BPL AOK!
 

For those who don't know it yet, the FCC approved modifications to Part 15
regarding BPL.

This is an extraordinary example of the FCC being both responsive to the
--need-for new technologies and innovative spectrum use, while invoking new
guidelines and requirements to assure dual use between licensed and unlicensed
users.

I agree with Mr. Powell's assessment that it was a "banner day". The FCC did a
spectacular job!

But, if you've followed my comments, you knew that this was my prediction for
some time...

73,
Chip N1IR

But for someone who comes on an amateur radio forum to gloat over
the probable destruction of the HF radio spectrum, I'll make an exception.

Will someone please tell me how to "killfile" this F***ING STUPID
TROLL? I haven't quite figured out how to do it in OE6. (That will
also save me from feeding this Troll, which I'm afraid I just did.)

Thanks...

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
For those who don't know it yet, the FCC approved modifications to Part 15
regarding BPL.

This is an extraordinary example of the FCC being both responsive to the
--need-for new technologies and innovative spectrum use, while invoking
new
guidelines and requirements to assure dual use between licensed and
unlicensed
users.

I agree with Mr. Powell's assessment that it was a "banner day". The FCC
did a
spectacular job!

But, if you've followed my comments, you knew that this was my prediction
for
some time...

73,
Chip N1IR

Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we have
final resolution;
2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor' is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR

(nt)

"Fractenna"
...regarding BPL.

BPL sucks.

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other, more suitable and much
wider, spectrum available way up the bands? Between improved DSL (higher
speed, much farther, as being implemented in the UK), Cable, WildBlue
(satellite), and soon Wi-Max (35km, 56Mbps), BPL will be nothing more than a
footnote.

In the future, some of those HF users being bothered by BPL might stoop to
doing a quick 'sweep' across the bands. This would cause the BPL DSP
algorithms to think that all frequencies are in local use thus lock-out ALL
the frequency bins and effectively shut down the link for several minutes.

BPL is a REALLY stupid concept. Obviously the HF signal is going to leak
out (and other HF is going to leak in). Dumb. Power lines aren't exactly
twisted pair (close, but no cigar).

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas

I couldn't agree more.

73,
Chip N1IR

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other, more suitable and much
wider, spectrum available way up the bands

Because the extant infrastructure is overly lossy at higher frequencies.

It IS extant infrastructure. Hard to argue that point, my friend.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the United
States.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)

73,
Chip N1IR

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

"Fractenna"
I couldn't agree more.

Yes, "none".

I'm glad that we agree on this point.

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other,
more suitable and much wider, spectrum available
way up the bands

"Fractenna"
Because the extant infrastructure is overly lossy at
higher frequencies.

I didn't say to use the power lines.

They could implement a low power system using the empty TV channels in each
location. Tons of bandwidth with no significant interference to anyone.

BPL is a stupid idea. It is probably a bad investment because it will likely
get eventually pulled off the market.

Do you have any logical rebuttal to the bit about the BPL leaking out and
ruining the HF spectrum (especially for SWLs, even more than Hams)?
-ANSWER THIS.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates.
One of the few points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)

Only one is (apparently) a gentleman.

Hint - the one without the receiver taped to his back during the first
debate. Religion with morals is, well, that's Dubya.

Do you have any logical rebuttal to the bit about the BPL leaking out and
ruining the HF spectrum (especially for SWLs, even more than Hams)?
-ANSWER THIS.

My pleasure.

The FCC has, in it's changes announced yesterday, recognized that an
occassional --bona fide-- RFI issue will arise. It has assumed that such cases
will, in some circumstances, occur,and made it the onus of the BPL providers to
provide for appropriate action and mitigation.

There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that the low level of RF produced
in BPL will propagate to bona fide interference levels, in the very or mid
far-field.

That means that few active fixed-location radio amateurs will be affected in
an adverse way: for example, most HF hams are inactive; and a vast majority of
hams are VHF only these days. A simple sensitivity analysis suggests potential
cases will be a few hundred in the worst, case, a few dozen in the best case.

You may hear BPL; the issue is whether it constitutes true interference. In a
vast, vast majority of cases the answer is, and will be, 'no'.

Thus cases will be rare rather than common. Certainly less common than, say,
TVI issues in the early years of television. (We all seem to forget that many
predicted the downfall of ham radio when tv came into common usage.)

As for SWL'ing, I am not sure, given the redundancy of bands and the internet,
that the broadcasts will be compromised. Is there evidence for this? Why is
this important? For example: other than some indescribable indulgence, is it
critical to hear Radio Tuva on the 30M band? Is the 40M band good enough ?

Would you be so kind as to ID? This screen you hide behind seems rather
compromising, and unnecessary.

73,
Chip N1IR

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

"Fractenna"
I couldn't agree more.

Yes, "none".

I'm glad that we agree on this point.


If you mean that fractal antennas have no impact on your life, I take this as
axiomatic.

I repeat, I agree that BPL has about as much future as fractal antennas. I
agree heartily; both have bright futures indeed!

73,
Chip N1IR

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the United
States.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone


Freak me up Scotty!
As they say in Bush country - Bulsheeeeeet!

BUm

Is it universities that are screwing up brains?

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other, more suitable and much
wider, spectrum available way up the bands

Because the extant infrastructure is overly lossy at higher frequencies.

It IS extant infrastructure. Hard to argue that point, my friend.


Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.
They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work. The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology. After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.

I beg to differ. I used the word properly.

They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.


Minor logistical issues; part of doing business.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work.

Incremental.

The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


Speculation; asserted but not shown.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Obviously there will be market locations where the business case is compelling;
others where it will be not. Are you saying that they haven't done the business
case? I don't see evidence that your assertions come from such analyses.

The important point is that ham radio is not a factor in the business case, in
my opinion. Ham radio: 'we did you already, didn't we?' Why should we belabor a
point already dealt with, and deal with in great sensitivity and fairness?.


Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.


Yes, I agree. Except the 'doomed' case sounds like 20 sigma, to me.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology.

That is SO wrong. Senator Kerry--I know as a fact--is VERY cognizant in telecom
matters, which include BPL. His staff is superb. I cannot speak from experience
regarding President Bush, although I like what I hear.

After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Sure it is. Infrastructure is not the same as implementation.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why
this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we
have
final resolution;
2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'
is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum
with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR


The "very best solution" would be to allow the utilities to use their
extensive system of power poles to string a fiberoptic cable to residences
(either direct, or maybe the last half-mile as an RF node). If the power
companies had spent their lobbying and legal money on installing this base,
a lot of people would now have high-speed net connections.

BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications
step that should be bypassed. You may gloat over your prediction accuracy,
but certainly not over the existence of any form of BPL.

Ed
wb6wsn

"Noname" wrote in message
...
BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

"Fractenna"
I couldn't agree more.

Yes, "none".

I'm glad that we agree on this point.





Guess it depends on your definition of "none". g


Ed
wb6wsn

Guess it depends on your definition of "none". g


Ed

Don't follow...what is context?

73,
Chip N1IR

BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications
step that should be bypassed.

Why wait? People have things to say and see right now.

Ultimately, all telecom systems transition. BPL has the good fortune of having
an infrastructure and a need right now; tomorrow; and for some time to come.

Seize the day! Solve a pressing problem. BPL looks very promising.

73,
Chip N1IR

You never were much for details, were you?

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

Note the (none) at the end of the sentence, before the period.

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

Guess it depends on your definition of "none". g


Ed


Don't follow...what is context?

73,
Chip N1IR

At the expense of interference on the HF bands? No thanks.

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications
step that should be bypassed.


Why wait? People have things to say and see right now.

Ultimately, all telecom systems transition. BPL has the good fortune of having
an infrastructure and a need right now; tomorrow; and for some time to come.

Seize the day! Solve a pressing problem. BPL looks very promising.

73,
Chip N1IR

Don't follow...are you saying that fractal antennas don't have a future? Why
would you say this?

It's a bit off topic, but if you know something I don't on this subject, it
would be a wonderful opportunity to learn. Feel free to ID and e-mail me off
NG.

73,
Chip N1IR

1. I ID every time I post. If you can't figure it out, it goes to show
your lack of attention to detail.
2. You started pushing your trip trap about fractal antennas when? Was
it 1999-ish? I have yet to see a single commercial offering of such
antennas. Draw your own conclusions there.

You mean you don't remember the sound thrashing I gave you last time,
when you got all defensive and evasive when asked for more performance
data on the antennas? I was willing to give you the benefit of the
doubt then, but you proved to me that your claims then were unfounded
and without basis, either in practical application or in theory.

I don't see a future for either BPL or fractal antennas.

'But they radiate!!" you say.. yeah, so do my rain gutters.

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

Don't follow...are you saying that fractal antennas don't have a future? Why
would you say this?

It's a bit off topic, but if you know something I don't on this subject, it
would be a wonderful opportunity to learn. Feel free to ID and e-mail me off
NG.

73,
Chip N1IR

1. I ID every time I post. If you can't figure it out, it goes to show

No, there is no positive ID.

your lack of attention to detail.

2. You started pushing your trip trap about fractal antennas when?

My discovery dates to 1988.

Was
it 1999-ish? I have yet to see a single commercial offering of such
antennas.

Well, let's see... today I worked on 6 different project/ orders for customers,
and three were commercial ones. Two were, well, something else:-) The other was
product dev.

The staff worked on 4 commercial ones.

At any given time there are anywhere many different commercial orders for
various different designs. Ergo, I respect the fact that your knowledge is
incomplete, and certainly not factually based. Happy to discuss this with your
further off line if you wish.

Draw your own conclusions there.


Money in the bank:-)

You mean you don't remember the sound thrashing I gave you last time,
when you got all defensive and evasive when asked for more performance
data on the antennas?

Nope. That's not factually true, and I don't know who you are. Who are you?

I was willing to give you the benefit of the
doubt then, but you proved to me that your claims then were unfounded
and without basis, either in practical application or in theory.


Hmmm...let's take oh, one wee example: what are the geometrical requirements
for frequency invariance? Who found them? What do they have to do with
fractals?

I don't see a future for either BPL or fractal antennas.


I appreciate your opinion.

Being somewhat better informed on the facts, I have a compelling reason to
opine that you are incorrect.


'But they radiate!!" you say.. yeah, so do my rain gutters.

I never, ever, said this.

-SSB

Love to know who you are, and to take this of-NG, as I requested.

With best wishes,
Chip N1IR

1. I ID every time I post. If you can't figure it out, it goes to show

A friend says you are a truckdriver in Michigan. Is this true? If so, it is
important to know your perspective given your comments.

Mind you, truckdriving is a noble and important job--but says nothing about a
knowledge base on antenna technologies; BPL; and so on.

Oh well, nice to beep ya!

10-4 there good buddy!

Chip N1IR

1. I ID every time I post. If you can't figure it out, it goes to show
your lack of attention to detail.

Hmmm...here's what I believe to be relevant; this knowledge may be incomplete
or wrong. Kindly correct? Apologies if wrong. No slight meant in any way. Still
don't know your proper callsign..assuming you have one.

You're named Chris.

You operate out of Michigan. Livingston.You live in the next town over
(Howell).

Most of the time you drive big rigs down the southern corridor into Nashville
and beyond.

You stop and eat often in E-Town Kentucky and don't like Po-Folks restaurant.
You eat at Cracker Barrel, but they all look the same...same fare.

Divorced? Two kids?

Me-a-n fisherman. Fish fear you. Prefer big mouth bass.

Sounds cool! Let me know the next time you're out fishin in KY!

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna"
Would you be so kind as to ID? This screen you
hide behind seems rather compromising, and
unnecessary.

Sure thing.

"Fractenna"
Would you be so kind as to ID? This screen you
hide behind seems rather compromising, and
unnecessary.

Sure thing.

Ed Price wrote:


"Fractenna" wrote in message
...

Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state
why this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we
have
final resolution;
2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll
factor' is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US
amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of
spectrum with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR



The "very best solution" would be to allow the utilities to use their
extensive system of power poles to string a fiberoptic cable to
residences (either direct, or maybe the last half-mile as an RF node).
If the power companies had spent their lobbying and legal money on
installing this base, a lot of people would now have high-speed net
connections.

Ed, if my understanding is correct, the power companies will indeed be
stringing fiber optic cables. There will be one going right by your
house if you are blessed to live in an bpl blessed neighborhood. THe
infrastructure must be built. I think there is an impression that the
power companies are just going to alligator clip a bpl signal on the
lines at the generating plant. Power lines are fair at delivering low
frequency and high power. At HF they aren't so hot.

So while you have the leaky, degraded signal with the dubious
convenience of being placed from the HV lines to the other side of your
line transformer (and let's just hope that has been worked out to be
safe) wouldn't it just make more sense to get the fast signal from the
proper source? Going right by your house....

BPL is the industry equivalent of putting bicycle tires on a top fuel
dragster.

A triumph of politics over technology.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Fractenna"
You're named Chris... snip
73,
Chip N1IR

Nathan, you're still an asshole.

"Fractenna"
There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that the
low level of RF produced in BPL will propagate to
bona fide interference levels, in the very or mid
far-field.

See ? There's the bit your not getting.

I listen to SW. My neighbor signs-up for BPL. We share a pole-mounted
transformer. The AC in MY house, under my desk, will be infested with BPL.

Eventually someone might drop by and install some ferrite onto my power line
drop and that might reduce the noise by a few dB at certain frequencies.

The whole thing is a kludge.

By the way, there are plenty of reports of interference in other countries
and in the US trials. Start with ARRL.org and read.

See ? There's the bit your not getting.

I listen to SW. My neighbor signs-up for BPL. We share a pole-mounted
transformer. The AC in MY house, under my desk, will be infested with BPL.

I confess I don't get it.

SWLing may be fun, but is it necessary--in the sense that many and maybe most
major foreign broadcasters already have web cast?

Genuinely--please correct my lack of knowledge on this: what is the value of SW
BCB in an era of web cast?

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna"
...what is the value of SW
BCB in an era of web cast?

There ya go.

If you're willing to trade-off the HF spectrum against YAIP (yet another
Internet Provider), and a sucky one at that, then BPL is a 'worthwhile'
(sic) technology. We'll mark you down as firmly pro-BPL, anti-amateur radio,
since you can spend your nights annoying people on the 'net rather than on
the air.

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 is the
wrong acronym and the wrong band. Again, YIIS.

You've picked an argument and lost (badly).

Didn't someone said that if you argue with idiot, you might look like one, or
it is hard to tell who is?

Troll, trollll, trolllll

BUm

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:48:08 -0300, "Noname"
wrote:

BPL sucks.

Hi OM,

It is worse than that. It is "science" by the mandate of government
definition. Worse² the definition is couched by the Republican Guard
in the economic terms of "business" which by the sheer inept example
of a flat-line Dow Average has been shown to be pure fantasy cloaked
as wisdom of the ages.

Philip Gold, a Neo-Con writer of some 800 articles, in his book
"Taking Back the Right" has characterized this administration's
abilities in managing ANY of these issues of policy as the work of
SUMOs (Screw Up - Move On).

The evidence of this Neanderthalic intelligence mounts every day, and
Worse³ it conforms to a substantial Neanderthalic following that focus
on their portion of the public wealth being slopped into the trough
for their benefit.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
(1200 new registered voters in 3 days)

Fracky, you have been a regular troll on this group for years. That is why
you posted it and you know it.

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why
this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we
have
final resolution;
2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'
is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum
with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:08:32 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

[snip]

| A triumph of politics over technology.
|
Bingo!

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:11:22 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

|(1200 new registered voters in 3 days)

If these folks haven't bothered to register before and educate
themselves on the issues, why should they be voting?

As a BTW, the citizens of Arizona have the right to initiate law via
the ballot. (There are a couple of propositions on the ballot to take
away this right, politicians not wanting any meddling by the common
folk, doncha ya know.)

One of these initiative propositions would require a simple proof of
citizenship when you register and when you show up at the polls. The
usual suspects, i.e., the newspapers, the Hispanic "activists", my
gerrymandered-into-office Hispanic congressman, etc. are needless to
say suffering from severe panty bunching over this.

They claim that there has never been any instance of non-citizens, or
those ineligible, registering or voting.

The evening news just reported that 45 residents of the county
lock-up, felons all, were just registered to vote. Some of them
several times.

I guess that's good, huh?

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
See ? There's the bit your not getting.

I listen to SW. My neighbor signs-up for BPL. We share a pole-mounted
transformer. The AC in MY house, under my desk, will be infested with BPL.

I confess I don't get it.

SWLing may be fun, but is it necessary--in the sense that many and maybe
most
major foreign broadcasters already have web cast?

Genuinely--please correct my lack of knowledge on this: what is the value
of SW
BCB in an era of web cast?

73,
Chip N1IR

Perhaps He WANTS to listen to the short wave bands! Who really gives a
crap about web cast, if he chooses to listen to the radio? I hate to break
this to you, but the world does not revolve around the bloody internet!


-30-

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