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

[Franklyn A. Ballentine, jr]

Didn't we already lose part of 220?
kb1qzh

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Jon Perelstein <jon.perelstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> CTSARA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ctsara
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CTSARA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>