|
IMPORTANT! FCC OET extends Reply Comment Period on BPL
Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003. Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS have until midnight at the end of the deadline day. FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame" the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare are full of them ...). Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us. Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes. 73, Carl - wk3c |
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." http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 496 Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP. To file, go here; http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "Proceeding" field, enter "03-104" "Document Type" select "Reply to comments" Links for the key filings (pro BPL and anti BPL) are here; http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/B...yperlinks.html Good reply examples are below; Notes You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your thoughts. You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have your support. Andrew Leeds - response to UPLC http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514288 117 Lee McVey - response to Amperion http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 923 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539 Cortland Richmond - response to PowerWan http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 407 Lee McVey - response to UPLC http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 392 Cortland Richmond - response to Florida Light and Power http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 386 Arthur Guy - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 323 Good general comments http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 303 Ashley Lane - response to Ameren http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 129 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 007 Cortland Richmond - response to Southern Linc http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 932 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to National Academy of Science http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 161 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to Amateur Radio Research and Development Corp. http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 102 Lawrence Macioski - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514083 272 Robert Read - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514082 900 "Mike Ro Farad" wrote in message news:i3AWa.19213$ff.18880@fed1read01... Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes. Great advice Carl, also good advice for this news group -- Let's exhibit a quality image of Amateur Radio 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-4? Millie Am Pair for OM Mike Ro Farad "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003. Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS have until midnight at the end of the deadline day. FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame" the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare are full of them ...). Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us. Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes. 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
m... 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." http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 496 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. 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?" To file, go here; http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "Proceeding" field, enter "03-104" "Document Type" select "Reply to comments" Links for the key filings (pro BPL and anti BPL) are here; http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/B...yperlinks.html Good reply examples are below; Notes You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your thoughts. You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have your support. Good idea. Make everyone think uniformly...yeah, that's the ticket! 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. 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? 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. Kim W5TIT Andrew Leeds - response to UPLC http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514288 117 Lee McVey - response to Amperion http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 923 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539 Cortland Richmond - response to PowerWan http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 407 Lee McVey - response to UPLC http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 392 Cortland Richmond - response to Florida Light and Power http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 386 Arthur Guy - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 323 Good general comments http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 303 Ashley Lane - response to Ameren http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 129 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 007 Cortland Richmond - response to Southern Linc http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 932 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to National Academy of Science http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 161 Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to Amateur Radio Research and Development Corp. http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 102 Lawrence Macioski - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514083 272 Robert Read - response to ARRL http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514082 900 "Mike Ro Farad" wrote in message news:i3AWa.19213$ff.18880@fed1read01... Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes. Great advice Carl, also good advice for this news group -- Let's exhibit a quality image of Amateur Radio 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-4? Millie Am Pair for OM Mike Ro Farad "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003. Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS have until midnight at the end of the deadline day. FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame" the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare are full of them ...). Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us. Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes. 73, Carl - wk3c --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
m... Good reply examples are below; Notes You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your thoughts. You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have your support. I looked through the first several. Of those, this is the one I like the best: Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539 It leaves some things open for debate, as any will. But, out of this comes my opinion that BPL is probably a risky idea due to the politics of it--meaning that the power grid for the United States probably should not become a transmission source for other companies (which would likely be a step in the futu power companies "renting" their transmission lines for BPL technology). Sounds like too much regulatory soup to me... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
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 |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote
Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority. No, I think you will be lambasted for not doing your homework and understanding the issue. "BPL" is an unlicensed service which proposes that it be allowed to inject RF (radio signals) into the AC distribution grid. This RF will extend across the MF/HF spectrum, and up into the lower VHF spectrum, and the power lines will act not as a transmission line, but as an antenna. The interference will potentially affect EVERY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (not just hams) who use the affected spectrum. In fact, BPL is a single unlicensed service which would presume to pollute the spectrum used by the "majority" (your word, not mine) of all long distance radio communications services. Kim, you seem to be a person concerned with social issues. That's a great quality. Go to your local library and research the term "tragedy of the commons". Good luck on this one now. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
K0HB wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority. No, I think you will be lambasted for not doing your homework and understanding the issue. "BPL" is an unlicensed service which proposes that it be allowed to inject RF (radio signals) into the AC distribution grid. This RF will extend across the MF/HF spectrum, and up into the lower VHF spectrum, and the power lines will act not as a transmission line, but as an antenna. The interference will potentially affect EVERY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (not just hams) who use the affected spectrum. That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people besides hams. In fact, BPL is a single unlicensed service which would presume to pollute the spectrum used by the "majority" (your word, not mine) of all long distance radio communications services. BPL seems like one of those diminished performance systems that have been foisted on the public more and more. If a person is tempted to disagree, I'd ask how many of us would accept the performance on our home telephones that we accept on cellular- "can you hear me now?" People seem to forget that the power lines make a recieving antenna as well as a transmitting antenna. My suspicion is that with the error checking that will have to take place a lot on any BPL system, we will be lucky to get to 56K modem speeds. Anyone care to take bets on how BPL performs to say cable modems? DSL? - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... K0HB wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority. No, I think you will be lambasted for not doing your homework and understanding the issue. "BPL" is an unlicensed service which proposes that it be allowed to inject RF (radio signals) into the AC distribution grid. This RF will extend across the MF/HF spectrum, and up into the lower VHF spectrum, and the power lines will act not as a transmission line, but as an antenna. The interference will potentially affect EVERY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (not just hams) who use the affected spectrum. That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people besides hams. Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Why bother, Ham Radio as it was know is dead anyway.
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003. Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS have until midnight at the end of the deadline day. FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame" the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare are full of them ...). Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us. Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes. 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people besides hams. Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh? Kim W5TIT And that is the most naive statement about the workings of government that I have ever seen. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people besides hams. Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh? Kim W5TIT And that is the most naive statement about the workings of government that I have ever seen. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE heh heh heh...all my comments on the BPL issue have been to rattle chains and nothing else. But, I am even having a hard time doing that; couldn't you tell I was getting desperate? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote
Aw, Hans...and just when the sand was drying from your britches... Britches????? -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
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 |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Anyone care to take bets on how BPL performs to say cable modems? DSL? - Mike KB3EIA - I can GUARANTEE they wont make a connect anytime Im in my shack. Dan/W4NTI |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003. Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS have until midnight at the end of the deadline day. FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame" the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare are full of them ...). Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us. Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes. 73, Carl - wk3c Well done Carl. Time to cut the usual RRAP crap and get series here, screw the unending code test flames, we have a REAL policy problem this time. Do you think it is likely that the FCC will pay much if any attention to the rather offhand electronically filed comments by individual hams? We asked for access to 60M. Looked like a done deal until the NTIA jumped in late in the game and for all practical purposes NTIA pared our access back considerably from what we expected. Reason: The events of 9/11/01 caused a top-to-bottom review of all government comms assets and the gummint itself decided to limit ham interference potential on 60M for it's own "rediscovered" critical HF comms, etc., etc., you don't need the rest. So now we have a potential interference source for those comms which makes any ham comms on 60M look like peanuts in comparison, etc., etc. again. Where the hell is NTIA on THIS one??! Where are the HF aeronautical users? How 'bout all the emergency services ops in the 30-50 Mhz range? BPL will not degrade their comms because the FM they use "rejects noise"? Not hardly. How many additional non-recreational HF users will be seriously affected by BPL and where are their "comments"? The Japanese goverment disallowed BPL because of the obvious threats it poses to the HF/low vhf spectrum in Japan. How do hams, civilly, strive to make sure the FCC becomes aware of (tongue in cheek) and factors in that precedent? Are there any English language sources available for copies of the Japanese telecomms authorities rationales for rejecting BPL? Might be useful . . I'm not a fatalist by nature but unfortunately I think this one is 100% out of our hands. But I think we still have to put up the good fight. w3rv |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: The companies pushing BPL are clearly doing a massive snow job or they have no techincal copmetence, and that isn't at all likely. They know what this stuff will cause, assuming they do have competent people and aren't squelching them for the good of the "cause". Gets down to who is snowing who. I doubt that the power companies have much in the way of inhouse expertise in the field. It appears that those who have the big interest in BPL are the firms who have the expertise, such as it might be, and want to sell their wares to the power companies. Might be that the power companies were the first layer to get snowed and now they're at the same game with the FCC. Looks to me like these outfits are small startups looking for a reason to exist, none of 'em ring any bells as proven Internet heavyweights. We don't know who, at what level of competence at FCC is listening to whom, and *who will decide*, and *on what basis*. Opaque as hell, so much for "open government". Particularly with the current administration. But we already knew that. If "the fix is in" the fight obviously becomes much, much tougher, and may require court action after the R&O, and if that's the way it plays out, it HAS to be contested. Something is going on within the FCC, why did the OET extend the reply comment period?? I think that's a pretty unusual maneuver. And it was done by an FCC technical office. I doubt the FCC high-level no-clues would have let that happen if a real fix was in. Something is up. This simply won't fly in the real world. I spent a career working with a statewide Public Safety communications system that simply could not co-exist with BPL. I can't imagine those people jsut sitting on their hands and letting BPL become fact. Isn't there some sort of national organization for emergency services techs & engineers? I haven't spent the hours and hours it would require due to the plodding dialup I use, to read extensively in the posted comments at FCC website, but I sure wonder if any of the Pub Safety people are paying attention. I know most of them would love to move up to some U/SHF trunked system but the $$$ involved is prohibitive today, and they WON'T be doing that any time soon, so they'd sure better fight this off. My knee-jerk reaction to this was "where are the heavy-hitters like Motorola" who have a vested interest in lo-band VHF ops?" Silly me, Motorola would love to have the lo-band trashed in order to move *everybody" up the spectrum whether the taxpayers can afford it or not. Or do the pros already know BPL is going nowhere and can't be bothered with getting into it?? This bull has more horns than I can count. Time to ship Carl back to Washington to do something actually useful this time. Dick w3rv |
Rob Kemp wrote:
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." http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 496 BPL is not a system that needs to radiate RF signals to do its job, it would be an unintentional radiator. It's a system going point to point via wires, not a system that uses isolated boxes (radios) that communicate via RF "over the air". Thus there is no reason why we would need to share spectrum with BPL. Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP. To file, go here; http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "Proceeding" field, enter "03-104" "Document Type" select "Reply to comments" |
Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh? Kim W5TIT And that is the most naive statement about the workings of government that I have ever seen. Typical of Kim, I'm afraid Kim was using sarcasm..... Wasn't that obvious? :-( |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... I haven't spent the hours and hours it would require due to the plodding dialup I use, to read extensively in the posted comments at FCC website, but I sure wonder if any of the Pub Safety people are paying attention. I know most of them would love to move up to some U/SHF trunked system but the $$$ involved is prohibitive today, and they WON'T be doing that any time soon, so they'd sure better fight this off. Dick Dick, Perhaps they are just sitting by waiting to be run off their present allocations..In order to FORCE a move to the higher bands....eh? Dan/W4NTI |
On 4 Aug 2003 08:36:31 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:
My knee-jerk reaction to this was "where are the heavy-hitters like Motorola" who have a vested interest in lo-band VHF ops?" Silly me, Motorola would love to have the lo-band trashed in order to move *everybody" up the spectrum whether the taxpayers can afford it or not. The Big Emm stopped making low-band radios and replacement parts almost ten years ago, and RCA and GE have been out of that business for a lot more. That's why several of my clients have gone to UHF and 800 MHz trunked systems. A biggie user in the Low-Band is the California Highway Patrol (5000 or so mobiles and lots of base stations) who has been mouthing about going to 800 MHz for at least twelve years that I am aware of. I'll see it when it happens. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... K0HB wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority. No, I think you will be lambasted for not doing your homework and understanding the issue. "BPL" is an unlicensed service which proposes that it be allowed to inject RF (radio signals) into the AC distribution grid. This RF will extend across the MF/HF spectrum, and up into the lower VHF spectrum, and the power lines will act not as a transmission line, but as an antenna. The interference will potentially affect EVERY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (not just hams) who use the affected spectrum. That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people besides hams. Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh? We hope! As in most things of this sort, the problem is that Non-technical people make the decisions, and technical people have to explain the problems to them. In addition, some of the competing forces are happy to throw much money at those who decide. So the Hams start out at a disadvantage. - Mike KB3EIA - Temporarily back from Vacation |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com