If you don't understand the ultimate utility of the HF spectrum then rolls
eyes... SWL includes a whole world more than just broadcasting. Your
ignorance, or at least a very poor assumption, is showing. And BCB...

Thanks for your opinion.

Firsty, I am not the FCC. This issue was duly considered and carefully thought
through, so please don't use me as a proxy: they know more about the SW BCB
than me.

Second, I asked you to educate me: not because I'm clueless, but because I
wanted to give you the benefit of perhaps mentioning an aspect of this, that is
(allegedly) beyond the extant solutions and prescribed remedies of Part 15.

If you think its worthwhile then its worthwhile to you: I'm glad you enjoy it.
The issues a1) what is preventing you from getting the info in the multitude
of ways available; 2) what steps have you taken to mitigate the interference
(if it exists); 3) can you cite cases where --bona fide- broadcasts to North
America were uncopyable from all locations (with extant filtering methods) of a
residence because of BPL ?

As for non- BC SWL'ing, may we presume that the intended transmissions were not
made for your information nor benefit? If so, then how is one to presume that
eavesdropping from a residence as a form of entertainment needs to be assured
under all times and conditions?

It would be unfortunate to presume this is my argument: remedies have already
been prescribed due to these arguments being prevuiously made to the FCC. So,
why aren't they sufficient?

Please: some substance. Let's learn together--no malice intended nor sought.

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna"
Thanks for your opinion.
As for non- BC SWL'ing, may we presume
that the intended transmissions were not
made for your information nor benefit? If so,
then how is one to presume that eavesdropping
from a residence as a form of entertainment...

You're one of those brainwashed, Orwellian-fans.

You're living down to your well-established reputation as an idiot.

It is apparent that you'll not be convinced, so it is a waste of perfectly
good bits to argue further.

Oh, you ask me to cite references, I did.

You big fat jerk.

"Fractenna"
Thanks for your opinion.
As for non- BC SWL'ing, may we presume
that the intended transmissions were not
made for your information nor benefit? If so,
then how is one to presume that eavesdropping
from a residence as a form of entertainment...

You're one of those brainwashed, Orwellian-fans.

You're living down to your well-established reputation as an idiot.

It is apparent that you'll not be convinced, so it is a waste of perfectly
good bits to argue further.

Oh, you ask me to cite references, I did.

You big fat jerk.

My dear friend,

This is not a personal issue; I have faith that you can transcend your tone
here and say something that could be helpful in making your point compelling.

If the point is compelling, then it certainly would make your case , which
would undoubtedly be carefully echoed in the BPL issue.

Emotional gut reactions and name calling aren't the way to convince those who
make the decisions.

I tried; I am sorry I cannot help you unless you help yourself.

Best wishes,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
If you don't understand the ultimate utility of the HF spectrum then
rolls
eyes... SWL includes a whole world more than just broadcasting. Your
ignorance, or at least a very poor assumption, is showing. And BCB...

Thanks for your opinion.

Firsty, I am not the FCC. This issue was duly considered and carefully
thought
through, so please don't use me as a proxy: they know more about the SW
BCB
than me.

Second, I asked you to educate me: not because I'm clueless, but because I
wanted to give you the benefit of perhaps mentioning an aspect of this,
that is
(allegedly) beyond the extant solutions and prescribed remedies of Part
15.


Because the "extant solutions" will not work in the real world.

Why, we could save a lot of money and trouble if the product emission
requirements of Part 15 were eliminated. Then, the general population could
deal with interference problems on a "case-by-case" basis; if you were
experiencing an interference problem, all you would have to do is locate the
source and invoke the general "shall not cause degradation to licensed
services" clause, and the offending source would be quickly technically
fixed or permanently shut down.

Anybody who thinks this is practical must have a mental age of about 7 (and
pardon me if I'm insulting 7-year-olds).


Ed
wb6wsn

Why, we could save a lot of money and trouble if the product emission
requirements of Part 15 were eliminated.

Anybody who thinks this is practical must have a mental age of about 7 (and
pardon me if I'm insulting 7-year-olds).


Ed
wb6wsn


Surely no one is suggesting this, Ed.

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
If you don't understand the ultimate utility of the HF spectrum then
rolls
eyes... SWL includes a whole world more than just broadcasting. Your
ignorance, or at least a very poor assumption, is showing. And BCB...

Thanks for your opinion.

Firsty, I am not the FCC. This issue was duly considered and carefully
thought
through, so please don't use me as a proxy: they know more about the SW
BCB
than me.


With the caveat that I think the FCC is about the most open example of our
Federal government, I have to point out that "due consideration" is a real
hoot. Oh sure, issues move along in their majestic dance through the FCC's
bureaucracy, but, after all the technical discussion has been input, there's
a big, heavy political thumb on the scales of justice. Every FCC
Commissioner is a political appointee, and they are all professional
administrators, without a trace of experience in electromagnetics or
communications theory. Each Commissioner has his own philosophy that he
tries to bend the FCC toward, with top-down influence and an eye toward his
next career step. To think that hot-button political issues (internet access
for everyone) and special interests (what politician doesn't need money, if
only to periodically fund his re-election) don't guide the technical issues
is to be willfully naive.

Shocking as this may be, Fractenna (and my dog) just might know more about
some aspects of electromagnetics than one or more of the FCC Commissioners.
OTOH, FCC Commissioners have more friends, dress better, get more sex, and
are far more wealthy and articulate than either.


Ed
wb6wsn

Ouch. Even I wasn't going to be THAT succinct..

-SSB

Ed Price wrote:

With the caveat that I think the FCC is about the most open example of
our Federal government, I have to point out that "due consideration" is
a real hoot. Oh sure, issues move along in their majestic dance through
the FCC's bureaucracy, but, after all the technical discussion has been
input, there's a big, heavy political thumb on the scales of justice.
Every FCC Commissioner is a political appointee, and they are all
professional administrators, without a trace of experience in
electromagnetics or communications theory. Each Commissioner has his own
philosophy that he tries to bend the FCC toward, with top-down influence
and an eye toward his next career step. To think that hot-button
political issues (internet access for everyone) and special interests
(what politician doesn't need money, if only to periodically fund his
re-election) don't guide the technical issues is to be willfully naive.

Shocking as this may be, Fractenna (and my dog) just might know more
about some aspects of electromagnetics than one or more of the FCC
Commissioners. OTOH, FCC Commissioners have more friends, dress better,
get more sex, and are far more wealthy and articulate than either.


Ed
wb6wsn

FCC Commissioners have more friends, dress better,...
are far more wealthy and articulate than either.


Ed
wb6wsn

Mr. Powell is one bright guy, IMO. He, an attorney, has dozens of engineers
and scientists at his call, some of the very best in the country one may
presume. He has great respect for radio amateurs and our issues, also my
opinion.


You are right that he dresses better than me, at least for daily fare.

I think he knows what he's doing.

73,
Chip N1IR