[MilCom] RE: [FedCom] 139.9 MHz

[Greg Brazil]

 From the one that first posted the 139.9, you guys are going way 
overboard, please take it private as this is gotten way out of the 
normal Milcom posts.  Thanks.
Greg (SF Bay Area)

Duane Mantick wrote:

> 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
>>
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>