Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TV antenna question.......... | Antenna | |||
Be the first on your block! | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna |