I do live in a dense urban area, so some of the interference I'm
getting may be from various household appliances. It's very
intermittent.

And all the power lines in my immediate neighborhood are above ground,
including a power pole and lines about 30 feet from my back door.

But I'll stop worrying about BPL.

Thanks,


(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...
CAwriter wrote:
Does BPL mean that I can just pack up my equipment? Or is it going to
be such a loser than I can ignore it?
I live a half mile east of a large power substation with high voltage
lines running north. Depending on the weather, I already have
occasional interference on all types of wireless reception and
transmission.

Presumably BPL is only going to be a last-mile sort of thing. So you will
not have to worry about the high voltage lines so much as the local lines in
your neighborhood.

The noise will be broadband, and will be pretty much everywhere.

Would satellite or digital radio be better to avoid the interference?

My personal feeling is that BPL will not be cost-effective anywhere and
that attempts to put it into place will not be very successful, so there
probably won't be too much to worry about. If you are outside of a
dense urban area, it probably won't be an issue in any case.

Nobody really knows. But in this age where a huge number of appliances
don't even come close to meeting Part 15 requirements, I think it's a wonder
that HF is as clean as it is.
--scott

MT,

Make up Two Sets of 100 Post Cards each.

These Post Cards will 'detail' BPL Interference Problems with
your Local AM/FM/TV Stations. Go around ringing Door Bells
and have your Neighbors and Friends Sign them.

Add a Postage Stamp and Mail them.

Send one set to your Congressman for them to "Inquire About"
to the Regional FCC Office.

Send the other Set to the Local AM/FM/TV Stations.

The 'business' of BPL will will Die Quickly, when it "Costs"
Big Business like AM/FM/TV Stations MONEY !

~ RHF
..
..
= = = "Mike Terry" wrote in message
= = = ...
WASHINGTON (AFX) - Federal regulators on Thursday gave the go-ahead to a new
technology that enables powerlines to offer Internet access. They also
adopted
a
rule that makes it easier for the Bell local phone companies to replace
their
copper wires with fiber.

Michael Powell, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, said the rules are aimed at speeding up the construction of
high-
speed networks.

His point was illustrated shortly after the FCC vote, when SBC
Communications
said it would "dramatically" speed up its plan to construct a fiber-based
network that reaches 18 million households.

Yet critics such as FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, argue the
new
rules will limit competition, keep prices unnecessarily high and confuse
investors.

Electric issue
The power line decision was meant to address concerns about interference.
The
FCC set specific rules for power companies on how to avoid interference,
especially with amateur radio operators.

The agency avoided the imposition of stricter rules regarding emergency 911,
disability access and contributions to universal service, a fund that
subsidizes
phone service in areas where it is expensive to deliver.

"By crafting a minimal regulatory framework," Powell said, the FCC is
advancing
a pro-competition agenda that will make high-speed Internet access a reality
for
almost every American. He noted that power lines go into nearly every U.S.
home.
Copps, who partly dissented with the decision, argued that the FCC's failure
to
address the stickier issues might actually hinder growth of powerline
technology. He said the threat of future regulation may make investors leery
of
getting involved.

"If we want investment in broadband over power line, we need certainty and
predictability," he said.

Fiber rules
Copps also objected to a new rule that exempts fiber "loops" in all
residential
neighborhoods from an FCC requirement that guarantees open access to
competing
Internet service providers.

The local loop is the mass of wires that extend from the nearest central
switching office of a local phone company to the homes and businesses it
serves.
The new exemption only applies to high-speed Internet service delivered by
fiber
connections to homes. It expands on a prior rule that exempted new
residential
developments hooked up with fiber.

Yet network operators still have to let rivals use copper and fiber wires to
sell regular phone service to consumers. That rule stems from a major 1996
law
whose aim was to foster competition in the local phone market.

Still, the vote reflects a big victory for the Bells. They have argued that
there's little incentive to spend big bucks to replace copper with fiber if
rivals can use those fiber connections as well. Fiber offers much greater
Internet speeds and the promise of new services such as pay TV over phone
lines.

The three Republicans on the five-member FCC board proved sympathetic to
that
argument. They say fiber loops ought to be exempted so investment won't get
stifled.

Still, the FCC board did require the local carriers to ensure that the fiber
loops extend to within 500 feet of residential homes.

Industry reaction
Copps and fellow Democrat Jonathan Adelstein said the rule is a setback to
competition.
"The local loop represents the prized last mile of communications," Copps
said.
"Putting it beyond the reach of competitors can only entrench incumbents who
already hold sway."

Consumer groups also blasted the decision.
"The FCC today took our country one giant step closer toward solidifying a
two-
company domination -- the local cable and telephone providers -- over the
consumer Internet market," said Gene Kimmelman, senior policy director of

Consumers Union.
The Bells, on the other hand, reacted with jubilation. Shortly after the FCC
vote, SBC said it will "dramatically accelerate" plans to build a
fiber-based
network "in two to three years rather than five years as previously
announced."
The fiber would replace copper in many parts of the network and offer the
promise of "super high-speed data, video and voice services," SBC said.

This story was supplied by CBSMarke****ch. For further information see
www.cbsmarke****ch.com.

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative
points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely
lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the
tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on
the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a
travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept
agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and
centered.

As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource. The fact is--the FCC violates the spirit and letter of the
Act when it comes to its stewardship of licensed radio and tv stations.
And no one in Congress cares because of copious amounts of NAB money.

In short, it all stinks.

JMHO,
John Figliozzi

On Saturday, October 23, 2004, at 06:15 AM, airwaves-digest wrote:


airwaves-digest Saturday, October 23 2004 Volume 2004 :
Number 246



In this issue:

[Airwaves] Bad news for Short Wave Listening

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:14:29 -0400
From: "Frank Dresser"
Subject: [Airwaves] Bad news for Short Wave Listening

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

:

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure
a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.

So, why doesn't the government also require newspapers to have a
balance of
voices and opinions?

What are the details of this rewrite? The old fairness doctrine was a
club
for partisians and others with an ax to grind. How would the new
fairness
doctrine keep the political partisans and kooks from harassing media
stations with nusiance complaints? Who would define what a nuisance
complaint is?

Should this new fairness doctrine cover internet radio, satellite
radio,
satellite TV, and cable TV?

"John Figliozzi" wrote in message
...
The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative
points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely
lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the
tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on
the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a
travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept
agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and
centered.

How did the fairness doctrine keep adgendas from spinning out of control? I
mentioned Chicago's Howard Miller show. That show would frequently get as
loud and obnoxious as Limbaugh or Hannity, back when the Fairness Doctrine
was in full force. I haven't seen their shows, but I understand Joe Pyne's
and Wally George's shows were similiar. The stations would run boring
counter programming on other hours to keep the FCC happy.

It's my opinion that the current popular bombastic programming is just
another radio copycat phenonema. Success breeds imatators.



As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource.

Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate. Would we be
better off if they were licensed? Justifications could be manufactured.
They use paper from trees grown on public land. They are transported on
public roads. Would newspapers serve us better if we gave the government
the right to change their ownership or shut them down?


The fact is--the FCC violates the spirit and letter of the
Act when it comes to its stewardship of licensed radio and tv stations.
And no one in Congress cares because of copious amounts of NAB money.

In short, it all stinks.

JMHO,
John Figliozzi

And I still think these are reasonably good questions:


How would the new fairness doctrine keep the political partisans and kooks
from harassing media stations with nusiance complaints? Who would define
what a nuisance complaint is?


Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"John Figliozzi" wrote in message
...

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative
points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely
lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the
tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on
the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a
travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept
agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and
centered.

As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource.

Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate. Would we be
better off if they were licensed? Justifications could be manufactured.
They use paper from trees grown on public land. They are transported on
public roads. Would newspapers serve us better if we gave the government
the right to change their ownership or shut them down?

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate. Have never been
(although USA Today comes close, if they had no other local competition) and probably
never will. So your argument breaks down around your presumption.

And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

How would the new fairness doctrine keep the political partisans and kooks
from harassing media stations with nusiance complaints? Who would define
what a nuisance complaint is?

"Responsible" spokespersons were, in the past, either sober citizens (and some maybe
not so sober) and representatives of community organisations, when I worked in radio.
The management would, in the interests of diversity, bring in the occasional citizen
who would espouse a view quite contrary to the company's. In any event, management
was capable of keeping the occasional raving lunatic off the air...unless the raving
lunatic succeeded in being entertaining enough that management would let him on, if
only to embarrass him.

And public files are thick with nuisance complaints. Why would you think that a
broadcaster should be immune to them? No need to restrict. Bring 'em on.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"John Figliozzi" wrote in message
...

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative
points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely
lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the
tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on
the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a
travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept
agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and
centered.

As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource.

Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate. Would we
be
better off if they were licensed? Justifications could be manufactured.
They use paper from trees grown on public land. They are transported on
public roads. Would newspapers serve us better if we gave the
government
the right to change their ownership or shut them down?

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate. Have
never been
(although USA Today comes close, if they had no other local competition)
and probably
never will. So your argument breaks down around your presumption.

OK, how about one paper towns? Would it be a good idea for the government
to ensure that the opponents of the editorial policy of the paper in a one
paper town got their own space in that paper?



And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

How would the new fairness doctrine keep the political partisans and
kooks
from harassing media stations with nusiance complaints? Who would
define
what a nuisance complaint is?

"Responsible" spokespersons were, in the past, either sober citizens (and
some maybe
not so sober) and representatives of community organisations, when I
worked in radio.
The management would, in the interests of diversity, bring in the
occasional citizen
who would espouse a view quite contrary to the company's. In any event,
management
was capable of keeping the occasional raving lunatic off the air...unless
the raving
lunatic succeeded in being entertaining enough that management would let
him on, if
only to embarrass him.

And public files are thick with nuisance complaints. Why would you think
that a
broadcaster should be immune to them? No need to restrict. Bring 'em on.


Politics in the US seems to be going through an unusually nasty period
lately. I have no doubt the Republicans and the Democrats would be actively
searching out or creating local pressure groups, in order to push media
stations around. Maybe I'm wrong about that and my opinion of the likely
politicization of the fairness doctrine just reflects the lower regard that
I've developed for both parties over the last 20 years. But I honestly
think any attempt to revive the fairness doctrine is going to turn into a
real can of snakes. Better to leave bad enough alone.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"John Figliozzi" wrote in message
...

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view.

As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource.

Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate.

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate.

OK, how about one paper towns? Would it be a good idea for the government
to ensure that the opponents of the editorial policy of the paper in a one
paper town got their own space in that paper?

You keep missing one point. Even in one-paper towns, the acquisition of this paper
is still attached to the exchange of merchandise for consideration (the paper's sale
price). And in this instance, it doesn't take a contrary view to use a newspaper to
spread the word (and the paper may actually help in publishing a letter to the
paper's editors) since all it takes is for the dissenter to hire a printer to publish
that view to be distributed independent of the paper. This model is not possible in
a broadcasting model.

And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

Maybe so, but it's clear you don't understand broadcast policy and spectrum
management.

Politics in the US seems to be going through an unusually nasty period
lately. I have no doubt the Republicans and the Democrats would be actively
searching out or creating local pressure groups, in order to push media
stations around. Maybe I'm wrong about that and my opinion of the likely
politicization of the fairness doctrine just reflects the lower regard that
I've developed for both parties over the last 20 years. But I honestly
think any attempt to revive the fairness doctrine is going to turn into a
real can of snakes. Better to leave bad enough alone.

Politics has gotten this way BECAUSE the FCC has left "bad enough alone". There's a
psychological effect that comes from people who associate only with others holding
similar views, where after a time everyone involved comes away with an even more
emphatically-held view of those issues. It's called group polarisation. If you want
politics to climb down from this precipice, then you should support the
reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. And run the likes of FOX News out of Dodge,
or fine them out of existence. It's their transgressions which have made a bad
situation worse.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-