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 Bromley, K7JEB
Glendale, AZ, USA

If you read my original post that investment was my opening comment!!

K7JEB wrote:
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 Bromley, K7JEB
Glendale, AZ, USA

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.

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

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?

That my friends is a very important question. How much do they value
our knowledge and volunteer emergency services?


Tony P. wrote:

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

Pappy wrote:

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?
...

Hmmm...how much campaign money does the ARRL give???...

Pappy wrote:

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?
...

Hmmm...how much campaign money does the ARRL give???...

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?

That my friends is a very important question. How much do they value
our knowledge and volunteer emergency services?


Tony P. wrote:

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

If you read my original post that investment was my opening comment!!

K7JEB wrote:
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 Bromley, K7JEB
Glendale, AZ, USA