In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial.

Carl:

Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an
unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources.

The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

Carl:

That doesn't mean that they don't see the advantage to them in reducing
ARS licensing standards, as has already been proven.

NCI doesn't even have
mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life.

That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's
funding sources.

I was just trying to address what appeared to be a "someone's going
to make money off of this" scenario ... your text came across that way.

Change the word "make" to "save," and you've finally got it right.

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions
by
any manufacturer ...)

Carl - wk3c

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?

Didn't have to. The ARS doesn't "make" money, Carl -- except for the
equipment manufacturers, but as you said, they aren't fighting any
of the petitions to eliminate code testing, since they figure it's going to
result in increased future sales. In any event, they're just pocket
change compared to the commercial broadcasting and communications
services.

This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

Which doesn't say anything about how far they can reduce licensing
standards.

and to a far greater extent than in what
is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio).

YOU view it as primarily a hobby ... and it is a hobby, but the
FCC and Congress look at it as a public service *provided
for free to society* by folks who do it as a hobby. They also
value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that
increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics.

Well, considering the fact that licensing requirements are already
just short of meaningless, and that most hams these days haven't
a clue about what's going on inside their off-the-shelf gear, it's
kinda hard to view the ARS as a particularly rigorous training
experience for future electronics technicians.

Even the "money"
you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs
and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a
spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial
broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the
FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from
amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest
extent possible.

Sure, services that affect/are used by 10's of millions of people will
get more attention ... that's logical.

The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce
licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep
from repeatedly dealing with the same issues.

That's nonsense ... all they have to do is set reasonable, logical,
and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns.

I see. Well, on April 14, 2000 we *had* reasonable, logical, and
justifiable licensing standards. Someone musta cleaned the glue
off of their M-16's that evening, because on April 15, 2000 we
suddenly had licensing standards which were dumbed down to
a level which can only be viewed as downright silly.

Just because some yahoo asks them to do something stupid
(like the Petitions for Reconsideration that came out immediately
after restucturing, asking the FCC to re-institute 13 and 20 wpm
code tests) doesn't mean they have to honor them ... such nonsense
should be summarily dismissed with virtually no consumption of
FCC resources.

Yeah, they'd rather listen to the yahoos that wanted them to
reduce licensing standards down to a meaningless level.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

The FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander
to those commentors who favored the reduction/elimination
of code testing, and for good reason. (snip)


The only pandering I see in the quoted paragraph is that to the future
needed expertise of this country.

Dwight:

Unfortunately, neither you nor the rest of the NCTA has been able to
show just exactly what the connection is between technical expertise
and the requirement for learning and being tested in a practical and
useful communications skill such as Morse/CW in the AMATEUR
Radio Service.

The FCC, if they can get the code testing requirement lifted,
faces a smaller administrative burden in running the ARS
licensing system, an important consideration since the ARS is
an economically irrelevant communications service. (snip)

Where exactly is this "smaller administrative burden" supposed to occur?
Since the cost of entering code-related data while processing an overall
license is almost infinitesimal, I just don't see a significant financial
windfall for the FCC here. But what I do see here (in your overall mesage)
is an effort to undermine the real reasons for the elimination of the code
test requirement by suggesting the FCC is only doing it for financial gain
instead. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to support your claim,
but the exact same thing could be said for all popular conspiracy claims.

Sooo, you're saying that eliminating the code testing requirement, and
the associated licensing data, would not lead to a quantifiable reduction
in the administrative workload related to licensing in the ARS? Sorry,
Dwight, but you're just plain wrong about that.

(snip) Nothing less than I would expect from people who
don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and
view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable
resources away from much more economically pertinent
issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money,
and you learn the truth.

I think the FCC understands and appreciates the nature of the ARS just
fine. If you honestly can't see that, then perhaps you don't understand or
appreciate the nature of the FCC when it comes to its regulation of the ARS.

I think that the FCC responds to political pressure. This is what brought
about Restructuring and the elimination of code testing, save for the 5 WPM
requirement which was tied to the ITU Treaty. I believe that if they (the FCC)
truly understood the nature of the ARS, and the value of the Morse/CW
mode within the ARS, that wouldn't have happened. However, the Bush Sr.
Administration allowed JY1 to meddle with the U.S. amateur radio
licensing requirements as the result of a plea by a "handicapped" ham in
PA, and you know the rest.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The biggest thing that I fear is the ham community going
ballistic prematurely and flaming the FCC, e-mail bombing
them, etc. That would only hurt our cause.

73,
Carl - wk3c

I hope they do, and thanks for the Idea, let me see if I can get it started
on some othergroups and let it snow Ball.
Its only fitting you NO-Codes end up with nothing for your trouble.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched"
BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread,
"the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll
have
to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers,
modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical
competitor
to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'."

It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited
at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from
the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the
fact
that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the
Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the
technical background to see the problems without significant education
on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical
advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a
technical
advisor amongst them.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around.

One of the odd things about the commissioners however. They must be
able to suspend disbelief pretty easily.

Household and electrical wiring has been around for a long time. And
there's no rocket science to the technology of riding a signal on a line
voltage circuit. Control signals are sent along these wires regularly
and have been for many years.

So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?

I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

ARRL is working this hard. Ed Hare was down to Emmaus
again Thu/Fri/Sat, spoke at a local club meeting, and we
did some measurements/comparisons between his field
observations and mine (they correlate perfectly, as I expected)

I am going to do what I can in terms of lobbying folks I know
at the FCC from my professional dealings with them.

The comment and reply comment periods on the NOI are
over, so there will be an apparent lull in activity.

One thing we're eager to see is the reaction of NTIA (on
behalf of their USG "clients") ... I can't believe that they
will come up with any different take on the interference
potential of BPL than ARRL and I have ... and they will
make a powerful ally if I am right.

For the moment, I think we're in a mode of waiting for
NTIA's reaction, some lobbying by folks who know folks,
and other "background" work.

The biggest thing that I fear is the ham community going
ballistic prematurely and flaming the FCC, e-mail bombing
them, etc. That would only hurt our cause.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?


Mike:

Or cable TV, for that matter. Why spend all the bucks to wire the world
with coax when power lines are everywhere?




I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?


For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe
to it!

I have to believe that it would be the biggest dog of a service ever
invented! I suspect in the real world, it might work about as good as a
56K modem... maybe.

- Mike KB3EIA -

We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL
interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See,
we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't
cause interference."

Carl - w3kc

Another good Idea thanks Karl, I will see if I can help get the troops to
start Bitching

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?

Mike:

Or cable TV, for that matter. Why spend all the bucks to wire the world
with coax when power lines are everywhere?

I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?

For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe
to it!

73 de Larry, K3LT

And, if BPL comes to your area and you receive interference, let
Ed Hare, W1RFI, at the ARRL know about it.

One thing that's VERY important ... we CANNOT afford to have
people mis-identifying other sources of interference as "BPL" and
making inaccurate interference complaints to the FCC.

It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference
be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL
interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See,
we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't
cause interference."

Carl - w3kc

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

NONE of the Commissioners has a technical
advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a
technical
advisor amongst them.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around.


And *that* is probably the most unsettling part of the entire picture-
the fact that the political appointees, assigned to decide the future
of the most technical facet of our society, involving countless billions
of dollars,indeed deciding the success or failure of our economy, would
disdain technical advice in favor of ONLY the legal.


Miracle of miracles ... Dick and I have FINALLY found one thing
we can agree on without hesitation!

Carl - wk3c

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and
again...


And they are being reminded vis a vis BPL.


The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?


This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic
concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big

part

of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See

Comm.

Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana"

being

BPL. As if!


The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched"
BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread,
"the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have
to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers,
modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor
to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'."

It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited
at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from
the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact
that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the
Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the
technical background to see the problems without significant education
on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical
advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical
advisor amongst them.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around.

One of the odd things about the commissioners however. They must be
able to suspend disbelief pretty easily.

Household and electrical wiring has been around for a long time. And
there's no rocket science to the technology of riding a signal on a line
voltage circuit. Control signals are sent along these wires regularly
and have been for many years.

Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum.

At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home
to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED
AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY
RANGE!

Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't
understand that yet...?

I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and
see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms
to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home.

That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can
expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency
transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and
wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even
more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation).

So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?

For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-)

I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are
supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the
counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second
pair is no better.

One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room
is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the
outliet
in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of the
Homeplug group explains that.

I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from
10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is
probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with
that much attenuation...it is already too great.

I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?

One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the
vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough
detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so
in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than
more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware.

LHA

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Unfortunately, neither you nor the rest of the NCTA
has been able to show just exactly what the connection
is between technical expertise and the requirement for
learning and being tested in a practical and useful
communications skill such as Morse/CW in the
AMATEUR Radio Service. (snip)


The FCC has already done so in the paragraph I quoted. Basically, they
said to encourage technically inclined persons to learn and to prepare
themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise, less
emphasis should be placed on Morse code proficiency. The key to this is
"where the United States needs expertise." Morse code just doesn't fit in
that picture. They base this on the fact that "no communication system has
been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the
ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear," while pointing to more
modern technology instead. If you missed the paragraph quoted, I'll repeat
it again...

"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is
fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We
note, moreover, that the design of modern communications
systems, including personal communication services, satellite,
fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies. We also note that
no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to
receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are designed to be
automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred
in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that
reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a
licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as
it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them
to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196


(snip) I think that the FCC responds to political pressure. (snip)


And I think they're instead responding to the realities of the modern
world.


(snip) I believe that if they (the FCC) truly understood the nature
of the ARS, and the value of the Morse/CW mode within the
ARS, that wouldn't have happened. (snip)


The "value of the Morse/CW mode" remains even without a test requirement.
With that intact, only the basis and purpose of the ARS remains to be
considered. And the FCC addressed that in the quote above and in the
remainder of the docket I took that quote from (emergency communicaitons and
so on).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/