That's like saying that giving people drivers licenses who have no experience driving a horse team is producing bad drivers. Some of the worst hams I've encountered were old timers with great "fists" on a key. The CW requirement never filtered out bad operators any more than rigid testing of one's knowledge of electronics theory. What you describe is an issue of character and no one's figured out how to reliably test for that that I know of.
In any event, I fail to see how this is a ham issue since the amateur service has a license for this band and wireless operators are forbidden to cause interference to the licensed users of the band and must accept any interference from the operations of licensed users. If a wireless ISP wants to avoid this interference, they're welcome to get a license like the big boys or figure out how to configure their systems, if possible, to avoid the interference. Don't make operating a wireless ISP business on the cheap a ham problem. Rick -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 8:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction But when 802.11 became "easy" it invited all the people to use it who thought that 10 watt amps were a good idea too. Doesn't the more amateur HAM users invite those who are less experienced to just crank up the power rather than look at the engineering of their systems? Isn't removing a barrier to broadcasting as a HAM (the CW requirement) simply inviting less experienced, less responsible users into the band? Like look at the CB world, how many times have you seen someone with a massive RF amp out there broadcasting over everyone else? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Fletcher, W7RAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction > You make some good points, Chuck, but you are wrong about one thing: The > amateur ranks have been growing like mad since the archaic CW (Morse Code) > requirement was eliminated. Also, hams are still experimenting and > innovating like never before as is demonstrated by the tremendous growth > of > SDR (Software Defined Radio) amongst the ham ranks. The Big 3 of ham > radio > manufacturers (Icom, Yaesu and Kenwood) are fast losing ground to the more > innovative ham-owned and operated companies of TenTec, Elecraft and > Flex-Radio. These same ham-owned companies are selling a lot of gear to > the > military, so they must be on to something. > > Hams are pushing the envelope in satellite and microwave comms as well as > digital communications methods which allow communications to occur at > levels > 30dB below the noise floor. > > Anyone who thinks we're a dying breed and "parasites" with frequency > allocations that should be reassigned to folks who can make "better use of > it" knows absolutely nothing about what's really happening in ham radio > today. Of course, people talking strongly about things they don't > understand is very common, particularly in election years. > > Rick, W7RAF > Extra Class and 1st Class Radiotelephone > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Chuck McCown > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 5:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction > > A KA has been a ham longer than a KD. > (assuming it is not a vanity call sign) > Long time hams have more passion for the subject. > > But really, I agree with almost everything said. Ham really has been > dying > for a very long time. > I just get bent when some WISPs take the entitlement attitude towards ham > freqs. > There are lots of PhDs that work in electrodynamics that are hams and > merge > their work world with their hobby world. > > Amateur Radio is Amateur like the Olympics used to be Amateur. > If anything they were the most professional people in the industry. > > I would hire a hobbiest ham over some guy with a certificate any day of > the > week. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Blake Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:58 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction > > >> Chuck - why would that make a bit of difference? KD versus KA? > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
