> If I say "you can't have cheap broadband access because I want to be able
to
> chat on the radio with my friends in Australia each evening", then I'm
> arguing that my self-interest is more important than your self-interest.
You
> are of course free to disagree, self-interest being entirely subjective.
If
> enough of a majority decides they prefer cheap broadband access over hams
> continuing to do their thing, then the hams will lose. Actually, all
that's
> required for hams to lose is the belief by politicians and bureaucrats
that
> a majority won't strenuously object.
My response to this argument has been to say that hams are acting as
"canaries in the coal mine", tipping off the public and corporations to the
problems of this technology before it becomes pervasive enough to do real
harm. Just as the sport fishermen and duck hunters helped raise awareness
about water pollution a generation ago, we are doing the same for spectrum
pollution. Whether or not amateur radio and sport fishing are critical to
society is not the point, but irreversible and needless loss of spectrum
used by important services certainly is.
73, Ward N0AX
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|