed the Frame Breaking Act that enabled people convicted of machine-breaking to be sentenced to death. As a further precaution, the government ordered 12,000 troops into the areas where the Luddites were active. On of the most serious Luddite attacks took place at Rawfolds Mill near Brighouse in Yorkshire. William Cartwright, the owner of Rawfolds Mill, had been using cloth-finishing machinery since 1811. Local croppers began losing their jobs and after a meeting at Saint Crispin public house, they decided to try and destroy the cloth- finishing machinery at Rawfolds Mill. Cartwright was suspecting trouble and arranged for the mill to be protected by armed guards. Led by George Mellor, a young cropper from Huddersfield, the attack on Rawfolds Mill took place on 11th April, 1812. The Luddites failed in gain entry and by the time they left, two of the croppers had been mortally wounded. Seven days later the Luddites killed William Horsfall, another large mill-owner in the area. The authorities rounded up over a hundred suspects. Of these, sixty-four were indicted. Three men were executed for the murder of Horsfall and another fourteen were hung for the attack on Rawfolds Mill. Throughout 1812 there were attacks on Lancashire cotton mills. Local handloom weavers objected to the introduction of power looms. On 20th March, 1812 the warehouse of William Radcliffe, one of the first manufacturers to use the power-loom, was attacked in Stockport. Wheat prices soared in 1812. Unable to feed their families, workers became desperate. There were food riots in Manchester, Oldham, Ashton, Rochdale, Stockport and Macclesfield. On 20th April several thousand men attacked Burton's Mill at Middleton near Manchester. Emanuel Burton, who knew that his policy of buying power-looms had upset local handloom weavers, had recruited armed guards and three members of the crowd were killed by musket-fire. The following day the men returned and after failing to break-in to the mill, they burnt down Emanuel Burton's house. The military arrived and another seven men were killed. Three days later, Wray & Duncroff's Mill at Westhoughton, near Manchester, was set on fire. William Hulton, the High Sheriff of Lancashire, arrested twelve men suspected of taking part in the attack. Four of the accused, Abraham Charlston, Job Fletcher, Thomas Kerfoot, and James Smith, were executed. The Charlston's family claimed Abraham was only twelve years old but he was not reprieved. It was reported that Abraham cried for his mother on the scaffold. A local part-time
[digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference
Just who are these Luddites you're so fond of attacking, Howard? In no discussion here or elsewhere have I seen anyone argue against the position "we should eliminate government enforcement of mode-based frequency allocations". Opposition to proposals like the ARRL's that eliminate mode-based frequency regulations stem from their inclusion of another position: "we should eliminate government enforcement of frequency allocations for semi-automatic operation" As we've discussed here in detail, unregulated semi-automatic operation with unqualified station automation software is a far greater QRM risk to our bands than is BPL. If you are seriously interested in gaining popular support for eliminating mode-based frequency regulations, I suggest that you clearly acknowledge the need to retain regulations on unqualified semi-automatic operation, and help convince the ARRL to modify its proposal accordingly. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well put Bonnie... > > Maybe some cause like fighting BPL will finally help the Luddites understand the need to be freed from "technology prison" > > __ > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished" > "Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist" > > > - Original Message - > From: expeditionradio > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:16 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate Interference > > > > BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to Mitigate > Harmful Interference to Amateur Radio Service > > Undoubtedly, BPL systems operating in the ham bands cause interference > to most of the analog and digital modes we presently use for amateur > radio communications. Our main modes: SSB, FM, CW, SSTV, RTTY, PSK31, > Pactor, and AMre vulnerable to most of the types of BPL signal > interference. Unfortunately, common receiver noise-blanking and DNR > techniques are inadequate to cancel the ugly BPL pulsating and > multi-carrier signals. > > The Amateur Radio Service is, in essence, being forced to adopt some > form of BPL-mitigation technology. > > The development of new amateur modes, semi-automated and automated > frequency agile systems, advanced ARQ, and various sorts of FEC > digital techniques could be a possible avenue for amateurs to > "communicate through" the interference caused by BPL. It may not be > possible to entirely eliminate the harmful interference BPL creates, > but we need to start planning for it. We need to research and > characterize the various types of BPL signals so that we can design > modulation and control techniques to compensate for them. > > Using radio engineering and digital signal processing, we may be able > to develop "BPL-Busting Modes". These new modes and systems could > carry any combination of voice/image/text/data. Frequency hopping, > spread spectrum, wideband OFDM, multi-PSK, ALE, and MFSK are > mode/systems that we could implement immediately in new formats... but > we need the freedom within the FCC rules to advance some of these. > Freedom that we don't have yet in USA. > > Under FCC current Amateur Radio Service rules, we do not have the > freedom we need to take advantage of some of the most useful > technologies that could help us to "communicate through" BPL > interference. We are locked in a technology prison. Hopefully, in the > near future, we will have more freedom... with bandwidth-based > spectrum management. > > Bonnie KQ6XA > > > ,, > > > > > > The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ > > http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > Get unlimited calls to > > U.S./Canada > > > > > -- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/ http://dxcluster.blogspot.com";>http://feeds.feedburner.com/DigitalSpotter.gif"; height="67" width="200" style="border:0" alt="Digital Spotter"/> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Gro
