Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 10th 04, 06:46 AM
Zoran Brlecic
 
Posts: n/a
Default Be the first on your block!

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.



The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA



--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 11th 04, 03:02 AM
Zoran Brlecic
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Barry OGrady wrote:

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified.


Funny, I haven't heard this type of rationalization since Berlin wall
fell down. Should we all start wearing red star berets now or later?

Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.


Ah, sort of like your post?

WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 11th 04, 03:18 AM
Tony P.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic wrote:

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.



The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA


What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.


You are just the kind of sheep that big business loves. BPL as it stands
is a BAD idea. The interference potential isn't just to amateur radio
but a host of other services.

  #4   Report Post  
Old March 11th 04, 04:02 AM
Minnie Bannister
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Amateur radio is a hobby, yes -- but it is a hobby that also provides
training for services to the public. E.g., search and rescue operations
(e.g., much of the shuttle debris was in areas with no cell-phone or
regular two-way radio service), emergency communications when major
power outages occur, etc., etc.

Alan AB2OS


On 03/10/04 08:35 pm Barry OGrady put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

  #5   Report Post  
Old March 11th 04, 04:22 AM
Hank Oredson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic

wrote:

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.



The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA


What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few

amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that

unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.



Well, guess you are not a US Radio Amateur, or you would
know that Amateur Radio is not a hobby, but is a service.

If you ARE a ham and live in the US, please go read Part 97 again.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net




  #6   Report Post  
Old March 11th 04, 07:23 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?

That my friends is a very important question. How much do they value
our knowledge and volunteer emergency services?


Tony P. wrote:

The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...

73 ... WA7AA

--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

  #7   Report Post  
Old March 11th 04, 09:57 PM
Z.Z.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pappy wrote:

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?
...


Hmmm...how much campaign money does the ARRL give???...
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 12th 04, 11:09 PM
Jim Hampton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Regardless of your ignorance, it is the amateurs that are pointing out the
potential problems of BPL. If nothing else, this speaks volumes about the
need for reasonable tests for potential amateurs (not something that you can
walk into a test and walk away with an 'extra' class license). The code/no
code arguement, in my opinion, is moot; what is more to the point is what
these amateurs can and *do* contribute, regardless of the rants of many
folks who may be envious of the frequencies available to amateurs.

I worked in EMC compliance. We had a problem with interference from
powerlines. Yes, it is possible to reduce the problem. Whilst it won't
qualify as a test to pass a particular piece of hardware, it is *great* for
determining sources of RFI. Someone has a problem with RF interference to
home equipment (not necessarily amateur). How do you solve it? I've helped
in both cases. Some folks have minds so closed that they can't see the
forest for the trees (or vice-versa).

I remember finishing my active duty with the U.S. Navy. I suspect it was
verteran's day as there had been a parade and I was in a bar later on. A
few guys in Navy uniforms had a problem. I overheard the conversation.
Their transmitter had low output and couldn't tune. I went over to them and
asked to see the transmitter. Sure enough, a bad cap in the tank circuit.
We repaired it on the spot (dang if I didn't get hornswaggled into joining
the reserves LOL).

When folks like you ask "did you repair that pothole in interstate 90
between ....", you are missing the point. It is the knowlege and theory
that can enable hams to assist in many situations. Although I had engaged
in emergency communications on Guam Island (and it was many years ago) and
an SOS on 500 KHz at sea (also many years ago), you assume that I am
obsolete. I would suggest that bad capacitors still happen and the folks
with some technical background still can help. Although that situation with
the U.S. Naval Reserve was many years ago, I've also repaired much more
modern transceivers in the past decade. I am also quite capable of reducing
interference between devices today. You dwell on the past; the technically
astute needn't.

BTW, BPL is *not* going to serve the "underserved". I won't explain it.
You take the time and effort (*if* you have the perseverence - which I
doubt - and research it).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic

wrote:


What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few

amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that

unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

--



-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.615 / Virus Database: 394 - Release Date: 3/8/04


  #9   Report Post  
Old March 13th 04, 04:50 AM
Brian Kelly
 
Posts: n/a
Default


BTW, BPL is *not* going to serve the "underserved". I won't explain it.
You take the time and effort (*if* you have the perseverence - which I
doubt - and research it).


Whack! right on James. As if any of today's grid gloms are some kinda
dreamy nitwits who are gonna take Internet access into the boonies
like the TVA did with volts and amps.

Bwaaaahaha! Never in this world . . !



73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic

wrote:


What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few

amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that

unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

--



-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.615 / Virus Database: 394 - Release Date: 3/8/04

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 15th 04, 01:31 AM
Stormhound
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Barry OGrady wrote:

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.


Yeah, that's exactly the problem we face (well, that and a lack of
appreciation for irony, judging by some of the responses I'm seeing to
your post)...non-hams, including a lot of businesspeople involved in
lines that are looking for more frequencies to use, look at it from just
that perspective: hamming is a fringe hobby that eats up valuable
spectrum and provides nothing to the average person that they can't
already get from the Internet. That's the superficial sound-byte
opinion, and people won't invest much time in trying to get beyond that.
One can only educate those who want to be educated...

73, David KC0EKV

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? lbbs Antenna 16 December 13th 03 04:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017