Alex wrote:
FCC Comm. have terms,
half are dem and other half are rep.

Which Commissioner do we split in half?grin

There are five Commissioners. No more than three may be members of the
same party.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

Unfortunately I wouldn't count on a Democratic Presidency stopping BPL.
Firstly, they're just as susceptible to campaign contributions as
Republicans. Secondly, the GOP Congress has a record of overturning FCC
decisions if they offend enough lobbyists. (witness the anti-LPFM
legislation - which was enacted despite a Democratic President who
opposed it)

Democratic Congresses in my lifetime never had a record of trying
anything that blatant. Doesn't mean they haven't learned from the GOP
since then.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Alex" wrote in message
...
FCC Comm. have terms,
half are dem and other half are rep.

Powell will be there for a while.
He has connections.

HERE IS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK OF
FCC CHAIRMAN POWELL AND HIS
ALLEGED " CONNECTIONS "........

he http://www.misternicehands.com/

(after URL loads CLICK anywhere on it....)

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...

Nice letter, but it will fall on deaf ears -- FCC head Michael Powell
is a cheerleader for BPL.

My suggestion: vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2nd. Kerry does not like
Powell. Powell will be out. And we can start afresh with a new FCC
head, one who might worry more about the consequences of BPL than this
business-friendly administration ever will.

Bob
k5qwg


Why do you think Kerry thinks any different than Bush on BPL? Bush has
already gone on record as being "pro-choice" on BPL. Has Kerry staked out
the opposite side of the issue?

Which politician, of either party, is against BPL? Which FCC commissioner,
of either party, is against BPL?

Frank Dresser

BPL - impact on radio communications
As tests and any sort of technical common sense would make obvious,
broadband transmissions on miles of unshielded power lines will create havoc
with the reception of micro-volt level radio communication signals. The
concept is pure nonsense to anyone with a technical background. My BSEE
(with communications specialization) and top FCC commercial and amateur
radio licenses does not make me a great expert, but anyone with a
comprehension of radio transmission and reception knows that the BPL concept
does not work, unless basic MF & HF radio is sacrificed. BPL is a poorly
thought out concept, with the unlikely potential for profit driving this
otherwise unfathomable concept. Please get some honest technical input
before allowing this BPL debacle to continue.
Sincerely, AK

"yea right" wrote in message
news
If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi


If you can't think of any thing to type or wish to make this as painless
as possible, you can cut-n-paste the comment I typed below.

Thanks for the info & the FCC link. AK



Play devil's advocate: how do we, as 'hams' convince others that increased QRM
and QRN --prevents-- our use of licensed privileges.

To wit: consider HF mobile. Why should anyone care if a roving 'ham' gets
blasted by QRM when driving underneath a power line? The emergency comm
argument has limited viability: most emergency comm happens at VHF or UHF these
days, especially mobile.

Provide a compelling answer and you've certainly made it difficult to justify
BPL. Don't make a case and you've thrown the focus on the necessity of certain
HF 'ham' activities in a broader context.

Hope this helps.

73,
Chip N1IR

Chip -

I respectfully suggest you think again about emergency comm's...
this time slightly outside the most literal "box."

Amateur radio already suffers from an aging base of licensees, and
recruiting new ones is difficult. A very high percentage of the "fun"
involved in amateur radio is HF operation. Providing VHF/UHF
emergency comm's is more like work... our payback for spectrum use.

If the Government says "To Hell with amateur radio--use their HF
spectrum for flaky and redundant ISP service," then many amateurs
will quit--AND leave their VHF/UHF emergency service as well.
I'm likely to be one of them.

And what would the recruiting line be then? "Become an Amateur
Radio operator, and you can spend your time working bicycle
races, and hope to get a cross-town emergency gig some day?"
Whoop-de-do, what fun!

I doubt the FCC will have to hire more staff to process Amateur
applications, with exciting prospects like that driving what's left
of the hobby.

73,

Ed, W6LOL

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
snip
To wit: consider HF mobile. Why should anyone care if a roving 'ham' gets
blasted by QRM when driving underneath a power line? The emergency comm
argument has limited viability: most emergency comm happens at VHF or UHF
these days, especially mobile.

Provide a compelling answer and you've certainly made it difficult to
justify BPL. Don't make a case and you've thrown the focus on the
necessity
of certain HF 'ham' activities in a broader context.

Hope this helps.

73,
Chip N1IR

AK wrote:

BPL - impact on radio communications
As tests and any sort of technical common sense would make obvious,
broadband transmissions on miles of unshielded power lines will create havoc
with the reception of micro-volt level radio communication signals. The
concept is pure nonsense to anyone with a technical background. My BSEE
(with communications specialization) and top FCC commercial and amateur
radio licenses does not make me a great expert, but anyone with a
comprehension of radio transmission and reception knows that the BPL concept
does not work, unless basic MF & HF radio is sacrificed. BPL is a poorly
thought out concept, with the unlikely potential for profit driving this
otherwise unfathomable concept. Please get some honest technical input
before allowing this BPL debacle to continue.
Sincerely, AK

Unfortunately the folks at the FCC that are pushing BPL have zero
comprehension of radio transmission or reception, in fact have zero
comprehension of anything technical. They are a bunch of lawyers who
only comprehend money. Chairman Powell wouldn't know a transistor from a
doorknob, I doubt he can turn on a tv without help. He will probably
leave the FCC after BPL gets rolling for some cushy outrageous paying
position at some BPL intenty as his reward for helping to push this
debacle down everyone's throats.

AK wrote:

BPL - impact on radio communications
As tests and any sort of technical common sense would make obvious,
broadband transmissions on miles of unshielded power lines will create
havoc
with the reception of micro-volt level radio communication signals. The
concept is pure nonsense to anyone with a technical background. My BSEE
(with communications specialization) and top FCC commercial and amateur
radio licenses does not make me a great expert, but anyone with a
comprehension of radio transmission and reception knows that the BPL
concept
does not work, unless basic MF & HF radio is sacrificed. BPL is a poorly
thought out concept, with the unlikely potential for profit driving this
otherwise unfathomable concept. Please get some honest technical input
before allowing this BPL debacle to continue.
Sincerely, AK

Unfortunately the folks at the FCC that are pushing BPL have zero
comprehension of radio transmission or reception, in fact have zero
comprehension of anything technical. They are a bunch of lawyers who
only comprehend money.

Actually, from what I've seen, the FCC is both very technically savvy; well
informed; and progressive.

Its emphasis on the law is because it advises , implements, and enforces it.
There are plenty of technical folks , BTW.

73,
Chip N1IR

Hi,

Almost all the fcc commissioners, Mr. Powell included, have legal backgrounds,
experience writing legislation for communciations industry (lobbyists ??)
special interests and working for members in congress.

Three of the comm. have received degrees from universities in
north carolina.

You are correct, it is about the money.

They tried this back in the late 1970's here in ny,
they wanted to eliminate the meter readers to save money
but that did not work out.

Don't know why they want to use the hf regions, why not 10 gig ?

Plus, dsl just dropped the price here another $ 5.00 per month to
be less expensive the the cable co. road runner net.

I don't have a tech degree or work in rf but the harmonics
over miles of cable and the expense of these repeaters and or filters
seems too expensive to turn a profit in rural areas that bpl was pushing for.

BTW, one city in MD has parted ways with their bpl partner and is looking
for another one, after spending lots of money to wire up their city.

alex

AK wrote:

BPL - impact on radio communications
As tests and any sort of technical common sense would make obvious,
broadband transmissions on miles of unshielded power lines will create havoc
with the reception of micro-volt level radio communication signals. The
concept is pure nonsense to anyone with a technical background. My BSEE
(with communications specialization) and top FCC commercial and amateur
radio licenses does not make me a great expert, but anyone with a
comprehension of radio transmission and reception knows that the BPL concept
does not work, unless basic MF & HF radio is sacrificed. BPL is a poorly
thought out concept, with the unlikely potential for profit driving this
otherwise unfathomable concept. Please get some honest technical input
before allowing this BPL debacle to continue.
Sincerely, AK

"yea right" wrote in message
news
If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi


If you can't think of any thing to type or wish to make this as painless
as possible, you can cut-n-paste the comment I typed below.

Thanks for the info & the FCC link. AK