"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