[CTSARA] FW: {Disarmed} Reply from Congressman James Himes

[Jon Perelstein]

I absolutely agree -- especially about what happens once the camel gets his
nose under the tent (give away a little, give it all away).  My points are:

1.  It's going to be difficult blocking this current move given that (a)
it's being presented as a mom, applehood, and mother pie kind of thing
(emergency preparedness), (b) we as hams do not much use 420-440 and
therefore have difficulty arguing that they're vital to us, and (c) there
are serious financial benefits in store for some key members of Congress if
they vote for the bill.

2.  We as hams had better start finding good uses for other low-use ham
segments such as 220 and 900 or we'll wind up losing those also.  And by
"good uses", I mean lots of public service and emcomm stuff.

Somebody like Himes has his marching orders and isn't going to pay much
attention to this -- period.  Himes himself is a total tool.  I've spoken
with him in person about other issues (I was a volunteer coordinator for him
and a contributor in his 2008 campaign) and he just will NOT deviate from
the party line.  And no, I don't have access to him anymore because I
refused to support him in 2010 due to his handling of TARP, stimulus money,
"too big to fail", the foreclosure mess, etc.

It also wouldn't surprise me to find out that some people on the blue side
of the aisle are carefully not getting involved because they're appreciating
the irony of one of the most conservative republican demographics in the
country (ham radio operators) being shafted by conservative republicans such
as Peter King and Greg Walden (W7EQI, R-Oregon, and chair of the subcommittee
on communications and technology).

Jon

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Jonathan Solomom <jonsolomon at techie.com>wrote:

> Jon-
>
> All good points, except:
>  1) The FCC has proven that once you give a little, you all but given away
> a lot.  Just ask the broadcasters. It's not about whether we use it or not,
> it's the principal that they are starting to encroach on Amateur
> frequencies.  Airwaves (how ever you want to define it) belong to the
> people.  This is reasoning behind the "public service" programming on
> broadcast TV.  They are required to "give back" to the community from which
> they "borrow' the frequencies.  The FCC is forgetting that.
>  2) There is an article out there that shows that the reallocation isn't
> even really necessary.  It makes some sense when you read it...
> http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/119794
>
>