Clear Channel makes AM radio audio even worse...

[Truth]

Clear Channel is now going to make all their AM stations sound real bad,
and try and force other stations to do the same (that's right, not the
FCC, but Clear Channel is now telling other stations what to do) so that
DIGITAL radio (IBOC, which sounds horrible) will not seem so bad in
comparison to how bad AM radio is going to sound by dropping the
bandwidth on AM now, so no one can compare good sounding AM to IBOC....

From Radio World November 17, 2004:


The headline, "Clear Channel Radio Reduces AM Audio bandwidth," requires
much more investigation by our engineering community. Why does this
degradation appear to be a smokescreen for IBOC quality issues? By
degrading analog AM to 5 Khz mono, IBOC will SEEM like a huge
improvement - although analog stereo out to 10.2 Khz is equal to or
better sounding than IBOC in some instances.

Perhaps the reasoning is, "Let's make analog AM sound so bad now that
IBOC will seem like a good investment."

Is that why Clear Channel killed the spectacular stereo music from
KABL? Downgrade their decent-sounding stations to telephone audio in
advance of IBOC?

To those that say there are no decent bandwidth AM radios, look no
farther than your local Wal-Mart and Dollar General stores. They both
have a portable $5 AM/FM radio with a wide AM bandwidth beyond 5 kHz.
There also is a "one chip" AM tuner, which typically uses a "barn door"
ceramic filter, and even Ford has an AMAX (7.5 kHz) bandwidth radio in
it's 2005 models.

Clear Channel can do whatever they want with the audio quality of it's
own stations, but it's business decisions should NOT be MANDATED to the
rest of the AM broadcasters via the NRSC.

----------------------------------------

Paul Shinn, Chief Engineer, Stockton Calif:

Now that KCBS turned on it's IBOC garbage, I can't listen to KDWN Las
Vegas anymore. They are also boogering up KCBC on a couple radios.
Not to mention it makes KCBS themselves unlistenable on all of my
radios, the newer factory radio in my truck, included.

The whole "promotion of new technology at all costs" mentality is
sickening. This calculated raping of the radio industry for a bloody
buck is depressing and dishonest. Anyone that pushes these flawed
technologies should be ashamed of themselves. They appear to us in
the field as a bunch of selfish, greedy, conscienceless business suits,
who need to back away from their big desk and stock market ticker and do
some real field work for a change.

When disaster strikes, people turn to AM radio. Most of the time, the
number one station in most major markets is an AM. It is not some
flawed technology that will "save the AM band" it is good
programming. Last I looked, the AM band did not need any saving,
except from those who would destroy it while they walk away from the
burning debris, giggling as they count their new money.

[ANTHONY CHARLES TABONE]

if this is true i could listern to RUSH LIMBUAGH,Dr.Dean Adel,Matt Drudge,
FUCKING DR.LAURA,
"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:4199326A.93B07EFB@sucks.com...
> Clear Channel is now going to make all their AM stations sound real bad,
> and try and force other stations to do the same (that's right, not the
> FCC, but Clear Channel is now telling other stations what to do) so that
> DIGITAL radio (IBOC, which sounds horrible) will not seem so bad in
> comparison to how bad AM radio is going to sound by dropping the
> bandwidth on AM now, so no one can compare good sounding AM to IBOC....
>
> From Radio World November 17, 2004:
>
>
> The headline, "Clear Channel Radio Reduces AM Audio bandwidth," requires
> much more investigation by our engineering community. Why does this
> degradation appear to be a smokescreen for IBOC quality issues? By
> degrading analog AM to 5 Khz mono, IBOC will SEEM like a huge
> improvement - although analog stereo out to 10.2 Khz is equal to or
> better sounding than IBOC in some instances.
>
> Perhaps the reasoning is, "Let's make analog AM sound so bad now that
> IBOC will seem like a good investment."
>
> Is that why Clear Channel killed the spectacular stereo music from
> KABL? Downgrade their decent-sounding stations to telephone audio in
> advance of IBOC?
>
> To those that say there are no decent bandwidth AM radios, look no
> farther than your local Wal-Mart and Dollar General stores. They both
> have a portable $5 AM/FM radio with a wide AM bandwidth beyond 5 kHz.
> There also is a "one chip" AM tuner, which typically uses a "barn door"
> ceramic filter, and even Ford has an AMAX (7.5 kHz) bandwidth radio in
> it's 2005 models.
>
> Clear Channel can do whatever they want with the audio quality of it's
> own stations, but it's business decisions should NOT be MANDATED to the
> rest of the AM broadcasters via the NRSC.
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Paul Shinn, Chief Engineer, Stockton Calif:
>
> Now that KCBS turned on it's IBOC garbage, I can't listen to KDWN Las
> Vegas anymore. They are also boogering up KCBC on a couple radios.
> Not to mention it makes KCBS themselves unlistenable on all of my
> radios, the newer factory radio in my truck, included.
>
> The whole "promotion of new technology at all costs" mentality is
> sickening. This calculated raping of the radio industry for a bloody
> buck is depressing and dishonest. Anyone that pushes these flawed
> technologies should be ashamed of themselves. They appear to us in
> the field as a bunch of selfish, greedy, conscienceless business suits,
> who need to back away from their big desk and stock market ticker and do
> some real field work for a change.
>
> When disaster strikes, people turn to AM radio. Most of the time, the
> number one station in most major markets is an AM. It is not some
> flawed technology that will "save the AM band" it is good
> programming. Last I looked, the AM band did not need any saving,
> except from those who would destroy it while they walk away from the
> burning debris, giggling as they count their new money.
>

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:4199326A.93B07EFB@sucks.com...
> Clear Channel is now going to make all their AM stations sound real bad,
> and try and force other stations to do the same (that's right, not the
> FCC, but Clear Channel is now telling other stations what to do) so that
> DIGITAL radio (IBOC, which sounds horrible) will not seem so bad in
> comparison to how bad AM radio is going to sound by dropping the
> bandwidth on AM now, so no one can compare good sounding AM to IBOC....
<snip>

This all reminds me of the early '80s, when the FCC tried narrowing the
bandwidth amd spacing of AM stations to 9kHz instead of the statutory 10kHz.
Pioneer even had a digitally-controlled receiver that could be switched for
the 9kHz junk. At about the same time, there were at least two methods of
transmitting and receiving AM stereo, and I think the Motorola technique
became the de-facto standard. But, it never really went anywhere. I think
some car radios got AM stereo and the capability of the 9kHz band plan, but
TTBOMK, no home stereo units got AM stereo, and certainly no boom boxes or
Walkman-type receivers did.

No matter what Clear Channel does or doesn't try to push, though, the
marketplace is going to dictate what will and won't become the standard.
It's like with high-definition television. The FCC set out a plan in 1991
that would have had the whole country switched over to HDTV by 2006. It
ain't gonna happen. Maybe by 2026, but not while the conversion process is
going to cost hundreds to thousands of dollars per household.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Bob Haberkost]

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:PtHmd.29615$Qv5.25240@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
> news:4199326A.93B07EFB@sucks.com...

>> Clear Channel is now going to make all their AM stations sound real bad,
>> and try and force other stations to do the same (that's right, not the
>> FCC, but Clear Channel is now telling other stations what to do) so that
>> DIGITAL radio (IBOC, which sounds horrible) will not seem so bad in
>> comparison to how bad AM radio is going to sound by dropping the
>> bandwidth on AM now, so no one can compare good sounding AM to IBOC....
> <snip>
>
> This all reminds me of the early '80s, when the FCC tried narrowing the
> bandwidth amd spacing of AM stations to 9kHz instead of the statutory 10kHz.
> Pioneer even had a digitally-controlled receiver that could be switched for
> the 9kHz junk. At about the same time, there were at least two methods of
> transmitting and receiving AM stereo, and I think the Motorola technique
> became the de-facto standard. But, it never really went anywhere. I think
> some car radios got AM stereo and the capability of the 9kHz band plan, but
> TTBOMK, no home stereo units got AM stereo, and certainly no boom boxes or
> Walkman-type receivers did.

There was nothing special about Pioneer's marketing a receiver capable of 9kHz...it's
the standard in Europe and, I suspect, the rest of the world. And I owned (until it
got stolen at a remote) a walkman-style radio (a Sony) which was multi-mode (Motorola
C-Quam, Kahn ISB and Harris full-quadrature (I can't remember what they called it,
though)).

> No matter what Clear Channel does or doesn't try to push, though, the
> marketplace is going to dictate what will and won't become the standard.
> It's like with high-definition television. The FCC set out a plan in 1991
> that would have had the whole country switched over to HDTV by 2006. It
> ain't gonna happen. Maybe by 2026, but not while the conversion process is
> going to cost hundreds to thousands of dollars per household.

This is actually a chance for the small-timers to get even with CCU. Rather than
join, they maintain a quality signal, and listeners may notice. After all, this is
where the AM-pre-emphasis insanity started. "I'm brighter than you are!" "No,
you're not....here, I've just broad-banded my array". "Well, we've just added
Dorroughs, and I've got the high band mix turned ALL the way up." And so on.

Broadcast management, in general, DOES NOT GET IT. Sure, programming is the main
attraction, but I've proven repeatedly that, all things being equal, an overprocessed
audio signal will lose to a quality signal EVERY time. Listeners don't know why, but
they'll hover around good, clean audio like moths to a light.

And so far as HDTV is concerned...just follow the money to figure out where the FCC's
plans went.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

[Truth]

> > Clear Channel is now going to make all their AM stations sound real bad,
> > and try and force other stations to do the same (that's right, not the
> > FCC, but Clear Channel is now telling other stations what to do) so that
> > DIGITAL radio (IBOC, which sounds horrible) will not seem so bad in
> > comparison to how bad AM radio is going to sound by dropping the
> > bandwidth on AM now, so no one can compare good sounding AM to IBOC....
> <snip>
>
> This all reminds me of the early '80s, when the FCC tried narrowing the
> bandwidth amd spacing of AM stations to 9kHz instead of the statutory 10kHz.
> Pioneer even had a digitally-controlled receiver that could be switched for
> the 9kHz junk. At about the same time, there were at least two methods of
> transmitting and receiving AM stereo, and I think the Motorola technique
> became the de-facto standard. But, it never really went anywhere. I think
> some car radios got AM stereo and the capability of the 9kHz band plan, but
> TTBOMK, no home stereo units got AM stereo, and certainly no boom boxes or
> Walkman-type receivers did.
>
> No matter what Clear Channel does or doesn't try to push, though, the
> marketplace is going to dictate what will and won't become the standard.

Unfortunately, the market place is easily molded by false and deceptive
advertising and marketing. Like the ad I just got in the mail for Sirius
satellite radio that gave one of the reasons to get it as: "Digital quality
sound" The market place takes that to mean great quality, when it really
means nothing. Cell phones are "digital quality sound" and they suck compared
to my analog cell phone from the 80s that I still use.

> It's like with high-definition television. The FCC set out a plan in 1991
> that would have had the whole country switched over to HDTV by 2006.

I laughed at that when they FIRST said it many years ago!

> It ain't gonna happen.

Of course not. Many people still have black and white sets that never made
the last switch yet to color. They didn't have to. This time every single
person in the US would have to replace every set in their house. Oh, and every
VCR too, which will be worthless with digital television, and every public
access studio will have to get expensive digital cameras and equipment and the
cable companies are not going to like that. This will never happen.

I for one, refuse to buy the new digital television, and so do many others.
Bush wants EVERYONE to see him preach his propaganda, so if most people stay
with analog sets, you can be sure he will be preaching to the masses on analog
signals!

> Maybe by 2026, but not while the conversion process is
> going to cost hundreds to thousands of dollars per household.

Right. The ONLY way it could happen, is if the FCC mandated that all TV
manufacturers have to make digital receivers in every set sold in the US (like
they do with close captioning and V-chip, FORCE them by law) and then in a few
decades when everyone has a set that can receive digital, THEN you can talk
about it replacing analog, but even THEN I doubt it will happen.

AM radio is not only still around, but makes billions of dollars for many
companies. NO broadcast format has ever been REPLACED by another, so the idea
that digital television is going to REPLACE analog television is far fetched.

[Truth]

> Broadcast management, in general, DOES NOT GET IT.

That about sums it up. ANY engineer that has worked for a broadcast station and had to
deal with management knows this too well. How many times a chief engineer has had to
do something to the sound against their better judgment, because management made them do
it.

> Sure, programming is the main
> attraction, but I've proven repeatedly that, all things being equal, an overprocessed
> audio signal will lose to a quality signal EVERY time.

Right. Only the management makes the A/B comparison, and decides that the louder one
sounds better. People who have to LISTEN to the "louder" one for more than 15 minutes
get real fatigued by the audio and have to tune away.

> Listeners don't know why, but
> they'll hover around good, clean audio like moths to a light.

And they have volume controls so they can make the audio loud if they want to, they can
add more bass if they want to.

> And so far as HDTV is concerned...just follow the money to figure out where the FCC's
> plans went.

They want to constantly stimulate the economy by making the consumer keep buying new TVs,
radios, computers, and cellphones, so that the consumer is always purchasing products,
because if they don't, they will end up with items that don't work anymore.

At one time, when a new technology like FM stereo and Color TV was approved by the FCC,
it had to be backwards compatible with existing mono radios and black and white sets.
All of a sudden they want to approve things that are not backwards compatible anymore.
All of a sudden, instead of forcing companies to sell off stations because they own too
many in one market, the rules change and they can buy as many stations as they want.

The FCC changed around the time the Bush regime came to power in the 80s using a movie
star and riding on his coat tails to get into power. The same key people are still in
power and controlling things today, and they were still working in the background through
the Clinton years too.

All those resigning today, will be back again, just as before. Donald Rumsfeld was
secretary of defense for Ford back in 1974! He is secretary of defense TODAY in 2004.

He shook Saddam Hussein's hand in a meeting with him in Dec 1983. Then earlier this
year, claimed that Saddam Hussein never shakes anyone's hand, and that Saddam has DOZENS
of body doubles.

[Tom Rutherford]

"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:MGImd.7453$tS4.3927@trndny09...
>
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:PtHmd.29615$Qv5.25240@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
> > news:4199326A.93B07EFB@sucks.com...
>
> >> Clear Channel is now going to make all their AM stations sound real
bad,
> >> and try and force other stations to do the same (that's right, not the
> >> FCC, but Clear Channel is now telling other stations what to do) so
that
> >> DIGITAL radio (IBOC, which sounds horrible) will not seem so bad in
> >> comparison to how bad AM radio is going to sound by dropping the
> >> bandwidth on AM now, so no one can compare good sounding AM to IBOC....
> > <snip>
> >
> > This all reminds me of the early '80s, when the FCC tried narrowing the
> > bandwidth amd spacing of AM stations to 9kHz instead of the statutory
10kHz.
> > Pioneer even had a digitally-controlled receiver that could be switched
for
> > the 9kHz junk. At about the same time, there were at least two methods
of
> > transmitting and receiving AM stereo, and I think the Motorola technique
> > became the de-facto standard. But, it never really went anywhere. I
think
> > some car radios got AM stereo and the capability of the 9kHz band plan,
but
> > TTBOMK, no home stereo units got AM stereo, and certainly no boom boxes
or
> > Walkman-type receivers did.
>
> There was nothing special about Pioneer's marketing a receiver capable of
9kHz...it's
> the standard in Europe and, I suspect, the rest of the world. And I owned
(until it
> got stolen at a remote) a walkman-style radio (a Sony) which was
multi-mode (Motorola
> C-Quam, Kahn ISB and Harris full-quadrature (I can't remember what they
called it,
> though)).

I didn't realize that Europe had the 9kHz convention. How long has that
been going on? As for the multi-mode thing, that's too bad. I'll bet that
thing cost you a pretty penny.

> > No matter what Clear Channel does or doesn't try to push, though, the
> > marketplace is going to dictate what will and won't become the standard.
> > It's like with high-definition television. The FCC set out a plan in
1991
> > that would have had the whole country switched over to HDTV by 2006. It
> > ain't gonna happen. Maybe by 2026, but not while the conversion process
is
> > going to cost hundreds to thousands of dollars per household.
>
> This is actually a chance for the small-timers to get even with CCU.
Rather than
> join, they maintain a quality signal, and listeners may notice. After
all, this is
> where the AM-pre-emphasis insanity started. "I'm brighter than you are!"
"No,
> you're not....here, I've just broad-banded my array". "Well, we've just
added
> Dorroughs, and I've got the high band mix turned ALL the way up." And so
on.

LOL! Yeah, I know.

> Broadcast management, in general, DOES NOT GET IT. Sure, programming is
the main
> attraction, but I've proven repeatedly that, all things being equal, an
overprocessed
> audio signal will lose to a quality signal EVERY time. Listeners don't
know why, but
> they'll hover around good, clean audio like moths to a light.

Right. Actually, the best-sounding AM station I ever heard was CKLW out of
Windsor, Ontario, back in the late '60s, early '70s. I think it must be
that Canada allows more bandwidth or something, because CKLW *was* brighter,
and it sounded good. If your radio allows it, you can de-tune a little bit
and get any radio station to sound brighter, but your sibilants sound like
you're dragging a file across the microphone. :-)

> And so far as HDTV is concerned...just follow the money to figure out
where the FCC's
> plans went.

No doubt.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419B8970.249372E7@sucks.com...
> > > Clear Channel is now going to make all their AM stations sound real
bad,
> > > and try and force other stations to do the same (that's right, not the
> > > FCC, but Clear Channel is now telling other stations what to do) so
that
> > > DIGITAL radio (IBOC, which sounds horrible) will not seem so bad in
> > > comparison to how bad AM radio is going to sound by dropping the
> > > bandwidth on AM now, so no one can compare good sounding AM to
IBOC....
> > <snip>
> >
> > This all reminds me of the early '80s, when the FCC tried narrowing the
> > bandwidth amd spacing of AM stations to 9kHz instead of the statutory
10kHz.
> > Pioneer even had a digitally-controlled receiver that could be switched
for
> > the 9kHz junk. At about the same time, there were at least two methods
of
> > transmitting and receiving AM stereo, and I think the Motorola technique
> > became the de-facto standard. But, it never really went anywhere. I
think
> > some car radios got AM stereo and the capability of the 9kHz band plan,
but
> > TTBOMK, no home stereo units got AM stereo, and certainly no boom boxes
or
> > Walkman-type receivers did.
> >
> > No matter what Clear Channel does or doesn't try to push, though, the
> > marketplace is going to dictate what will and won't become the standard.
>
> Unfortunately, the market place is easily molded by false and deceptive
> advertising and marketing. Like the ad I just got in the mail for
Sirius
> satellite radio that gave one of the reasons to get it as: "Digital
quality
> sound" The market place takes that to mean great quality, when it
really
> means nothing. Cell phones are "digital quality sound" and they suck
compared
> to my analog cell phone from the 80s that I still use.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, though. Once they get a load of
how lousy it sounds, the ones whose egos aren't too fragile to let them
admit they goofed are going to be demanding their money back. Talking about
"digital quality sound", though, the latest ad on CBS television for Amazing
Race has sound that is so compressed, it sounds like a 56K stream on the
Internet! Pure crap. :-) If I didn't loathe so-called "reality" shows on
principle, that ad would turn me off completely.

> > It's like with high-definition television. The FCC set out a plan in
1991
> > that would have had the whole country switched over to HDTV by 2006.
>
> I laughed at that when they FIRST said it many years ago!

I didn't know enough then to really laugh. It scared the tar out of me,
because I remember what they did to 23-channel CB radios in the '70s. When
Citizens Band was re-allocated, manufacturers who had existing stock of
23-channel sets had to either trash them completely, or render them unusable
and then sell them as 10m conversion units. This cost the industry
millions. People who had the radios could still use them, but they couldn't
sell them or give them away *as* CB radios. That hacked a lot of folks off,
but there was nothing they could legally do about it. They couldn't add the
other 17 channels, because the radios were only type approved for
26.965-27.265MHz. People added the upper freqs, and most got away with it,
because the radios were actually clean enough to operate up there if the
channels were added according to acceptable technical standards. But, it
was illegal as heck.

> > It ain't gonna happen.
>
> Of course not. Many people still have black and white sets that never
made
> the last switch yet to color. They didn't have to. This time every
single
> person in the US would have to replace every set in their house. Oh, and
every
> VCR too, which will be worthless with digital television, and every public
> access studio will have to get expensive digital cameras and equipment and
the
> cable companies are not going to like that. This will never happen.

I'm wondering what "digital cable" means these days, if it's compatible at
all with HDTV.

> I for one, refuse to buy the new digital television, and so do many
others.
> Bush wants EVERYONE to see him preach his propaganda, so if most people
stay
> with analog sets, you can be sure he will be preaching to the masses on
analog
> signals!

I couldn't use a HD set if I had one. The antenna on the top of this
building is crap, and it's for NTSC, anyway. And, I don't know how many
set-top boxes I'd need to make it work on cable. My VCRs would be useless,
too.

> > Maybe by 2026, but not while the conversion process is
> > going to cost hundreds to thousands of dollars per household.
>
> Right. The ONLY way it could happen, is if the FCC mandated that all TV
> manufacturers have to make digital receivers in every set sold in the US
(like
> they do with close captioning and V-chip, FORCE them by law) and then in a
few
> decades when everyone has a set that can receive digital, THEN you can
talk
> about it replacing analog, but even THEN I doubt it will happen.

Right.

> AM radio is not only still around, but makes billions of dollars for many
> companies. NO broadcast format has ever been REPLACED by another, so
the idea
> that digital television is going to REPLACE analog television is far
fetched.

So far. I'm not prepared to say it'll never happen, though. It just won't
happen according to their 15-year plan. That I'd bet money on.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Truth]

> and it sounded good. If your radio allows it, you can de-tune a little bit
> and get any radio station to sound brighter, but your sibilants sound like
> you're dragging a file across the microphone. :-)

The Ccrane CCradio is the best radio for doing this because it is digital, but
allows you to tune in 1 khz increments! Unlike most digital radios that would
go 670 680 690.... this one goes 670 671 672 673 etc.

I find that listening to a station that is on, say 670 AM, you listen to it at
either 668, 669, 671, or 672 and you get more high frequencies, but you still
don't get any of the sibilance problems.

[Truth]

> > satellite radio that gave one of the reasons to get it as: "Digital
> quality
> > sound" The market place takes that to mean great quality, when it
> really
> > means nothing. Cell phones are "digital quality sound" and they suck
> compared
> > to my analog cell phone from the 80s that I still use.
>
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating, though. Once they get a load of
> how lousy it sounds, the ones whose egos aren't too fragile to let them
> admit they goofed are going to be demanding their money back.

But keep in mind most consumers have no idea why or how the new phone sounds
bad, they don't know anything about digital or analog. My neighbor told be
about how a new cell phone he got sounded really bad, so he got another one and
then another one and they all sound bad, which brand or model do I
recommend? I told him he got rid of an ANALOG phone, and now all that is
available are digital phones, so he is never going to get one that sounded as
good as the one he originally got rid of, because he wanted some other feature
or whatever it was that made him get another phone.

But by the time someone explains this to these people, they already lost their
analog phones, and can't go and buy another one, so they are screwed.

> > > It's like with high-definition television. The FCC set out a plan in
> 1991
> > > that would have had the whole country switched over to HDTV by 2006.
> >
> > I laughed at that when they FIRST said it many years ago!
>
> I didn't know enough then to really laugh. It scared the tar out of me,
> because I remember what they did to 23-channel CB radios in the '70s. When
> Citizens Band was re-allocated, manufacturers who had existing stock of
> 23-channel sets had to either trash them completely, or render them unusable
> and then sell them as 10m conversion units. This cost the industry
> millions. People who had the radios could still use them, but they couldn't
> sell them or give them away *as* CB radios. That hacked a lot of folks off,
> but there was nothing they could legally do about it. They couldn't add the
> other 17 channels, because the radios were only type approved for
> 26.965-27.265MHz. People added the upper freqs, and most got away with it,
> because the radios were actually clean enough to operate up there if the
> channels were added according to acceptable technical standards. But, it
> was illegal as heck.

Technically illegal, but no way for anyone to know just because they are using
channel 24 - 40, because anyone assumes they had one of the new radios, who
would know?

The newer radios with the PLL chips such as the PLL02A were great. Just add a
switch and tap onto the chip and you could add more channels yet. Many did
this too, which would be easier to know they did something illegal by listening,
because they shouldn't be on those frequencies at all, but still everyone was
doing it and it was no big deal back then. Then they made CBs with the chips
you couldn't mod, and everyone just traded and sold the older models, no one
wanted the newer CBs, and that is when CB sales dropped, because people only
wanted those on the used market, and they were a lot cheaper too. If I were
going to get another CB today, I would seek out one of the older ones too, not
any of the newer ones.

Many of the CBs were the same exact chassis under several brand names and models
too. So instead of getting the one with the Cobra name on it, you could find
out which model of the Sears or JC Penny radios was the exact same radio on the
inside, and get that one instead for a lot cheaper, but the exact same radio.

Even with DVD players when they first came out, you could buy a Panasonic or one
with the Denon name on it, and they were the exact same DVD player on the
inside, because Denon wasn't making DVD players, just putting their name on
Panasonic ones. So you saved money and got the same thing if you got the
Panasonic one. Now Denon is slowly starting to make a few of their own.
Their first attempt was a disaster, now they are in their second or third
generation of trying to make some themselves. They should just have stayed
in the audio business rather than ruining their reputation with bad designs like
the DVD-1500.

> I'm wondering what "digital cable" means these days, if it's compatible at
> all with HDTV.

Digital means they encoded the channels into a really poor quality compressed
mess, so they could send hundreds of channels into the cable with the space of
taking up what only 2 or 3 channels would take up in the cable for a full clean
analog version of the channel.

HDTV signals they can send through the cable now too, and do, but it is just a
higher quality digital picture than the other digital, but it still is lousy,
because it is digital. The eyes are more sensitive to cutting up analog to
digital bits than putting them back together to analog screen for the eye to
view, than the ear in detecting anything with digital audio. Unless the audio
is so poorly compressed like with satellite radio or digital cell phones.

> > AM radio is not only still around, but makes billions of dollars for many
> > companies. NO broadcast format has ever been REPLACED by another, so
> the idea
> > that digital television is going to REPLACE analog television is far
> fetched.
>
> So far. I'm not prepared to say it'll never happen, though. It just won't
> happen according to their 15-year plan. That I'd bet money on.

It most likely won't happen in our lifetimes. FIRST you would see AM radio
disappear before anything else, and that is still going strong, being the first
broadcast radio service we ever had.

[Bob Haberkost]

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:HElnd.21807$Rf1.17676@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:MGImd.7453$tS4.3927@trndny09...
>>
>> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:PtHmd.29615$Qv5.25240@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > "Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4199326A.93B07EFB@sucks.com...
>>
>> > This all reminds me of the early '80s, when the FCC tried narrowing the
>> > bandwidth amd spacing of AM stations to 9kHz instead of the statutory
>> > 10kHz. Pioneer even had a digitally-controlled receiver that could be
>> > switched for the 9kHz junk. At about the same time, there were at
>> > least two methods of transmitting and receiving AM stereo, and I
>> > think the Motorola technique became the de-facto standard.
>> > But, it never really went anywhere. I think some car radios got
>> > AM stereo and the capability of the 9kHz band plan, but
>> > TTBOMK, no home stereo units got AM stereo, and certainly
>> > no boom boxes or Walkman-type receivers did.

>> There was nothing special about Pioneer's marketing a receiver capable of
>> 9kHz...it's the standard in Europe and, I suspect, the rest of the world.
>> And I owned (until it got stolen at a remote) a walkman-style radio
>> (a Sony) which was multi-mode (Motorola C-Quam, Kahn ISB
>> and Harris full-quadrature (I can't remember what they called it,
>> though)).

> I didn't realize that Europe had the 9kHz convention. How long has that
> been going on? As for the multi-mode thing, that's too bad. I'll bet that
> thing cost you a pretty penny.

The radio was a freebie from the place I worked at...a promotional/staff purchase
because the station I worked at was Kahn ISB. In that regard, I have to give credit
to the management in recognising the promotional aspects of a multi-mode radio...even
if a listener could use it for another station, the idea was, pretty obviously, to
spread as many seeds as possible. Anyway, no real loss. It was a nice little radio,
but aside from its curiousity value, isn't worth much. I have a DRB pocket radio
bought the last time I was in Toronto. It, too, sounds pretty nice, but it's rather
useless for its primary purpose down here.

>> Broadcast management, in general, DOES NOT GET IT. Sure, programming is
>> the main attraction, but I've proven repeatedly that, all things being equal,
>> an overprocessed audio signal will lose to a quality signal EVERY time.
>> Listeners don't know why, but they'll hover around good, clean audio
>> like moths to a light.

> Right. Actually, the best-sounding AM station I ever heard was CKLW out of
> Windsor, Ontario, back in the late '60s, early '70s. I think it must be
> that Canada allows more bandwidth or something, because CKLW *was* brighter,
> and it sounded good.

Nah, not really. CKLW's array was a broadbanded affair, long before broadbanding was
in vogue. The Canadians are signatories to the same NARBA treaty we ratified, so
their AM channels are as wide as the U-S's.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

[Bob Haberkost]

"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:jIvnd.42$8o.18@trndny08...
>
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:HElnd.21807$Rf1.17676@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

>> I didn't realize that Europe had the 9kHz convention. How long has that
>> been going on? As for the multi-mode thing, that's too bad. I'll bet that
>> thing cost you a pretty penny.

Oh, and I forgot to add....Europe's been 9kHz ever since there was a frequency
coordination plan in place.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

[Tom Rutherford]

"Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
news:cnqc0d$etp$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nQ%nd.30807$Qv5.27037@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > So, how do you *really* feel about it? :-) Seriously, I would like to
> > have
> > an unbiased opinion based on facts. If digital cable isn't directly
> > compatible with HDTV, then it wouldn't do me any good to get both. I'd
> > thought about digital cable for its music channels, but what they want
for
> > it is a bit more than I want to pay right now. If it turns out that
> > that's
> > the only way I can get non-commercial music piped in here, though, I may
> > do
> > it, but only if it's CD quality or as close to it as I can hear.
>
> You'd have to have an HD Digital cable box, not just the regular digital
> cable. If all you want is non-commercial music, and XM and Sirius are too
> commercial for you, maybe you should consider an 18" dish and a FTA
> satellite receiver. Beyond what the equipment costs you (probably $150),
> there are no monthly fees and it is completely legal. All of Dish
network's
> music channels (except for most of the Sirius ones) are unscrambled, so
are
> Bell ExpressVu's, so that gives you a hundred or so channels of music for
> free, no monthy cost. FTA boxes are fun for the hobbyist too with a
bigger
> dish, say 30" or so and a linear LNB, as there are lots of unscrambled
> channels on the various sats over north america, some with some
interesting
> programming on them, too. I enjoy watching the live feeds, seeing the
news
> anchors picking their noses and cursing at the crew before they go on the
> air. Fun stuff.

I think Comcast offers both "normally aspirated" digital and HD digital.
So, I could do that, I suppose. No, the reason I don't want Sirius or XM is
because of where I live. Several concrete and steel walls the dish would
have to try sucking a signal through, and the more I read, the less
convinced that there's one chance in a billion. I'm on the east side of the
building with no exposure at all in the direction I'd have to point, so any
satellite is out. But, if a miracle ever happens and I get someplace where
I can play, an FTA box and so on sounds like a winner.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:G02od.3553$Gw.32@trndny09...
>
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nQ%nd.30806$Qv5.21785@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
> > news:fQvnd.95$hJ6.53@trndny01...
>
> >> Oh, and I forgot to add....Europe's been 9kHz ever since there was a
> >> frequency coordination plan in place.
>
> > Okay. But, their shortwave stations seem to sit on 5 and 10kHz
boundaries.
> > They must be doing that for our benefit. Nice of 'em, if so. Only
foreign
> > country I've been to is Canada, and that almost doesn't count. The beer
is
> > better, but my Dutch razor that works on U.S. electricity works fine on
> > Canadian "hydro". :-)
>
> But you understand, shortwave frequency coordination, by virtue of its
wider
> propagation, needs to be managed at the world-wide level, and a different
treaty is
> in force for SW. Medium-wave propagation has rarely exceeded limits, so
different
> structures can be used independent of one another...only occasionally
becoming a
> problem when an MW station from one area does a long skip and drops down
smack in the
> middle of another's main channel.

Ah. Okay. Gotcha. Hadn't even thought of the propagation factor. You're
right, though. 40m goes a heck of a lot further than 300m. Come to think
of it, I've never heard a MW station that didn't originate somewhere in
North America, be it the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. Not sure if the Mexican
station was actually on 650kHz, or if we were getting some intermod along
with the skip, but I remember a few times in the '60s when the Grand Ole
Opry would fade out and a Mexican station would fade in. :-)
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A13DF2.4B81EFBA@sucks.com...
> > > But keep in mind most consumers have no idea why or how the new phone
> > sounds
> > > bad, they don't know anything about digital or analog. My neighbor
told
> > be
> > > about how a new cell phone he got sounded really bad, so he got
another
> > one and
> > > then another one and they all sound bad, which brand or model do I
> > > recommend? I told him he got rid of an ANALOG phone, and now all
that
> > is
> > > available are digital phones, so he is never going to get one that
sounded
> > as
> > > good as the one he originally got rid of, because he wanted some other
> > feature
> > > or whatever it was that made him get another phone.
> >
> > Analog is better sounding, definitely. But, all I ask of a phone is
that I
> > understand the party on the other end and that I be understood.
>
> Which is almost impossible with the digital phones today. Just as many
> broadcasters do when people call in talk shows on digital cell phones, if
> someone calls me on one, I try as hard as I can to tell them to call me
back on
> a real phone, I refuse to strain trying to figure out what they are saying
for
> more than a minute, it drives me insane.

There's something wrong with this, though. My mother is very much hard of
hearing, yet she uses a digital cell phone with very little problem relative
to her problems with analog landline phones. The problem seems to be when
people don't know how to use them, or people have such an aversion to
hearing them that they can't force themselves to understand them.

> > > But by the time someone explains this to these people, they already
lost
> > their
> > > analog phones, and can't go and buy another one, so they are screwed.
> >
> > Of course, analog isn't efficient at all -- uses more bandwidth than it
> > needs, requires more power, tends to louse up medical telemetry, etc. --
and
> > the phone systems are going digital as quickly as possible. In this
area, I
> > don't think you can even use an analog phone anymore.
>
> The FCC requires that all areas be able to use analog phones. They are
aiming
> to drop that requirement soon, but for at least another two years or
> thereabouts, I can use my analog cell phone anywhere I want to. And if
this
> ever changes, then I will no longer have a cell phone and those companies
will
> no longer make any money off of me. I am not going to pay for service,
then
> not be able to understand the person I am talking to, or not have them
> understand me.

If it is true that analog phones be usable in all areas, then why can't
analog phones be activated? Maybe they can be activated for 9-1-1, but
folks are throwing them away around here, because they can't sell them and
they can't give them away.

> > > > > > It's like with high-definition television. The FCC set out a
plan
> > in
> > > > 1991
> > > > > > that would have had the whole country switched over to HDTV by
2006.
> > > > >
> > > > > I laughed at that when they FIRST said it many years ago!
> > > >
> > > > I didn't know enough then to really laugh. It scared the tar out of
me,
> > > > because I remember what they did to 23-channel CB radios in the
'70s.
> > When
> > > > Citizens Band was re-allocated, manufacturers who had existing stock
of
> > > > 23-channel sets had to either trash them completely, or render them
> > unusable
> > > > and then sell them as 10m conversion units. This cost the industry
> > > > millions. People who had the radios could still use them, but they
> > couldn't
> > > > sell them or give them away *as* CB radios. That hacked a lot of
folks
> > off,
> > > > but there was nothing they could legally do about it. They couldn't
add
> > the
> > > > other 17 channels, because the radios were only type approved for
> > > > 26.965-27.265MHz. People added the upper freqs, and most got away
with
> > it,
> > > > because the radios were actually clean enough to operate up there if
the
> > > > channels were added according to acceptable technical standards.
But,
> > it
> > > > was illegal as heck.
> > >
> > > Technically illegal, but no way for anyone to know just because they
are
> > using
> > > channel 24 - 40, because anyone assumes they had one of the new
radios,
> > who
> > > would know?
> >
> > "Technically illegal" is redundant. "Illegal" is all I have to hear.
>
> At the rate laws are being passed every day, one day you will hear that it
will
> be illegal to breathe air or drink water. As it is, there are many
things
> that are illegal now, that MOST people refuse to abide by, and rightly so.

I think before it gets to that point, I'll notice the strange
methane-breathing creatures landing on the front lawn, and I don't plan to
vote any of them into Congress until I really get to know them. :-)

> You most likely break several laws every single day without even knowing.

I doubt it.

> > The
> > FCC has a right to come in and inspect any station over which it has
> > authority at any time.
>
> Fine for licensed stations, but when someone is using FRS or CB, what
station
> are they going to look up and inspect? They don't drive around
listening or
> monitoring anymore, even with complaints, say a neighbor complains that
your CB
> is causing interference on his TV, well the FCC now tells them that it is
THEIR
> fault and that FCC rules mandate that they MUST ACCEPT interference to
their TV
> set! (Read the Part 15 label on the TV, or in the instruction manual,
or any
> consumer electronic device sold today)

Hey, I've been posting this the last couple of days, about the acceptance of
interference. :-) But, anyway...No, they don't make regular patrols. But,
if they just happen to be there and they just happen to see something hinky
on their service monitor, they can nab you for being out of compliance.

> > town), but the chances exist. But, beyond that, breaking the law isn't
> > right if it was put in place for a good purpose.
>
> Laws only protect criminals, never the law abiding citizen. Because
> criminals don't care about laws in the first place. And the laws let
the
> criminals the right to know who is using any law to try and stop them, so
they
> can come and take revenge on you from your name and address that the
police gave
> to them BY LAW.

Ah, okay. So, if A doesn't work, and A is in set-C, then let's throw out
set-C. Sorry, but your logic stinks.

> If laws were necessary, all species would have them, yet most species do
just
> fine without laws and religions.

If laws weren't necessary, we wouldn't have invented them. Whenever a
species forms groups of any significant size, there is a set of conventions
that the majority agrees to. They may not be codified and written down
anywhere, but if you break with any of those conventions, you'll know about
it, whether you're a human or a honeybee.

> > I think type
> > approval/acceptance is a good thing. Keeps most junk from making it on
the
> > air and lousing up the spectrum.
>
> Then you should be against ham operators being allowed to build
transmitters and
> use them without them being approved or accepted.

No, because the basis and purpose of amateur radio includes experimentation.

> > I did put some of the upper channels in an old Lafayette radio I had,
and
> > they worked fine. I did get a knock on my door one night, though; I was
> > causing some RFI and I wasn't even running any extra power. Had to
tweak
> > the low-pass filter built into the radio to suppress some harmonics I
was
> > throwing out. If I'd stayed in band, I would've had no problems.
>
> Today things are different. The FCC now mandates that TVs and such MUST
> ACCEPT interference.

But, if you cause harmful interference, it's up to you to try and remedy it.
If it can't be remedied, then the other party has to accept it. The problem
with that is, you might wind up with a bloody nose. Yeah, that's another
law broken, but it's like Rodney King is supposed to have said, "Why can't
we all just get along?"

> > belong in that radio. I bought a legal 40-channel mobile for not a
whole
> > lot and used it.
>
> Again, the laws only make life harder for law abiding citizens. The
illegal
> Mexicans that didn't care about the law when they entered illegally, use
CBs
> with all sorts of illegal power boosters and the law is a worthless waste
of
> time when it comes to making them follow it, they don't even know English
to
> read the laws to begin with. Not that they would care if they could.
They
> knew it was illegal to come here in the first place the way they did, so
they
> obviously don't care about laws.

Along with a repeat of your bad logic from above, you're getting xenophobic,
here. We all came from someplace, and I doubt that there was an INS office
at Plymouth Rock, Jamestown, *or* St. Augustine. We do have a problem with
illegals, but what if we just threw the immigration laws away? Hey, they
obviously don't work! :-)

> > > The newer radios with the PLL chips such as the PLL02A were great.
Just
> > add a
> > > switch and tap onto the chip and you could add more channels yet.
Many
> > did
> > > this too, which would be easier to know they did something illegal by
> > listening,
> > > because they shouldn't be on those frequencies at all, but still
everyone
> > was
> > > doing it and it was no big deal back then. Then they made CBs with
the
> > chips
> > > you couldn't mod, and everyone just traded and sold the older models,
no
> > one
> > > wanted the newer CBs, and that is when CB sales dropped, because
people
> > only
> > > wanted those on the used market, and they were a lot cheaper too.
If I
> > were
> > > going to get another CB today, I would seek out one of the older ones
too,
> > not
> > > any of the newer ones.
> >
> > I'd get a legal radio made today, I'm afraid. If I wanted to operate on
> > 10m, though, I'd want one of the old 10m/11m ham rigs, like one of the
old
> > Swans. They had a nasty growl on AM, and sounded muffled. But they
were
> > crisp and clean as could be on sideband.
>
> It is more fun to mod a CB for use on 10 meters, and LEGAL for a ham to
do, so
> even YOU can do it and not have to "worry".

Depends on the CB. If you have to reinvent the wheel, it kinda sucks.
Also, you have to pick your radio. I don't think it makes much sense to mod
an AM radio, and I don't know anyone who has modded an AM radio and turned
it into FM. I know how to do that in theory, but in practice, I think it
would be a mess. You'd have to do away with the high-level modulation
design, rig up a circuit with varactor diodes or something, and figure out
where to put it, how to control deviation, minimize phase shift, etc., etc.
Sideband would make more sense, but of course you'd have to start with a
sideband CB.

> > > Many of the CBs were the same exact chassis under several brand names
and
> > models
> > > too. So instead of getting the one with the Cobra name on it, you
could
> > find
> > > out which model of the Sears or JC Penny radios was the exact same
radio
> > on the
> > > inside, and get that one instead for a lot cheaper, but the exact same
> > radio.
> >
> > Yep. A lot of that went on. I think that must've been the advent of
the
> > "rebadge mania" that we have nowadays.
> >
> > > Even with DVD players when they first came out, you could buy a
Panasonic
> > or one
> > > with the Denon name on it, and they were the exact same DVD player on
the
> > > inside, because Denon wasn't making DVD players, just putting their
name
> > on
> > > Panasonic ones. So you saved money and got the same thing if you
got
> > the
> > > Panasonic one. Now Denon is slowly starting to make a few of their
> > own.
> > > Their first attempt was a disaster, now they are in their second or
third
> > > generation of trying to make some themselves. They should just
have
> > stayed
> > > in the audio business rather than ruining their reputation with bad
> > designs like
> > > the DVD-1500.
> >
> > I usually miss all the bleeding-edge stuff. :-) I like to watch folks
make
> > mistakes and I learn from them.
>
> Yet this was a third or fourth generation DVD player already. But the
FIRST
> attempt by this company to try making a DVD player.

This is when it's smart to look at reviews if it's by a company you're not
familiar with, or they're making an unusual product.

> > > > I'm wondering what "digital cable" means these days, if it's
compatible
> > at
> > > > all with HDTV.
> > >
> > > Digital means they encoded the channels into a really poor quality
> > compressed
> > > mess, so they could send hundreds of channels into the cable with the
> > space of
> > > taking up what only 2 or 3 channels would take up in the cable for a
full
> > clean
> > > analog version of the channel.
> >
> > So, how do you *really* feel about it? :-) Seriously, I would like to
have
> > an unbiased opinion based on facts.
>
> That wasn't an opinion, it is a fact. That is why companies love
digital,
> because they can cram hundreds of channels in the space that only a few
analog
> channels take up. And that is why digital looks so much worse, you
can't give
> up all that bandwidth and not lose SOMETHING! That something, is
quality.

Not necessarily. I'd have to see all combinations and permutations of
digital technolgy used today. After all, CDs are digital, and they sound
pretty dang good, right? I believe that digital HD can look and sound as
good as HD analog, if there is such a thing. HDTV is also called DTV
(Digital TV), and if it doesn't, then the provider is doing something wrong,
and customer complaints will let him know.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A1378A.72B49956@sucks.com...
> > > > and it sounded good. If your radio allows it, you can de-tune a
little
> > bit
> > > > and get any radio station to sound brighter, but your sibilants
sound
> > like
> > > > you're dragging a file across the microphone. :-)
> > >
> > > The Ccrane CCradio is the best radio for doing this because it is
digital,
> > but
> > > allows you to tune in 1 khz increments! Unlike most digital radios
that
> > would
> > > go 670 680 690.... this one goes 670 671 672 673 etc.
> > >
> > > I find that listening to a station that is on, say 670 AM, you listen
to
> > it at
> > > either 668, 669, 671, or 672 and you get more high frequencies, but
you
> > still
> > > don't get any of the sibilance problems.
> >
> > They're not as noticeable, but they're still there, especially with
music
> > with cymbals and so on. Fact is, if you want clean sound, the best way
to
> > get it is with bandwidth.
>
> True, but since we have no control over that, the CC-radio sure makes it
sound
> better by digitally tuning off one or two khz.

If you like to pretend, I guess. :-)
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Truth]

> > > > > and it sounded good. If your radio allows it, you can de-tune a
> little
> > > bit
> > > > > and get any radio station to sound brighter, but your sibilants
> sound
> > > like
> > > > > you're dragging a file across the microphone. :-)
> > > >
> > > > The Ccrane CCradio is the best radio for doing this because it is
> digital,
> > > but
> > > > allows you to tune in 1 khz increments! Unlike most digital radios
> that
> > > would
> > > > go 670 680 690.... this one goes 670 671 672 673 etc.
> > > >
> > > > I find that listening to a station that is on, say 670 AM, you listen
> to
> > > it at
> > > > either 668, 669, 671, or 672 and you get more high frequencies, but
> you
> > > still
> > > > don't get any of the sibilance problems.
> > >
> > > They're not as noticeable, but they're still there, especially with
> music
> > > with cymbals and so on. Fact is, if you want clean sound, the best way
> to
> > > get it is with bandwidth.
> >
> > True, but since we have no control over that, the CC-radio sure makes it
> sound
> > better by digitally tuning off one or two khz.
>
> If you like to pretend, I guess. :-)

You obviously have never used a CC-radio.

[Truth]

> There's something wrong with this, though. My mother is very much hard of
> hearing, yet she uses a digital cell phone with very little problem relative
> to her problems with analog landline phones.

That's because her home phone isn't as loud in the ear piece as her cell phone
is. Fix or replace the home phone and THEN see which she has an easier time
understanding!

> The problem seems to be when
> people don't know how to use them

Be serious. I don't care HOW you use your digital cell phone, if you call
ME, I will instantly know you are using it because of the piss poor audio
quality and not being able to understand what you are saying.

Ever hear a talk radio show host hang up on someone using a digital cell phone
because no one can understand what they are saying?

> If it is true that analog phones be usable in all areas

Since my phone is excessively analog, and I can use it anywhere I go in the US,
it really IS true.

> , then why can't
> analog phones be activated?

They are not sold anymore, but if you have an old one, I don't see why there
would be a problem. Of course, they would try to talk you out of it. They
want you to use one of their new phones.

> Maybe they can be activated for 9-1-1, but
> folks are throwing them away around here, because they can't sell them and
> they can't give them away.

Because they want smaller phones that can take pictures and play video games and
songs.

My poor neighbor would have paid good money to get an analog phone again after I
explained why none of the phones he gets ever sounds as good as the one he had
years ago.

I see people buying them used at hamfests. Because hams know they are
better. The uneducated consumer doesn't even know there are two types of
phones or what the difference is.

> > You most likely break several laws every single day without even knowing.
>
> I doubt it.

Oh but you do. I learned this from a friend that was a cop. He let me in on
the secret that you can arrest and get ANYONE just by watching them, because
EVERYONE is breaking laws all the time.

Perhaps you have a US flag on your home that is not taken down at night or have
a light on it at night, or perhaps you leave it out in the rain. I could
have you fined for that violation of the law so long as I sign the complaint.

Perhaps you put out your trash an hour before the legal time you are allowed to
by your local law.

Do you ever quickly let your dog out without a leash in an area with an
ordinance against that?

You probably don't even KNOW every ordinance or law in your area, so how can you
say you don't break any of them?

I have actually had people arrested and fined when they tried to cause me grief,
just by randomly selecting one of the many laws they were violating, then called
the police and insisted they issue the fine or arrest and that I would sign the
complaint.

As HARD as you tried, if I had my eye on you and wanted to do that to you, I
could. There is no way anyone can live abiding by every law and
ordinance! That is what the government counts on. So for any reason they
want to arrest someone, they can, even if not for the reason they WANT to arrest
you.

And citizens can make the same arrests too. If the cop that comes out is
uneducated on this, you just call his commander and that quickly solves that
problem instantly. (Slight variations from state to state.)

> Hey, I've been posting this the last couple of days, about the acceptance of
> interference. :-) But, anyway...No, they don't make regular patrols. But,
> if they just happen to be there and they just happen to see something hinky
> on their service monitor, they can nab you for being out of compliance.

But they would never just happen to be there. Unless there was a complaint
and it was something important that they would actually fly out for.

At a big commercial FM, we BEGGED the FCC to come out and PLEASE inspect us
since we knew the complaints against our station were not caused by us. The
FCC refused to come out. Imagine they coming out to check on you using a
ham HT to talk on FRS frequencies! LOL. They don't want to be bothered
with that stuff anymore. They only care about program content on syndicated
programs and networks today.

> > If laws were necessary, all species would have them, yet most species do
> just
> > fine without laws and religions.
>
> If laws weren't necessary, we wouldn't have invented them.

If laws were necessary, ALL species would have invented them.

Wildlife laws PREVENT people from helping injured wildlife.
Ballot access laws PREVENT candidates that are not Republicats from getting on
ballots.
Gun laws PREVENT law abiding citizens to having them, while criminals have them
anyway.
Laws PREVENT you from shooting a criminal that broke into your home!
Laws PREVENT me from using certain color garbage bags.

Other species don't need laws, they seem to get through life much better without
them too.


> Whenever a
> species forms groups of any significant size, there is a set of conventions
> that the majority agrees to.

Yes, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Seems great to you, since you are one of the wolves. But to the sheep, this
really SUCKS!

> They may not be codified and written down
> anywhere, but if you break with any of those conventions, you'll know about
> it, whether you're a human or a honeybee.

The honeybee is allowed to take REVENGE if you piss it off, so that is what
makes it's life much better. The human is not ALLOWED to take revenge, so
nasty people can piss them off all they want and they are not allowed to make
them stop, or else THEY are the ones that get locked up in jail.

Interesting is my friend who is not allowed to sleep, because his neighbor makes
too much noise. The local laws only prohibit "electronically amplified
sound" after midnight, there is no law against banging around with mechanical
noise or machines. The law PROTECTS the asshole, and does nothing for my
friend. But without laws, my friend could go and beat the crap out of the
asshole, and then the asshole would respect his right to sleep at night.

Imagine the honey bee not being allowed to use it's stinger by some LAW.
Anyone could go and steal their honey, and they would just have to sit by and
watch it be stolen, and hope that they could go through an expensive and time
consuming court system to try and sue to get some of their honey back, after it
has already been consumed and the criminals have no money or collateral to cover
what it was worth to the honeybee.

No, NATURE has a much BETTER system than laws! And a much better DETERRENT to
crime too!

Laws only protect the CRIMINALS! Not the law abiding citizens!

> > > I think type
> > > approval/acceptance is a good thing. Keeps most junk from making it on
> the
> > > air and lousing up the spectrum.
> >
> > Then you should be against ham operators being allowed to build
> transmitters and
> > use them without them being approved or accepted.
>
> No, because the basis and purpose of amateur radio includes experimentation.

Man did you ever miss the point there. You are being a hypocrite, saying
something is ok for one person and service, but not for the same person in
another service, or another person.

> > Today things are different. The FCC now mandates that TVs and such MUST
> > ACCEPT interference.
>
> But, if you cause harmful interference, it's up to you to try and remedy it.

Not if you are the licensed service that causes interference to the consumer
product, like a TV, phone, or whatever, that the FCC says MUST ACCEPT
interference.

> If it can't be remedied, then the other party has to accept it. The problem
> with that is, you might wind up with a bloody nose.

But that would be against the LAW! See how laws only protect the criminal
and not the victim! GOTCHA!

> Yeah, that's another
> law broken, but it's like Rodney King is supposed to have said, "Why can't
> we all just get along?"

Because the LAWS don't allow it!

> here. We all came from someplace, and I doubt that there was an INS office
> at Plymouth Rock, Jamestown, *or* St. Augustine. We do have a problem with
> illegals, but what if we just threw the immigration laws away? Hey, they
> obviously don't work! :-)

RIGHT! What good are the immigration laws?! The Mexicans come over by the
millions and the LAWS prevent the citizens from beating them up or killing them
as they invade!

Without the laws, you can be darn sure we would not have the immigration problem
we do today! Because laws don't work, government doesn't work, but letting
people do what their instincts tell them to do solves the problems!

[Mark S.]

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:C2God.23471$Rf1.3292@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
> news:41A13DF2.4B81EFBA@sucks.com...
> > > > But keep in mind most consumers have no idea why or how the new
phone
> > > sounds
> > > > bad, they don't know anything about digital or analog. My
neighbor
> told
> > > be
> > > > about how a new cell phone he got sounded really bad, so he got
> another
> > > one and
> > > > then another one and they all sound bad, which brand or model do I
> > > > recommend? I told him he got rid of an ANALOG phone, and now all
> that
> > > is
> > > > available are digital phones, so he is never going to get one that
> sounded
> > > as
> > > > good as the one he originally got rid of, because he wanted some
other
> > > feature
> > > > or whatever it was that made him get another phone.
> > >
> > > Analog is better sounding, definitely. But, all I ask of a phone is
> that I
> > > understand the party on the other end and that I be understood.
> >
> > Which is almost impossible with the digital phones today. Just as
many
> > broadcasters do when people call in talk shows on digital cell phones,
if
> > someone calls me on one, I try as hard as I can to tell them to call me
> back on
> > a real phone, I refuse to strain trying to figure out what they are
saying
> for
> > more than a minute, it drives me insane.
>
> There's something wrong with this, though. My mother is very much hard of
> hearing, yet she uses a digital cell phone with very little problem
relative
> to her problems with analog landline phones. The problem seems to be when
> people don't know how to use them, or people have such an aversion to
> hearing them that they can't force themselves to understand them.

I think the latter is true in this case. He hates the artifacting so much
that his frustration forces himself to not understand it. Digital cell
phones are at a rate of 14k4 I believe. Satellite phones are worse, using
4k8, 1/3 the bitrate yet they are understandable. Not pleasing to the ear
by any means but people can communicate by it perfectly fine.

> > > > But by the time someone explains this to these people, they already
> lost
> > > their
> > > > analog phones, and can't go and buy another one, so they are
screwed.
> > >
> > > Of course, analog isn't efficient at all -- uses more bandwidth than
it
> > > needs, requires more power, tends to louse up medical telemetry,
etc. --
> and
> > > the phone systems are going digital as quickly as possible. In this
> area, I
> > > don't think you can even use an analog phone anymore.
> >
> > The FCC requires that all areas be able to use analog phones. They
are
> aiming
> > to drop that requirement soon, but for at least another two years or
> > thereabouts, I can use my analog cell phone anywhere I want to. And
if
> this
> > ever changes, then I will no longer have a cell phone and those
companies
> will
> > no longer make any money off of me. I am not going to pay for
service,
> then
> > not be able to understand the person I am talking to, or not have them
> > understand me.
>
> If it is true that analog phones be usable in all areas, then why can't
> analog phones be activated? Maybe they can be activated for 9-1-1, but
> folks are throwing them away around here, because they can't sell them and
> they can't give them away.

We can activate analog phones here, in fact many parts of the island are
still analog only, or nothing at all. Probably a different story in the
states. I think the reason why people don't get old analog phones activated
is because there is no advantage for the average consumer in doing so. You
don't save any money on your plan, you still have to sign a contract and
they were going to give you a free itty bitty digital phone with all the
bells and whistles and a 2 week battery life anyways. Why would someone
give a free phone up just so they can get their old Motorola 3 watt brick
with a 2 hour battery life activated? By the way, a phone doesn't have to
be activated at all to use 911. A lot of cell companies trick people into
getting the base monthly rate plans when all they really wanted was a phone
for 911, emergencies only, when in reality, you can go to the local thrift
shop and get an old phone for $5 and nothing a month.

[Mark S.]

> > But you understand, shortwave frequency coordination, by virtue of its
> wider
> > propagation, needs to be managed at the world-wide level, and a
different
> treaty is
> > in force for SW. Medium-wave propagation has rarely exceeded limits, so
> different
> > structures can be used independent of one another...only occasionally
> becoming a
> > problem when an MW station from one area does a long skip and drops down
> smack in the
> > middle of another's main channel.
>
> Ah. Okay. Gotcha. Hadn't even thought of the propagation factor.
You're
> right, though. 40m goes a heck of a lot further than 300m. Come to think
> of it, I've never heard a MW station that didn't originate somewhere in
> North America, be it the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. Not sure if the Mexican
> station was actually on 650kHz, or if we were getting some intermod along
> with the skip, but I remember a few times in the '60s when the Grand Ole
> Opry would fade out and a Mexican station would fade in. :-)

I hear European stations on MW here all the time at night. My location has
a lot to do with that, I know. Some of the 9kHz allocations are exactly the
same as the 10kHz allocations here, and the ones that are within 1 or 2kHz
sound fine anyways on a regular PLL North American radio. When I tune
stations at night, I can hear the hetrodyne from European stations more than
2kHz off frequency in the backround, and every 10kHz step passed (where they
then become 3kHz, 4, 5 off frequency) the hetrodyne in the backround goes up
in pitch one octave then goes back down one octave at a time. Weird, hey?

[Rick Karlquist N6RK]

>Paul Shinn, Chief Engineer, Stockton Calif:

>Now that KCBS turned on it's IBOC garbage, I can't listen to KDWN >Las
>Vegas anymore. They are also boogering up KCBC on a couple radios.
>Not to mention it makes KCBS themselves unlistenable on all of my
>radios, the newer factory radio in my truck, included.

Is that what the white noise on 760 kHz is? I've been hearing
it for a couple of months now?

Rick
(SF Bay Area)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
news:co07hp$81o$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> > > But you understand, shortwave frequency coordination, by virtue of its
> > wider
> > > propagation, needs to be managed at the world-wide level, and a
> different
> > treaty is
> > > in force for SW. Medium-wave propagation has rarely exceeded limits,
so
> > different
> > > structures can be used independent of one another...only occasionally
> > becoming a
> > > problem when an MW station from one area does a long skip and drops
down
> > smack in the
> > > middle of another's main channel.
> >
> > Ah. Okay. Gotcha. Hadn't even thought of the propagation factor.
> You're
> > right, though. 40m goes a heck of a lot further than 300m. Come to
think
> > of it, I've never heard a MW station that didn't originate somewhere in
> > North America, be it the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. Not sure if the
Mexican
> > station was actually on 650kHz, or if we were getting some intermod
along
> > with the skip, but I remember a few times in the '60s when the Grand Ole
> > Opry would fade out and a Mexican station would fade in. :-)
>
> I hear European stations on MW here all the time at night. My location
has
> a lot to do with that, I know. Some of the 9kHz allocations are exactly
the
> same as the 10kHz allocations here, and the ones that are within 1 or 2kHz
> sound fine anyways on a regular PLL North American radio. When I tune
> stations at night, I can hear the hetrodyne from European stations more
than
> 2kHz off frequency in the backround, and every 10kHz step passed (where
they
> then become 3kHz, 4, 5 off frequency) the hetrodyne in the backround goes
up
> in pitch one octave then goes back down one octave at a time. Weird, hey?

Definitely. You're in Newfoundland, IIRC. Yeah, you're almost due south of
Iceland. :-) So, you're stuck out there in the Atlantic pretty far, way
east of anywhere I've ever lived.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To may be anti-spammed.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A36E6B.B801ABEF@sucks.com...
> > > > > > and it sounded good. If your radio allows it, you can de-tune a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > and get any radio station to sound brighter, but your sibilants
> > sound
> > > > like
> > > > > > you're dragging a file across the microphone. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > The Ccrane CCradio is the best radio for doing this because it is
> > digital,
> > > > but
> > > > > allows you to tune in 1 khz increments! Unlike most digital
radios
> > that
> > > > would
> > > > > go 670 680 690.... this one goes 670 671 672 673 etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I find that listening to a station that is on, say 670 AM, you
listen
> > to
> > > > it at
> > > > > either 668, 669, 671, or 672 and you get more high frequencies,
but
> > you
> > > > still
> > > > > don't get any of the sibilance problems.
> > > >
> > > > They're not as noticeable, but they're still there, especially with
> > music
> > > > with cymbals and so on. Fact is, if you want clean sound, the best
way
> > to
> > > > get it is with bandwidth.
> > >
> > > True, but since we have no control over that, the CC-radio sure makes
it
> > sound
> > > better by digitally tuning off one or two khz.
> >
> > If you like to pretend, I guess. :-)
>
> You obviously have never used a CC-radio.

I don't need to. If it's AM, if the front-end is basically superhet, etc.,
then it's no better or worse than tuning off a few hundred hertz on a
sliderule type tuner. The digital tuning is just a fancy way of stepping
through the frequencies.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To may be anti-spammed.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
news:co06st$7s0$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:C2God.23471$Rf1.3292@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
> > news:41A13DF2.4B81EFBA@sucks.com...
> > > > > But keep in mind most consumers have no idea why or how the new
> phone
> > > > sounds
> > > > > bad, they don't know anything about digital or analog. My
> neighbor
> > told
> > > > be
> > > > > about how a new cell phone he got sounded really bad, so he got
> > another
> > > > one and
> > > > > then another one and they all sound bad, which brand or model do I
> > > > > recommend? I told him he got rid of an ANALOG phone, and now
all
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > > available are digital phones, so he is never going to get one that
> > sounded
> > > > as
> > > > > good as the one he originally got rid of, because he wanted some
> other
> > > > feature
> > > > > or whatever it was that made him get another phone.
> > > >
> > > > Analog is better sounding, definitely. But, all I ask of a phone is
> > that I
> > > > understand the party on the other end and that I be understood.
> > >
> > > Which is almost impossible with the digital phones today. Just as
> many
> > > broadcasters do when people call in talk shows on digital cell phones,
> if
> > > someone calls me on one, I try as hard as I can to tell them to call
me
> > back on
> > > a real phone, I refuse to strain trying to figure out what they are
> saying
> > for
> > > more than a minute, it drives me insane.
> >
> > There's something wrong with this, though. My mother is very much hard
of
> > hearing, yet she uses a digital cell phone with very little problem
> relative
> > to her problems with analog landline phones. The problem seems to be
when
> > people don't know how to use them, or people have such an aversion to
> > hearing them that they can't force themselves to understand them.
>
> I think the latter is true in this case. He hates the artifacting so much
> that his frustration forces himself to not understand it. Digital cell
> phones are at a rate of 14k4 I believe. Satellite phones are worse, using
> 4k8, 1/3 the bitrate yet they are understandable. Not pleasing to the ear
> by any means but people can communicate by it perfectly fine.

You said what I was thinking. :-) It's like me and Morse code. I think
that requiring a demonstration of proficiency in it to get a ham license is
like requiring a demonstration of horsemanship to get a driver's license.
Of course, we don't have to sweep up after our keyers. :-) I've never used
a satellite phone, but 4k8 would provide plenty of bandwidth for speech, I'd
think.

> > > > > But by the time someone explains this to these people, they
already
> > lost
> > > > their
> > > > > analog phones, and can't go and buy another one, so they are
> screwed.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, analog isn't efficient at all -- uses more bandwidth than
> it
> > > > needs, requires more power, tends to louse up medical telemetry,
> etc. --
> > and
> > > > the phone systems are going digital as quickly as possible. In this
> > area, I
> > > > don't think you can even use an analog phone anymore.
> > >
> > > The FCC requires that all areas be able to use analog phones. They
> are
> > aiming
> > > to drop that requirement soon, but for at least another two years or
> > > thereabouts, I can use my analog cell phone anywhere I want to.
And
> if
> > this
> > > ever changes, then I will no longer have a cell phone and those
> companies
> > will
> > > no longer make any money off of me. I am not going to pay for
> service,
> > then
> > > not be able to understand the person I am talking to, or not have them
> > > understand me.
> >
> > If it is true that analog phones be usable in all areas, then why can't
> > analog phones be activated? Maybe they can be activated for 9-1-1, but
> > folks are throwing them away around here, because they can't sell them
and
> > they can't give them away.
>
> We can activate analog phones here, in fact many parts of the island are
> still analog only, or nothing at all. Probably a different story in the
> states. I think the reason why people don't get old analog phones
activated
> is because there is no advantage for the average consumer in doing so.
You
> don't save any money on your plan, you still have to sign a contract and
> they were going to give you a free itty bitty digital phone with all the
> bells and whistles and a 2 week battery life anyways. Why would someone
> give a free phone up just so they can get their old Motorola 3 watt brick
> with a 2 hour battery life activated? By the way, a phone doesn't have to
> be activated at all to use 911. A lot of cell companies trick people into
> getting the base monthly rate plans when all they really wanted was a
phone
> for 911, emergencies only, when in reality, you can go to the local thrift
> shop and get an old phone for $5 and nothing a month.

I do know that in the States, all 9-1-1 calls *must* be free, even from pay
phones. So, if activation has to cost money, then that would be an attempt
to circumvent that law. I'll have to talk to some social workers who get
involved in women's and senior citizen's safety concerns. I know a lot of
women's shelters give away phones for emergency use, so it would be kind of
rotten if they had to be activated.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To may be anti-spammed.)



>
>

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A379E8.FAC73056@sucks.com...
> > There's something wrong with this, though. My mother is very much hard
of
> > hearing, yet she uses a digital cell phone with very little problem
relative
> > to her problems with analog landline phones.
>
> That's because her home phone isn't as loud in the ear piece as her cell
phone
> is. Fix or replace the home phone and THEN see which she has an easier
time
> understanding!

So, now you're saying that it's a matter of volume. Make up your mind! :-)
She can adjust not only the volume of the home phone, but also of the cell
phone. Her problem isn't the phone, but the voice on the other end. Some
voices are harder for her to hear than others, no matter what kind of phone
is on either end.

> > The problem seems to be when
> > people don't know how to use them
>
> Be serious. I don't care HOW you use your digital cell phone, if you
call
> ME, I will instantly know you are using it because of the piss poor audio
> quality and not being able to understand what you are saying.

You're assuming that all digital phones work equally poorly. I will grant
you one thing: A poorly-made digital phone isn't going to get any help from
being digital.

> Ever hear a talk radio show host hang up on someone using a digital cell
phone
> because no one can understand what they are saying?

Nope. But I don't listen to that much radio, anyway. What little talk
radio I do hear, though, whenever a digital phone is used, I can tell it's
digital, but if the person calling knows how to use it -- talks *into* it,
doesn't mumble, doesn't call when he's out on the fringes, etc. -- then I
have no problem understanding him.

> > If it is true that analog phones be usable in all areas
>
> Since my phone is excessively analog, and I can use it anywhere I go in
the US,
> it really IS true.

Everywhere you've been, maybe. Can you sing the song that made the country
singer from Nova Scotia famous? :-)

> > , then why can't
> > analog phones be activated?
>
> They are not sold anymore, but if you have an old one, I don't see why
there
> would be a problem. Of course, they would try to talk you out of it.
They
> want you to use one of their new phones.

If I'm wrong, and they can activate analog phones, then it really wouldn't
be cost effective, considering the digital-only features that come free with
most packages. All you'd have is basic phone service. Personally, I don't
give a rip about cameras, text messaging, or voicemail (which has actually
cost me money, because the telemarketroids keep calling my cell, and before
I get to it they've already been switched to voicemail, and I have to call
*on my cell* to retrieve the spam), but you can't just get basic phone
service anymore.

> > Maybe they can be activated for 9-1-1, but
> > folks are throwing them away around here, because they can't sell them
and
> > they can't give them away.
>
> Because they want smaller phones that can take pictures and play video
games and
> songs.

Some, maybe. Some might be getting tired of charging the battery. :-)
Mine lasts for almost a week on a full charge.

> My poor neighbor would have paid good money to get an analog phone again
after I
> explained why none of the phones he gets ever sounds as good as the one he
had
> years ago.
>
> I see people buying them used at hamfests. Because hams know they are
> better. The uneducated consumer doesn't even know there are two types
of
> phones or what the difference is.

Or, maybe there's a way to use analog phones in ham radio. Gotta be a way
to tie one into a repeater for an autopatch :-)

> > > You most likely break several laws every single day without even
knowing.
> >
> > I doubt it.
>
> Oh but you do. I learned this from a friend that was a cop. He let me
in on
> the secret that you can arrest and get ANYONE just by watching them,
because
> EVERYONE is breaking laws all the time.

With all due respect to the ex-cop, and to you, y'all don't know me.

> Perhaps you have a US flag on your home that is not taken down at night or
have
> a light on it at night, or perhaps you leave it out in the rain. I
could
> have you fined for that violation of the law so long as I sign the
complaint.

The apartment complex has a flag. You could probably get management for
that.

> Perhaps you put out your trash an hour before the legal time you are
allowed to
> by your local law.

It goes down the chute into a trash compactor. They take care of it after
that.

> Do you ever quickly let your dog out without a leash in an area with an
> ordinance against that?

No dog.

> You probably don't even KNOW every ordinance or law in your area, so how
can you
> say you don't break any of them?

Most ordinances are based on common sense. So, it's not likely that I'd
break any of them.

> I have actually had people arrested and fined when they tried to cause me
grief,
> just by randomly selecting one of the many laws they were violating, then
called
> the police and insisted they issue the fine or arrest and that I would
sign the
> complaint.

I'll bet the cops just *love* you, too. Wonder if they could get you on
something equivalent to abuse of process. :-)

> As HARD as you tried, if I had my eye on you and wanted to do that to you,
I
> could. There is no way anyone can live abiding by every law and
> ordinance! That is what the government counts on. So for any
reason they
> want to arrest someone, they can, even if not for the reason they WANT to
arrest
> you.

You'd have to follow me around all day, and then I'd get you for stalking.
:-)

> And citizens can make the same arrests too. If the cop that comes out
is
> uneducated on this, you just call his commander and that quickly solves
that
> problem instantly. (Slight variations from state to state.)

I believe you have to observe the commission of a felony, at least in the
state of Michigan. A citizen can't arrest somebody for a misdemeanor.

> > Hey, I've been posting this the last couple of days, about the
acceptance of
> > interference. :-) But, anyway...No, they don't make regular patrols.
But,
> > if they just happen to be there and they just happen to see something
hinky
> > on their service monitor, they can nab you for being out of compliance.
>
> But they would never just happen to be there. Unless there was a
complaint
> and it was something important that they would actually fly out for.

The field engineer who came to the ham club meeting said that he'd just
recently nabbed an organization in Virginia for using an unlicensed radar
gun to clock the speed of pitched baseballs. He didn't say why he was
there, but if some turkey was lousing up the local police bands or
interfering with air traffic control, I wouldn't want to be running a FT-470
in the FRS bands while Uncle Clarlie was looking for the other guy.

> At a big commercial FM, we BEGGED the FCC to come out and PLEASE inspect
us
> since we knew the complaints against our station were not caused by us.
The
> FCC refused to come out. Imagine they coming out to check on you
using a
> ham HT to talk on FRS frequencies! LOL. They don't want to be
bothered
> with that stuff anymore. They only care about program content on
syndicated
> programs and networks today.

But, what was the nature of the complaint? I'll bet it didn't have a thing
to do with harmful interference to emergency and safety communications
services. Probably some folks getting intermod on their cheap GE pocket
radios, or something equally trivial.

> > > If laws were necessary, all species would have them, yet most species
do
> > just
> > > fine without laws and religions.
> >
> > If laws weren't necessary, we wouldn't have invented them.
>
> If laws were necessary, ALL species would have invented them.

All species that can form communities *have*. They may not be codified and
written in stone, but they're there. Hurt a baby gorilla. Death penalty
meted out by the gorilla that sees you do it.

> Wildlife laws PREVENT people from helping injured wildlife.

To protect the people from themselves, or from being injured by the injured
wild creature. Probably other reasons, too.

> Ballot access laws PREVENT candidates that are not Republicats from
getting on
> ballots.

So, organize a write-in campaign. No law against that.

> Gun laws PREVENT law abiding citizens to having them, while criminals have
them
> anyway.

They just make it harder, and limit the types of guns you can own, that's
all. If you're not a convicted felon or declared nutz, you can have your
gun. You may have to move, if you happen to live in Morton Grove, IL or
somewhere. There's a way around that, though. Go live somewhere else long
enough to establish legal residence. Buy your handgun. Move back. :-)

> Laws PREVENT you from shooting a criminal that broke into your home!

I always follow the "better tried by twelve than carried by six" philosophy.
I can't think of anywhere that would have a law against defending life if a
burglar breaks into your home, but defending property isn't legal in
Michigan.

> Laws PREVENT me from using certain color garbage bags.

There's a reason for that. Different colors mean different things in places
where trash is sorted by color which identifies the contents. You wouldn't
want biohazard put with the major appliances.

> Other species don't need laws, they seem to get through life much better
without
> them too.

Just because you don't see it written down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Any social animal is subject to the laws and customs of his community.

> > Whenever a
> > species forms groups of any significant size, there is a set of
conventions
> > that the majority agrees to.
>
> Yes, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Two species. Laws don't necessarily mesh. :-)

> Seems great to you, since you are one of the wolves. But to the sheep,
this
> really SUCKS!

So, the sheep had better wake up and vote for that ram with the extra sharp
horns over there. :-)

> > They may not be codified and written down
> > anywhere, but if you break with any of those conventions, you'll know
about
> > it, whether you're a human or a honeybee.
>
> The honeybee is allowed to take REVENGE if you piss it off, so that is
what
> makes it's life much better. The human is not ALLOWED to take revenge,
so
> nasty people can piss them off all they want and they are not allowed to
make
> them stop, or else THEY are the ones that get locked up in jail.

That revenge costs the honeybee her life, too. Stingers don't grow back.
If you want to think logically about the honeybee, she's representing her
hive. You do anything to the hive, including bothering her, she's going to
defend the hive.
Try walking up to a marine and kicking him in the shins. :-) Shooting you
won't kill him, but he is prepared to die for his "hive".

> Interesting is my friend who is not allowed to sleep, because his neighbor
makes
> too much noise. The local laws only prohibit "electronically amplified
> sound" after midnight, there is no law against banging around with
mechanical
> noise or machines. The law PROTECTS the asshole, and does nothing for
my
> friend. But without laws, my friend could go and beat the crap out of
the
> asshole, and then the asshole would respect his right to sleep at night.

Time to change the laws. Your friend should camp out on the doorstep of his
city councilman.

> Imagine the honey bee not being allowed to use it's stinger by some LAW.
> Anyone could go and steal their honey, and they would just have to sit by
and
> watch it be stolen, and hope that they could go through an expensive and
time
> consuming court system to try and sue to get some of their honey back,
after it
> has already been consumed and the criminals have no money or collateral to
cover
> what it was worth to the honeybee.
>
> No, NATURE has a much BETTER system than laws! And a much better
DETERRENT to
> crime too!
>
> Laws only protect the CRIMINALS! Not the law abiding citizens!

Seems that way where some laws are concerned. The problem was that the
people who wrote the laws weren't thinking like criminals. Maybe we need
more reformed criminals writing the laws?

> > > > I think type
> > > > approval/acceptance is a good thing. Keeps most junk from making it
on
> > the
> > > > air and lousing up the spectrum.
> > >
> > > Then you should be against ham operators being allowed to build
> > transmitters and
> > > use them without them being approved or accepted.
> >
> > No, because the basis and purpose of amateur radio includes
experimentation.
>
> Man did you ever miss the point there. You are being a hypocrite,
saying
> something is ok for one person and service, but not for the same person in
> another service, or another person.

Not at all. Why should I advocate for type acceptance where it isn't
needed? It isn't needed in an experimental hobby. It is needed anywhere
else. If type acceptance were required under Part 97, there would be no
amateur radio service.

> > > Today things are different. The FCC now mandates that TVs and such
MUST
> > > ACCEPT interference.
> >
> > But, if you cause harmful interference, it's up to you to try and remedy
it.
>
> Not if you are the licensed service that causes interference to the
consumer
> product, like a TV, phone, or whatever, that the FCC says MUST ACCEPT
> interference.

It depends on what you're interfering with. If it is a telephone and it's
being used for emergency communications, they may have a case against the
licensed service.

> > If it can't be remedied, then the other party has to accept it. The
problem
> > with that is, you might wind up with a bloody nose.
>
> But that would be against the LAW! See how laws only protect the
criminal
> and not the victim! GOTCHA!

Sure it would be. But if I was interfering with somebody's TV, I'd rather
fix it than get poked in the nose! If I couldn't fix it, I'd make sure he
knew I tried my best. Most reasonable folks will give you credit for
trying, then never buy a piece of that manufacturer's crap again.

> > Yeah, that's another
> > law broken, but it's like Rodney King is supposed to have said, "Why
can't
> > we all just get along?"
>
> Because the LAWS don't allow it!

So, change the laws! Or eliminate the ones that don't work. Most of them
do.

> > here. We all came from someplace, and I doubt that there was an INS
office
> > at Plymouth Rock, Jamestown, *or* St. Augustine. We do have a problem
with
> > illegals, but what if we just threw the immigration laws away? Hey,
they
> > obviously don't work! :-)
>
> RIGHT! What good are the immigration laws?! The Mexicans come over by
the
> millions and the LAWS prevent the citizens from beating them up or killing
them
> as they invade!
>
> Without the laws, you can be darn sure we would not have the immigration
problem
> we do today! Because laws don't work, government doesn't work, but
letting
> people do what their instincts tell them to do solves the problems!

And, we'd be known as Iraq West. You missed *my* point, though. If we let
all the Mexicans in, we'd also have to let all the Iraqis, Iranians,
Afghanis, etc. Not just the nice ones, but also the ones who want to eat
our lunch. So, we need laws to keep out the terrorists and so on. For the
most part, at least since 9-11, it's working.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To may be anti-spammed.)

[Truth]

> > > > > > > and it sounded good. If your radio allows it, you can de-tune a
> > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > and get any radio station to sound brighter, but your sibilants
> > > sound
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > you're dragging a file across the microphone. :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Ccrane CCradio is the best radio for doing this because it is
> > > digital,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > allows you to tune in 1 khz increments! Unlike most digital
> radios
> > > that
> > > > > would
> > > > > > go 670 680 690.... this one goes 670 671 672 673 etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I find that listening to a station that is on, say 670 AM, you
> listen
> > > to
> > > > > it at
> > > > > > either 668, 669, 671, or 672 and you get more high frequencies,
> but
> > > you
> > > > > still
> > > > > > don't get any of the sibilance problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > They're not as noticeable, but they're still there, especially with
> > > music
> > > > > with cymbals and so on. Fact is, if you want clean sound, the best
> way
> > > to
> > > > > get it is with bandwidth.
> > > >
> > > > True, but since we have no control over that, the CC-radio sure makes
> it
> > > sound
> > > > better by digitally tuning off one or two khz.
> > >
> > > If you like to pretend, I guess. :-)
> >
> > You obviously have never used a CC-radio.
>
> I don't need to.

You sure do if you want to debate how it sounds with someone who actually has.

> If it's AM, if the front-end is basically superhet, etc.,
> then it's no better or worse than tuning off a few hundred hertz on a
> sliderule type tuner. The digital tuning is just a fancy way of stepping
> through the frequencies.

And keeping it exactly only 1 or 2 khz off frequency and LOCKED there. There
is no audible sibilance until you get to 3 khz or more, and it does sound much
better. More highs, closer to sounding like FM.

You really have to hear it to believe it. But the BEST sounding AM radio I
have ever heard, was a cheap Sears phono, cassette, AM/FM stereo from the
80s. The AM tuner on that unit DOES sound like it is FM when you tune in an
AM station on it. Never EVER heard any AM radio sound as good as that thing
does. I keep it just for the AM tuner if I need to record something from AM
radio. I go from it, to a much better quality recorder than the cheap and
lousy cassette recorder it has.

[Truth]

> > > There's something wrong with this, though. My mother is very much hard
> of
> > > hearing, yet she uses a digital cell phone with very little problem
> relative
> > > to her problems with analog landline phones.
> >
> > That's because her home phone isn't as loud in the ear piece as her cell
> phone
> > is. Fix or replace the home phone and THEN see which she has an easier
> time
> > understanding!
>
> So, now you're saying that it's a matter of volume.

What I am saying, is exactly what I said. Why not CHECK IT OUT FIRST, then
see if I wasn't right. There is no way a digital cell phone can sound better
than a home phone. Unless you got her a $5 phone from walmart. Go to a
hamfest and get her a real phone. Or something from Nortel.

> She can adjust not only the volume of the home phone, but also of the cell
> phone. Her problem isn't the phone, but the voice on the other end.

So now it isn't the phone, but who she is talking to. Make up your mind.

> > > The problem seems to be when
> > > people don't know how to use them
> >
> > Be serious. I don't care HOW you use your digital cell phone, if you
> call
> > ME, I will instantly know you are using it because of the piss poor audio
> > quality and not being able to understand what you are saying.
>
> You're assuming that all digital phones work equally poorly.

I am not assuming anything, but KNOW that I can tell if the caller on the other
end is using a digital cell phone, or if anyone on a radio show is calling in on
one.

If you can tell that a traffic light is red or green, would that be because you
are assuming that all traffic lights work equally poor?

> I will grant
> you one thing: A poorly-made digital phone isn't going to get any help from
> being digital.

The reason cell phones went digital, is so they could cram more calls in the
same bandwidth that only one call with quality analog audio could fit in.

THUS.... (2 + 2 = 4)

> > Ever hear a talk radio show host hang up on someone using a digital cell
> phone
> > because no one can understand what they are saying?
>
> Nope.

Ok then. I have heard it hundreds of times from dozens of talk show hosts.

> But I don't listen to that much radio, anyway.

Great newsgroup to hang out on then.

> What little talk
> radio I do hear, though, whenever a digital phone is used, I can tell it's
> digital

There you go. Now figure out WHY you can tell. Because it sounds like
SHIT, that's why.

> > > If it is true that analog phones be usable in all areas
> >
> > Since my phone is excessively analog, and I can use it anywhere I go in
> the US,
> > it really IS true.
>
> Everywhere you've been, maybe.

The FCC still MANDATES it be true for around another two years yet at least.

> > > , then why can't
> > > analog phones be activated?
> >
> > They are not sold anymore, but if you have an old one, I don't see why
> there
> > would be a problem. Of course, they would try to talk you out of it.
> They
> > want you to use one of their new phones.
>
> If I'm wrong, and they can activate analog phones, then it really wouldn't
> be cost effective, considering the digital-only features that come free with
> most packages.

If I need to take photographs, I use my camera. The only FEATURES I need, are
a way to DIAL a number, and a handset to talk and hear with.

> All you'd have is basic phone service.

What more do I want when making a phone call?

> Personally, I don't
> give a rip about cameras, text messaging, or voicemail (which has actually
> cost me money, because the telemarketroids keep calling my cell

Report them, that is illegal.

> , and before
> I get to it they've already been switched to voicemail, and I have to call
> *on my cell* to retrieve the spam), but you can't just get basic phone
> service anymore.

I sure can, and do! But I was smart to never change to wacky "plans" or
rates, and I never switched my phone either. No digital capability at all,
so I always get good clean analog quality, and no GPS so no one can plot out on
a map exactly where I am all the time like with the new phones.

> > > Maybe they can be activated for 9-1-1, but
> > > folks are throwing them away around here, because they can't sell them
> and
> > > they can't give them away.
> >
> > Because they want smaller phones that can take pictures and play video
> games and
> > songs.
>
> Some, maybe.

Not some, MOST. When was the last time you heard one of the phone actually
have a ringer sound rather than play music? I have a real ringer on mine,
but never leave it on to ring, you leave it off so that it saves power, and use
your pager to see who wants to talk to you and decide if you want to turn on
your phone and call them. This way, no one can triangulate your location like
they did with OJ, either.

> Some might be getting tired of charging the battery. :-)
> Mine lasts for almost a week on a full charge.

Mine lasts months. Lead Acid batteries rule!

> > My poor neighbor would have paid good money to get an analog phone again
> after I
> > explained why none of the phones he gets ever sounds as good as the one he
> had
> > years ago.
> >
> > I see people buying them used at hamfests. Because hams know they are
> > better. The uneducated consumer doesn't even know there are two types
> of
> > phones or what the difference is.
>
> Or, maybe there's a way to use analog phones in ham radio. Gotta be a way
> to tie one into a repeater for an autopatch :-)

Why not just use the 2 meter radio for that? Better yet, just talk to the
person on the other end via the radio too, and the phone company doesn't make
money on either of you.

> > > > You most likely break several laws every single day without even
> knowing.
> > >
> > > I doubt it.
> >
> > Oh but you do. I learned this from a friend that was a cop. He let me
> in on
> > the secret that you can arrest and get ANYONE just by watching them,
> because
> > EVERYONE is breaking laws all the time.
>
> > Perhaps you have a US flag on your home that is not taken down at night or
> have
> > a light on it at night, or perhaps you leave it out in the rain. I
> could
> > have you fined for that violation of the law so long as I sign the
> complaint.
>
> > Perhaps you put out your trash an hour before the legal time you are
> allowed to
> > by your local law.
>
> > Do you ever quickly let your dog out without a leash in an area with an
> > ordinance against that?
>
> > You probably don't even KNOW every ordinance or law in your area, so how
> can you
> > say you don't break any of them?
>
> Most ordinances are based on common sense.

Just the OPPOSITE!!

> So, it's not likely that I'd
> break any of them.

Look, even the BIBLE says NO ONE can live without committing sin. That is
an analogy for no one can live without breaking laws. Because leaders, being
government or gods, always make rules so that they can get anyone at anytime for
breaking some rule.

> > I have actually had people arrested and fined when they tried to cause me
> grief,
> > just by randomly selecting one of the many laws they were violating, then
> called
> > the police and insisted they issue the fine or arrest and that I would
> sign the
> > complaint.
>
> I'll bet the cops just *love* you, too.

Keeping in mind that the cops are arresting someone ELSE for committing a crime,
interesting that you consider if the cops like ME or not, instead of the
criminals that I brought to justice.

YOU are the one that likes the laws!

> > As HARD as you tried, if I had my eye on you and wanted to do that to you,
> I
> > could. There is no way anyone can live abiding by every law and
> > ordinance! That is what the government counts on. So for any
> reason they
> > want to arrest someone, they can, even if not for the reason they WANT to
> arrest
> > you.
>
> You'd have to follow me around all day, and then I'd get you for stalking.
> :-)

Of course. You could get me or ANYONE on lots of charges, because it is
IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to abide by every law and ordinance. IMPOSSIBLE!
Let he who has not broken any law cast the first stone!

Of course, you would never know I was following you either. I am not an idiot
and will always be one step ahead of you. Last thing I would do is advertise
that I was watching you to break a law so that you would try harder not to break
one.

Why do you think cops have to HIDE behind bushes to catch people speeding?
Because if they were out in the open, no one would speed! They don't care
about safety! They care about $$$$$$! They WANT people to speed, thus
why they HIDE.


> > And citizens can make the same arrests too. If the cop that comes out
> is
> > uneducated on this, you just call his commander and that quickly solves
> that
> > problem instantly. (Slight variations from state to state.)
>
> I believe you have to observe the commission of a felony, at least in the
> state of Michigan.

Be careful in Michigan, most of their cops don't know many of the laws. (then
again, that is universal in all states) If you are a ham, you have to bring
a copy of the letter from the head of the state police in Michigan reminding the
cop that pulls you over, that FEDERAL law exempts you from the Michigan laws
saying you can't have radios in your car capable of receiving police
frequencies. And although they have no jurisdiction to ask to see your ham
license, only the FCC does, you are best to show it to them anyway, because they
are too stupid and will arrest you and take away your radios and months later
when the stupid cop gets told by the judge he is a stupid ass, months of your
life have been destroyed, and your radios lost or damaged.

> > > Hey, I've been posting this the last couple of days, about the
> acceptance of
> > > interference. :-) But, anyway...No, they don't make regular patrols.
> But,
> > > if they just happen to be there and they just happen to see something
> hinky
> > > on their service monitor, they can nab you for being out of compliance.
> >
> > But they would never just happen to be there. Unless there was a
> complaint
> > and it was something important that they would actually fly out for.
>
> The field engineer who came to the ham club meeting said that he'd just
> recently nabbed an organization in Virginia for using an unlicensed radar
> gun to clock the speed of pitched baseballs.

See? And girl scouts were sued for singing happy birthday without the rights
to sing that song at their organization! EVERYONE is breaking some law at
some time!

> He didn't say why he was
> there, but if some turkey was lousing up the local police bands or
> interfering with air traffic control, I wouldn't want to be running a FT-470
> in the FRS bands while Uncle Clarlie was looking for the other guy.

Why not? They wouldn't be monitoring those frequencies anyway, only the
police bands in question, and those on harmonics of that frequency if it is
obvious the interference is not directly on that frequency intentionally.
And what about every legal FRS radio being used at the time you are using your
HT on that band? They are going to track down and check everyone's radio?
Of COURSE NOT!

> > At a big commercial FM, we BEGGED the FCC to come out and PLEASE inspect
> us
> > since we knew the complaints against our station were not caused by us.
> The
> > FCC refused to come out. Imagine they coming out to check on you
> using a
> > ham HT to talk on FRS frequencies! LOL. They don't want to be
> bothered
> > with that stuff anymore. They only care about program content on
> syndicated
> > programs and networks today.
>
> But, what was the nature of the complaint?

Too complex to get into, if it was simple to explain, then so too would it have
been to explain to the FCC, they had to come out and see it for themselves, but
did not want to, they just took our word for it.

The problem still exists today, however, it is no longer a problem for many
anymore with other technologies having changed over the years.

> > > > If laws were necessary, all species would have them, yet most species
> do
> > > just
> > > > fine without laws and religions.
> > >
> > > If laws weren't necessary, we wouldn't have invented them.
> >
> > If laws were necessary, ALL species would have invented them.
>
> All species that can form communities *have*. They may not be codified and
> written in stone, but they're there. Hurt a baby gorilla. Death penalty
> meted out by the gorilla that sees you do it.

Think about that. Isn't that nice! Yet with humans, if you hurt my baby and
I kill you, I go to jail, not you! Laws protect the criminals and hurt the
victims!

How nice that the gorillas are ALLOWED to kill those that hurt them in any way
and there are no laws to STOP them from doing so!


> > Wildlife laws PREVENT people from helping injured wildlife.
>
> > Ballot access laws PREVENT candidates that are not Republicats from
> getting on
> > ballots.
>
> > Gun laws PREVENT law abiding citizens to having them, while criminals have
> them
> > anyway.
>
> > Laws PREVENT you from shooting a criminal that broke into your home!
>
> > Laws PREVENT me from using certain color garbage bags.
>
> > Other species don't need laws, they seem to get through life much better
> without
> > them too.
>
> > > Whenever a
> > > species forms groups of any significant size, there is a set of
> conventions
> > > that the majority agrees to.
> >
> > Yes, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
>
> > Seems great to you, since you are one of the wolves. But to the sheep,
> this
> > really SUCKS!
>
> So, the sheep had better wake up and vote for that ram with the extra sharp
> horns over there. :-)

Not allowed on the ballot, in the debates, or in the race. BY LAW.

> > > They may not be codified and written down
> > > anywhere, but if you break with any of those conventions, you'll know
> about
> > > it, whether you're a human or a honeybee.
> >
> > The honeybee is allowed to take REVENGE if you piss it off, so that is
> what
> > makes it's life much better. The human is not ALLOWED to take revenge,
> so
> > nasty people can piss them off all they want and they are not allowed to
> make
> > them stop, or else THEY are the ones that get locked up in jail.
>
> That revenge costs the honeybee her life, too. Stingers don't grow back.

Poor attempt to get out of seeing the reality. Think of a wasp then or
something that does NOT lose it's stinger or die when it stings!

> If you want to think logically about the honeybee, she's representing her
> hive. You do anything to the hive, including bothering her, she's going to
> defend the hive.

And no laws will PREVENT her from doing so!

If I defend my home, I can get sued or go to jail for hurting the poor criminal.

> > Interesting is my friend who is not allowed to sleep, because his neighbor
> makes
> > too much noise. The local laws only prohibit "electronically amplified
> > sound" after midnight, there is no law against banging around with
> mechanical
> > noise or machines. The law PROTECTS the asshole, and does nothing for
> my
> > friend. But without laws, my friend could go and beat the crap out of
> the
> > asshole, and then the asshole would respect his right to sleep at night.
>
> Time to change the laws. Your friend should camp out on the doorstep of his
> city councilman.

Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Not going to make
a bit of difference. Time to get RID of the laws. Then, no one will mess
with anyone else's right to privacy or freedoms, since they know doing so may
get them killed. The ULTIMATE deterrent.

Now, I can find hundreds of things to do to you that would drive you insane that
I could LEGALLY do and you couldn't do anything about. Because the law is
always on the side of the criminal, not the victim.

> > Imagine the honey bee not being allowed to use it's stinger by some LAW.
> > Anyone could go and steal their honey, and they would just have to sit by
> and
> > watch it be stolen, and hope that they could go through an expensive and
> time
> > consuming court system to try and sue to get some of their honey back,
> after it
> > has already been consumed and the criminals have no money or collateral to
> cover
> > what it was worth to the honeybee.
> >
> > No, NATURE has a much BETTER system than laws! And a much better
> DETERRENT to
> > crime too!
> >
> > Laws only protect the CRIMINALS! Not the law abiding citizens!
>
> Seems that way where some laws are concerned.

Where ALL laws are concerned. Any good lawyer can find the loopholes and get
the criminal off, while the victim is always screwed and no lawyer can find
loopholes to help them.

> The problem was that the
> people who wrote the laws weren't thinking like criminals.

They weren't thinking at all. But, no matter how smart you are, it is
impossible to write ANY law in which no victim or innocent person would be hurt
by it, it would have to be endless and written into infinity.

Best to have no laws, and let NATURE be. We have emotions for a reason.

> Maybe we need
> more reformed criminals writing the laws?

Laws will never be good, no matter who writes them. I tried myself, and as
soon as I tried, I immediately figure out that you can NOT write a law that
won't screw some good person over somehow or that a criminal could not get
around if he wanted to.

The best law is to outlaw any laws from every being written. As soon as you
put it into WRITING is where it fails. Thus why the other species never run
into problems.

If you piss me off, and I am allowed to kill you, you are going to try hard to
not piss me off. You won't need to interpret laws or figure out how you can
piss me off legally, but instead, just not want to piss me off at all! And I
won't want to piss you off either! What a GREAT WORLD and society that would
be!!

Do you think OJ would be alive today if there were no laws? Of course not.
Nature has it's own justice system.

And had that been the case before OJ was born, he would never have ever hit or
yelled at his wife let alone been alive long enough to be able to kill anyone
without the fear of justice.

> > Not if you are the licensed service that causes interference to the
> consumer
> > product, like a TV, phone, or whatever, that the FCC says MUST ACCEPT
> > interference.
>
> It depends on what you're interfering with. If it is a telephone and it's
> being used for emergency communications, they may have a case against the
> licensed service.

No, read the label again carefully. Since they wrote it down plainly, the law
protects the criminal and not the victim. Once again! :)

> > > If it can't be remedied, then the other party has to accept it. The
> problem
> > > with that is, you might wind up with a bloody nose.
> >
> > But that would be against the LAW! See how laws only protect the
> criminal
> > and not the victim! GOTCHA!
>
> Sure it would be. But if I was interfering with somebody's TV, I'd rather
> fix it than get poked in the nose! If I couldn't fix it, I'd make sure he
> knew I tried my best.

Right! And you don't need a LAW for that do you? Because if you did not do
that, he may take out a gun and shoot you. That is all the law you need.

> Most reasonable folks will give you credit for
> trying, then never buy a piece of that manufacturer's crap again.

I wish. Most consumers are stupid, they buy based on bullshit. They think
Bose is one of the best whatever in the world, rather than the most overpriced
worthless crap.

> > > Yeah, that's another
> > > law broken, but it's like Rodney King is supposed to have said, "Why
> can't
> > > we all just get along?"
> >
> > Because the LAWS don't allow it!
>
> So, change the laws!

Laws are changed, and still they don't work! The only thing left is to get
rid of the laws altogether. Then instead of all this chaos, we can have
order like the other species have and how nature intended.

> > > here. We all came from someplace, and I doubt that there was an INS
> office
> > > at Plymouth Rock, Jamestown, *or* St. Augustine. We do have a problem
> with
> > > illegals, but what if we just threw the immigration laws away? Hey,
> they
> > > obviously don't work! :-)
> >
> > RIGHT! What good are the immigration laws?! The Mexicans come over by
> the
> > millions and the LAWS prevent the citizens from beating them up or killing
> them
> > as they invade!
> >
> > Without the laws, you can be darn sure we would not have the immigration
> problem
> > we do today! Because laws don't work, government doesn't work, but
> letting
> > people do what their instincts tell them to do solves the problems!
>
> And, we'd be known as Iraq West.

The laws did not allow Iraq to have weapons to defend itself with and then the
criminal US army DID have these weapons and now Iraqis must die and be destroyed
because the laws protect the criminals and not the victims.

Without laws, they would have been allowed to have as many weapons as the US,
Russia and Israel are allowed to have, and then the US would not have been
wanting to piss off the Iraqis or go and attack them and steal their oil!

There is another equation to this, but I can not even talk about it here,
because the law would not allow it. So if you can't figure out what I mean,
then just forget about it.

> You missed *my* point, though. If we let
> all the Mexicans in, we'd also have to let all the Iraqis, Iranians,
> Afghanis, etc.

We would not have to let anyone in. What happens when one race of an animal
tries to move in to an area occupied by another race of animal? No animals
allow mixing of races, that is not natural and always causes fights and
chaos. Yet human LAWS FORCE races together by law, and thus the fights and
chaos. It is natural for every race to want to stay with it's own, and much
more peaceful that way too.

You don't see Robins hanging out with Sparrows. All birds, but not of the
same feather.

> So, we need laws to keep out the terrorists and so on.

No. Canada and Switzerland don't seem to have any problems with "terrorists"
because they never pissed anyone off! The US constantly pisses people off,
and so they get constantly under the threat of attack!

Because the laws of the US do not apply or matter to those who have had their
families killed, homes destroyed! They will spend their life getting revenge
on those that did them wrong!

Just as nature intended!

The US goes into the territory of another race, then they can expect to be
fought and killed.

If the US doesn't want to be in constant fear of being attacked or harmed, then
they could have done as Canada or Switzerland did, and not provoke anyone.

If I throw rocks through your windows every day for 10 years, and one day you
drive your car into my living room one day in September and kill my family, then
how can I come crying for what you did? And why didn't you drive into my
neighbor's home instead? Because they were not throwing rocks through your
windows, I was.

You can't have justice without revenge. And laws tend to make revenge
illegal. Thus you never get any justice.

Think about it.

[Truth]

> -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI

Just one more thing. You have nothing to fear from me, I am a good person,
but let's say I was some demented evil person that did not like the statements
or comments made here and I now have your name and address (from your call) and
all sorts of other information that you let be available on the web because you
don't mind all that info about your self being out here.

I could make your life a living hell if I wanted to! Please please please be
assured I would never do anything like that, and am in NO WAY trying to threaten
you or intimidate you from speaking and saying whatever you want to me! You
can call my mother a whore, and I promise I will not care in the least or try to
do anything mean to you! :)

But I bring this up, just to show how the law again would not stop a criminal
from hurting you, but probably prevent you from trying to stop that asshole from
making your life hell. Because the laws protect them and not you.

I am much more intelligent to waste time or grief taking revenge on someone just
because they make statements I disagree with on newsgroups or call my mother a
whore. But in reality, MANY people out here are NOT like us.

I would not be putting your name and call sign up on every post.

(I already know your reply....)

"But I don't say anything I am ashamed of and have no reason to hide, so I can
publish my name and callsign and not have anything to worry about."

If everyone was like me, yes. But just because YOU think you never have to
be afraid because you think everything you say is safe and fine, what if someone
finds your debates with them so aggravating and personal that they use your
personal information to find and hurt you?

The President, I am sure feels everything he is doing is fine and legal too, yet
he is not publishing his or his vice president's constant locations and
information either, he is hiding a lot because of why?

Why does the POPE need bullet proof glass and so many body guards? Why so
many attempts on the POPE's life?

See my point?

Just trying to HELP you here.

If I wanted to hurt you, I would not be telling you to HIDE that information and
make it harder for me to find and hurt you, right? :)

One day you are going to run into someone that takes your arguments against them
the wrong way and why publish more to help them find you that you need to?

If the POPE needs to hide and have security, then so do you!

Plus, then one day when you DO want to tell someone off, you have the freedom to
speak freely and openly, you don't have to be afraid to be honest because you
left your front door unlocked.

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A90F3C.FA9F4947@sucks.com...
> > > > > > > > and it sounded good. If your radio allows it, you can
de-tune a
> > > > little
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > and get any radio station to sound brighter, but your
sibilants
> > > > sound
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > you're dragging a file across the microphone. :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Ccrane CCradio is the best radio for doing this because it
is
> > > > digital,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > allows you to tune in 1 khz increments! Unlike most digital
> > radios
> > > > that
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > go 670 680 690.... this one goes 670 671 672 673 etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I find that listening to a station that is on, say 670 AM, you
> > listen
> > > > to
> > > > > > it at
> > > > > > > either 668, 669, 671, or 672 and you get more high
frequencies,
> > but
> > > > you
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > don't get any of the sibilance problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're not as noticeable, but they're still there, especially
with
> > > > music
> > > > > > with cymbals and so on. Fact is, if you want clean sound, the
best
> > way
> > > > to
> > > > > > get it is with bandwidth.
> > > > >
> > > > > True, but since we have no control over that, the CC-radio sure
makes
> > it
> > > > sound
> > > > > better by digitally tuning off one or two khz.
> > > >
> > > > If you like to pretend, I guess. :-)
> > >
> > > You obviously have never used a CC-radio.
> >
> > I don't need to.
>
> You sure do if you want to debate how it sounds with someone who actually
has.

Depends on the technology. Once you get past the PLL tuner, it's just a
superhet.

> > If it's AM, if the front-end is basically superhet, etc.,
> > then it's no better or worse than tuning off a few hundred hertz on a
> > sliderule type tuner. The digital tuning is just a fancy way of
stepping
> > through the frequencies.
>
> And keeping it exactly only 1 or 2 khz off frequency and LOCKED there.
There
> is no audible sibilance until you get to 3 khz or more, and it does sound
much
> better. More highs, closer to sounding like FM.

A well-designed non-PLL receiver won't drift. You tune it until it *sounds*
good, and it'll stay there if it's well designed. Best to just forget it
and go FM. Not a whole lot on AM that's worth the trouble anymore, at least
in the Detroit/Flint/Saginaw markets.

> You really have to hear it to believe it. But the BEST sounding AM
radio I
> have ever heard, was a cheap Sears phono, cassette, AM/FM stereo from the
> 80s. The AM tuner on that unit DOES sound like it is FM when you tune
in an
> AM station on it. Never EVER heard any AM radio sound as good as that
thing
> does. I keep it just for the AM tuner if I need to record something
from AM
> radio. I go from it, to a much better quality recorder than the cheap
and
> lousy cassette recorder it has.

Sounds like they did a good job on the receiver. I'm not all that impressed
with most mass-fi these days.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Tom Rutherford]

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A92441.4A9CE432@sucks.com...
> > -- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI
>
> Just one more thing. You have nothing to fear from me, I am a good
person,
> but let's say I was some demented evil person that did not like the
statements
> or comments made here and I now have your name and address (from your
call) and
> all sorts of other information that you let be available on the web
because you
> don't mind all that info about your self being out here.

<snip>

But, there's a couple of things. First, how do you really know I'm who I
say I am? Poor Tom Rutherford in Burton, Michigan could suffer for my
opinions, assuming I'm not him, could be in a world of hurt. :-) I could
also get mugged on my way to the grocery store, or get shot by a sniper from
the top of the nearby water tower. Yes, there are crazies out there. I
can't live my life in fear, though, just because there are crazies. I don't
publish my SS# or bank account information. So, if you want to hurt me,
more than a greed motive is going to be necessary. You're going to actually
have to come out and hunt me down. But, suppose I do get hurt. I've got
this message, complete with IP address and other routing information, and
the FBI could find you within a few hours of getting the subpoena to find
out from your ISP who was using such-and-such an IP address at any given
time. If you pull the raw sockets trick and spoof your IP, that'll make it
tougher, but not impossible.

As for being "honest" and telling people what I really think, I already do
that. I don't have to use ad-hominem attacks to get my point across, and my
vocabulary is broad enough that I don't need obscene, profane, or indecent
language to to do it, either. Whether or not your mother is a whore is
between her and her OB/GYN. :-)
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

[Beer Gogglers]

Isn't that really the bottom line. If the monopolies weren't so huge,
the business would almost regulate itself through competition. As it
sounds now, there isnt much light for the mothes to flock to. If one
corporate engineer issues a crazy directive, half of the stations in
the market wind up sounding like crap. Oh to go back to the days when
the "mom & pop" stations occupied much of the dial and competed
against one another for the listener's ear.

I don't think it has anything to do with entertaining anymore. If
people were entertained by radio there wouldn't be much of a market
for satellite radio. The last radio I heard anything entertaining out
of was a pocket transistor set I had in the 70's.

As long as there is no competition, there is no reason for these
stations to entertain or otherwise work to keep it's listeners. If
they're not listening to ClearChannel "Station A", they've probably
flipped over to ClearChannel "Station B" and their bottom line stays
the same... no worries.


On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

>All of a sudden, instead of forcing companies to sell off stations because they own too
>many in one market, the rules change and they can buy as many stations as they want.

[Beer Gogglers]

The first time I ever watched HDTV was on a set that was connected to
a set of "rabbit ears". It was inside a concrete building and had a
marginal 30 to 40 mile line of sght to the TX site. The quality was
amazing. I could not beleive my eyes. I played with the antenna and
got the picture to produce some minimal artifacts but overall the
quality was incredible.

I would suspect if you get UHF reception that's even halfway decent,
you stand a very good chance of producing a perfect picture.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:27:19 GMT, "Tom Rutherford"
<tom@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>I couldn't use a HD set if I had one. The antenna on the top of this
>building is crap, and it's for NTSC, anyway. And, I don't know how many
>set-top boxes I'd need to make it work on cable. My VCRs would be useless,
>too.

[Beer Gogglers]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:26:58 GMT, "Tom Rutherford"
<tom@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Fact is, if you want clean sound, the best way to
>get it is with bandwidth.

Just listen to XM's traffic channels and you'll know that's true. It'
as if they're cramming all of the traffic channels into the bandwidth
of 1 stereo mucic channel... or less.

[Beer Gogglers]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:15:46 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

>That wasn't an opinion, it is a fact. That is why companies love digital,
>because they can cram hundreds of channels in the space that only a few analog
>channels take up. And that is why digital looks so much worse, you can't give
>up all that bandwidth and not lose SOMETHING! That something, is quality.


This is true. But if the cable industry would have really looked at
it's weakness, they could have used digital to it's customer's
benefit. Noise has always been an inherent problem in cable TV
distribution. Even to a subscriber who is close to the headend the
picture can look awful compared to the over the air source.

If digital cable would have been used to inprove rather than increase
distribution capacity, we might be looking at much better quality
pictures today. Once they decided to start squeezing many channels
into the bandwidth intended for one, they blew it.

I'm not sure which I hate more, noise or digital artifact but both
look like crap and make me love the DVD format. I'd rather rent or
buy a movie on DVD rather than waste my time and $$ on PPV.

[Beer Gogglers]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:29:22 GMT, "Tom Rutherford"
<tom@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>If it is true that analog phones be usable in all areas, then why can't
>analog phones be activated? Maybe they can be activated for 9-1-1, but
>folks are throwing them away around here, because they can't sell them and
>they can't give them away.

The systems are backward compatibe so that analog phones could be
phased out through attrition rather than a mass swap out or system
overbuild in most cases. I'm fairly certain this was mandated by the
FCC. Many digital phones can make analog calls but a roaming rate
usually applies to such calls.

[Beer Gogglers]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:56:09 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

>Ever hear a talk radio show host hang up on someone using a digital cell phone
>because no one can understand what they are saying?

ope. . I ever eard at n y ife. :-)

[D Ray]

>
> Just listen to XM's traffic channels and you'll know that's true. It'
> as if they're cramming all of the traffic channels into the bandwidth
> of 1 stereo mucic channel... or less.

Duh. They are. Why not? It isn't as if you need all that bandwidth
to hear a monotone voice giving traffic and weather information. Use
it for something important, like music.

[Truth]

> > Just listen to XM's traffic channels and you'll know that's true. It'
> > as if they're cramming all of the traffic channels into the bandwidth
> > of 1 stereo mucic channel... or less.
>
> Duh. They are. Why not? It isn't as if you need all that bandwidth
> to hear a monotone voice giving traffic and weather information.

Then why don't they make weather reports sound like that on AM and FM
stations too? Why have good audio for just weather information on those
stations?

> Use
> it for something important, like music.

Right, get rid of the weather channels completely, and give the extra
bandwidth to the other channels.

[Truth]

> Noise has always been an inherent problem in cable TV
> distribution.

Not in my cable TV. Just because you have a bad line going to your house or a
lousy cable company, don't assume the rest of us have just as bad reception.

> Even to a subscriber who is close to the headend the
> picture can look awful compared to the over the air source.

Just plain bullshit and lies. Keep in mind there are broadcast engineers out here
too that have actually worked at these places and are not going to fall for this
propaganda and bullshit talk.

> I'm not sure which I hate more, noise or digital artifact

Digital pixelated garbage is much worse, but why choose? How about analog without
noise? That is what I have and enjoy.

> but both
> look like crap and make me love the DVD format.

Pixelated mess MPEG2 garbage.

> I'd rather rent or
> buy a movie on DVD rather than waste my time and $$ on PPV.

So would I. But I would rather have a movie on VHS that was produced in the 80s,
rather than watch the pixelated garbage put on DVD and VHS tapes now.