|
BPL - act today to save our HF bands
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 Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP. 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. 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 |
The deadline for Reply Comments was extended to Aug. 20th
by an Order issued by Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's OET yesterday ... So folks still have a bit of time to prepare and file reply comments. Carl - wk3c "Rob Kemp" wrote in message om... 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 Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP. 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. 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 |
WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote:
Actually only the morse operators will have half a chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They need the least amount of signal to be able to communicate. Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear the CW ID signals. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
But will the BPL give the Pactor something else to
grab hold of? I do not know - just asking. My radio station goes into a briefcase and the computer does not have a sound card, or would be able to figure out what to do with it if it had one. It is a R/S TRS 80 Model 100. It can handle packet, I don't know about other digital modes. Into the brief case goes: FT817, Paddles, R/S DSP unit (I know it ain't great, but it helps), MFJ259, Small Tuner, Crappie Dipole, Super Antenna MD-1, R/S Computer, KAM 3, Solar Panel, Coleman Jump Battery. Have Station will travel. -- 73 es cul wb3fup a Salty Bear "W5DXP" wrote in message ... WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote: Actually only the morse operators will have half a chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They need the least amount of signal to be able to communicate. Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear the CW ID signals. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
Note on Message below.
BPL is old Tech, I was playing with it 25 years ago. Ham Radio is not a technology its a service. "Keith" wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2003 21:50:25 -0700, (Rob Kemp) wrote: Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP. You might as well as **** into a hurricane force wind. BPL will happen and ham radio will go the way of the dinosaurs. America can't let a few thousand morse code fanatics stop modern technology for millions of consumers. If there were 2 or 3 million active ham radio operators then that might make a difference, but for decades the ARRL has done everything to keep people out of the HF bands by forcing the stupid morse code requirements down the throats of the average consumer that has no interest in morse code. The morse code fanatics among ham radio operators dug their own grave and have no on else to blame. BPL is progress for America, ham radio is the old technology. -- The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more. http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/ ..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's minds. --Samuel Adams --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 12/08/2003 |
W5DXP wrote in message ...
WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote: Actually only the morse operators will have half a chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They need the least amount of signal to be able to communicate. Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear the CW ID signals. Cecil, The most important aspect of all this is, if it is accepted what would be the new emmission standards in Industry? I can imagine a lot of users of RF driers will be happy with the minimising of restrictions as well as other manufacturers and users of such equipment. Medical costs will also rise since equipment used will now have to face new challenges. The FCC got into hot water very quickly with their last actions with Congress which also raised the ire of many others. I doubt that they would be willing to follow the path of money on this one because the cost related to required determinations thru out Industry will fall on their own department. They must also realise that numbers DO count with Congress since looking after the Countries interests is NOT the first priority, personal re-election is ahead of EVERY thing. Haven't seen any statistics yet as to why Japan threw out the idea or the timing of the same proposal in the U.K./EEC. If the ARRL is so desparate for money maybe a short term membership scheme would be in order, say $2 for a years subsciption to QST without the last 2/3 s of the publication being offered! Regards Art |
(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message om...
W5DXP wrote in message ... WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote: Actually only the morse operators will have half a chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They need the least amount of signal to be able to communicate. Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear the CW ID signals. Cecil, The most important aspect of all this is, if it is accepted what would be the new emmission standards in Industry? I can imagine a lot of users of RF driers will be happy with the minimising of restrictions as well as other manufacturers and users of such equipment. Medical costs will also rise since equipment used will now have to face new challenges. The FCC got into hot water very quickly with their last actions with Congress which also raised the ire of many others. I doubt that they would be willing to follow the path of money on this one because the cost related to required determinations thru out Industry will fall on their own department. They must also realise that numbers DO count with Congress since looking after the Countries interests is NOT the first priority, personal re-election is ahead of EVERY thing. Haven't seen any statistics yet as to why Japan threw out the idea Try this: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/pl...erence_Studies or the timing of the same proposal in the U.K./EEC. If the ARRL is so desparate for money maybe a short term membership scheme would be in order, say $2 for a years subsciption to QST without the last 2/3 s of the publication being offered! Regards Art w3rv |
For all of you that don't think the interferance is going to be "not so
bad" even in CW, should come to Dayton, Ohio or any other city that still runs electric trolly lines and listen to the S-9 +40 signal that the 400 hertz trolly lines produce, and you can here it on a mobile reciever up to 2000 feet from the lines, especially when a trolly is in the area and moving. It cost money to fight the big money in DC, the power companies have an almost unlimited purse into which we the consumers have to keep pouring cash. They can hire the most costly lobbiest groups around for their cause. I run CW, PSK, RTTY and SSB here and it will really wipe out any and all signals on all bands, especially in wet and foggy weather, you guys better think again about simply bashing the ARRL about wanting money to fight this, or just sell your rigs now and buy stock in the power companies that will be polluting the RF spectrum from DC to Daylight with a bunch of noise that sounds like a geiger counter gone nuts in an uranium deposit. If the power companies get their way HF amateur radio will cease to exist as we know it. As I said, come to Dayton for the Hamvention next year and I will challenge you to do any HF work any were near an elelctric trolly line. Or just drive near any high tension power line and listen to the S-9 + noise levels from them, and with no broad spectrum data streams on them yet. The power companies have the FCC chair in their pockets guys and the power companies won't lift a finger now to clean up their act. What do you think they will tell you when BPL wipes out you Ham radio and other RF spectrums. You guessed it, they will tell you to go away and shut up as the FCC says that they have the right to do it....... Fred KE8TQ XYL Lorraine KC8HWV On 13 Aug 2003, Brian Kelly wrote: (Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message om... W5DXP wrote in message ... WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote: Actually only the morse operators will have half a chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They need the least amount of signal to be able to communicate. Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear the CW ID signals. Cecil, The most important aspect of all this is, if it is accepted what would be the new emmission standards in Industry? I can imagine a lot of users of RF driers will be happy with the minimising of restrictions as well as other manufacturers and users of such equipment. Medical costs will also rise since equipment used will now have to face new challenges. The FCC got into hot water very quickly with their last actions with Congress which also raised the ire of many others. I doubt that they would be willing to follow the path of money on this one because the cost related to required determinations thru out Industry will fall on their own department. They must also realise that numbers DO count with Congress since looking after the Countries interests is NOT the first priority, personal re-election is ahead of EVERY thing. Haven't seen any statistics yet as to why Japan threw out the idea Try this: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/pl...erence_Studies or the timing of the same proposal in the U.K./EEC. If the ARRL is so desparate for money maybe a short term membership scheme would be in order, say $2 for a years subsciption to QST without the last 2/3 s of the publication being offered! Regards Art w3rv -- |
Fred wrote in message ... For all of you that don't think the interferance is going to be "not so bad" even in CW, should come to Dayton, Ohio or any other city that still runs electric trolly lines and listen to the S-9 +40 signal that the 400 hertz trolly lines produce, and you can here it on a mobile reciever up to 2000 feet from the lines, especially when a trolly is in the area and moving. It cost money to fight the big money in DC, the power companies have an almost unlimited purse into which we the consumers have to keep pouring cash. They can hire the most costly lobbiest groups around for 400 Hz, really?? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com