On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:04 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

While it does indeed interfere with
our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting
legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access
for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far,
however.

If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same
"money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to
get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio
services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC
employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws
radar systems.

My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds
if we amateurs can just hold out long enough.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Jun 11, 3:21 pm, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

In fact, the future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and
unless we start working together and stop sniping at each
other over minor things like the modes we use, we're
going to fade away without anyone noticing.


AMEN! Hams are members of a group comprising about one quarter of one
per cent of the U.S. population. We have strong common interests as a
result of that shared minority status. Let's focus on those common
interests, rather than on minor differences in our mode preferences or
whether we say "name" or "handle" or "first personal".

These petty arguments remind me of sail-boaters and power-boaters
arguing among themselves about which technology is "most efficient",
or "gets through rough water", or whatever, while in the meantime a
commercial interest is petitioning to drain the water out of the lake
and converting the whole stinking place to an industrial
park.

Friends, our "lake" of spectrum is in danger of being drained away --
spend your energy and intellect trying to solve that problem which
MEANS SOMETHING to everyone of us, instead of arguing over the merits/
demerits of Morse testing, or whether "hi hi" on voice is acceptable.

Without spectrum, there is no Amateur Radio.


73, de Hans, K0HB
--
The dust will not settle in our time. And when it does some
great roaring machine will come and whirl it all skyhigh again.

In article ,
Phil Kane wrote:

If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same
"money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to
get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio
services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC
employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws
radar systems.

Fortunately, the legal situations which exist with regard to those two
situations are rather different.

w/r/t the PAVE PAWS radar systems in the 420 - 450 MHz frequency band,
the government radar system is the primary user of this frequency
spectrum, and has been for years. Amateur operators are secondary
users of these frequencies, and are (and have been) explicitly
required to limit use of these frequencies so that amateur use does
not interfere with the primary users (radar). All that has happened
recently, is that the government users have actually asserted that
amateur use _is_ interfering with radar, and that amateur users must
eliminate the interference as is required by the FCC rules.

In short, the Air Force has the law on their side. We can hope that
the ARRL's work to come up with a selective interference-mitigation
program will succeed... but if the Air Force gets snicky and insists
on a total shutdown of 70 cm ham repeaters near the PAVE PAWS sites,
they can make it stick.

The situation with BPL is different, as least as far as the law reads
today... BPL operators have *no* licensed right to radiate in the
amateur bands, while amateur users are either primary or secondary
users of these bands. The ARRL is making a pretty good case that the
FCC is ignoring both the law (national, and perhaps even international
law and treaty obligations), and their own regulations, in allowing
BPL operators to behave as they are.

My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds
if we amateurs can just hold out long enough.

Agreed.

The BPL providers have made big noise about how BPL will open up
broadband access to rural customers who are not now served by any
broadband providers. It would be amusing to see what would happen if
the FCC were to offer these providers the right to continue operating
BPL systems with current emission levels... but *only* on the
condition that the providers would agree to fund a build-out of their
system to cover 90% or more of rural customers. Imagine the howls of
"Oh, we can't afford that!"

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote:


My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds
if we amateurs can just hold out long enough.


I share that opinion, Phil, as do most others in the telecomm industry
that I associate with. For all the hoopla generated from POTUS right
on down into the ranks of FCC, the stark fact is that real-live users
(notice I didn't say 'paying customers') of BPL number under 10,000
nationwide, and most of those 'users' are participants in 'trials' and
'feasibility studies'. After a half-decade of promotion, BPL has been
unable to gain economic traction in the form of 'production'
installations in real customer bases.

In five years BPL with be nothing more than a footnote in some telecom
technical journals as a dead-end technological curiosity which never
made a dime. Last time I checked there were less than 8,000 paid and
'demonstration' subscribers, and the number was dwindling.

Meanwhile every second issue of QST contains another confrontational
"It seems to us" K1ZZ jeremiad about BPL, we see ARRL President W5ZN
sending huffy letters to the FCC Chairman, ARRL has challenged the
Commission in Federal court, and now a ham in Congress is pushing for
a Bill to have a Congressional "study" of the matter.. All this over
an issue that is already dying a quiet death-by-apathy on the part of
the commercial telecommunications community.

I've spent two successful careers in professional telecommunications,
and maintain strong personal and professional ties in the industry.
Up until about 5 years ago Amateur Radio enjoyed a very positive
reputation among the "pros", but today we are mostly viewed as
obstructionist old coots without a clue, and it's getting worse.

This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency
which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio
service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother",
and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately
calculated to raise our "bother quotient". We should expect no
support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in
fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent
off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a
hastening of that event.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
{{{{* http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb

In article .com,
KOHB wrote:

[...]
This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency
which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio
service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother",
and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately
calculated to raise our "bother quotient". We should expect no
support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in
fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent
off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a
hastening of that event.


I am not certain of that. Sometimes, government agencies are not able
to give voice to certain positions because of political pressures from
elected officials and their temporary appointees. The 'work-around' is
to get some pliant non-governmental organization to give voice to those
controversial positions. It is a sort of 'good cop/bad cop' routine. The
ARRL has been the FCC's lapdog for so many decades that it is tough to
imagine that they have suddenly grown a backbone.

On Jun 19, 12:50 am, Klystron wrote:

The ARRL has been the FCC's lapdog for so many decades
that it is tough to imagine that they have suddenly grown
a backbone.

This issue (BPL) will collapse from a case of market apathy. ARRL is
squandering good will and good money on an issue that the "pros" in
telecommunications have already written off as a non-starter. We
should have saved our "silver bullets" to fight a real threat.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Phil Kane wrote in
:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:04 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

While it does indeed interfere with
our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting
legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their
access for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get
that far, however.

If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same
"money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to
get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio
services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC
employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws
radar systems.

I think the two situations are a little different, depending on who is
the primary and secondary users of a particular frequency.

I wonder if they will ban The users of 11 meters too? 5 watts is enough
to disrupt BPL.

I don't think that the money will talk loudly enough as the sunspot cycle
picks up again. Could be wrong about that tho'

And even if so, It is just poor technology, and has so many levels of
possible failure.

My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds
if we amateurs can just hold out long enough.


We agree on that, for sure.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

K?HB wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:59:36 EDT:

On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote:

My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds
if we amateurs can just hold out long enough.

snip

In five years BPL with be nothing more than a footnote in some telecom
technical journals as a dead-end technological curiosity which never
made a dime. Last time I checked there were less than 8,000 paid and
'demonstration' subscribers, and the number was dwindling.

The June 2007 issue of the IEEE Spectrum has a Special Report which
is over-titled "By 2008 More Than Half Of The World's Population Will
Live In Urban Areas." Note "world's population," not just the USA.
That further reduces some (mythical?) need to bring the Internet-
structure to rural users, the popular rationale for BPL...as touted by
the
FCC Commissioners of the recent regime. Meanwhile most of those
"isolated" rural users are doing just fine with their POTS.

Here in southern six-land there is intense competition among the cable
TV providers to offer high-speed Internet connectivity (768 KBPS on
the
cheapest plan) using the already-installed cable TV "wires." Much of
the Greater Los Angeles area and adjoining foothill communities are
already so "wired." We don't need subcarriers on AC primary power
lines to carry even low-speed Internet.

Meanwhile every second issue of QST contains another confrontational
"It seems to us" K1ZZ jeremiad about BPL, we see ARRL President W5ZN
sending huffy letters to the FCC Chairman, ARRL has challenged the
Commission in Federal court, and now a ham in Congress is pushing for
a Bill to have a Congressional "study" of the matter.. All this over
an issue that is already dying a quiet death-by-apathy on the part of
the commercial telecommunications community.

Ah, but BPL very definitely remains a clear and present danger to HF
radio users. SOMEONE has to carry the banner of Forces Against
BPL. We can't ask the apathetic to do it...they have, well, too much
apathy to do it.

However, the forces that be at Newington are feeling the mortality
symptoms of their organization. They feel they must DO SOMETHING
now that they no longer have the clout with the FCC they've always
assumed was theirs. They may not have received an onslaught of
New Members as a result of the revolutionary effect of 06-178. They
seem worried, thus all the more reason to SAY something to prove
they still "have what it takes to lead their membership."

But, I agree with you that they've gone over-the-top in their
response.

Sincerely, Len AF6AY

On Jun 17, 12:50 pm, wrote:


Yup. Why FCC considers them different bands, even though they are
right next to each other, is a mystery.


The high end of the band is at 75-meters, the low end at 85-meters
(give or take). On average, I guess it's 80 meters. I'm just glad
they don't make us call the MF/HF bands:

166.666666666666667-meters,
85.714285714285714-meters,
42.857142857142857-meters,
29.702970297029703-meters,
21.428571428571429-meters,
16.603940668585344-meters,
14.285714285714286-meters,
12.053033346725593-meters, and
10.714285714285714-meters.

Beep beep,

de Hans, K0HB

K?HB wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:59:36 EDT:

On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote:

I've spent two successful careers in professional telecommunications,
and maintain strong personal and professional ties in the industry.
Up until about 5 years ago Amateur Radio enjoyed a very positive
reputation among the "pros", but today we are mostly viewed as
obstructionist old coots without a clue, and it's getting worse.

Well, I've only had one career in radio-electronics counting my
particular military service. "Successful?" For me? Well, I want
for
nothing having finished it. As a mostly-licensed-NOT-in-amateur-
radio
for all of that time, I would make your "5 years" into 20 or 25
years.
The pro telecommunications and radio-electronics industries were
established and grown by NON-amateurs from the get-go, despite all
the legendary hoopla from old-timer-hams.


This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency
which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio
service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother",
and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately
calculated to raise our "bother quotient".

The ARRL (I am a voting member) rather blew it big-time with their
"Regulation By Bandwidth" proposal. Both their original petition and
subsequent retraction of that looked to my non-legal eyes as written
by undergrad law students. Real attorneys would have fun with such
things and would have to really work to try to find out what those
documents were trying to say or convey.

One of the signs of the Newington group feeling their own mortality is
the "Diamond Terrace" proposal and "membership (for extra money)."
[call it the mausoleum syndrome] I have nothing against a building
reconstruction or spiffying-up a place of work. But buying a brick
for
cash just to have some quasi-immortality by members? Okay, if they
need cash inflow so much, then the League ought to cater towards
those three-fourths of all US ham licensees who are NOT members.


We should expect no
support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in
fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent
off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a
hastening of that event.

I don't share your gloom and doom there. I say US amateur radio
will NOT suffer any near-future demise. The FCC full well recognizes
that amateur radio IS a hobby (even if they don't say so outright).
The FCC also recognizes that other RF emitters are also for hobby
activities; see the 100 channels allocated for model radio control
use at 72+ MHz, well after the first HF CB creation. Hobbyists are
ALSO citizens and the federal government is obliged to listen to
them as well as the evil big-money capitalists (who are also
citizens).

If there be danger, then it is to future allocations of and about
amateur radio. WARC-79 gave international hams new bands in HF.
But, that was 28 years ago. What have the US hams gotten lately?
A few individual channels at "60m?" Those 60m channels was
originally a League proposal for a whole band, not a few channels.

Newington has always been oriented to HF. That's not where the
future of radio is...the future is above 30 MHz where most of the
rest of the radio world has gone and expanded. If the ARRL wants to
concentrate on spectrum territory where their core membership
operates at and using old tried-and-true modes, fine, but I see that
as just catering to a minority of a minority. I see it as just plain
IGNORING the majority of licensees. That ain't leadership.

Sincerely, Len, AF6AY