In article , "Kim"
writes:

"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
om...
Quote from the American Public Power Association; "the burden should
be imposed on challengers to BPL to demonstrate interference in a
fact-based, empirical proof. Further, to the extent that interference
is demonstrated, there should be an attempt to accommodate BPL, even
if it means that existing communications providers may have to share
or transfer bandwidth."

Well, in the worst case scenario, APP is exactly right. We *will* have to
make adjustments. Here's my thought: this is going to happen time and time
again. Frequencies are prime real estate right now and will get even moreso
in the future. This is not going to go away.

Kim:

I think you're missing a basic point of radio regulation here.

The radio spectrum is a limited, shared resource, which is why we have
different services, licenses, etc. And of course there must be a balance
between the needs of various services, such as broadcasting vs. hams vs.
maritime users, etc.

But BPL isn't a *user* of the radio spectrum, just a *polluter*. And a basic
principle of regulation has been that polluters must not interfere with
licensed users. APP's comment turns that on its head, saying the licensed users
must not only accomodate the polluters, but that the burden of proof is on the
licensed users, not the polluters. HUH?

Imagine a river that is used for many purposes - transportation, recreation,
energy production, food production, etc. Different parts of the river are
reserved for different purposes and all benefit from the river. The different
users of the river all pay for licenses and support preservation and
intelligent use of the river.

Then along comes a company that wants to use the river as a dump for its
industrial waste, without paying any fees and without regard for other users of
the river, who are NOT allowed to dump anything into the river at all! The
company says they should be allowed to dump their waste into the river wherever
and whenever they want, and if the other river users don't like it, too bad.

On top of all this, other companies in the same business do not dump waste into
anybody's river. Instead, they invest heavily in new technology so that they
don't generate much waste in the first place, and also invest in treatment,
containment and disposal technology so that what little waste they do generate
is handled safelyt. Those other companies are in direct competiton with the new
company, but they don't get the exception the new company is asking for.

Some folks think BPL is only an HF problem, but the systems proposed go as high
as 80 MHz, which includes 6 meters. And if there are any harmonics produced,
watch out 2 meters and above.

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

I guess you're making the assumption that everyone who is a ham would be
against this? Or, are you really being that generous where it's a "everyone
should have their voice thing?"

Do you think BPL is a good thing, Kim?

Good idea. Make everyone think uniformly...yeah, that's the ticket!

What is YOUR thinking on BPL, KIm?

On the
other hand, those who have no idea what BPL may be about, what impacts it
has, etc., will be "following" something they have no idea about. Maybe BPL
is a bad thing for ham radio, but maybe it's a good thing for us as a whole.

How could it be a good thing for us as a whole? Most of us have a choice of
dialup, DSL or cable. Do we really need another choice, particularly one that
pollutes the radio spectrum to a level much higher than the others?

Perhaps where you live DSL and cable are not available, or are expensive. :
Access BPL won't solve your problem, because it is basically a short-range
"last mile" technology, and the target markets are high density suburban areas,
not rural.

Do I want to accommodate ham radio, or the rest of my fellow citizens and
what this may do for them? What alternatives would the commercial interests
have to BPL technology, and how much would that cost us?

It's not just about ham radio, but about all users of the spectrum, and setting
a precedent. And if it's somehow OK to trash 2-80 MHz, why not 80-500 MHz?

Do the people supporting BPL care what they do to the radio spectrum?

Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably
now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority...LOL what a
concept.

"The majority" already have access to DSL, cable modems, dialup, and a wide
range of other systems. Will BPL be cheaper? More reliable? I don't see how.
Show me.

btw, BPL will be just as vulnerable to disruption from physical damage as
cable, dialup or DSL because the wires are on the same poles or in the same
trenches. In fact it will be more vulnerable because the lines are not
shielded.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for your explanation, Jim.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

I guess you're making the assumption that everyone who is a ham would be
against this? Or, are you really being that generous where it's a
"everyone
should have their voice thing?"

Do you think BPL is a good thing, Kim?


Whether I think it's a good thing or not wasn't the point of my comments.
The point was that I wonder if a "blanket invitation" for comments would
extend to those who may think it is a good idea.


Good idea. Make everyone think uniformly...yeah, that's the ticket!

What is YOUR thinking on BPL, KIm?


Well, I don't think I have a position on it, Jim. So, I would personally
refrain from commenting. I would not automatically think it was a bad idea
just because I am a ham radio operator, though. My point with the comments
was that uniformity can sometimes be seen as ignorance--and the FCC is
probably in a position to determine if they are getting canned messages or
not. It always a good idea, if one is participating in a mass effort to at
least come up with something truly original--even better to come up with
something that directly impacts them.


btw, BPL will be just as vulnerable to disruption from physical damage as
cable, dialup or DSL because the wires are on the same poles or in the
same
trenches. In fact it will be more vulnerable because the lines are not
shielded.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Maybe they'll ditch the whole thing...

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

In article , "Kim"
writes:

Thanks for your explanation, Jim.

You're welcome.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

I guess you're making the assumption that everyone who is a ham would be
against this? Or, are you really being that generous where it's a
"everyone
should have their voice thing?"

Do you think BPL is a good thing, Kim?

Whether I think it's a good thing or not wasn't the point of my comments.

I know. That's why I asked the question.

The point was that I wonder if a "blanket invitation" for comments would
extend to those who may think it is a good idea.

The original poster wrote:

"Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP."

Looks pretty blanket to me.

Good idea. Make everyone think uniformly...yeah, that's the ticket!

What is YOUR thinking on BPL, KIm?

Well, I don't think I have a position on it, Jim. So, I would personally
refrain from commenting.

Well, there you have it.

I would not automatically think it was a bad idea
just because I am a ham radio operator, though.

Nor would I.

However, after looking at the engineering analyses of what it would mean to
hams and other licensed users of the radio spectrum, I think it is a very bad
idea.

My point with the comments
was that uniformity can sometimes be seen as ignorance--and the FCC is
probably in a position to determine if they are getting canned messages or
not.

Sure. Uniformity can also be seen as strength. If millions of people vote for
Candidate X next year, does that mean ignorance?

Lack of comments can be, and probably will be, interpreted as lack of concern.

It always a good idea, if one is participating in a mass effort to at
least come up with something truly original--even better to come up with
something that directly impacts them.

Exactly. But all that is for naught if no comments are filed.

It is also a good idea to mention relevant background information, such as
amateur and professional radio and engineering experience and education. Even
though we may think that an argument should be judged on its merits alone,
regardless of who authors it, FCC does look at that stuff.

And even if there is no BPL where I live, it will have an impact if I won't be
able to work hams in a BPL area.

btw, BPL will be just as vulnerable to disruption from physical damage as
cable, dialup or DSL because the wires are on the same poles or in the
same
trenches. In fact it will be more vulnerable because the lines are not
shielded.

Maybe they'll ditch the whole thing...

Hopefully. Japan did, after finding out how bad it really is. But I'm not
willing to trust in a "let George do it" attitude. My comments are already on
file, reply comments are in development.

73 de Jim, N2EY