[MilCom] RE: [FedCom] 139.9 MHz

[Duane Mantick]

There is a striking similarity in ONE sense - 
the people we are talking about are ILLEGAL operators
who can and DO cause disruption, interference and
even damage and potentially, death (too many cases of idiots
interfering with emergency vehicles, aircraft, etc.)
by their irresponsible actions.

I agree that gun control is "using two hands" or as I
usually say it, "hitting your target".  :-)  Nor am I
a fan of gun control when it interferes with my 
perception of the 2nd amendment being the right of 
*law abiding citizens* to own and use and enjoy firearms.

RESPONSIBLY.  Key word.

The stereotype of the drunken hunter shooting everything
BUT his target is all too real here in Indiana, I am
sorry to say.

And, also unfortunately, the irresponsible use of radios
that individuals are not legally licensed to use happens
EVERYWHERE in the US.  Unlike bullets, radio waves have a
considerably long range and the ability to adversely
affect a much larger number of people.  Such people who
apparently have nothing better to do with themselves
than to get their jollies interfering with legitimate
and where applicable, *licensed* radio users, at minimum
interfere with multiple radio services and inconvenience
hundreds or even thousands of people depending on the
situation....and if one jackass with an illegal aviation
radio would cause an aircraft to take the wrong action
at the wrong time (and yes, it DOES get tried - if you
examine FCC enforcement actions you will find records
of people playing pseudo-air-traffic-controller) the
cost could conceivably be hundreds of lives in one, stupid,
arrogant, irresponsible action.

Do you think that terrorist cells in the US already might
not try this?  Nobody thought anyone would fly an airplane
into the WTC, either, unless it was an accident.  Disruption
of communications is absolutely a viable terrorist tactic
and not really much different than what we did to the 
Iraqi military every time we attacked them.  Disrupt their
communications to prevent as many of our own losses as
possible.  Confuse and delay possible responses.

I think your reply was a knee-jerk reaction to what you
felt was a hot-button issue, judging by your instant
reference to the gun issue (AKA, the RKBA or Right to Keep
and Bear Arms).  I can understand that, as a supporter 
of the RKBA.

I also believe that *reasonable* steps taken to stop or
reduce serious problems are NOT hostile acts but for those
of us who "do radio" legally, positive and protective actions.
I would think that as a licensed Amateur operator in spite of
evidently limited experience as a Tech+ (according to
QRZ.com, I went and looked up the callsign), you would
appreciate the value of keeping illegal operations down
if not out.

If you were operating as part of a severe weather net on
the 2 meter band, trying perhaps to save some lives, what
would you do if some unlicensed idiot with a 2 meter rig
jammed your local repeater?  I'm bringing the point right
home to where you live, George, because if you stay a ham
as long as I have (30+ years) sooner or later you're going
to run into this problem.  You can stick your head in the
sand and be PART of the problem, or you can work towards
being part of the solution.

One path says that you should return your license to the
FCC and get out of radio.  The other path would make you
welcomed into the broader Amateur community.  Take your
choice.  It is time for us to work to put an end to 
illegal radio operators, and to that end work WITH the
FCC to help them do it, and not work against them.

Duane
WB9OMC
Amateur Extra Class
seen too much crap on the air to "let it slide"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: milcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of GeorgeF.
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:28 AM
> To: milcom at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: RE: [MilCom] RE: [FedCom] 139.9 MHz
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >I'm sure that the manufacturers would probably cringe at
> >this thought and lobby against it - which would tell us
> >which manufacturers to put some pressure on.  In this
> >day and age of technology, why can't those companies
> >stick a nifty little blocking algorithm into the radio's
> >processor?  Then, the transmitter could not be activated
> >(legally) without getting a license, and at that time
> >you could download an "unlock key" and open up the
> >transmitter.  Heck, they do that with software already.
> >
> >Duane
> >WB9OMC
> 
> 
> Sounds like "RadioControl" just like "GunControl".  Next we'll 
> have to put 
> "trigger locks" on our radios....And I think it would work about the 
> same.....NOT...
> 
> George - KI4FIA - Daytona Beach, FL
> "Gun Control is using two hands"
> http://www.MilAirComms.com
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> MilCom mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milcom
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:MilCom at mailman.qth.net
>