3 ms·

The rules are extremely loose. 1. You need a personal license to identify you, as an operator of a radio station. This is similar to how radios on ships and ai

The rules are extremely loose. 1. You need a personal license to identify you, as an operator of a radio station. This is similar to how radios on ships and airplanes work - you need to be able to identify every transmission (even cellphones are uniquely identifiable). This is not only part of the entire sport (we're trying to contact and identify each other), but is also used to identify problems. 2. Just like for airplanes and ships, there are some rules to what you can transmit, as your transmissions can be heard (and cause troubles) for tens, hundreds and even thousands of kilometers away. 3. You have countless frequency allocations available, all over the spectrum, despite the scarcity. 4. Unlike everyone else, holding that license permits you to build your own equipment and transmit with kilowatts with no certification needed. It's extremely easy to cause massive issues with this, such as interrupting cellular communication/gps/wifi an a large area, blowing up your neighbors stereos, and fun things like that. There's a reason that everything else needs to be tested, certified, and require dedicated band allocations - we avoid it by showing that we have the sufficient skills to practice our hobby and not cause trouble. Unlike everyone else, we can do pretty much whatever we want as long as we keep it around a kilowatt and talk nice. I consider that to be extremely relaxed rules.

kawfey 6y ago
everyone else like: - General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) which is limited to a set of frequencies in the UHF band, 50w repeaters, and a few watts handheld, and requires an $80? license. - Family radio service (FRS) which is limited to store-bought handheld units with 0.5W maximum output - Citizens Band radio which is limited to 40 channels at 4 watts and is highly abused by its users and relatively unenforced - Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS), which is limited to a six VHF channels and 2 watts and shared with many users - Business Band/LMR Part 90, which is licensed and regulated for business/commercial use with many other shared users - Microwave, which is licensed and heavily regulated - Broadcast radio, which is licensed and very heavily regulated (and is one-way only) None of these services allow you free reign over a wide spectrum of radio with home-built equipment for the purposes of experimentation and recreation, except for the experimental license, which only allows you specific frequencies, power limits, and other regulations based on your license application and grant. I agree that amateur radio regulations are relatively relaxed, if not very generous, liberal compared to the other radio services.
teddyh 6y ago
I am reminded of what Chinese people say when they are asked about how they feel about the oppressive government. They say “What’s the problem? We have perfect freedom to do whatever we want, as long as we don’t talk about politics, and who cares about that?”. It’s perfectly normal to them, and they don’t feel particularly oppressed. Those rules about absolute identifiability are only “part of the entire sport” because you have defined it to be that way. What if Internet chat had been defined the same? Also, enumerating what you are allowed to do once you are granted a license does not help the argument that the requirement for a license is oppressive. > There's a reason that everything else needs to be tested, certified, and require dedicated band allocations Maybe there were reasonable technical reasons in the 1970’s, but now with modern technology, there should be no problem, or at the very least significant relaxations of what the regular public is allowed to do. I repeat: Having to get an individual government license to practice your hobby is draconian. But, of course, regulations don’t really ever get less restrictive.
- int_19h 6y ago
  It happens to be a hobby that has significant potential externalities, so of course it's heavily regulated. But OP's point is that the initial barrier to entry is so high precisely because once you get past it, nobody is looking over your shoulder, and the limits are lax enough that even very disruptive activity can still fall within them.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    Firstly, I doubt that the externalities are that severe nowadays, and with modern frequency-hopping technologies, I believe that it could all be fixed by upgrading existing hardware (even though this would be hard). Secondly, the original argument was that, and I quote, “Amateur radio enjoys the privilege of pretty lax regulation”. And a requirement to get a government license, tied to your personal name and identity, gated by a large fee and difficult exam, is not my idea of “lax regulation”.
    - deirdrehbrt 6y ago

kawfey 6y ago

everyone else like: - General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) which is limited to a set of frequencies in the UHF band, 50w repeaters, and a few watts handheld, and requires an $80? license. - Family radio service (FRS) which is limited to store-bought handheld units with 0.5W maximum output - Citizens Band radio which is limited to 40 channels at 4 watts and is highly abused by its users and relatively unenforced - Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS), which is limited to a six VHF channels and 2 watts and shared with many users - Business Band/LMR Part 90, which is licensed and regulated for business/commercial use with many other shared users - Microwave, which is licensed and heavily regulated - Broadcast radio, which is licensed and very heavily regulated (and is one-way only) None of these services allow you free reign over a wide spectrum of radio with home-built equipment for the purposes of experimentation and recreation, except for the experimental license, which only allows you specific frequencies, power limits, and other regulations based on your license application and grant. I agree that amateur radio regulations are relatively relaxed, if not very generous, liberal compared to the other radio services.

teddyh 6y ago

I am reminded of what Chinese people say when they are asked about how they feel about the oppressive government. They say “What’s the problem? We have perfect freedom to do whatever we want, as long as we don’t talk about politics, and who cares about that?”. It’s perfectly normal to them, and they don’t feel particularly oppressed. Those rules about absolute identifiability are only “part of the entire sport” because you have defined it to be that way. What if Internet chat had been defined the same? Also, enumerating what you are allowed to do once you are granted a license does not help the argument that the requirement for a license is oppressive. > There's a reason that everything else needs to be tested, certified, and require dedicated band allocations Maybe there were reasonable technical reasons in the 1970’s, but now with modern technology, there should be no problem, or at the very least significant relaxations of what the regular public is allowed to do. I repeat: Having to get an individual government license to practice your hobby is draconian. But, of course, regulations don’t really ever get less restrictive.

int_19h 6y ago
It happens to be a hobby that has significant potential externalities, so of course it's heavily regulated. But OP's point is that the initial barrier to entry is so high precisely because once you get past it, nobody is looking over your shoulder, and the limits are lax enough that even very disruptive activity can still fall within them.
- teddyh 6y ago
  Firstly, I doubt that the externalities are that severe nowadays, and with modern frequency-hopping technologies, I believe that it could all be fixed by upgrading existing hardware (even though this would be hard). Secondly, the original argument was that, and I quote, “Amateur radio enjoys the privilege of pretty lax regulation”. And a requirement to get a government license, tied to your personal name and identity, gated by a large fee and difficult exam, is not my idea of “lax regulation”.
  - deirdrehbrt 6y ago