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