Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Knapp" wrote in message ... Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Translation: Ignore those without a large financial stake and listen to those who would do anything for a buck. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. The statement about amateurs didn't strike me as stating what kind of equipment would be effected, it seemed more an attempt to show amateur radio operators as a group of ignorant, backwards idividuals. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Derivation of the Reflection Coefficient? | Antenna | |||
BPL industry take on why power lines are not antennas | Antenna | |||
BPL pollution – file reply comments by August 6 | Antenna | |||
BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED | Antenna |