Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release
 

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

"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

Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading the
media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about
amateurs! My reply to her is copied below.

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ
----------------------

Dear Ms Patterson

Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA does
not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media release
as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as such,
I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted.

Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer" that
has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what equipment
we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the
entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no
interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is a
concept that is lost on people such as yourself.

The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your comment
in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive
interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any
interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High
Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research will
tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0 MHz
to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use
kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence.

Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and
apologise to the international amateur radio community for your misguided
and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will see
your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched
garbage that it is.

Yours most disrespectfully

Martin Howells
Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ

"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

Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading the
media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about
amateurs! My reply to her is copied below.

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ
----------------------

Dear Ms Patterson

Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA does
not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media release
as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as such,
I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted.

Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer" that
has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what equipment
we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the
entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no
interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is a
concept that is lost on people such as yourself.

The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your comment
in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive
interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any
interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High
Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research will
tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0 MHz
to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use
kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence.

Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and
apologise to the international amateur radio community for your misguided
and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will see
your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched
garbage that it is.

Yours most disrespectfully

Martin Howells
Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ

"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

"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

Hello,

It would be easier just to say what the problem was, without going into
great detail, then I wouldn't have to skip past your message. I can't be
bothered having to read a long document. You should be able to state the
problem in a few lines.

"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

Hello,

It would be easier just to say what the problem was, without going into
great detail, then I wouldn't have to skip past your message. I can't be
bothered having to read a long document. You should be able to state the
problem in a few lines.

"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

Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.

"Marty" wrote in message
...
"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

Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading
the
media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about
amateurs! My reply to her is copied below.

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ
----------------------

Dear Ms Patterson

Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA
does
not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media
release
as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as
such,
I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted.

Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer"
that
has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what equipment
we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the
entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no
interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is a
concept that is lost on people such as yourself.

The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your
comment
in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive
interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any
interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High
Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research will
tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0
MHz
to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use
kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence.

Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and
apologise to the international amateur radio community for your misguided
and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will see
your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched
garbage that it is.

Yours most disrespectfully

Martin Howells
Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ

Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.

"Marty" wrote in message
...
"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

Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading
the
media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about
amateurs! My reply to her is copied below.

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ
----------------------

Dear Ms Patterson

Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA
does
not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media
release
as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as
such,
I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted.

Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer"
that
has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what equipment
we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the
entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no
interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is a
concept that is lost on people such as yourself.

The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your
comment
in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive
interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any
interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High
Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research will
tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0
MHz
to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use
kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence.

Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and
apologise to the international amateur radio community for your misguided
and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will see
your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched
garbage that it is.

Yours most disrespectfully

Martin Howells
Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ

"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!

The entire thing is (there is no polite way to put it ...) a stinking pile
of crap and their assertions about interference ate totally contrary to the
facts (not to mention the laws of physics).

Carl - wk3c

"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!

The entire thing is (there is no polite way to put it ...) a stinking pile
of crap and their assertions about interference ate totally contrary to the
facts (not to mention the laws of physics).

Carl - wk3c

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:53:58 +0100, "jason" wrote:

Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.


Richard Feynman, after receiving a Nobel Prize in physics, was
honored at a ladies' club tea. The MC asked him to describe simply the
research for which he had been given the prize. He replied, "Madam, if
it could be described simply, they wouldn't have given me a prize."

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:53:58 +0100, "jason" wrote:

Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.


Richard Feynman, after receiving a Nobel Prize in physics, was
honored at a ladies' club tea. The MC asked him to describe simply the
research for which he had been given the prize. He replied, "Madam, if
it could be described simply, they wouldn't have given me a prize."

Here's my note to the media assistant....probably won't do much good but I
feel better anyway.

73 - Dino KLØS/4

-----------
As a licensed amateur radio operator, FCC call sign KL0S, I am very
concerned with the spectrum pollution (interference) associated with the new
broadband over power line technology the FCC is considering for approval for
use by the power line industry.

As a retired U.S. Army officer I have had extensive experience in radio
communications operations under active electronic warfare conditions and
many of the those experiences mirror the noise conditions that will
potentially be generated by the BPL initiative.

The industry plans to use a form of power line carrier (PLC) technology
using existing low and medium-voltage power lines to deliver broadband
(internet) services to homes and businesses. It uses frequencies between 2
MHz and 80 MHz; and ARRL laboratory and in field tests have documented that
BPL causes interference (spectrum pollution) to HF and low-VHF frequencies
currently in use by the Government (Department of Defense and Homeland
Security), law enforcement agencies, amateur radio and commercial
businesses. Further, the current BPL technology itself may be susceptible
to transmissions from other existing services.

To appreciate the level of interference, please visit the ARRL web page at
[http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1] and listen to the BPL
interference recorded from one of the FCC test sites. As I mentioned the
noise portrayed eerily matches that encountered during electronic warfare
conditions. Contrary to power industry claims, the ARRL tests convinced me
the current BPL technology will generate major
interference to existing services, including amateur radio, public service
and and potentially other Homeland Security communications activities such
as those conducted under the MARS AND SHARES programs. The ARRL President,
Mr. Jim Haynie is prepared to provide the FCC with more details. He can be
reached at 214-366-9400 or

Regarding the FCC Notice of Inquiry, I recommend tightening of the FCC Part
15 requirements and/or standards for power line carrier (PLC) devices to
assure they will not cause interference (or be susceptible from) to existing
services. In addition, I would appreciate documentation from the FCC that
adequate testing has been performed to assure broadband over power line
technology will not cause interference to existing services. Hopefully, this
testing will be well documented and made public before the technology is
approved for use by the power line industry.

I recently had occasion to work with my local power provider, Dominion
Virginia Power on a power distribution system generated incidental radiator
that caused significant noise at my home. The power company worked
expeditiously to find and resolve the problem, however I can only imagine
the magnitude of the problems that potentially will be initiated by BPL type
incidental radiation levels. With only that small problem (a faulty
underground cable splice) my ability to communicate was severely degraded,
much to the same degree as discovered by the ARRL in their fact finding
mission mentioned above.

All communicators, both professional and amateur sincerely hope the power
line industry discovers a technical solution to the BPL interference issue
so we can all enjoy the benefits of having broadband internet to our home
via power lines.

Constantine T. Papas
Colonel United States Army Retired

Here's my note to the media assistant....probably won't do much good but I
feel better anyway.

73 - Dino KLØS/4

-----------
As a licensed amateur radio operator, FCC call sign KL0S, I am very
concerned with the spectrum pollution (interference) associated with the new
broadband over power line technology the FCC is considering for approval for
use by the power line industry.

As a retired U.S. Army officer I have had extensive experience in radio
communications operations under active electronic warfare conditions and
many of the those experiences mirror the noise conditions that will
potentially be generated by the BPL initiative.

The industry plans to use a form of power line carrier (PLC) technology
using existing low and medium-voltage power lines to deliver broadband
(internet) services to homes and businesses. It uses frequencies between 2
MHz and 80 MHz; and ARRL laboratory and in field tests have documented that
BPL causes interference (spectrum pollution) to HF and low-VHF frequencies
currently in use by the Government (Department of Defense and Homeland
Security), law enforcement agencies, amateur radio and commercial
businesses. Further, the current BPL technology itself may be susceptible
to transmissions from other existing services.

To appreciate the level of interference, please visit the ARRL web page at
[http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1] and listen to the BPL
interference recorded from one of the FCC test sites. As I mentioned the
noise portrayed eerily matches that encountered during electronic warfare
conditions. Contrary to power industry claims, the ARRL tests convinced me
the current BPL technology will generate major
interference to existing services, including amateur radio, public service
and and potentially other Homeland Security communications activities such
as those conducted under the MARS AND SHARES programs. The ARRL President,
Mr. Jim Haynie is prepared to provide the FCC with more details. He can be
reached at 214-366-9400 or

Regarding the FCC Notice of Inquiry, I recommend tightening of the FCC Part
15 requirements and/or standards for power line carrier (PLC) devices to
assure they will not cause interference (or be susceptible from) to existing
services. In addition, I would appreciate documentation from the FCC that
adequate testing has been performed to assure broadband over power line
technology will not cause interference to existing services. Hopefully, this
testing will be well documented and made public before the technology is
approved for use by the power line industry.

I recently had occasion to work with my local power provider, Dominion
Virginia Power on a power distribution system generated incidental radiator
that caused significant noise at my home. The power company worked
expeditiously to find and resolve the problem, however I can only imagine
the magnitude of the problems that potentially will be initiated by BPL type
incidental radiation levels. With only that small problem (a faulty
underground cable splice) my ability to communicate was severely degraded,
much to the same degree as discovered by the ARRL in their fact finding
mission mentioned above.

All communicators, both professional and amateur sincerely hope the power
line industry discovers a technical solution to the BPL interference issue
so we can all enjoy the benefits of having broadband internet to our home
via power lines.

Constantine T. Papas
Colonel United States Army Retired

"jason" wrote in message
...
Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I
don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.

Well, personally, I took offence at the general comments about amateur radio
operators:

"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 and who have overcome enormous technical
obstacles to make BPL a reality in the U.S. "

Of course, those in the USA will probably be disputing much more than just
that, but as I am not in the US I could not make comment on the entire BPL
issue.

No doubt, we in Australia will soon be facing similar debates as the BPL
experiments continue down here!!! It would be good if the FCC decides BPL
is too risky - kind of set an example that operators in other countries can
use to argue their point!

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ


"Marty" wrote in message
...
"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

Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading
the
media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about
amateurs! My reply to her is copied below.

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ
----------------------

Dear Ms Patterson

Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA
does
not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media
release
as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as
such,
I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted.

Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer"
that
has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what
equipment
we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the
entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no
interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is
a
concept that is lost on people such as yourself.

The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your
comment
in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive
interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any
interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the
High
Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research
will
tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0
MHz
to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use
kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence.

Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and
apologise to the international amateur radio community for your
misguided
and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will
see
your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched
garbage that it is.

Yours most disrespectfully

Martin Howells
Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ

"jason" wrote in message
...
Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I
don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.

Well, personally, I took offence at the general comments about amateur radio
operators:

"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 and who have overcome enormous technical
obstacles to make BPL a reality in the U.S. "

Of course, those in the USA will probably be disputing much more than just
that, but as I am not in the US I could not make comment on the entire BPL
issue.

No doubt, we in Australia will soon be facing similar debates as the BPL
experiments continue down here!!! It would be good if the FCC decides BPL
is too risky - kind of set an example that operators in other countries can
use to argue their point!

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ


"Marty" wrote in message
...
"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

Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading
the
media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about
amateurs! My reply to her is copied below.

Cheers

Martin, VK2UMJ
----------------------

Dear Ms Patterson

Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA
does
not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media
release
as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as
such,
I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted.

Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer"
that
has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what
equipment
we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the
entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no
interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is
a
concept that is lost on people such as yourself.

The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your
comment
in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive
interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any
interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the
High
Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research
will
tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0
MHz
to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use
kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence.

Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and
apologise to the international amateur radio community for your
misguided
and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will
see
your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched
garbage that it is.

Yours most disrespectfully

Martin Howells
Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ

jason wrote:
Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.

Is that clear enough??

jason wrote:
Hello,

No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I don't
want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few
lines in your own words without pointing towards websites.

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.

Is that clear enough??

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.


FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.
Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds. For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection
restrictions is in the tens of thousands.

You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.


FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.

Is that clear enough??


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working with
the power companies to fix the problem.

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

God Bless,

Chip N1IR

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.


FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.
Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds. For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection
restrictions is in the tens of thousands.

You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.


FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.

Is that clear enough??


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working with
the power companies to fix the problem.

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

God Bless,

Chip N1IR

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you don
not connect to it.

FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

Umm..."rf propagation"?? I thought you designed antennas...you don't know
THIS?

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.
Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash'

Hmmm...ok, this is for "rural internet access." "Looking out the window, what
do I see? A POWER POLE!!" Oh, 50ft away or so from the house. Hmmm...BPL at
50ft....??!!?? (Oh, and the car is a T5 Volvo...5 spd manual, of course...no
stickers...just speed & style)

Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

Of thousands? Last time I checked, most houses had powerlines SOMEWHERE in the
general vicinity.

FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.

See above. Ever tried to get the bloody power companies to fix an arcing
insulator??

FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working
with
the power companies to fix the problem.

Hmm...Germany and Japan are a "vocal minority?" Both tried it, and discarded
it due to interference. THAT "fixed it," but good.

WLAN (mebbe 5.6 ghz or so? W/a cable feed?) is a good idea, tho. PLC is not.
Duke Power (Duke Energy) is working on some trials.....I unwittingly drove thru
one neighborhood w/PLC and later realized that I had done so....interference
ranges from S5 to S9+ on my mobile. The houses are not much farther away from
the PL than my mobile. Empirical data says that interference would be present
there, also. I had shut off the mobile as I wished to save my ears. Thought
something had started arcing nearby. Heh...and just wait 'til the sunspot
cycle starts back upwards....

A

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you don
not connect to it.

FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

Umm..."rf propagation"?? I thought you designed antennas...you don't know
THIS?

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.
Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash'

Hmmm...ok, this is for "rural internet access." "Looking out the window, what
do I see? A POWER POLE!!" Oh, 50ft away or so from the house. Hmmm...BPL at
50ft....??!!?? (Oh, and the car is a T5 Volvo...5 spd manual, of course...no
stickers...just speed & style)

Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

Of thousands? Last time I checked, most houses had powerlines SOMEWHERE in the
general vicinity.

FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.

See above. Ever tried to get the bloody power companies to fix an arcing
insulator??

FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working
with
the power companies to fix the problem.

Hmm...Germany and Japan are a "vocal minority?" Both tried it, and discarded
it due to interference. THAT "fixed it," but good.

WLAN (mebbe 5.6 ghz or so? W/a cable feed?) is a good idea, tho. PLC is not.
Duke Power (Duke Energy) is working on some trials.....I unwittingly drove thru
one neighborhood w/PLC and later realized that I had done so....interference
ranges from S5 to S9+ on my mobile. The houses are not much farther away from
the PL than my mobile. Empirical data says that interference would be present
there, also. I had shut off the mobile as I wished to save my ears. Thought
something had started arcing nearby. Heh...and just wait 'til the sunspot
cycle starts back upwards....

A

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.


FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

It is true that at least one (proprietary - they're all proprietary)
implementation of BPL forgoes the issues associated with coupling around the
transformer that steps the MV distribution down to 220 VAC for the feed to
the house by using 802.11b to link from a distribution point (essentially an
802.11b access point) to the computers in nearby houses.

However ...

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

Even the "flavor" that uses 802.11b to get from the pole to your house
radiates a LOT of interference in the HF/low VHF bands it uses from the
(nearby) distribution lines.

The "main.net" system operated by PP&L in Emmaus, PA measured -60 dBm
(that's S9+13 dB) of interference in a 3 kHz bandwidth, using an "Outbacker
Joey" short whip clamped to the roof rack of my Ford Explorer.

That rendered 20m SSB signals in the range of -80 to -100 dBm (which would
normally be quite usable) unintelligible.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.
Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel
(pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the
annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide
is
in the hundreds.

I'm not sure where you come up with the assertion that the number of hams
affected is "in the hundreds."

Are you referring to the number affected by the current, very limited "trial
area" deployments of BPL? If so, the numbers are probably relatively small.
HOWEVER, if BPL is deployed more or less ubiquitously, there will be few
hams far enough from a power line to not be SERIOUSLY affected.

For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection restrictions
is in the tens of thousands.

True, and that's a valid crusade as well, but how does the existence of that
problem imply that we should ignore the problem of BPL?
(Remember, BPL will not affect just those who want to/can afford to erect
towers, but ALL hams that use HF/6m ... even with simple dipoles or
verticals.)

You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.


FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem.
However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.

Right now, the FCC rules don't require squat other than for the Part 15
device (in this case the BPL system) to shut down unless/until interference
can be eliminated. The radiated emission limits for BPL are WAY too high.
The "mitigation techniques" that the FCC and the BPL folks pay lip service
to are not in place, nor is it at all clear that they will be effective,
even if the power companies are responsive (and we've seen how responsive
most of them are [not]).

Is that clear enough??

Is that clear enough???

FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working
with
the power companies to fix the problem.

I don't see it as a "vocal minority" ... all of the hams I know are
concerned that BPL will trash the HF bands and that the FCC and the power
companies will do little/nothing about it (the FCC hasn't acted on
complaints thusfar ... they've been buried in OET rather than being dealt
with in accordance with the existing rules.)

If someone could show me a technically sound way that BPL could use the HF
spectrum without trashing us, I'd have no problem with it. The problem is
that, as it is, it *does* trash us in any area where it's deployed and there
is no solution in sight.

There is one BPL technology - from a company called "Corridor" - that
appears to avoid the problem by not using the HF/low VHF bands ...

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us
with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it
that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

"The press" feeds on controversy and frequently distorts things - at best in
the interest of making the story more "sensational, at the worst because
they have taken sides and have their own agenda to promote rather than
objectively and dispassionately reporting the facts.

Carl - wk3c

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.


FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

It is true that at least one (proprietary - they're all proprietary)
implementation of BPL forgoes the issues associated with coupling around the
transformer that steps the MV distribution down to 220 VAC for the feed to
the house by using 802.11b to link from a distribution point (essentially an
802.11b access point) to the computers in nearby houses.

However ...

It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

Even the "flavor" that uses 802.11b to get from the pole to your house
radiates a LOT of interference in the HF/low VHF bands it uses from the
(nearby) distribution lines.

The "main.net" system operated by PP&L in Emmaus, PA measured -60 dBm
(that's S9+13 dB) of interference in a 3 kHz bandwidth, using an "Outbacker
Joey" short whip clamped to the roof rack of my Ford Explorer.

That rendered 20m SSB signals in the range of -80 to -100 dBm (which would
normally be quite usable) unintelligible.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.
Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel
(pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the
annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide
is
in the hundreds.

I'm not sure where you come up with the assertion that the number of hams
affected is "in the hundreds."

Are you referring to the number affected by the current, very limited "trial
area" deployments of BPL? If so, the numbers are probably relatively small.
HOWEVER, if BPL is deployed more or less ubiquitously, there will be few
hams far enough from a power line to not be SERIOUSLY affected.

For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection restrictions
is in the tens of thousands.

True, and that's a valid crusade as well, but how does the existence of that
problem imply that we should ignore the problem of BPL?
(Remember, BPL will not affect just those who want to/can afford to erect
towers, but ALL hams that use HF/6m ... even with simple dipoles or
verticals.)

You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.


FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem.
However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.

Right now, the FCC rules don't require squat other than for the Part 15
device (in this case the BPL system) to shut down unless/until interference
can be eliminated. The radiated emission limits for BPL are WAY too high.
The "mitigation techniques" that the FCC and the BPL folks pay lip service
to are not in place, nor is it at all clear that they will be effective,
even if the power companies are responsive (and we've seen how responsive
most of them are [not]).

Is that clear enough??

Is that clear enough???

FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working
with
the power companies to fix the problem.

I don't see it as a "vocal minority" ... all of the hams I know are
concerned that BPL will trash the HF bands and that the FCC and the power
companies will do little/nothing about it (the FCC hasn't acted on
complaints thusfar ... they've been buried in OET rather than being dealt
with in accordance with the existing rules.)

If someone could show me a technically sound way that BPL could use the HF
spectrum without trashing us, I'd have no problem with it. The problem is
that, as it is, it *does* trash us in any area where it's deployed and there
is no solution in sight.

There is one BPL technology - from a company called "Corridor" - that
appears to avoid the problem by not using the HF/low VHF bands ...

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us
with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it
that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

"The press" feeds on controversy and frequently distorts things - at best in
the interest of making the story more "sensational, at the worst because
they have taken sides and have their own agenda to promote rather than
objectively and dispassionately reporting the facts.

Carl - wk3c

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:47:50 +0000, Fractenna wrote:

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.


FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the
house?

FULL FACT: plugin smart appliances are being promoted. How do they work
if the signal does not come into the house.


It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.

FULL FACT: These levels are well documented and allowable within 33M of
any power line or household appliance.

affected nation wide is in the hundreds. For comparison, the number of
hams affected by tower erection restrictions is in the tens of
thousands.

FULL FACT: I am able to purchase a house where there are no tower
restrictions. With BPL, I have no choice except to disconnect from the
power grid on a house far from powerlines. Infact, you would need to be a
mile from powerlines.


FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem.
However, the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such
circumstances.

FULL FACT: So far, none of the hams reported anyone adding filtering and
the BPL industry has been unresponsive. Also, I listen to radios in the
bands from DC to daylight. I prefer to listen to foreign broadcast along
with amateur bands. How would they be able to keep ALL the bands clean?
Blocking foreign broadcast in any country is against the international
law. Our government must protect these bands from interference.


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working
with the power companies to fix the problem.

FULL FACT: Once BPL has a foothold, there will be very little chance of
having any issues resolved. All the other countries who tried BPL dumped
it.

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view
us with the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date.
Why is it that they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

FULL FACT: The media is for big business, owned by big business and
promotes big business. That is why the press has lost most all it's
respect from the people.

God Bless,

Chip N1IR

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:47:50 +0000, Fractenna wrote:

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don not connect to it.


FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the
house?

FULL FACT: plugin smart appliances are being promoted. How do they work
if the signal does not come into the house.


It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.

FULL FACT: These levels are well documented and allowable within 33M of
any power line or household appliance.

affected nation wide is in the hundreds. For comparison, the number of
hams affected by tower erection restrictions is in the tens of
thousands.

FULL FACT: I am able to purchase a house where there are no tower
restrictions. With BPL, I have no choice except to disconnect from the
power grid on a house far from powerlines. Infact, you would need to be a
mile from powerlines.


FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem.
However, the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such
circumstances.

FULL FACT: So far, none of the hams reported anyone adding filtering and
the BPL industry has been unresponsive. Also, I listen to radios in the
bands from DC to daylight. I prefer to listen to foreign broadcast along
with amateur bands. How would they be able to keep ALL the bands clean?
Blocking foreign broadcast in any country is against the international
law. Our government must protect these bands from interference.


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working
with the power companies to fix the problem.

FULL FACT: Once BPL has a foothold, there will be very little chance of
having any issues resolved. All the other countries who tried BPL dumped
it.

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view
us with the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date.
Why is it that they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

FULL FACT: The media is for big business, owned by big business and
promotes big business. That is why the press has lost most all it's
respect from the people.

God Bless,

Chip N1IR

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.

===================================

Radio enthusiasts are not their enemy. At most they may become an
insignificant nuisance to the capitalist system.

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.

===================================

Radio enthusiasts are not their enemy. At most they may become an
insignificant nuisance to the capitalist system.

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

Myopic views and a redefined issue to suit self serving logic solves
nothing. To this point it should be obvious that solutions are not
being solicited - as the administration and lobbyists see it, there is
no problem.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker

The standard industrial-political complex branding of targets of
interest.

Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

I'm not sure where you come up with the assertion that the number of hams
affected is "in the hundreds."

Such challenges are typically deflected by those entitled to revenue
enhancements (more properly known as the Wall Street Welfare State).

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date.
"The press" feeds on controversy and frequently distorts things - at best in
the interest of making the story more "sensational, at the worst because
they have taken sides and have their own agenda to promote rather than
objectively and dispassionately reporting the facts.

I'm not sure which is worse, this contrivance of the "press" as a foil
(more static than signal); or the disconnect with the FCC's puppet
activities in the broader scope of aggregating media into fewer and
fewer hands. If the quote above is a complaint outside of this former
thread's narrow special interest, it should be obvious that this "new"
problem has been cultivated by the administration's puppet master
activity. With the balkanization of grievances, no one is worrying
about the greater systemic poisoning.

The stale right wing gasp of the threat of liberal media is out dated
and has been a wheeze for nearly two decades. They have been using
this eviscerated rag doll as a punching bag for so long, that all of
the stuffing has been scattered to the winds and it is simply a
tattered scrap of cloth whipping in the wind. Perhaps the right
whiners are complaining of rug burn as their limp wrists get caught up
in the shreds.

I've been following this silly notion of petitioning the FCC for
redress in just one particular - BPL - when the problem is obvious on
the face of it: complete indifference from the outset due to the
larger scope issues. Why do they have to listen anyway? How would
you know if they did? We have just one advantage over the Reds who
allowed their comrades to offer protest - we save money by not sending
them to the Gulags. The discount for ignoring these "comments"
outweighs the construction costs alone. [However, now that we are
embarked on no-bid contracts (that same Welfare State again), then
that may soon re-vitalize industries that the right wing has mined
from the communist economic model.]

The entire mandate of the Communication Act of 1932 has been set out
on the curb for pick-up and if it doesn't impact a QSO, I doubt if
there would be any ruffled feathers here.

Such provincialism is self castration. Looking out for
your(our)self(selves) and the Devil take the rest is a myopic attitude
guaranteed to eliminate future generations.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

Myopic views and a redefined issue to suit self serving logic solves
nothing. To this point it should be obvious that solutions are not
being solicited - as the administration and lobbyists see it, there is
no problem.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker

The standard industrial-political complex branding of targets of
interest.

Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

I'm not sure where you come up with the assertion that the number of hams
affected is "in the hundreds."

Such challenges are typically deflected by those entitled to revenue
enhancements (more properly known as the Wall Street Welfare State).

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date.
"The press" feeds on controversy and frequently distorts things - at best in
the interest of making the story more "sensational, at the worst because
they have taken sides and have their own agenda to promote rather than
objectively and dispassionately reporting the facts.

I'm not sure which is worse, this contrivance of the "press" as a foil
(more static than signal); or the disconnect with the FCC's puppet
activities in the broader scope of aggregating media into fewer and
fewer hands. If the quote above is a complaint outside of this former
thread's narrow special interest, it should be obvious that this "new"
problem has been cultivated by the administration's puppet master
activity. With the balkanization of grievances, no one is worrying
about the greater systemic poisoning.

The stale right wing gasp of the threat of liberal media is out dated
and has been a wheeze for nearly two decades. They have been using
this eviscerated rag doll as a punching bag for so long, that all of
the stuffing has been scattered to the winds and it is simply a
tattered scrap of cloth whipping in the wind. Perhaps the right
whiners are complaining of rug burn as their limp wrists get caught up
in the shreds.

I've been following this silly notion of petitioning the FCC for
redress in just one particular - BPL - when the problem is obvious on
the face of it: complete indifference from the outset due to the
larger scope issues. Why do they have to listen anyway? How would
you know if they did? We have just one advantage over the Reds who
allowed their comrades to offer protest - we save money by not sending
them to the Gulags. The discount for ignoring these "comments"
outweighs the construction costs alone. [However, now that we are
embarked on no-bid contracts (that same Welfare State again), then
that may soon re-vitalize industries that the right wing has mined
from the communist economic model.]

The entire mandate of the Communication Act of 1932 has been set out
on the curb for pick-up and if it doesn't impact a QSO, I doubt if
there would be any ruffled feathers here.

Such provincialism is self castration. Looking out for
your(our)self(selves) and the Devil take the rest is a myopic attitude
guaranteed to eliminate future generations.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Chip, As much as I respect your knowledge there are BPL issues that are
simple to understand and problems that have not been resolved.

Fractenna wrote:

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don[sic] not connect to it.



FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?


SNIP: Well Chip, since the pole is only 20 feet from the ham shack ...
What can I expect if it deploys here in suburban Concord NH?

30 uV/meter [AKA ~ S9] at 7 meters from the pole is pretty significant
when my station is 7 to 10 meters meters from the pole.

Cedar Rapids ... see below.


It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.


FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.

SNIP: Well Chip, since 30 uV/meter at 10 meters puts me [at 7 to 10
meters from the pole] in the fairly close field what will my noise
levels be?


Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

SNIP: There is NO BASIS for that assumption!! BPL has not been tested in
an densely Amateur Radio populated community. I live in a small town of
slightly more than 4500 people and we have eight [8] hams in town. There
is approximately one [1] amateur operator for every 420 citizens of the
USA. [700,000 hams/300 million citizens]. Where is the BPL data to
support that assumption?

For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection
restrictions is in the tens of thousands.

SNIP: Red Herring ... non sequitor. But, they can still operate with
'stealth antennas' and a quiet environment.



You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.



FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.



SNIP: The ARRL has entered the case of W0SR because mitigation has not
worked after more than 2 months of effort in the case of Jim Spencer,
W0SR, in Cedar Rapids Iowa, reference your statement above. Jim is in a
BPL test area and has been off the air for two months while the supplier
has tried unsuccessfully to mitigate the noise.
Reference http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/15/2/

Boeing, a highly reputable Aerospace and Civil Aviation Corporation has
made the following comment:

"Boeing told the FCC that Commission-proposed interference mitigation
techniques "are INADEQUATE [emphasis added] to protect safety of life
aeronautical HF communications services." The aircraft manufacturer
urged the FCC to "carefully investigate these issues" before adopting
rules to authorize BPL networks in spectrum used by aeronautical HF
radio services."
[Ref: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/24/1/?nc=1

Is that clear enough??



SNIP: The original request was for a simple and clear statement of the
issue. I offer that I made a simple [elementary school level] level of
issue statement. Make the principle point so that it is understood [As a
former teacher you recognize that a little hyperbole is an acceptable
part of the teaching tool]. Once the principle is understood then
advancing the discussion to a higher more mature level of understanding
is possible.


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working with
the power companies to fix the problem.

SNIP: In the absence of data to the contrary, I refuse to believe that
there is a non vocal majority who are advocating BPL. [The antithesis to
your hypothesis].

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

Once again, STILL ??, the press is/maybe wrong!!

I understand that on 22 June 2004 President Bush made the following
comments in a speech to the Department of Commerce.

" ... We need to get broadband to more Americans and so, therefore, I
want to talk about two other ways to get broadband to the consumer. We
need to use our power lines better. They go everywhere. It seems to make
sense, doesn't it, if what you're looking for is avenues into the home.
Well, electricity goes into the home. And so one great opportunity is to
spread broadband throughout America via our power lines.

And one of the problems we've got here is that the Commerce Department
has had to develop technical standards that will make sure that our
broadband can go across power lines without unnecessary interference. So
it's a technological problem. It's a technological issue. It turns out
that sometimes the competition of broadband and electricity just doesn't
go too good across one line. And so -- if I could put it in simple
vernacular. And so, therefore, the Commerce Department is helping to
sort through these issues so that broadband access will be available
through -- by our power companies..."
[Ref: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040624-7.html

So, the executive branch has made up it's mind. I wonder if there is
credible and competent technical dissent in the Department of Commerce?

Chip, I am still waiting for public disclosure on successful mitigation
techniques. My suspicion is that when Hams complain at a later date the
argument will be dismissed as 'you had you chance and didn't make your
case'. Capital Investment wins...

Successful mitigation for the Amateur Radio market requires suppressing
8 portions of the HF spectrum for a total of 4.25 MHz [Ham and MARS] or
15% of the available spectrum. Other licensed services will also require
some level of mitigation. Where is the data that supports a successful
mitigation technology? How much suppression is required and under what
conditions ... -40 dB, -50 dB, etc. What is the capital investment for
suppression? Is the Rate of Return equitable for our investors? What are
the HF susceptibilities to 1.5 KW PEP within those 8 HF segments? Are
additional suppression techniques required for susceptibility? Will
susceptibility issues be local or distributed? What about the capital
investment and rate of return on this issue?

If BPL is proposed in my area I will be at all meetings raising the
mitigation technical and business issues.

Chip, As much as I respect your knowledge there are BPL issues that are
simple to understand and problems that have not been resolved.

Fractenna wrote:

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don[sic] not connect to it.



FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?


SNIP: Well Chip, since the pole is only 20 feet from the ham shack ...
What can I expect if it deploys here in suburban Concord NH?

30 uV/meter [AKA ~ S9] at 7 meters from the pole is pretty significant
when my station is 7 to 10 meters meters from the pole.

Cedar Rapids ... see below.


It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.


FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.

SNIP: Well Chip, since 30 uV/meter at 10 meters puts me [at 7 to 10
meters from the pole] in the fairly close field what will my noise
levels be?


Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

SNIP: There is NO BASIS for that assumption!! BPL has not been tested in
an densely Amateur Radio populated community. I live in a small town of
slightly more than 4500 people and we have eight [8] hams in town. There
is approximately one [1] amateur operator for every 420 citizens of the
USA. [700,000 hams/300 million citizens]. Where is the BPL data to
support that assumption?

For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection
restrictions is in the tens of thousands.

SNIP: Red Herring ... non sequitor. But, they can still operate with
'stealth antennas' and a quiet environment.



You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.



FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.



SNIP: The ARRL has entered the case of W0SR because mitigation has not
worked after more than 2 months of effort in the case of Jim Spencer,
W0SR, in Cedar Rapids Iowa, reference your statement above. Jim is in a
BPL test area and has been off the air for two months while the supplier
has tried unsuccessfully to mitigate the noise.
Reference http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/15/2/

Boeing, a highly reputable Aerospace and Civil Aviation Corporation has
made the following comment:

"Boeing told the FCC that Commission-proposed interference mitigation
techniques "are INADEQUATE [emphasis added] to protect safety of life
aeronautical HF communications services." The aircraft manufacturer
urged the FCC to "carefully investigate these issues" before adopting
rules to authorize BPL networks in spectrum used by aeronautical HF
radio services."
[Ref: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/24/1/?nc=1

Is that clear enough??



SNIP: The original request was for a simple and clear statement of the
issue. I offer that I made a simple [elementary school level] level of
issue statement. Make the principle point so that it is understood [As a
former teacher you recognize that a little hyperbole is an acceptable
part of the teaching tool]. Once the principle is understood then
advancing the discussion to a higher more mature level of understanding
is possible.


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working with
the power companies to fix the problem.

SNIP: In the absence of data to the contrary, I refuse to believe that
there is a non vocal majority who are advocating BPL. [The antithesis to
your hypothesis].

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

Once again, STILL ??, the press is/maybe wrong!!

I understand that on 22 June 2004 President Bush made the following
comments in a speech to the Department of Commerce.

" ... We need to get broadband to more Americans and so, therefore, I
want to talk about two other ways to get broadband to the consumer. We
need to use our power lines better. They go everywhere. It seems to make
sense, doesn't it, if what you're looking for is avenues into the home.
Well, electricity goes into the home. And so one great opportunity is to
spread broadband throughout America via our power lines.

And one of the problems we've got here is that the Commerce Department
has had to develop technical standards that will make sure that our
broadband can go across power lines without unnecessary interference. So
it's a technological problem. It's a technological issue. It turns out
that sometimes the competition of broadband and electricity just doesn't
go too good across one line. And so -- if I could put it in simple
vernacular. And so, therefore, the Commerce Department is helping to
sort through these issues so that broadband access will be available
through -- by our power companies..."
[Ref: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040624-7.html

So, the executive branch has made up it's mind. I wonder if there is
credible and competent technical dissent in the Department of Commerce?

Chip, I am still waiting for public disclosure on successful mitigation
techniques. My suspicion is that when Hams complain at a later date the
argument will be dismissed as 'you had you chance and didn't make your
case'. Capital Investment wins...

Successful mitigation for the Amateur Radio market requires suppressing
8 portions of the HF spectrum for a total of 4.25 MHz [Ham and MARS] or
15% of the available spectrum. Other licensed services will also require
some level of mitigation. Where is the data that supports a successful
mitigation technology? How much suppression is required and under what
conditions ... -40 dB, -50 dB, etc. What is the capital investment for
suppression? Is the Rate of Return equitable for our investors? What are
the HF susceptibilities to 1.5 KW PEP within those 8 HF segments? Are
additional suppression techniques required for susceptibility? Will
susceptibility issues be local or distributed? What about the capital
investment and rate of return on this issue?

If BPL is proposed in my area I will be at all meetings raising the
mitigation technical and business issues.

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


....and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


....and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Hey! Do that for me...with trepidation.

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

"william ewald" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jun 2004 01:10:02 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

yea right said:

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


...and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Who is Fractenna?

Total posts by Fractenna, 6560 in rec.radio.antenna, containing the
following keywords or phrases, arranged by times used :

fractal antenna, 1140
Phil, 769
patent, 304
Fractal Antenna Systems (or FAS), 289
legal, 221
abuse, 171
copyright, 168
Fractal Antenna Reflector, 148
libel, 137
attack, 126
bogus, 125
fraud, 118
lies, 112
malicious. 112
harassment, 110
illegal, 92
lawsuit, 86
hate, 83
credibility, 75
Patent pending, 75
sue, 71
This thread is closed, 69
public notice, 65
lawyer, 63
warning, 63
My attorney, 62
Your attorney, 62
defamation, 58
defend, 58
threat, 58
fraudulent, 56
abusive, 50
counsel, 50
litigation, 48
threatening, 47
liar, 41
harassing, 39
patent Infringement, 38
destroy. 37
distortion, 31
criminal, 28
obsession, 27
Wakefield killer, 23
damages, 22
malign, 16
hatred, 15
pirating, 14
antisemitic, 13
www.n1IR.com, 13
death threat, 10
retraction, 9
offenders, 3
legal counsel, 2

Hey! Do that for me...with trepidation.

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

"william ewald" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jun 2004 01:10:02 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

yea right said:

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


...and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Who is Fractenna?

Total posts by Fractenna, 6560 in rec.radio.antenna, containing the
following keywords or phrases, arranged by times used :

fractal antenna, 1140
Phil, 769
patent, 304
Fractal Antenna Systems (or FAS), 289
legal, 221
abuse, 171
copyright, 168
Fractal Antenna Reflector, 148
libel, 137
attack, 126
bogus, 125
fraud, 118
lies, 112
malicious. 112
harassment, 110
illegal, 92
lawsuit, 86
hate, 83
credibility, 75
Patent pending, 75
sue, 71
This thread is closed, 69
public notice, 65
lawyer, 63
warning, 63
My attorney, 62
Your attorney, 62
defamation, 58
defend, 58
threat, 58
fraudulent, 56
abusive, 50
counsel, 50
litigation, 48
threatening, 47
liar, 41
harassing, 39
patent Infringement, 38
destroy. 37
distortion, 31
criminal, 28
obsession, 27
Wakefield killer, 23
damages, 22
malign, 16
hatred, 15
pirating, 14
antisemitic, 13
www.n1IR.com, 13
death threat, 10
retraction, 9
offenders, 3
legal counsel, 2