Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #781   Report Post  
Old January 14th 04, 11:56 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send
support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally.


Also through membership and well-written comments to NOI and NPRM.

I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will
end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic
that came out when the abomination was first proposed.


Maybe it will be trashed - but maybe not. It's not over till it's over, and
even then it's not over. For example, even though Japan rejected BPL
after trials, the BPL companies there are trying again, claiming "new
technology".

And remember that the levels of interference at the various test sites conform
to existing FCC radiated levels!

Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL,
FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now
"clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements.


Could still happen. Most of those folks don't have installations in residential
neighborhoods. Most hams, OTOH...

Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided
free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the
BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a
buffer zone around amateurs houses.


We're not in Austria. The EUs usually are a lot more rejecting of pollution
than we are. (BPL's interference is essentially spectrum pollution, wouldn't
you agree?)

Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK!


No, it *does* work! The demo sites are functioning.

The apparent
need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to
operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal
levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly
large range.


In some test sites. But at others, it's a different story. And even such
problems are no guarantee that FCC won't allow it.

Look at Manassas.

And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember
that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us.


Sure - and hopefully the combined effect of all of them will be enough to
convince FCC.

But the job isn't done till it's done.


Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the
HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will
tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices
are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every*
other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just
maybe, BPL will work....kinda.


Stranger things have happened.

Suppose you sit down for a nice bit of PSK and find the waterfall full of noise
- and no signals visible. Do you think the power company is going to interrupt
service so you can operate?

Or suppose you see a signal or two and open up with 100 W. And suppose you dump
the system for a radius of a mile from your house....

Or suppose the local gendarmes show up, responding to complaints from many
angry citizens that *you* are messing up *their* computers. Do you want to
explain Part 15 and Part 97 to them, when they see you as the electronic
equivalent of somebody violating the peace?

Or suppose any time someone calls the help line, the first question the
help person asks is "Is there a ham radio within a mile of your house?"

These are not wild scenarios. They're updates of what used to happen when TV
first came to some areas. Years ago, one ham, W4GJO, was *sued* for TVI
by a nearby bar owner who couldn't get distant TV stations when 'GJO was on the
air. FCC's attitude, and statements, were that the ham's rig was clean and so
it was the TV owner's problem. Yes, the ham eventually won, but it took many
hours and dollars.

None of this means we should panic or over react. But neithr can we think the
problem is licked or that it will go away on its own.

It ain't over till...

73 de Jim, N2EY



  #782   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 06:20 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

The FCC does not authorize any
particular form of public service
that we do. (snip)



Your argument is evolving as the discussion goes on. Again, I give up.
This topic just isn't worth spending anymore time on it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

  #783   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 07:55 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Leo" wrote:

(snip) Based on these references, the
reference to authorization in the regs
could well be interpreted as a mandate,
using the dictionary definition #2 from
both sources, and confirmed by the
thesaurus.



Wow. Thanks for looking, and typing, all that up for us, Leo. Words are
always modified by the context of the discussion. In one case, a mandate is
a command. In another, it's an approval, authorization, or so on. In the
context used, knowing most here should know the FCC rules (or could look
them up), the sense of that word should have been obvious.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

  #784   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 08:01 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Except that the FCC rules do not
grant any authority in anyway to do
public service nor do they establish
any requirement to do public
service. In any sense of the word
mandate, there is none in the FCC
Part 97.



Okay, now that you have accepted the authorization or approval sense of
the word, and have acknowledged 97.1 and the regs relating to RACES, go back
to my original statement you objected to - "there is nothing in Part 95 that
mandates public service like that found in Part 97." Would you now agree
there is nothing in Part 95 relating to public service that is like that
found in Part 97?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

  #785   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 08:15 AM
Dwight Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I'm quite aware that authorization
does not imply required. However
there is nothing in Part 97 that
authorizes it either. (snip)



This was addressed in another message. As such, I won't repeat what was
said there.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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



  #786   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 01:36 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send
support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally.



Also through membership and well-written comments to NOI and NPRM.

I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will
end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic
that came out when the abomination was first proposed.



Maybe it will be trashed - but maybe not. It's not over till it's over, and
even then it's not over. For example, even though Japan rejected BPL
after trials, the BPL companies there are trying again, claiming "new
technology".

And remember that the levels of interference at the various test sites conform
to existing FCC radiated levels!

Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL,
FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now
"clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements.



Could still happen. Most of those folks don't have installations in residential
neighborhoods. Most hams, OTOH...


Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided
free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the
BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a
buffer zone around amateurs houses.



We're not in Austria. The EUs usually are a lot more rejecting of pollution
than we are. (BPL's interference is essentially spectrum pollution, wouldn't
you agree?)

Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK!



No, it *does* work! The demo sites are functioning.



They are a sort of laboratory condition. If the test results from ARRL
are correct, 1 ham with 100 watts can effectively turn off the service
for quite some distance around him/her. That's what I mean.



The apparent
need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to
operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal
levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly
large range.



In some test sites. But at others, it's a different story. And even such
problems are no guarantee that FCC won't allow it.


The market will then take care of it.

Look at Manassas.



Aww, do I have to? 8^)


And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember
that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us.



Sure - and hopefully the combined effect of all of them will be enough to
convince FCC.

But the job isn't done till it's done.


Sure enough. Remember I'm not arguing against a stand against BPL or
the need to fight it. I just want people to not freak.


Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the
HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will
tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices
are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every*
other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just
maybe, BPL will work....kinda.



Stranger things have happened.

Suppose you sit down for a nice bit of PSK and find the waterfall full of noise
- and no signals visible. Do you think the power company is going to interrupt
service so you can operate?

Or suppose you see a signal or two and open up with 100 W. And suppose you dump
the system for a radius of a mile from your house....


Yup, keep on calling CQ. I probably wouldn't go above 50 watts tho' But
even that would be enough to disrupt the BPL.

On a side note, has there been any tests on what solar storms would do
to BPL?


Or suppose the local gendarmes show up, responding to complaints from many
angry citizens that *you* are messing up *their* computers. Do you want to
explain Part 15 and Part 97 to them, when they see you as the electronic
equivalent of somebody violating the peace?


Or suppose any time someone calls the help line, the first question the
help person asks is "Is there a ham radio within a mile of your house?"


Sure enough. All good arguments. And the best arguments for being
steadfast in the fight against BPL. Even though I am certain that in
practice, BPL will fall flat on it's face, that if approved, it will be
a nuisance for some hams and others. But I see different levels of
concern. Concern at a high level such as at the early part of the fight
against BPL, when testing was needed, and arguments presented against
BPL. The present situation, when it is being documented that the system
is very fragile and has a track record of interference to emergency
services (even if it is only a test) allows more leisurely prosecution
of the problem. But prosecution has to go on.

What do you think the F.C.C's response will be when ARRL or FEMA trots
out the Austrian BPL Red Cross interference data? Am I the only one that
thinks that case is darn close to a show stopper?

- Mike KB3EIA -

  #787   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 11:53 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Except that the FCC rules do not
grant any authority in anyway to do
public service nor do they establish
any requirement to do public
service. In any sense of the word
mandate, there is none in the FCC
Part 97.



Okay, now that you have accepted the authorization or approval sense of
the word, and have acknowledged 97.1 and the regs relating to RACES, go

back
to my original statement you objected to - "there is nothing in Part 95

that
mandates public service like that found in Part 97." Would you now agree
there is nothing in Part 95 relating to public service that is like that
found in Part 97?


Neither Part 97 or Part 95 mandates or authorizes public service. Part 97
however recognizes and encourages public service which Part 95 does not.
That was obvious from the beginning and I never challenged the fact that
Part 97 is altogether different than Part 95.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #788   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 11:56 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send
support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally.


Also through membership and well-written comments to NOI and NPRM.

I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will
end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic
that came out when the abomination was first proposed.


Agreed! And as Carl, WK3C urges, we must be sure that interference really
is BPL or we will lose credibility.

Maybe it will be trashed - but maybe not. It's not over till it's over, and
even then it's not over. For example, even though Japan rejected BPL
after trials, the BPL companies there are trying again, claiming "new
technology".

And remember that the levels of interference at the various test sites
conform to existing FCC radiated levels!

Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL,
FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now
"clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements.


Could still happen. Most of those folks don't have installations in
residential neighborhoods. Most hams, OTOH...


Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided
free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the
BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a
buffer zone around amateurs houses.


We're not in Austria. The EUs usually are a lot more rejecting of pollution
than we are. (BPL's interference is essentially spectrum pollution,
wouldn't you agree?)

Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK!


No, it *does* work! The demo sites are functioning.


They are a sort of laboratory condition.


Not really! They are actual residential and business areas, with existing power
lines of many types. While the number of customers isn't large, the technology
*does* work. It's just leaky.

If the test results from ARRL
are correct, 1 ham with 100 watts can effectively turn off the service
for quite some distance around him/her. That's what I mean.

Remember that those results were for a particular kind of system. BPL isn't
one company or one technology. There are several different types competing
to be "the one".

The apparent
need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to
operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal
levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly
large range.


In some test sites. But at others, it's a different story. And even such
problems are no guarantee that FCC won't allow it.


The market will then take care of it.


Hopefully. But a lot of really bad things have gotten to market.

Look at Manassas.


Aww, do I have to? 8^)


The whole place is getting BPL.

And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember
that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us.


Sure - and hopefully the combined effect of all of them will be enough to
convince FCC.

But the job isn't done till it's done.


Sure enough. Remember I'm not arguing against a stand against BPL

or the need to fight it. I just want people to not freak.

Of course. But at the same time we mustn't think the job is anywhere near done.

Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the
HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will
tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices
are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every*
other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just
maybe, BPL will work....kinda.



Stranger things have happened.

Suppose you sit down for a nice bit of PSK and find the waterfall full of
noise - and no signals visible. Do you think the power company is going to
interrupt service so you can operate?

Or suppose you see a signal or two and open up with 100 W. And suppose

you dump the system for a radius of a mile from your house....

Yup, keep on calling CQ. I probably wouldn't go above 50 watts tho' But


even that would be enough to disrupt the BPL.

Maybe. You want to try explaining it the police officer at your door? Or the
judge who doesn't want to be told it's not in his jursidiction?

On a side note, has there been any tests on what solar storms would do
to BPL?


Not that I know of. But the effect should not be much.

Or suppose the local gendarmes show up, responding to complaints from

many
angry citizens that *you* are messing up *their* computers. Do you want to
explain Part 15 and Part 97 to them, when they see you as the electronic
equivalent of somebody violating the peace?


Or suppose any time someone calls the help line, the first question the
help person asks is "Is there a ham radio within a mile of your house?"


Sure enough. All good arguments. And the best arguments for being
steadfast in the fight against BPL. Even though I am certain that in
practice, BPL will fall flat on it's face, that if approved, it will be
a nuisance for some hams and others.


More than some hams/ You think that noise won't propagate by sky wave?

But I see different levels of
concern. Concern at a high level such as at the early part of the fight
against BPL, when testing was needed, and arguments presented against
BPL. The present situation, when it is being documented that the system
is very fragile and has a track record of interference to emergency
services (even if it is only a test) allows more leisurely prosecution
of the problem.


Remember that it's not "a system" but rather several competing systems using
different technologies.

And recall that the BPL folks are using all then right buzzwords. "Third pipe"
"new technologies that foster competition" "increased/smarter utilization of
existing infrastructure". Etc., etc., etc....

But prosecution has to go on.


Agreed!

Recall too some of the experiences that hams have already encountered. When
WK3C told the story to a local paper, and demonstrated it, the BPL folks
claimed
'he found a neon sign'. In a residential neighborhood at midday. Right.

And despite the experiences of Austria, Japan and others, BPL advocates say
"there have been no reported interference cases".

That's what we're up against. Make no mistake.

What do you think the F.C.C's response will be when ARRL or FEMA trots

out the Austrian BPL Red Cross interference data?

I don't know. Could be that it was an isolated incident. Or that the Austrian
system
was "different". Never mind that Austrian radiated noise limits are lower than
ours...

Am I the only one that thinks that case is darn close to a show stopper?


I'm not counting on anything yet wrt BPL except that it needs to be fought.

Heck, it doesn't take an EE to see that the whole concept is badly flawed
but the trials are being allowed to progress anyway.

"Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst."

73 de Jim, N2EY
  #789   Report Post  
Old January 15th 04, 11:59 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

On a side note, has there been any tests on what solar storms would do
to BPL?


Unshielded lines probably means their going to be knocked off line rather
easily. On one of the space weather sites, there is a reference to the
solar storm equivalent of the "Perfect Storm". This occurred in the mid
1800s and knocked out landline telegraphy and the induced currents on the
lines leading to shorts in equipment that started several fires. Wish I
still had that URL.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #790   Report Post  
Old January 17th 04, 04:23 AM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

But that is not the context in which you used it. There is nothing in Part
97 authorizing us to do public service. Public service is briefly mentioned
but only in recognition and encouragement. Paragraph 97.1a does not
authorize any one to do a thing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


There are a total of FIVE paragraphs under 97.1, double-D.

Those are ALL applicable.

Do they "not authorize" four other activities?

Good luck on this one now...

LHA / WMD


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access Lloyd Mitchell Antenna 43 October 26th 04 01:37 AM
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine Dx 36 September 9th 04 09:30 AM
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC John Walton Homebrew 0 July 2nd 04 12:26 PM
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota Chuck Gysi N2DUP General 0 May 9th 04 09:18 PM
ARRL FUD about BPL Bill General 27 August 22nd 03 12:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017