"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
m...
Quote from the American Public Power Association; "the burden should
be imposed on challengers to BPL to demonstrate interference in a
fact-based, empirical proof. Further, to the extent that interference
is demonstrated, there should be an attempt to accommodate BPL, even
if it means that existing communications providers may have to share
or transfer bandwidth."
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 496
Well, in the worst case scenario, APP is exactly right. We *will* have to
make adjustments. Here's my thought: this is going to happen time and time
again. Frequencies are prime real estate right now and will get even moreso
in the future. This is not going to go away.
Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.
I guess you're making the assumption that everyone who is a ham would be
against this? Or, are you really being that generous where it's a "everyone
should have their voice thing?"
To file, go here;
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
"Proceeding" field, enter "03-104"
"Document Type" select "Reply to comments"
Links for the key filings (pro BPL and anti BPL) are here;
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/B...yperlinks.html
Good reply examples are below;
Notes
You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your
thoughts.
You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have
your support.
Good idea. Make everyone think uniformly...yeah, that's the ticket! On the
other hand, those who have no idea what BPL may be about, what impacts it
has, etc., will be "following" something they have no idea about. Maybe BPL
is a bad thing for ham radio, but maybe it's a good thing for us as a whole.
Do I want to accommodate ham radio, or the rest of my fellow citizens and
what this may do for them? What alternatives would the commercial interests
have to BPL technology, and how much would that cost us?
Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably
now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority...LOL what a
concept.
Kim W5TIT
Andrew Leeds - response to UPLC
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514288 117
Lee McVey - response to Amperion
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 923
Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539
Cortland Richmond - response to PowerWan
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 407
Lee McVey - response to UPLC
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 392
Cortland Richmond - response to Florida Light and Power
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 386
Arthur Guy - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 323
Good general comments
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 303
Ashley Lane - response to Ameren
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 129
Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 007
Cortland Richmond - response to Southern Linc
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 932
Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to National Academy of Science
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 161
Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to Amateur Radio Research and
Development Corp.
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 102
Lawrence Macioski - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514083 272
Robert Read - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514082 900
"Mike Ro Farad" wrote in message
news:i3AWa.19213$ff.18880@fed1read01...
Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.
Great advice Carl, also good advice for this news group --
Let's exhibit a quality image of Amateur Radio
10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-4?
Millie Am Pair for OM Mike Ro Farad
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment
period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003.
Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address
by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS
have until midnight at the end of the deadline day.
FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame"
the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's
comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare
are full of them ...).
Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us.
Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.
73,
Carl - wk3c
---
Posted via
news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to