If you value SW or HAM radio....
 

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.

/******************************/

In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be
implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the
shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect
international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will be
destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be reduced to
users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas. Emergency
communications will be hindered to levels directly responsible for the
loss of life.

There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will never be
able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass distribution of video
much less the up-and-coming HDTV.

Please do not destroy the foundation of radio communication for a unneeded
technology that is only a band-aid and hindrance to the advancement of
broadband technology.

Excellent - can I copy this to other groups etc?

Mike


"yea right" wrote in message
...
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.

/******************************/

In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be
implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the
shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect
international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will be
destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be reduced to
users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas. Emergency
communications will be hindered to levels directly responsible for the
loss of life.

There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will never be
able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass distribution of video
much less the up-and-coming HDTV.

Please do not destroy the foundation of radio communication for a unneeded
technology that is only a band-aid and hindrance to the advancement of
broadband technology.

Here's the text I entered - feel free to cut / paste / modify, etc.

Dear Commissioners, I wish to express my opposition to Broadband Over Power
Line (BPL).

My opposition is based on the interference to the Amateur Radio service and
to those listening to shortwave radio.

The Amateur Radio service was a valuable service on 9/11, providing
communications backup and helping survivors contact loved ones. Given the
current terrorist threat we now face, I believe that it is unreasonable to
hamper this valuable - and free - resource with a known source of
interference.

Further, it is simply unnecessary. While I'm sure that the power companies
are looking for a new profit center, that is insufficient reason to allow
them to run roughshod over others who don't have the enormous budgets for
political lobbyists. There are other alternatives available for broadband
that don't interfere with other services, including cable, DSL and
satellites services such as DirectWay.

Thanks you for considering my petition.

Charlie, KS1C

Yes! In great hast please!

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 07:54:24 +0000, Mike Terry wrote:

Excellent - can I copy this to other groups etc?

Mike


"yea right" wrote in message
...
If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your

Here's my letter, for what its worth:

I am writing to ask you not to allow the implementation of BPL
(Broadband over Power Lines) in our nation's communities.

I rely on shortwave radio as a source of entertainment, world news and
cultural information. I listen to low & high-power broadcasts from the
world over. Reliable reception is already a challenge due to the
interference caused by the deplorable state of our nation's power
lines. I have had to send several complaints to my local power company
due to electrical power pole arcing that interferes with my shortwave
radio. Adding broadband data to these already unreliable power lines
would render a bad situation worse. In my experience, power companies
have little regard for complaints regarding radio interference, and
are slow to respond, if at all. I consider it irresponsible to entrust
BPL technology to power companies that already have an indifferent,
monopolistic attitude towards customer service.
Power companies are also overwhelmed with maintaining the poor repair
state of their equipment. With the addition of BPL,
how will power companies manage to stay within the radio interference
regulations set forth by the FCC?

I beleive BPL would be an unreliable system of delivery, and an
unneeded duplication of existing data services. It would interfere
with all shortwave radio services, including commercial, utility,
aircraft, rescue, and amateur radio services. Its effect on higher
frequency services due to harmonic interference remains to be seen.

In all, I think BPL is a unrequired, unpredictable technology and I
urge you to prevent BPL from polluting our nation's radio spectrum.

Why do I get this error in my BPL comments?

A fatal error has occurred while loading your file.

Please try again later.
id_submission='-1'

yea right wrote:
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


I don't know if this has been mentioned before or not. There is
another problem other than interference. It's an IMPORTANT and
perhaps fatal drawback.

If a line or two goes down, not only do you lose power, but also the
means to communicate. Emergency messages will NOT get through to
anyone connected via this setup. They will STILL need regular
broadcast signals via radio or television.

In the worst case scenario, you'd lose email, phone, radio AND tv
all at once. With converging technologies, this is altogether too
likely.

Will the government carry the burden of responsibilty should someone
be killed or hurt because of this 'broadband initiative'?



I do not have a United States address, so I can not send this
suggestion myself. Please distribute this concern also. I hope it
will be noticed by the communications commitee.



mike II
rec.radio.shortwave

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.


Kindly understand that not everyone is convinced that BPL will 'destroy' ham
radio or SWL'ing. I am one of many that disagree with your assessment, and
agree with the prevailing position that BPL is an important technology option
that can co-exist with the 'ham' community, for example.

Ham radio is not licensed as a hobby; it is licensed as a service. When 'hams'
atempt to prevent adoption of new technologies, rather than foster them, then
there are those who debate the value of our spectrum allottments.

Working together with BPL is the best course for ham radio. This will allow the
marketplace to decide if BPL is a viable option, rather than putting the focus
on ham radio as a passe and reactionary group--which is the public perception
in the popular press at this time (for example, the recent WSJ front page
article).

Think about these comments in the context of what has happened so far with BPL.
Then project the most likely scenario moving forward.

73,
Chip N1IR

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
...
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

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:47:48 GMT, "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

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


"yea right" wrote in message
.. .
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

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
.. .
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

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.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...

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

Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.
My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge of.

AK

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:06:30 GMT, "AK" wrote:


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
.. .

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

Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.

When Powell travels to industry functions/conventions, his hotel
room/suite is usually paid for by broadcast reps. He hangs out with
them, parties with them. As an attorney, he used to represent media
conglomerates. His preferences are well known.

Bob
k5qwg


My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge of.

AK

Bob,

I have to give that a very big "but we don't know that".

As a non-attorney, guess what I'd like to say.

tom
K0TAR

Bob Miller wrote:


When Powell travels to industry functions/conventions, his hotel
room/suite is usually paid for by broadcast reps. He hangs out with
them, parties with them. As an attorney, he used to represent media
conglomerates. His preferences are well known.

Bob
k5qwg

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:25:56 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Bob,

I have to give that a very big "but we don't know that".

Tom, no we don't know that for sure, but it was reported in various
news stories, around the time Powell was pushing to increase the
number of media outlets a conglomerate could own.

Bob
k5qwg



As a non-attorney, guess what I'd like to say.

tom
K0TAR

Bob Miller wrote:


When Powell travels to industry functions/conventions, his hotel
room/suite is usually paid for by broadcast reps. He hangs out with
them, parties with them. As an attorney, he used to represent media
conglomerates. His preferences are well known.

Bob
k5qwg

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:39:39 +0000, Fractenna wrote:

Working together with BPL is the best course for ham radio.

Unfortunately, everybody knows that BPL will hinder HF. There is no
argument here as all testing shows this. The question is really how much
is acceptable. 5db/m increase in noise floor at 500M nor 9uV/m at 10M of
interference is not acceptably to me on any HF freq. Goodbye QRP,
especially if you live in the sticks! You may never hear distant shortwave
broadcast again unless you live miles from a powerline.

Testing in the united states has not been truthful, utilizing Shoody test
techniques and deception. They even picked a test community with
underground power lines and no nearby amateurs. I'm willing to bet that
all the people are on cable/DBS TV and nobody had a shortwave radio.

BPL is bad and the FCC knows it. So does FEMA, the military and the
coastguard. That is why they have provisions in the regulations for them
(and them only) to restrict BPL away from their facilities. Hams will not
have this protection. Both the British and Germans pulled BPL when field
test revealed the true nature of the interference.

Why wait until it's too late to do anything about. If you wait, you lose.
The WSJ (Wall Street Journal)is there to promote business. BPL is business
and amateur radio is not. I will let others painfully expand about these
politics on many vectors. ;-)

Please, if you value radio, it only takes a few minutes to fill out a FCC
comment.... better safe than sorry.

www.vambo.org/a

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. I also recommend that
the FCC ask for a technical showing signal losses (of BPL) on
distribution grids in a city. These losses are substantial, and can
indicate that BPL works in only very limited cases, making it
basically unusable in urban and suburban areas.


Existing Emergency communications will be hindered to levels
directly responsible for the loss of life, because of a raised
noise floor or excessive leakage in various locations.

There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will
never be able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass
distribution of video much less the up-and-coming HDTV.


Please do not destroy the foundation of radio communications below
50 MHz for a unproven technology that is suspected of causing
widespread interference.

In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be
implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the
shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect
international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will
be destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be
reduced to users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas.

Thank you.

"yea right" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:39:39 +0000, Fractenna wrote:

Working together with BPL is the best course for ham radio.

Unfortunately, everybody knows that BPL will hinder HF. There is no
argument here as all testing shows this. The question is really how much
is acceptable. 5db/m increase in noise floor at 500M nor 9uV/m at 10M of
interference is not acceptably to me on any HF freq. Goodbye QRP,
especially if you live in the sticks! You may never hear distant shortwave
broadcast again unless you live miles from a powerline.

Testing in the united states has not been truthful, utilizing Shoody test
techniques and deception. They even picked a test community with
underground power lines and no nearby amateurs. I'm willing to bet that
all the people are on cable/DBS TV and nobody had a shortwave radio.

BPL is bad and the FCC knows it. So does FEMA, the military and the
coastguard. That is why they have provisions in the regulations for them
(and them only) to restrict BPL away from their facilities. Hams will not
have this protection. Both the British and Germans pulled BPL when field
test revealed the true nature of the interference.

Why wait until it's too late to do anything about. If you wait, you lose.
The WSJ (Wall Street Journal)is there to promote business. BPL is business
and amateur radio is not. I will let others painfully expand about these
politics on many vectors. ;-)

Please, if you value radio, it only takes a few minutes to fill out a FCC
comment.... better safe than sorry.

www.vambo.org/a

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

yea right wrote:
Unfortunately, everybody knows that BPL will hinder HF.

Will it hinder coherent CW and PACTOR II?
--
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 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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
...
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

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

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



Bob Miller wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:47:48 GMT, "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

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


"yea right" wrote in message
.. .
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

"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

"AK" wrote in message
news:awsxc.17938$4S5.15367@attbi_s52...


Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people
pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.
My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days
when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers
who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge
of.

AK



Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace. Do you really
think any politician will vote to preempt a failure? Let's say politician A
blocks BPL. Politician B says "Mr. A wants to restrict your freedom to
choose! I say every American has the God given right to pick which ever
high speed internet access plan he can get!!" Then sleazeball campaigner B
starts a whispering campaign -- "Who's pocket is A in? The phone company's?
The cable company's? The satellite company's? All of them? Well, there
must be some reason he wants to restrict your freedom!!" The upcoming
election might be close, and nobody is going to restrict "Freedom" this
year.

Note that I used the non-partisan terms A and B to describe the politicians.
I know there people around who think one party or another is the Repository
of Morality and the other is the Heart of Evil, but I ain't one of 'em.

Frank Dresser

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

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"AK" wrote in message
news:awsxc.17938$4S5.15367@attbi_s52...


Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people
pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest
reps.
My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days
when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers
who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge
of.

AK



Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace.

That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to bounce
back once destroyed. Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the "unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

Do you really
think any politician will vote to preempt a failure? Let's say politician
A
blocks BPL. Politician B says "Mr. A wants to restrict your freedom to
choose! I say every American has the God given right to pick which ever
high speed internet access plan he can get!!"

You must be that same guy that thought he had a God given right to dump
whatever he wanted into the Nashua river when I lived along it. His
corporate garbage killed all the fish and stunk-up the river for the rest of
the world, but using the river for his personal dumping ground was his
"right"! Some good ol' New England Yankee took on this
"my-rights-over-everyone-else" guy by paying a cement truck to dump a full
load of concrete in the guy's drainage canal to the river. The sheriff was
called, saw what was done, heard why it was done, and went home without
issuing any citation. Too bad that a load of concrete won't stop BPL.

ak

In article flFxc.1843$2i5.155@attbi_s52, AK wrote:

Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace.

That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to bounce
back once destroyed. Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the "unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

There's an interesting analogy to this situation playing out in the
airwaves right now. My understanding of this situation is as follows
(and may be a bit incorrect).

Some years ago, the FCC decided to allow a company which I believe was
called Fleet Telecommunications to set up some digital-packet-oriented
communication on a set of frequencies in the 800 MHz range. These
frequencies were located quite close to the 800 MHz narrow-band FM
channels allocated to publics-safety ground (trunked police and fire
systems, etc.).

There was concern expressed at the time that these digital channels
might cause interference with the existing analog channels
(intermodulation and receiver desensing, I think). The FCC agreed to
allow the allocations, on the condition that the digital operator
ensure that interference to existing allocations would not occur or
would be abated.

Subsequently (I'm hazy on the details) Fleet either went out of
business or was bought up... in either case, Nextel ended up as the
owner of these 800 MHz digital allocations. Nextel has used them as
the basis of much of its current-generation cellphone system.

The result: significant, and sometimes very severe, interference to
public-safety radio operations. There have been numerous reports of
police and firefighters being unable to use their radios successfully,
when in proximity to Nextel cellular sites. This has resulted in very
real danger to life-and-limb for police officers and firefighters.

Nextel has taken some steps to abate specific instances of this
(reducing power) when it's called to their attention, but the problem
remains.

There's a whole massive brouhaha taking place now, about "rebanding"
the 800 MHz spectrum. This will probably involve consolidating the
public-safety frequencies (requiring modification or replacement of
much equipment - Nextel has offered to pay $billions to do this but
there's concern that it'll cost twice that much), and moving at least
some of Nextel's cellular allocations upwards to a higher frequency
band. Nextel wants a big block of spectrum space in compensation,
while other companies claim that the FCC has no legal authority to
simply hand over that space to Nextel and that the law requires the
spectrum to be auctioned to the highest bidder. No matter what the
FCC decides to do, it's likely to end up being challenged in Federal
court and delayed for years.

It's a horrible mess. Some claim that the FCC *could* have acted, on
its own authority, to order Nextel to shut down operations in the
interleaved bands, because their system is apparently violating the
"we will not cause interference to other licensed operations" clauses
which were part of the original Fleet allocation grant. The FCC has
apparently asserted that it doesn't have authority to act on its own
in the absence of a formal legal complaint from a public-safety radio
organization... and no city or county or state has been willing to
file such a complaint (perhaps because the cost of pursuing it
against a deep-pockets company like Nextel would be very high indeed).

I agree that if BPL is rolled out en mass, it _is_ likely to cause
serious interference with HF operations (amateur and otherwise), and
that the momentum of "Hey, we've invested billions to field BPL, you
can't just shut us down" is likely to override the original "No, there
won't be interference" promised.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"AK" wrote in message
news:flFxc.1843$2i5.155@attbi_s52...


That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to
bounce
back once destroyed.

NEVER to bounce back? Shortwave radio is that fragile? Must not be much
keeping it going right now.



Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use
satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the
"unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

If there's more people who actually want BPL more than SW radio, then maybe
they should have it. However, I seem to have less faith than you that BPL
actually works. I do have faith that people won't spend money on a system
which is unreliable.



You must be that same guy that thought he had a God given right to dump
whatever he wanted into the Nashua river when I lived along it. His
corporate garbage killed all the fish and stunk-up the river for the rest
of
the world, but using the river for his personal dumping ground was his
"right"!

You assume wrong. I'm not the same guy. I've never dumped anything toxic
in the Nashua river, even when you weren't living along it. In fact, I've
never been anywhere around the Nashua river.


Some good ol' New England Yankee took on this
"my-rights-over-everyone-else" guy by paying a cement truck to dump a full
load of concrete in the guy's drainage canal to the river. The sheriff was
called, saw what was done, heard why it was done, and went home without
issuing any citation. Too bad that a load of concrete won't stop BPL.

ak



Stopping BPL is simple. It's a political numbers game. Unfortunately,
there's more potential customers for high speed internet access than there
are SW hobbyists. I'm sure you've noticed that no Democrat is taking an
anti-BPL stance. BPL has already been approved in a couple of areas.

Or, just maybe, the politicans expect BPL to fail or succeed on it's own
merits. If it fails on it's own, then nobody gets the blame for keeping it
away from the customers.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Stopping BPL is simple. It's a political numbers game. Unfortunately,
there's more potential customers for high speed internet access than there
are SW hobbyists. I'm sure you've noticed that no Democrat is taking an
anti-BPL stance. BPL has already been approved in a couple of areas.

Or, just maybe, the politicans expect BPL to fail or succeed on it's own
merits. If it fails on it's own, then nobody gets the blame for keeping
it
away from the customers.

I see, Frank. You are just a might-&-money makes right sort of guy. Maybe if
the FCC will just authorize all U.S. hams to run 10KW on MF and HF
frequencies, and give us full immunity to any interference claims, amateur
radio can co-exist with BPL.

ak

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article flFxc.1843$2i5.155@attbi_s52, AK wrote:

Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace.

That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to
bounce
back once destroyed. Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas
that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use
satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the
"unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum
disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

There's an interesting analogy to this situation playing out in the
airwaves right now. My understanding of this situation is as follows
(and may be a bit incorrect).

Some years ago, the FCC decided to allow a company which I believe was
called Fleet Telecommunications to set up some digital-packet-oriented
communication on a set of frequencies in the 800 MHz range. These
frequencies were located quite close to the 800 MHz narrow-band FM
channels allocated to publics-safety ground (trunked police and fire
systems, etc.).

There was concern expressed at the time that these digital channels
might cause interference with the existing analog channels
(intermodulation and receiver desensing, I think). The FCC agreed to
allow the allocations, on the condition that the digital operator
ensure that interference to existing allocations would not occur or
would be abated.

Subsequently (I'm hazy on the details) Fleet either went out of
business or was bought up... in either case, Nextel ended up as the
owner of these 800 MHz digital allocations. Nextel has used them as
the basis of much of its current-generation cellphone system.

The result: significant, and sometimes very severe, interference to
public-safety radio operations. There have been numerous reports of
police and firefighters being unable to use their radios successfully,
when in proximity to Nextel cellular sites. This has resulted in very
real danger to life-and-limb for police officers and firefighters.

Nextel has taken some steps to abate specific instances of this
(reducing power) when it's called to their attention, but the problem
remains.

There's a whole massive brouhaha taking place now, about "rebanding"
the 800 MHz spectrum. This will probably involve consolidating the
public-safety frequencies (requiring modification or replacement of
much equipment - Nextel has offered to pay $billions to do this but
there's concern that it'll cost twice that much), and moving at least
some of Nextel's cellular allocations upwards to a higher frequency
band. Nextel wants a big block of spectrum space in compensation,
while other companies claim that the FCC has no legal authority to
simply hand over that space to Nextel and that the law requires the
spectrum to be auctioned to the highest bidder. No matter what the
FCC decides to do, it's likely to end up being challenged in Federal
court and delayed for years.

It's a horrible mess. Some claim that the FCC *could* have acted, on
its own authority, to order Nextel to shut down operations in the
interleaved bands, because their system is apparently violating the
"we will not cause interference to other licensed operations" clauses
which were part of the original Fleet allocation grant. The FCC has
apparently asserted that it doesn't have authority to act on its own
in the absence of a formal legal complaint from a public-safety radio
organization... and no city or county or state has been willing to
file such a complaint (perhaps because the cost of pursuing it
against a deep-pockets company like Nextel would be very high indeed).

I agree that if BPL is rolled out en mass, it _is_ likely to cause
serious interference with HF operations (amateur and otherwise), and
that the momentum of "Hey, we've invested billions to field BPL, you
can't just shut us down" is likely to override the original "No, there
won't be interference" promised.

That's real interesting about Nextel. My experience with the 800 MHz bands
(LTR trunking systems) ended before digital cell phones existed, but I can
certainly believe that frequency spreading must cause some com channel
interference if you are near the transmitter site. Well, anyone who really
believes that the FCC will mitigate interference to amateur radio that is
caused by big-lobbying power companies should also believe in "temporary
taxes" and Santa Clause.

AK

In article ,
-=jd=- wrote:

You lost me there - if a public safety radio org (or anyone else for that
matter) files a formal complaint with the FCC, does the FCC bill the
complainant for any subsequent investigation and/or enforcement expenses?

The FCC's likely to look to the complaining, and responding, parties
to present evidence and research and expert testimony about the issue,
I believe. The big communications companies can afford to throw large
amounts of money at their side of the issue, churning up large amounts
of paperwork, studies, and so forth. In order to hope to win the
case, the public-safety organization would have to try to refute these
studies and reports-from-experts with their own. I suspect it'd run
into a lot of money.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"AK" wrote in message
news:_RIxc.24979$Sw.12360@attbi_s51...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Stopping BPL is simple. It's a political numbers game. Unfortunately,
there's more potential customers for high speed internet access than
there
are SW hobbyists. I'm sure you've noticed that no Democrat is taking an
anti-BPL stance. BPL has already been approved in a couple of areas.

Or, just maybe, the politicans expect BPL to fail or succeed on it's own
merits. If it fails on it's own, then nobody gets the blame for keeping
it
away from the customers.

I see, Frank. You are just a might-&-money makes right sort of guy.

Well, as scurrilous libel goes, that's a step up from toxic waste dumper,
but you've missed the mark again. I was making a democracy arguement. The
voters who want high speed access vastly outnumber the voters who are radio
hobbyists. If BPL can actually deliver on it's big promises, radio
hobbyists will have slim clout in Washington. Being a radio hobbyist isn't
a God given right, or a natural right, or even a constitutional right.

But I think there's more to the democratic free choice arguement. What if
BPL is really a goofy idea which won't work? What's the gain for any
politician to block a popular, yet doomed approach? His opponent will grab
the the glittering promises that the BPL folk are making, and use those
promises to take votes from the "anti-BPL choice" candidate. Don't think
the voters really know the difference.

I see two possible scenerios:

1) BPL works as promised. It delivers high speed internet access to
millions of users at a competitive price. Since cable, DSL, microwave and
sattelite providers also have to compete with the BPL providers, every user
of high speed access benefits from BPL. Thousands of radio hobbyists lose.
Neither the Democrats nor Republicans choose the thousands of hobbyists over
the millions of internet users.

2) BPL flops. It can't provide adequate bandwidth for more than a small
number of users. The small number of users can't make up the costs of the
system and BPL goes the way of the personal jet pack. Politicians who might
have opposed "system choice" before it proved itself unworkable come out
smelling like a rose.


Maybe if
the FCC will just authorize all U.S. hams to run 10KW on MF and HF
frequencies, and give us full immunity to any interference claims, amateur
radio can co-exist with BPL.

ak



Hmmm. Do you think radio amateurs have enough friends in Washington to get
anything like that? Or maybe, if amateur radio interferes with a BPL system
which benefits millions, the FCC will restrict amateur radio to protect BPL?

But, if you're convinced BPL is workable and won't flop, let me suggest you
join the dark side and invest in BPL. Dump your entire networth into BPL.
Borrow more and toss that in too! Rewards go to those the bold who see the
truth, while timid fellows such as myself stand on the sidelines. Thanks to
your clear foresight, you'll soon be able to buy all the accouterments of
capitalism. Buy a diamond handle cane. Buy that Top Hat you've always
wanted. Buy a hand-made Isotta-Fraschini touring car with leopard skin
upholstery and gold plated hardware. Don't forget to buy a chauffeur!!
You'll forget about SW in no time!

http://www.prospectstreet.com/portfolio_listing.htm

Oh wait. Manassas dumped Prospect Street. Seems like they could only get
200 workable BPL connections in 6 months.

Nevermind.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"AK" wrote in message
news:flFxc.1843$2i5.155@attbi_s52...


That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't
work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to
bounce
back once destroyed.

NEVER to bounce back? Shortwave radio is that fragile? Must not be much
keeping it going right now.



Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use
satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the
"unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum
disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.


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

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"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....)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:28:42 -0400, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:




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

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actually, they have a better idea than increasing electricity rates.
The highly effusive BPL story that ran in Time Magazine recently said
BPL will bundle internet access with telephone service and
video-on-demand.

We hams got a hell of a fight on our hands.

bob
k5qwg

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:28:42 -0400, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:




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

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actually, they have a better idea than increasing electricity rates.
The highly effusive BPL story that ran in Time Magazine recently said
BPL will bundle internet access with telephone service and
video-on-demand.

We hams got a hell of a fight on our hands.


Video on demand??? They gotta be outta their pea-pickin' minds.. Where they
gonna get the sort of bandwidth they need to provide all those services?
It's not like they're going to have ADSL type bandwidths available to every
home (and the more homes they connect, the less bandwidth they will have
available for each).. and I have problems at times with Video on Demand with
my ADSL line (supposedly 10 Mbit, but I rarely acheive download speeds
greater than about 400Kbit).

1) DSL in any form on the market today is not capable of 10Mbps. 7.1 is
it at present, and rare. Most DSL in my area is sold as 256/256, the
next step, which just changed here (old was 620/256) in Qwest country,
is 1500/768. Most non-business DSL circuits don't go beyond this.

2) If you are not getting the BW your ISP and local loop provider show
in your Terms of Service agreements, and they have not attempted to
remedy the problem (assuming you complained), you have grounds to
complain to your local PUC. As well as the Better Business Bureau, etc.

This is a decent DSL info link -

http://www.dslreports.com/faq

tom
K0TAR

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:


Video on demand??? They gotta be outta their pea-pickin' minds.. Where they
gonna get the sort of bandwidth they need to provide all those services?
It's not like they're going to have ADSL type bandwidths available to every
home (and the more homes they connect, the less bandwidth they will have
available for each).. and I have problems at times with Video on Demand with
my ADSL line (supposedly 10 Mbit, but I rarely acheive download speeds
greater than about 400Kbit).

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
yea right wrote:
Unfortunately, everybody knows that BPL will hinder HF.

Will it hinder coherent CW and PACTOR II?

Fill the gas tank and wine cooler and take an HF mobile rig into a BPL
"test area" and tune around like I did and come to your own
conclusions Cecil. My direct experience with the stuff clearly
indicates the utter destruction of HF radio within large radii
anywhere it's deployed.

Luv the "we need to cooperate . . yadda, yadda, with the power
utilities . . yadda, yadda . ." sugestions. Yeah right: I've also
"interfaced" with a power utility or two in my time on the general
topic of "Broadband RF interference: . . Might as well have tried to
cut "mitigation" deals with Al Queda.

The good news however is that it's basically an artifact technolgy,
it's time will never come. In the meanwhile we have to keep leaning on
the sumbitches so keep shipping monies into the ARRL Spectrum Defense
Fund.

w3rv

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Hmmm. Do you think radio amateurs have enough friends in Washington
to get anything like that?

Nope.

Or maybe, if amateur radio interferes with a BPL system which
benefits millions, the FCC will restrict amateur radio to protect BPL?

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