Dave Shrader wrote:


Running 1 KW as the minimum power necessary to communicate across town
on 75 phone will certainly have an impact on local BPL users!!!

With the amount of interference and noise BPL will make, we will likely
not be in
violation of using excessive power "to carry on the desired
communications". And
we are federally licensed, so that would preempt any local rules and
also trump part 15.

In article mar2c.13348$Zp.12451@fed1read07,
says...
Dave Shrader wrote:

Running 1 KW as the minimum power necessary to
communicate across town on 75 phone will certainly
have an impact on local BPL users!!!

DD

Yes it will, and that's when Congress and G.W.Bush
will cough up the "Internet Counter-Terrorism Bill
of 2006" that will limit all HF amateur radio operators
to 5 watts PEP output to prevent this kind of
"cyberterrorism".

After all, they will argue, the QRP people showed that
amateur operators can work the world at that power level.
Anything higher than that should be viewed as really too
dangerous to be left in "civilian" hands. (They will nudge
the Democrats across the aisle and say "You know, just
like handguns", and it will be a slam-dunk).

Don't underestimate the political power of a 500-million-
dollar capital investment.

Jim,

You make a good point. It's happened before where amateurs lost
spectrum. Remember the UPS fiasco where they snagged a chunk of the 220
band?

And of course there was the LEO debacle.

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.

In article mar2c.13348$Zp.12451@fed1read07,
says...
Dave Shrader wrote:

Running 1 KW as the minimum power necessary to
communicate across town on 75 phone will certainly
have an impact on local BPL users!!!

DD

Yes it will, and that's when Congress and G.W.Bush
will cough up the "Internet Counter-Terrorism Bill
of 2006" that will limit all HF amateur radio operators
to 5 watts PEP output to prevent this kind of
"cyberterrorism".

After all, they will argue, the QRP people showed that
amateur operators can work the world at that power level.
Anything higher than that should be viewed as really too
dangerous to be left in "civilian" hands. (They will nudge
the Democrats across the aisle and say "You know, just
like handguns", and it will be a slam-dunk).

Don't underestimate the political power of a 500-million-
dollar capital investment.

Jim,

You make a good point. It's happened before where amateurs lost
spectrum. Remember the UPS fiasco where they snagged a chunk of the 220
band?

And of course there was the LEO debacle.

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.

In rec.radio.amateur.dx Tony P. wrote:
basically said, "We'll try not to harm hobbyists, but BPL
has too much potential (*) to let it be stopped."

Ah, but kill the potential and it becomes a non-viable service.

You mean, by running high power and interfering with
the BPL access? Never happen. When Suburban Dad can't
get his sports and Mom can't get AOL and Junior can't
download Korean porn, all because of one 80-year-old
down the street with a hobby that 98% of Americans don't
even understand, they'll pull the rug out from under ham
radio faster than you can say "broadband." If there were
50 million active hams and we were well organized, we
might have a chance.


_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski AC4RD kuzen001 at acpub .duke .edu
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply, see? www.duke.edu/~kuzen001

In rec.radio.amateur.dx Tony P. wrote:
basically said, "We'll try not to harm hobbyists, but BPL
has too much potential (*) to let it be stopped."

Ah, but kill the potential and it becomes a non-viable service.

You mean, by running high power and interfering with
the BPL access? Never happen. When Suburban Dad can't
get his sports and Mom can't get AOL and Junior can't
download Korean porn, all because of one 80-year-old
down the street with a hobby that 98% of Americans don't
even understand, they'll pull the rug out from under ham
radio faster than you can say "broadband." If there were
50 million active hams and we were well organized, we
might have a chance.


_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski AC4RD kuzen001 at acpub .duke .edu
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply, see? www.duke.edu/~kuzen001

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.


The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA



--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.


The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA



--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

Barry OGrady wrote:

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified.

Funny, I haven't heard this type of rationalization since Berlin wall
fell down. Should we all start wearing red star berets now or later?

Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

Ah, sort of like your post?

WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

Barry OGrady wrote:

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified.

Funny, I haven't heard this type of rationalization since Berlin wall
fell down. Should we all start wearing red star berets now or later?

Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

Ah, sort of like your post?

WA7AA


--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic wrote:

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.


The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

You are just the kind of sheep that big business loves. BPL as it stands
is a BAD idea. The interference potential isn't just to amateur radio
but a host of other services.