"If there were other methods, then please list them. Bell was a complete monopoly, and you either did it thier way or the highway. And I mean that literally. You either used the Bell phone, or sent your messages via the postal system (or walked them yourself).
Do you like having a cordless phone? Or perhaps you would rather go back to renting your single phone."
Other methods? Let's start with a regulatory mandate that Bell HAD to allow competing devices to be connected IF they met Bell System technical specs. Even during the 'monopoly' years, the Bell System contracted with companies other than WE to make their hardware. One good example would be Elgin Electronics, who made several types of voice couplers for the express purpose of -- guess what? -- safely connecting third-party devices to the phone lines.
Another example would be Precision Components. They made (and, as far as I know, continue to make) speakerphone equipment. Their model PC-4A was a near-exact clone of the Western Electric Type 4A, and I have reason to believe that Precision was a WE subcontractor for a while.
It's ironic that, in the years following divestiture, the FCC established EXACTLY the kind of third-party equipment registration program I mentioned above. All I'm saying is that I think it could have been done WITHOUT breaking up a system that, while it had plenty of faults, actually WORKED, and had nationwide standards where equipment and protocols were concerned.
What makes you think that cordless phones, or any of the other modern goodies we've got today, would never have come along without the breakup?
"Just wondering, 20 years ago all you could get was ATT, now they are selling off their arms and legs left and right. Can paraphrase exactally what has changed in the last 20 years and how it happend? (I think we all know about the anti monoploy suit and the baby bells, but there must be more?)"
There's a couple of pretty good books available that will give you some excellent ideas as to What Went Wrong with the Bell System, and much of it can be blamed on the U.S. legal system.
Another good one is 'A Voice in the Wilderness' by Alfred Duerig. That one's more of a dedication and autobiography for Constantine Kraus, but it will also give you some more insights into divestiture and What Really Happened.
Both books are out of print, BTW, but you should be able to find them either through Abebooks online, or from Ebay. I got my pair through finding used booksellers with copies on Abebooks.
While I'm thinking about it, the Bell System Memorial site is a wonderful resource for both historical and technical info on the once-great Ma Bell.
From my perspective: The divestiture and breakup of the Bell System was utterly unnecessary, along the lines of using an antiaircraft gun to kill mosquitoes. There had to have been other (and better) ways to go about allowing consumers to connect their own goodies to the lines, encourage development of alternative services, etc.
I continue to see, in both our mail servers 'reject' logs, ongoing spam attempst and abuse from worm-compromised Verizon DSL systems. Before that, I was seeing spam pretty regularly from Verizon IP ranges.
I kept reporting each piece to Verizon's published abuse address up until about two years ago. Since they never seemed to do anything about it, based on the fact that the spew kept flowing, I simply blocked the 4.0.0.0/8 subnet out of our domain and got on with my life.
Verizon claims to be anti-spam, and they have a decent enough AUP. They've also gone after a number of big-time spammers in legal battles, and won.
However, actions speak louder than anything else. If they continue to permit people to connect to the 'net without at least some basic education about computing security, AND they're unwilling to suspend a customer's connection if their system does contract a worm, then FTTP is going to be nothing more than a bonanza of newly-trojaned high-speed spam spewers.
Verizon should focus more on fixing their existing issues with their lackadaisacal handling of abuse complaints before they start thinking about blowing big bucks on something the spammers will likely find more useful than the end users.
No, I wasn't joking in the least. Call me old-fashioned, but I know where the "Off" switches are on all my hardware, and I'm not in the least afraid to use them.
Text messaging is just another means to disconnect yourself from actually TALKING to someone, IMO. We got along fine without it before cellphones equipped with it came along, and I suspect we could learn to get along without it once again.
I'm not trying to make flamebait. I'm merely making an observation that the simple art of conversation seems to be a dying one. Don't even get me started on what's happening with social skills.
"(3) They know where you read it... the positioning system of the GPS/w-cdma networks allow them to track your place..."
Not true in all cases, nor at all times. All the GPS-enabled phones I've seen to date do not automatically broadcast one's position. They do so only when you're making or receiving an actual call. Also, the network itself has to be able to interpret and pass on the GPS data received. If you're hitched into a 'legacy' analog network, or a digital one that has not been updated to handle the e-911 feature set, your phone can spew its position data all it wants to no avail.
I'm not sure how it is for phones other than Motorola and Nokia, but the ones I've seen let you configure the GPS function to transmit position only for 911 calls or for all calls.
Here's the problem: The phones I've played with all come with the locator feature set to "Transmit on all calls" by default, and it takes some digging in the menu tree to find the feature and change it. Hardly anyone actually reads the manual for electronic equipment, let alone digs into the deep menus to play with low-level functions.
Even worse, you can't turn the GPS functionality off altogether because the FCC made its presence mandatory for the new E-911 systems.
"I'm just saying there are possible reasonable explanations that aren't too far fetched. All of this is stuff I learned in sophomore quantum physics. Now if it was a math class instead of physics, solving for an eigenvalue of 0.23 in your head would usually be rediculous..."
Your physics may be right on target, but I get the impression that you're skipping English classes. They would have taught you how to spell "ridiculous.";-)
Also, in the context of your sentence above, "possible" and "reasonable" are redundant. "possibly reasonable" or just simply "reasonable" would have worked better.
In any situation like this, someone invariably gets picked as a 'test case.' Jim just happened to be the one.
What he experienced in terms of RF 'noise pollution' would become all too common if BPL were to be widely deployed. The NTIA report and the ARRL's own technical committee have demonstrated this in gruesome detail.
Want some more real-life examples of the kind of crap BPL is capable of spreading? Go here.
There are plenty of existing ways to deliver broadband to homes without polluting the HF spectrum. BPL exists only to serve the pocketbooks of its equipment manufacturers, and the shareholders of power companies, at the expense of EVERYONE (not just amateur radio ops) who uses the HF spectrum. If it becomes widespread, commercial aviation, military, and the federal government's HF users will ALL be affected in short order, and it will probably get shut down anyway as a result.
Why waste any more time on it at all?
Re:Going the way of the dinosaurs
on
Field Day 2004
·
· Score: 1
Fair enough. I will add that there's darned little that I would truly object to in terms of operating modes. If somebody WANTS to check and send their E-mail via amateur radio, I have no issue with it. All I was getting at is that the person doing so may not find it to be the most efficient or pleasing means of doing so, simply because the service was never structured for doing so to begin with.
Oh, one other thing... If BPL "forces" me to sell any of my gear, I would point out that it would likely do the same to you (and one heck of a lot of other hams).;-)
I don't think anyone should have to pay ANYthing (other than the obvious portion of one's normal tax dollars that go to support NOAA/NWS) to get weather info!
It never ceases to amaze me how greedy and unprincipled the private sector can get. On the one wing, there's a ton of links on sites like Yahoo!, MSN, ad nauseum, all pointing to weather forecasts that are crammed with advertising.
On the other wing, it only takes a little common sense to go straight to the source for weather data that costs nothing, is as accurate as our current level of science can manage, and is not cluttered with distracting ads.
What's going to be next? An attempt to privatize, and charge for, the VHF weather radio broadcasts? Oh, the boaters and fly-boys will love that one...
Trilobytes were the equivalent of our modern bytes in the Atlantean Computer Network. Each trilobyte represented three bits, based on an ancient logic system of 'Yes,' 'No,' and 'Maybe.'
Hey, we had to get the idea of 'fuzzy logic' from somewhere!;-)
Re:Going the way of the dinosaurs
on
Field Day 2004
·
· Score: 1
"I think you realize by now just how damaging you are to our great hobby. Part of what makes amateur radio great is that people come up with new functions and uses all the time. Can't stand digital modes, huh?"
Of all the people that replied to this thread, your post struck me as the most angry and short-sighted.
What in the multiverse did I say in my original post to the effect that I "can't stand digital modes?" I operate APRS frequently, I'm getting the gear together even as I type this (receivers, computer, software, sound card) to allow me to do some major HF listening to, and acquisition of, digital modes because I want to understand signal acquisition and processing better than I do now.
This has always been one of the dangers of message boards, IMO. It is SOOOO easy to take someone completely out of context, simply because you're looking at characters on a screen instead of seeing them face-to-face.
"Damaging" to the hobby? If that silly statement had any truth to it, I might actually be offended by it.;-)
"If you want to learn about the exciting forefront of ham radio technology, check out the Icom D-STAR system. It lets us run voice and 128k data streams simultaneously on 1GHz mobiles and 10GHz backbone links. Boy, 128k continuous data streams. That must really chap your ass..."
If it does, it's only because I can't afford to buy one right now and play with it.;-)
"You sound like a crusty old curmudgeon.. looking up your call to see how much longer you're going to be around to "help" the hobby. Crap, born in 1960. Looks like you'll be around for a while yet."
Yep! And proud of it too. If you could have been bothered to do a little more research, instead of making all your assumptions from my original post, you might have discovered that I just completed formal disaster-response training (the CERT program) from our local fire department, and that part of my side business exists to help hams convert and use commercial radio gear on the amateur bands.
Did I mention I'm also going to see about getting involved with the local ARES or RACES group?
In any case: "Crusty?" Maybe a little. Only because I think there should be more tinkering going on in the hobby.
"Old?" Only if you define 44 as old.
"Curmudgeon?" Not yet. Give me another 50 years or so. Then I will be happy to 'curmudge' anyone who's crazy enough to invite me to.;-)
73 de KC7GR
Re:Going the way of the dinosaurs
on
Field Day 2004
·
· Score: 1
Jim, please don't twist what I typed out of context just to suit your quoting style.
I'm well aware of the digital modes, and radiogram handling. In fact, during the time I was living in the Bay Area in the late 70's, I was on the honor roll for radiogram traffic handling with one of the local voice nets, and a regular participant on the Mt. Tam RTTY repeater. I was working for Western Union at the time, and I'm proud to say that I had a fully-restored Teletype model 28ASR to handle traffic with.
I never said there wasn't room to accommodate new technologies. As I've already pointed out, I was concerned that the original poster was not looking at the 'big picture' of the amateur radio service.
Re:Going the way of the dinosaurs
on
Field Day 2004
·
· Score: 1
"Don't handicap the hobby by placing restrictions on reasonable technologies. Encrypting a password is not unreasonable. The Amateur Radio service is still free and anyone who wants to put forth the effort can get into. These days though, 2 meters is dead around here, and there's not much activity due to the internet and cell phones, as someone else said. We sure don't want to be hurting the hobby further by stifling its uses and ability to draw new blood in, and as a result, innovation and continunace of the hobby..."
I could not agree with you more! My perception of the original poster's message was that he was disappointed because he could not turn his use of amateur radio into simply another Internet link-up. If I misinterpreted that, then I apologize.
In order to innovate, though, one needs technical skills, including knowledge of radio and electronics theory, construction practices (if you're planning to build prototypes), and the tools and test gear to do the 'innovation' part.
If I'm disappointed by anything in amateur radio today, it's the number of people who choose not to be 'tinkerers,' and contribute more to the technical side of the hobby.
Re:Going the way of the dinosaurs
on
Field Day 2004
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"I'm a young ham and its crap like this that keeps us out. Because you are too stubborn and DON'T want NEW uses for ham radio. Let it die then I say. Then when the FCC takes away your frequencies so someone can check their Email from their blackberry device I don't want to hear you bitching!"
Essence Above! I believe I've set a record for myself. NEVER before, in the entire time I've been posting to/., can I recall when one of my posts has been more grossly misinterpreted.
To start with: If "crap like this is what keeps us out," I'd be curious to know which "us" you're speaking for. If you've already gotten your license, then I was very obviously unable to stop you (not that I would have wanted to in the first place).
Also, I would point out that you don't know me from Adam, and you know less than NOTHING about how "stubborn" you think I am, or what you think I want or don't want for the amateur service.
Think about it! If I were truly against "new uses" for amateur radio, I would have already been up on my metaphorical soapbox, railing against things like PSK-31, UWB, APRS, and all the other NEW USES for the service that have come along in recent times.
Blackberries already work very nicely on the Nextel network, BTW.;-)
In any case: I'm not now, nor have I ever been, AGAINST using amateur radio for E-mail. I'm merely trying to point out that it is not the most efficient medium for the transmission of such.
Consider this if you still don't believe me. I'm sure you're aware of how badly spam has already polluted E-mail on the Internet itself.
Do you REALLY want the same thing to happen to amateur radio?
73 de KC7GR
Re:Going the way of the dinosaurs
on
Field Day 2004
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"For instance: sure, I can check my email over ham radio, but I'm not allowed to use encryption. So, to check my email I have to either a)broadcast my IMAP password to everyone within hundreds of miles, or b)disable passwords altogether and leave my mail account wide open..."
I have to speak up in response to this. I'm proud to have been active in amateur radio for 27 years.
The Amateur Radio SERVICE was never intended (nor needed, IMO) as a path for checking one's E-mail. If you want to do that via radio link, you need only invest in a wireless network card for your laptop, and hook up with any WiFi hotspot in your part of the country.
Permit me to quote from a few of the sections of FCC Part 97, in response to your specific queries regarding the "outdated restrictions" you refer to.
"Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications."
While it is possible to extend the term 'Emergency communications' to include E-mail, keep in mind that this is amateur RADIO, not amateur E-mail. We already have a perfectly usable infrastructure in place for E-mail, and I don't see why amateur RADIO needs to supplement it.
As to encryption, yes, it is prohibited for use on amateur frequencies. That point has been debated many times in many places, and the reasoning is simple enough. Given the service's strong emphasis on support of volunteer communications assistance, in times of disaster or other emergencies, the FCC believes (rightly so, IMO) that the use of encryption in amateur radio is contrary to fulfilling that basic purpose.
In short: Encryption is simply not necessary for any part of amateur radio, with the single exception of satellite command and control signals transmitted from an earth station. The FCC allows encryption for that signal type alone for reasons which should be obvious.
If I may be so bold: You appear to be trying to fit amateur radio into the mold of something that it is not (wireless data networking, specifically Internet connectivity), and was never intended to be.
Also remember that another of the primary purposes for the existence of the service is to foster experimentation and ongoing learning in the realm of radio and communications theory (in short: a whole lot of tinkering with electronic goodies -- yes, that means learning how to solder), as spelled out in 97.1 paragraphs b, c, and d.
If you're going up for your Technician license exam, you should already be fairly familiar with Part 97, and have (hopefully) taken at least section 97.1 to heart. Based on your statements in your post, I get the distinct impression that you have not.
My questions to you are: Why did you decide to get your ham license? What do you expect to get out of the hobby? What are you planning to contribute to it?
Amateur radio, like any other hobby -- for that matter, like Life itself -- is a near-perfect mirror. You get out exactly what you put into it.
A company does not become the "Number One" anything just because of size. I stuck with Verizon Wireless because of their good customer service and wide coverage, even in the boonies.
Before I ever think of Cingular as "Number One," they're going to have to prove that they can be just as good at quality of service as Verizon.
Use a hardware firewall, or a decent router with a firewall built in, instead of depending on something that's software-based. That way, the nasties are stopped before they even get to your computer.
I've not had personal experience with them, but others I've spoken with have had good luck with Linksys and D-Link. For my part, I've always depended on our Watchguard Firebox II to handle things.
Granted, such a unit is well beyond the cost range of most home setups (unless you get a phenomenal deal on it used, as I did). However, before I had the Firebox, I was part of the Beta testing team for the Zyxel 'Prestige 312' combo dual-Ethernet router/firewall. The 312 has been discontinued for some time now, but it performed like a champ for me.
If I were going to pick another unit today, I would look at Zyxel's ZyWall 100 series, or something similar. They're quite a bit less expensive than Watchguard's products, and I see no reason they shouldn't work just as well.
If the 100's a little too costly for you, the entire ZyWall series comes in a variety of sizes from 1 on up. The number usually designates the number of VPN connections the unit allows.
If you're a DIY'er, you can, of course, just get hold of a spare PC, stick a couple of NICs in it, load it up with FreeBSD or some such, and turn it into a router/firewall.
The bottom line is that I don't believe any purely software-based firewall can ever be as secure as one that's hardware-based, and dedicated to the purpose of just being a firewall. I certainly don't trust Uncle Bill or Symantec to do it right (witness the problems you've already had).
How about the Big B's nice, new "Engineering Center" that got opened in Moscow?
How about their "Global Partners" in China that are now making aircraft parts that once were made not ten miles down the road from me?
As for the JSF project, it got dissolved after Lockheed won the contract. The Sonic Cruiser project was shot down about a year before I was laid off, and it has not been resurrected.
In times of past downturns, Boeing chose to diversify instead of shed workers. Heck, they went as far as making furniture after WW2! And what about the Boeing-made 'JetFoil' hydrofoil craft that are still in service overseas to this day?
9/11 and the commercial air downturn was just a convenient excuse for Boeing management to get rid of all those pesky engineers who were more interested in doing what it took to make the best aerospace hardware on the planet, as opposed to simply finding new ways to generate "Shareholder Value."
The company is well on its way to turning into nothing more than a big assembler of even bigger "Heathkit" type aircraft.
If I sound more than a little bitter, it's merely because I hate seeing a company that was one of the leaders in aviation and aerospace self-destruct just like a deflating dot-bomb.
Bill Boeing must be reaching about 40,000 RPM about now...
Boeing alone, in a period from 1996 through 2002, went from a high of over 150,000 jobs to around 70,000.
That's a lot more than 3 percent!
I have no idea what started this most ugly trend of bleeding off the 'industrial edge' that the U.S. once had but, like raw engineering know-how, I firmly believe that the drain is going to reach a 'critical mass' (if it hasn't already), and true innovation and invention will be left to other countries who still value the long-term gains of pure R&D.
Boeing has already suffered so much of a brain-drain, thanks to its "outsourcing," that I question if it can ever recover.
And that's just one example.
[sarcasm_mode]
So when does the US industrial base go up on the auction block?
I don't know what's so 'crazy' about it. Back in the summer of 2000, I equipped our van with, among other things, a general-purpose onboard computer that can do a lot more than just GPS-based real-time mapping and route planning. It's also equipped for APRS operations, and (as soon as I get a proper multimode wireless card and an additional antenna installed up top) 802.11 networking.
At the risk of sounding a bit snobbish, I think the 12-inch TFT color display I've got up front beats the crap out of most of the "consumer" in-dash navigation units with those microscopic screens.
In anticipation of some of the questions that will likely pop into the minds of those who view the page:
(1) Yes, all the equipment is legal for me to have in there, including the lightbar.
(2) No, I'm not a 'storm chaser' (though I have been asked that a time or two). I'm a communications tech for the Washington State Patrol. I'm also disaster-response trained, thanks to the City of Kent CERT program.
(3) Yes, I have been 'first responder' in a couple of (thankfully minor) situations. I keep a full trauma kit in the van, but I pray I never need to find out how complete it is, or how well my training took.
(4) Let's just say that, besides the above, I take my hobby of amateur ('ham') radio pretty seriously, especially the parts about being ready to lend a hand in public service and voluntary support of emergency communications.
Just as I always prefer to use the right hand tool(s) or a given type of test equipment for a specific job (matching the tool to the job, as it were), I also prefer to work the same way where computers are concerned.
For end-user workstations: I have no issue with Windows from W2000 on down. I will NOT use Windows (X)tra (P)ain under ANY conditions due to the many inherent 'spyware' features and its ridiculous "Product Activation" crap. Why should I EVER have to ask the Redmond Empire for its blessing when I change out hardware or apps?
For intranet (not connected to the Internet) servers: Again, no problem with Windows, but I stopped updating when I got to Windows NT Server 4.0, SP6A. W2K Server is simply too bloody complex and bloated to do the simple things I require our LAN servers to do.
For Internet-connected servers: I would NEVER trust such a box to Bill-ware under ANY conditions due to security and stability issues. Don't even get me started on licensing costs. For 'net-connected servers, I rely on NetBSD and open-source software, exclusively.
Those who are.... different.... enough to depend on Windows-based servers for Internet apps often ask me why I feel this way. The arguments they present are that Windows is 'perfectly secure' if I keep it patched and updated, and that "any server can do with an occasional reboot."
My response is to tell them the story of what happened with our web server (a SPARC box running NetBSD and Apache) when my wife and I went on vacation one year. Within 24 hours of our departure, the hard drive in the SPARC failed. The OS could no longer write to it, though reading was not an issue.
Despite this, that wonderful little SPARCstation kept right on serving up web pages, keeping our site alive, for THREE DAYS until I got back and was able to rebuild it. As near as I can tell, it would have kept going even longer if I had let it.
After their eyes quit bugging, I tell them that I defy anyone to find me a Windows-based server that can survive as our SPARC box did, AND KEEP WORKING even though its hard drive is half-kaput.
I've yet to get any sort of coherent answer in response.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
swv3752 writes...
"If there were other methods, then please list them. Bell was a complete monopoly, and you either did it thier way or the highway. And I mean that literally. You either used the Bell phone, or sent your messages via the postal system (or walked them yourself).
Do you like having a cordless phone? Or perhaps you would rather go back to renting your single phone."
Other methods? Let's start with a regulatory mandate that Bell HAD to allow competing devices to be connected IF they met Bell System technical specs. Even during the 'monopoly' years, the Bell System contracted with companies other than WE to make their hardware. One good example would be Elgin Electronics, who made several types of voice couplers for the express purpose of -- guess what? -- safely connecting third-party devices to the phone lines.
Another example would be Precision Components. They made (and, as far as I know, continue to make) speakerphone equipment. Their model PC-4A was a near-exact clone of the Western Electric Type 4A, and I have reason to believe that Precision was a WE subcontractor for a while.
It's ironic that, in the years following divestiture, the FCC established EXACTLY the kind of third-party equipment registration program I mentioned above. All I'm saying is that I think it could have been done WITHOUT breaking up a system that, while it had plenty of faults, actually WORKED, and had nationwide standards where equipment and protocols were concerned.
What makes you think that cordless phones, or any of the other modern goodies we've got today, would never have come along without the breakup?
Thoolie asks...
"Just wondering, 20 years ago all you could get was ATT, now they are selling off their arms and legs left and right. Can paraphrase exactally what has changed in the last 20 years and how it happend? (I think we all know about the anti monoploy suit and the baby bells, but there must be more?)"
There's a couple of pretty good books available that will give you some excellent ideas as to What Went Wrong with the Bell System, and much of it can be blamed on the U.S. legal system.
For starters, I recommend 'The Rape of Ma Bell: The Criminal Wrecking of the Best Telephone System in the World' by Alfred Duerig and Constantine Kraus. It will give you divestiture and breakup from an engineer's perspective. You can find an excerpt from the book here.
Another good one is 'A Voice in the Wilderness' by Alfred Duerig. That one's more of a dedication and autobiography for Constantine Kraus, but it will also give you some more insights into divestiture and What Really Happened.
Both books are out of print, BTW, but you should be able to find them either through Abebooks online, or from Ebay. I got my pair through finding used booksellers with copies on Abebooks.
While I'm thinking about it, the Bell System Memorial site is a wonderful resource for both historical and technical info on the once-great Ma Bell.
From my perspective: The divestiture and breakup of the Bell System was utterly unnecessary, along the lines of using an antiaircraft gun to kill mosquitoes. There had to have been other (and better) ways to go about allowing consumers to connect their own goodies to the lines, encourage development of alternative services, etc.
Happy hunting.
I continue to see, in both our mail servers 'reject' logs, ongoing spam attempst and abuse from worm-compromised Verizon DSL systems. Before that, I was seeing spam pretty regularly from Verizon IP ranges.
I kept reporting each piece to Verizon's published abuse address up until about two years ago. Since they never seemed to do anything about it, based on the fact that the spew kept flowing, I simply blocked the 4.0.0.0/8 subnet out of our domain and got on with my life.
Verizon claims to be anti-spam, and they have a decent enough AUP. They've also gone after a number of big-time spammers in legal battles, and won.
However, actions speak louder than anything else. If they continue to permit people to connect to the 'net without at least some basic education about computing security, AND they're unwilling to suspend a customer's connection if their system does contract a worm, then FTTP is going to be nothing more than a bonanza of newly-trojaned high-speed spam spewers.
Verizon should focus more on fixing their existing issues with their lackadaisacal handling of abuse complaints before they start thinking about blowing big bucks on something the spammers will likely find more useful than the end users.
No, I wasn't joking in the least. Call me old-fashioned, but I know where the "Off" switches are on all my hardware, and I'm not in the least afraid to use them.
Text messaging is just another means to disconnect yourself from actually TALKING to someone, IMO. We got along fine without it before cellphones equipped with it came along, and I suspect we could learn to get along without it once again.
I'm not trying to make flamebait. I'm merely making an observation that the simple art of conversation seems to be a dying one. Don't even get me started on what's happening with social skills.
Keep the peace(es).
Ketamine-bp wrote...
"(3) They know where you read it... the positioning system of the GPS/w-cdma networks allow them to track your place..."
Not true in all cases, nor at all times. All the GPS-enabled phones I've seen to date do not automatically broadcast one's position. They do so only when you're making or receiving an actual call. Also, the network itself has to be able to interpret and pass on the GPS data received. If you're hitched into a 'legacy' analog network, or a digital one that has not been updated to handle the e-911 feature set, your phone can spew its position data all it wants to no avail.
I'm not sure how it is for phones other than Motorola and Nokia, but the ones I've seen let you configure the GPS function to transmit position only for 911 calls or for all calls.
Here's the problem: The phones I've played with all come with the locator feature set to "Transmit on all calls" by default, and it takes some digging in the menu tree to find the feature and change it. Hardly anyone actually reads the manual for electronic equipment, let alone digs into the deep menus to play with low-level functions.
Even worse, you can't turn the GPS functionality off altogether because the FCC made its presence mandatory for the new E-911 systems.
I believe it does. However, there's one very easy way to utterly eliminate any chance of SMS spam, AND save some $$ at the same time.
;-)
Don't have text messaging enabled for your phone.
"I'm just saying there are possible reasonable explanations that aren't too far fetched. All of this is stuff I learned in sophomore quantum physics. Now if it was a math class instead of physics, solving for an eigenvalue of 0.23 in your head would usually be rediculous..."
;-)
Your physics may be right on target, but I get the impression that you're skipping English classes. They would have taught you how to spell "ridiculous."
Also, in the context of your sentence above, "possible" and "reasonable" are redundant. "possibly reasonable" or just simply "reasonable" would have worked better.
In any situation like this, someone invariably gets picked as a 'test case.' Jim just happened to be the one.
What he experienced in terms of RF 'noise pollution' would become all too common if BPL were to be widely deployed. The NTIA report and the ARRL's own technical committee have demonstrated this in gruesome detail.
Want some more real-life examples of the kind of crap BPL is capable of spreading? Go here.
There are plenty of existing ways to deliver broadband to homes without polluting the HF spectrum. BPL exists only to serve the pocketbooks of its equipment manufacturers, and the shareholders of power companies, at the expense of EVERYONE (not just amateur radio ops) who uses the HF spectrum. If it becomes widespread, commercial aviation, military, and the federal government's HF users will ALL be affected in short order, and it will probably get shut down anyway as a result.
Why waste any more time on it at all?
Fair enough. I will add that there's darned little that I would truly object to in terms of operating modes. If somebody WANTS to check and send their E-mail via amateur radio, I have no issue with it. All I was getting at is that the person doing so may not find it to be the most efficient or pleasing means of doing so, simply because the service was never structured for doing so to begin with.
;-)
Oh, one other thing... If BPL "forces" me to sell any of my gear, I would point out that it would likely do the same to you (and one heck of a lot of other hams).
Keep the peace(es).
I don't think anyone should have to pay ANYthing (other than the obvious portion of one's normal tax dollars that go to support NOAA/NWS) to get weather info!
It never ceases to amaze me how greedy and unprincipled the private sector can get. On the one wing, there's a ton of links on sites like Yahoo!, MSN, ad nauseum, all pointing to weather forecasts that are crammed with advertising.
On the other wing, it only takes a little common sense to go straight to the source for weather data that costs nothing, is as accurate as our current level of science can manage, and is not cluttered with distracting ads.
What's going to be next? An attempt to privatize, and charge for, the VHF weather radio broadcasts? Oh, the boaters and fly-boys will love that one...
Sheesh....
Trilobytes were the equivalent of our modern bytes in the Atlantean Computer Network. Each trilobyte represented three bits, based on an ancient logic system of 'Yes,' 'No,' and 'Maybe.'
;-)
Hey, we had to get the idea of 'fuzzy logic' from somewhere!
"I think you realize by now just how damaging you are to our great hobby. Part of what makes amateur radio great is that people come up with new functions and uses all the time. Can't stand digital modes, huh?"
;-)
;-)
;-)
Of all the people that replied to this thread, your post struck me as the most angry and short-sighted.
What in the multiverse did I say in my original post to the effect that I "can't stand digital modes?" I operate APRS frequently, I'm getting the gear together even as I type this (receivers, computer, software, sound card) to allow me to do some major HF listening to, and acquisition of, digital modes because I want to understand signal acquisition and processing better than I do now.
This has always been one of the dangers of message boards, IMO. It is SOOOO easy to take someone completely out of context, simply because you're looking at characters on a screen instead of seeing them face-to-face.
"Damaging" to the hobby? If that silly statement had any truth to it, I might actually be offended by it.
"If you want to learn about the exciting forefront of ham radio technology, check out the Icom D-STAR system. It lets us run voice and 128k data streams simultaneously on 1GHz mobiles and 10GHz backbone links. Boy, 128k continuous data streams. That must really chap your ass..."
If it does, it's only because I can't afford to buy one right now and play with it.
"You sound like a crusty old curmudgeon.. looking up your call to see how much longer you're going to be around to "help" the hobby. Crap, born in 1960. Looks like you'll be around for a while yet."
Yep! And proud of it too. If you could have been bothered to do a little more research, instead of making all your assumptions from my original post, you might have discovered that I just completed formal disaster-response training (the CERT program) from our local fire department, and that part of my side business exists to help hams convert and use commercial radio gear on the amateur bands.
Did I mention I'm also going to see about getting involved with the local ARES or RACES group?
In any case: "Crusty?" Maybe a little. Only because I think there should be more tinkering going on in the hobby.
"Old?" Only if you define 44 as old.
"Curmudgeon?" Not yet. Give me another 50 years or so. Then I will be happy to 'curmudge' anyone who's crazy enough to invite me to.
73 de KC7GR
Jim, please don't twist what I typed out of context just to suit your quoting style.
I'm well aware of the digital modes, and radiogram handling. In fact, during the time I was living in the Bay Area in the late 70's, I was on the honor roll for radiogram traffic handling with one of the local voice nets, and a regular participant on the Mt. Tam RTTY repeater. I was working for Western Union at the time, and I'm proud to say that I had a fully-restored Teletype model 28ASR to handle traffic with.
I never said there wasn't room to accommodate new technologies. As I've already pointed out, I was concerned that the original poster was not looking at the 'big picture' of the amateur radio service.
"Don't handicap the hobby by placing restrictions on reasonable technologies. Encrypting a password is not unreasonable. The Amateur Radio service is still free and anyone who wants to put forth the effort can get into. These days though, 2 meters is dead around here, and there's not much activity due to the internet and cell phones, as someone else said. We sure don't want to be hurting the hobby further by stifling its uses and ability to draw new blood in, and as a result, innovation and continunace of the hobby..."
I could not agree with you more! My perception of the original poster's message was that he was disappointed because he could not turn his use of amateur radio into simply another Internet link-up. If I misinterpreted that, then I apologize.
In order to innovate, though, one needs technical skills, including knowledge of radio and electronics theory, construction practices (if you're planning to build prototypes), and the tools and test gear to do the 'innovation' part.
If I'm disappointed by anything in amateur radio today, it's the number of people who choose not to be 'tinkerers,' and contribute more to the technical side of the hobby.
"I'm a young ham and its crap like this that keeps us out. Because you are too stubborn and DON'T want NEW uses for ham radio. Let it die then I say. Then when the FCC takes away your frequencies so someone can check their Email from their blackberry device I don't want to hear you bitching!"
/., can I recall when one of my posts has been more grossly misinterpreted.
;-)
Essence Above! I believe I've set a record for myself. NEVER before, in the entire time I've been posting to
To start with: If "crap like this is what keeps us out," I'd be curious to know which "us" you're speaking for. If you've already gotten your license, then I was very obviously unable to stop you (not that I would have wanted to in the first place).
Also, I would point out that you don't know me from Adam, and you know less than NOTHING about how "stubborn" you think I am, or what you think I want or don't want for the amateur service.
Think about it! If I were truly against "new uses" for amateur radio, I would have already been up on my metaphorical soapbox, railing against things like PSK-31, UWB, APRS, and all the other NEW USES for the service that have come along in recent times.
Blackberries already work very nicely on the Nextel network, BTW.
In any case: I'm not now, nor have I ever been, AGAINST using amateur radio for E-mail. I'm merely trying to point out that it is not the most efficient medium for the transmission of such.
Consider this if you still don't believe me. I'm sure you're aware of how badly spam has already polluted E-mail on the Internet itself.
Do you REALLY want the same thing to happen to amateur radio?
73 de KC7GR
I have to speak up in response to this. I'm proud to have been active in amateur radio for 27 years.
The Amateur Radio SERVICE was never intended (nor needed, IMO) as a path for checking one's E-mail. If you want to do that via radio link, you need only invest in a wireless network card for your laptop, and hook up with any WiFi hotspot in your part of the country.
Permit me to quote from a few of the sections of FCC Part 97, in response to your specific queries regarding the "outdated restrictions" you refer to.
More specifically, let's start by looking at Section 97.1, Paragraphs a through e. Pay particular attention to Paragraph a:
"Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications."
While it is possible to extend the term 'Emergency communications' to include E-mail, keep in mind that this is amateur RADIO, not amateur E-mail. We already have a perfectly usable infrastructure in place for E-mail, and I don't see why amateur RADIO needs to supplement it.
As to encryption, yes, it is prohibited for use on amateur frequencies. That point has been debated many times in many places, and the reasoning is simple enough. Given the service's strong emphasis on support of volunteer communications assistance, in times of disaster or other emergencies, the FCC believes (rightly so, IMO) that the use of encryption in amateur radio is contrary to fulfilling that basic purpose.
In short: Encryption is simply not necessary for any part of amateur radio, with the single exception of satellite command and control signals transmitted from an earth station. The FCC allows encryption for that signal type alone for reasons which should be obvious.
If I may be so bold: You appear to be trying to fit amateur radio into the mold of something that it is not (wireless data networking, specifically Internet connectivity), and was never intended to be.
Also remember that another of the primary purposes for the existence of the service is to foster experimentation and ongoing learning in the realm of radio and communications theory (in short: a whole lot of tinkering with electronic goodies -- yes, that means learning how to solder), as spelled out in 97.1 paragraphs b, c, and d.
If you're going up for your Technician license exam, you should already be fairly familiar with Part 97, and have (hopefully) taken at least section 97.1 to heart. Based on your statements in your post, I get the distinct impression that you have not.
My questions to you are: Why did you decide to get your ham license? What do you expect to get out of the hobby? What are you planning to contribute to it?
Amateur radio, like any other hobby -- for that matter, like Life itself -- is a near-perfect mirror. You get out exactly what you put into it.
A company does not become the "Number One" anything just because of size. I stuck with Verizon Wireless because of their good customer service and wide coverage, even in the boonies.
Before I ever think of Cingular as "Number One," they're going to have to prove that they can be just as good at quality of service as Verizon.
Use a hardware firewall, or a decent router with a firewall built in, instead of depending on something that's software-based. That way, the nasties are stopped before they even get to your computer.
I've not had personal experience with them, but others I've spoken with have had good luck with Linksys and D-Link. For my part, I've always depended on our Watchguard Firebox II to handle things.
Granted, such a unit is well beyond the cost range of most home setups (unless you get a phenomenal deal on it used, as I did). However, before I had the Firebox, I was part of the Beta testing team for the Zyxel 'Prestige 312' combo dual-Ethernet router/firewall. The 312 has been discontinued for some time now, but it performed like a champ for me.
If I were going to pick another unit today, I would look at Zyxel's ZyWall 100 series, or something similar. They're quite a bit less expensive than Watchguard's products, and I see no reason they shouldn't work just as well.
If the 100's a little too costly for you, the entire ZyWall series comes in a variety of sizes from 1 on up. The number usually designates the number of VPN connections the unit allows.
If you're a DIY'er, you can, of course, just get hold of a spare PC, stick a couple of NICs in it, load it up with FreeBSD or some such, and turn it into a router/firewall.
The bottom line is that I don't believe any purely software-based firewall can ever be as secure as one that's hardware-based, and dedicated to the purpose of just being a firewall. I certainly don't trust Uncle Bill or Symantec to do it right (witness the problems you've already had).
Happy hunting.
...to slashdot the site already. Unreachable as of 19:19PDT, June 19th.
...How many good-quality textbooks AND decent teacher salaries that $24 million could have bought otherwise?
Does Dave Letterman know about this yet? Perhaps he could do.... WIPEOUT CAM! ;-)
What does it have to do with outsourcing?
How about the Big B's nice, new "Engineering Center" that got opened in Moscow?
How about their "Global Partners" in China that are now making aircraft parts that once were made not ten miles down the road from me?
As for the JSF project, it got dissolved after Lockheed won the contract. The Sonic Cruiser project was shot down about a year before I was laid off, and it has not been resurrected.
In times of past downturns, Boeing chose to diversify instead of shed workers. Heck, they went as far as making furniture after WW2! And what about the Boeing-made 'JetFoil' hydrofoil craft that are still in service overseas to this day?
9/11 and the commercial air downturn was just a convenient excuse for Boeing management to get rid of all those pesky engineers who were more interested in doing what it took to make the best aerospace hardware on the planet, as opposed to simply finding new ways to generate "Shareholder Value."
The company is well on its way to turning into nothing more than a big assembler of even bigger "Heathkit" type aircraft.
If I sound more than a little bitter, it's merely because I hate seeing a company that was one of the leaders in aviation and aerospace self-destruct just like a deflating dot-bomb.
Bill Boeing must be reaching about 40,000 RPM about now...
Boeing alone, in a period from 1996 through 2002, went from a high of over 150,000 jobs to around 70,000.
That's a lot more than 3 percent!
I have no idea what started this most ugly trend of bleeding off the 'industrial edge' that the U.S. once had but, like raw engineering know-how, I firmly believe that the drain is going to reach a 'critical mass' (if it hasn't already), and true innovation and invention will be left to other countries who still value the long-term gains of pure R&D.
Boeing has already suffered so much of a brain-drain, thanks to its "outsourcing," that I question if it can ever recover.
And that's just one example.
[sarcasm_mode]
So when does the US industrial base go up on the auction block?
[/sarcasm_mode]
I don't know what's so 'crazy' about it. Back in the summer of 2000, I equipped our van with, among other things, a general-purpose onboard computer that can do a lot more than just GPS-based real-time mapping and route planning. It's also equipped for APRS operations, and (as soon as I get a proper multimode wireless card and an additional antenna installed up top) 802.11 networking.
At the risk of sounding a bit snobbish, I think the 12-inch TFT color display I've got up front beats the crap out of most of the "consumer" in-dash navigation units with those microscopic screens.
In anticipation of some of the questions that will likely pop into the minds of those who view the page:
(1) Yes, all the equipment is legal for me to have in there, including the lightbar.
(2) No, I'm not a 'storm chaser' (though I have been asked that a time or two). I'm a communications tech for the Washington State Patrol. I'm also disaster-response trained, thanks to the City of Kent CERT program.
(3) Yes, I have been 'first responder' in a couple of (thankfully minor) situations. I keep a full trauma kit in the van, but I pray I never need to find out how complete it is, or how well my training took.
(4) Let's just say that, besides the above, I take my hobby of amateur ('ham') radio pretty seriously, especially the parts about being ready to lend a hand in public service and voluntary support of emergency communications.
Keep the peace(es).
Just as I always prefer to use the right hand tool(s) or a given type of test equipment for a specific job (matching the tool to the job, as it were), I also prefer to work the same way where computers are concerned.
.... different .... enough to depend on Windows-based servers for Internet apps often ask me why I feel this way. The arguments they present are that Windows is 'perfectly secure' if I keep it patched and updated, and that "any server can do with an occasional reboot."
;-)
For end-user workstations: I have no issue with Windows from W2000 on down. I will NOT use Windows (X)tra (P)ain under ANY conditions due to the many inherent 'spyware' features and its ridiculous "Product Activation" crap. Why should I EVER have to ask the Redmond Empire for its blessing when I change out hardware or apps?
For intranet (not connected to the Internet) servers: Again, no problem with Windows, but I stopped updating when I got to Windows NT Server 4.0, SP6A. W2K Server is simply too bloody complex and bloated to do the simple things I require our LAN servers to do.
For Internet-connected servers: I would NEVER trust such a box to Bill-ware under ANY conditions due to security and stability issues. Don't even get me started on licensing costs. For 'net-connected servers, I rely on NetBSD and open-source software, exclusively.
Those who are
My response is to tell them the story of what happened with our web server (a SPARC box running NetBSD and Apache) when my wife and I went on vacation one year. Within 24 hours of our departure, the hard drive in the SPARC failed. The OS could no longer write to it, though reading was not an issue.
Despite this, that wonderful little SPARCstation kept right on serving up web pages, keeping our site alive, for THREE DAYS until I got back and was able to rebuild it. As near as I can tell, it would have kept going even longer if I had let it.
After their eyes quit bugging, I tell them that I defy anyone to find me a Windows-based server that can survive as our SPARC box did, AND KEEP WORKING even though its hard drive is half-kaput.
I've yet to get any sort of coherent answer in response.