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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

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."

"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