"AK" wrote in message
news:QdQxc.26209$Sw.14324@attbi_s51...

[snip]


I doubt the "benefits millions" bit, but will the FCC restrict amateur
radio
if it interferes with big-business political contributors' operations ? Of
course it will.

ak



OK -- I'll go through it.

If BPL works as promised, it will benefit millions. The BPL folk promise
high speed internet access at under $30.00 a month. Every other high speed
access provider will have to compete with that price. More than that, BPL
promises continual power line monitoring and millions of dollars for local
governments. That's what BPL promises. If BPL can come through on these
promises, BPL will benefit millions.

Can BPL come through on their promises? I sure don't think so. Most people
with a technical background don't think so. There's a hundred reasons to
think that BPL won't be able to fulfill it's promises.

But how can it be PROVEN that BPL will fail? By talk? By computer
simulations? I'm sure my opinion doesn't cut it. The ONLY way to prove
that BPL cannot fulfill it's glittering promises is to -- let it fail.

BPL is being allowed. That hardly means that BPL will wipe out the SW
bands. Approval was the easy part. All it took was promises.

But now, it's put up or shut time for BPL. So far, BPL's reality check
doesn't seem to be going very well.

Please name the politician who would stand in the way of the BPL promises.
If they did block the BPL promises, then they would hear from the
thickheaded knee-jerks would be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the FCC was in the
pockets of the fat cats who want to keep access prices high.

I hope I've made my point clearly.

Frank Dresser

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...


I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that
indicates
BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service
unless
it is subsidized.

Yeah, that gets to the heart of an important issue. Will BPL somehow be
profitable?

The quality of the reporting on BPL is, more often than not, poor:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P81685.asp

That guy doesn't seem to have a clue about the technical problems that the
BPL system has to overcome. I suppose he figures that since the FCC doesn't
seem much worried about cranky old hams, then BPL is on easy street. I'd
think the financial press would have wised up after the dotcom blowout.

I did see a technically literate investment write up on BPL last year. That
guy thought BPL was a loser.

The ARRL is doing a great job making themselves available to reporters. The
better stories devote a significant part to the ARRL point of view. Still,
the stories often come down to BPL vs ARRL.

Here's a pretty good antiBPL site:

http://gobpl.com/

An interesting page from that site:

http://gobpl.com/sharkbites.html


Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to make
it up?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Please, don't give the welfare party and the corparate subsidy party any
ideas!!

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]

The quality of the reporting on BPL is, more often than not, poor:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P81685.asp

That guy doesn't seem to have a clue about the technical problems that the
BPL system has to overcome. I suppose he figures that since the FCC
doesn't
seem much worried about cranky old hams, then BPL is on easy street. I'd
think the financial press would have wised up after the dotcom blowout.


Nor does he have a clue about how people choose to spend their money. For
example he mentions that there is good market potential since 80% of the
internet users are still on dial up. He seems to think that they will
switch to BPL. But let's look at why they are on dial up. It is cost.
Dial up is still the cheapest access and it will be cheaper than the
projected cost for BPL. Unless they can get much closer to dial up in
price, most will NOT switch. There's a dial up service around here that is
only about $10 per month. Even the most expensive dial up in this area tops
out at $20 per month. BPL won't be able to snag a major share of the dial
users no matter what anyone would like to believe assuming their projected
costs are accurate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 10 Jun 2004 15:04:57 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



The difference being, Broadband and Broadbandd related "stuff" is selling
quite well which correlates at some reasonable level into a demand for
broadband. I'm not sure what the market figures are for shortwave, but I
would guess it's much lower. Even if you were able to get *all* active
SWL's in the U.S. to write (twice) to the FCC in opposition to BPL, how
many protest letters do you think that would amount to in comparison to
the broadband market's demand for broadband? Does anyone in here have any
insight into marketing demographics for SWL's?

I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the
shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their
broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-)

Bob
k5qwg



Of course, the presumption I'm making is that there is a measurable demand
for broadband in those remote locales where it is not already affordably
available via other providers (cable, phone, etc.).

-=jd=-

Clair J. Robinson wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the
shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their
broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-)

Bob
k5qwg



Don't forget that those right-wing preachers and all other US short-wave
broadcasters are licensed to broadcast to foreign locations only. I
guess those 800 numbers are for use in the Caribbean and Canada. Sure,
that has to be the case.

73, CJ K0CJ

You mean if I pick up their broadcast here in the US then that makes
them illegal?

william ewald wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:00:02 -0500, "*" wrote:


Glad you did something on this! I sent mine in (added to yours some);

I recommend that the FCC ask for a technical showing that BPL will
not interfere with other existing communications in these bands
before establishing Rules and Regulations.


Wasn't SW going to be made obsolete by satellite radio not too long
ago? Maybe PopComm had an article on the subject.

Have you listened to the BPL trash??

It will make copying an S9 signal very difficult.

Bob Miller wrote:

I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the
shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their
broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-)

Bob
k5qwg


Don't forget that those right-wing preachers and all other US short-wave
broadcasters are licensed to broadcast to foreign locations only. I
guess those 800 numbers are for use in the Caribbean and Canada. Sure,
that has to be the case.

73, CJ K0CJ

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Somehow, I don't see the protestations from SW preachers (in general) as
being very effective towards stopping BPL... I almost think that may only
serve to speed it's implementation! g



-=jd=-


I do think the politicians would listen to the National Association of
Religious Broadcasters, or whatever they call themselves.

Frank Dresser

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...


Nor does he have a clue about how people choose to spend their money. For
example he mentions that there is good market potential since 80% of the
internet users are still on dial up. He seems to think that they will
switch to BPL. But let's look at why they are on dial up. It is cost.
Dial up is still the cheapest access and it will be cheaper than the
projected cost for BPL. Unless they can get much closer to dial up in
price, most will NOT switch. There's a dial up service around here that
is
only about $10 per month. Even the most expensive dial up in this area
tops
out at $20 per month. BPL won't be able to snag a major share of the dial
users no matter what anyone would like to believe assuming their projected
costs are accurate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


That's another good point. I think $30 bucks a month might attract alot of
buyers to BPL, but it's still not low enough for cheapskates such as myself.
I do think the likely number of buyers is researchable, but reporters don't
always do research. Since the number is unspecified, I'll assume the BPL
folk didn't bring up this fundamental issue in their press release.

The finanical press usually has a disclaimer at the end of their columns.
Something like "Our columnist owns no stock or any other interest in the
company". That's nice, but it would be more informative to the reader if
the disclaimer said "Our columinist has done no research for this column
beyond reading the press releases of the company".

Frank Dresser

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

Oh - I thought the poster intimated the "less than mainstream" SW
preachers, ala "Profit Stair", etc.



-=jd=-

I suppose he was, but I'm thinking of the all the religious broadcasters
who've set up shop on the SW bands in the last 20 years or so. They have
demonstrated a measure of political clout in that the old rules against
domestic SW broadcasting are now freely ignored. These guys have a
significant investment to protect, particularly those guys who buy another
100 kW transmitter every 18 months or so.

Frank Dresser