Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way
street.

Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective.
I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit

Not a circuit.

which would require a
considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of
miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone
far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate
the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal.

Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act:
intentional interference.

Dear Beeping Bill:

How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user?

Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device?

The rules will change.

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Dave,

You are correct, of course. Also, using 20 meters for a 40 mile away
contact would not sit favourably with many folks and might be looked upon
unfavourably by the FCC. Certainly neither I nor many folks would
intentionally interfere with anyone. The unlicensed devices are not
protected and must put up with any interference. Although there exist some
filters to protect amateurs (and likely other users of rf spectrum), they
are not overly efficient. They would tend (I would think) to distort the
BPL somewhat - and the higher the speed, the less distortion the modems can
put up with.

I probably shouldn't even have posted. These were indeed my thoughts, but
the reality is that much of the posting (certainly much of mine) is not
really related to policy. BPL would be related, but most of the posts are
intended to inflame rather than discuss.

Your point, Dave, is well made and is, in fact, current policy with the FCC.
I'd like to think this stuff could coexist with various HF/VHF
communications, but have *severe* reservations about it; especially after
W1RFI and others went through areas with BPL and put the video on the net.

Actually, the BPL question should cause many folks to try and reach some
kind of argreement rather than the constant flames. BPL will affect
amateurs who have passed code exams, amateurs who have not taken a code
exam, CBers, SWL enthusiasts and others.

Certainly there will be 'attacks' (if you will) on some of the UHF/SHF
amateur bands. Some accomodations will have to be made, hopefully with some
spectrum replacement. Pagers and cellphones require bandwidth and now we
have cellphones that take (and transmit) pictures. Wireless cameras will
pass information over the air. The cameras will, most likely, be very low
power and not a concern. Cellphones and similar devices, along with many
other users (hey, digital tv has arrived) will make some demands.
Hopefully, the FCC will try and accomodate everyone as much as possible
(however, don't hold your breath on any government agency - both Republicans
and Democrats are beholden to various, albeit often different, special
interest groups).

What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL)
may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur,
which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how inexpensively
BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind
of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong, but
my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many might
live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be
too much.

In any case, thanks for your input, Dave.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Glad you found an ally in your scheme to interfere. But you should
take it off-line to work out the details. Public postings of
stupidity of such magnitude really won't endear y/our cause to the
FCC. Best of luck.

William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way
street.

Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective.
I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit

Not a circuit.

which would require a
considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of
miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone
far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate
the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal.

Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act:
intentional interference.

Dear Beeping Bill:

How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user?

Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device?

Read them and the answers will become clear.

The rules will change.

Have you seen anything in the notices indicating that BPL is about to
become part of a licensed service?

The question put to you was: How can a licensed user intentionally
interfere with an unlicensed user?

I'll add: 1) Is a Part 15 user required to stop interfering with
a licensed operation in any service?

2) Is a Part 15 user required to accept interference from
a licensed operation?

Have fun with these and see if you can get your rant back on track.

Dave K8MN

William wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Dave,

You are correct, of course. Also, using 20 meters for a 40 mile away
contact would not sit favourably with many folks and might be looked upon
unfavourably by the FCC. Certainly neither I nor many folks would
intentionally interfere with anyone. The unlicensed devices are not
protected and must put up with any interference. Although there exist some
filters to protect amateurs (and likely other users of rf spectrum), they
are not overly efficient. They would tend (I would think) to distort the
BPL somewhat - and the higher the speed, the less distortion the modems can
put up with.

I probably shouldn't even have posted. These were indeed my thoughts, but
the reality is that much of the posting (certainly much of mine) is not
really related to policy. BPL would be related, but most of the posts are
intended to inflame rather than discuss.

Your point, Dave, is well made and is, in fact, current policy with the FCC.
I'd like to think this stuff could coexist with various HF/VHF
communications, but have *severe* reservations about it; especially after
W1RFI and others went through areas with BPL and put the video on the net.

Actually, the BPL question should cause many folks to try and reach some
kind of argreement rather than the constant flames. BPL will affect
amateurs who have passed code exams, amateurs who have not taken a code
exam, CBers, SWL enthusiasts and others.

Certainly there will be 'attacks' (if you will) on some of the UHF/SHF
amateur bands. Some accomodations will have to be made, hopefully with some
spectrum replacement. Pagers and cellphones require bandwidth and now we
have cellphones that take (and transmit) pictures. Wireless cameras will
pass information over the air. The cameras will, most likely, be very low
power and not a concern. Cellphones and similar devices, along with many
other users (hey, digital tv has arrived) will make some demands.
Hopefully, the FCC will try and accomodate everyone as much as possible
(however, don't hold your breath on any government agency - both Republicans
and Democrats are beholden to various, albeit often different, special
interest groups).

What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL)
may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur,
which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how inexpensively
BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind
of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong, but
my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many might
live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be
too much.

In any case, thanks for your input, Dave.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Glad you found an ally in your scheme to interfere. But you should
take it off-line to work out the details. Public postings of
stupidity of such magnitude really won't endear y/our cause to the
FCC. Best of luck.

You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to
come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would
make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere".

I pointed out some reality. I asked a question.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to
come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would
make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere".

I pointed out some reality. I asked a question.

Dave K8MN

Dave, whenever I come across something posted here that lacks "good
amateur practice," your name pops up.

William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to
come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would
make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere".

I pointed out some reality. I asked a question.


Dave, whenever I come across something posted here that lacks "good
amateur practice," your name pops up.

It would appear that my name pops up because you attempt to make an
association where none exists. I'm not involved in a scheme. I did,
however, ask you how a licensed service can intentionally interfere with
a non-licensed producer of RF. You've not yet come up with a response.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(William) writes:

Dear Beeping Bill:

How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user?

Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device?

The rules will change.

State Department Dave lives in a different reality and isn't quite up to
speed on FCC abbreviations. An "NPRM" is a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making but big Dave thinks the rules are already in place.

Mama Dee lives in another reality where she thinks it is perfectly
legal for any licensed amateur to deliberately interfere with
unlicensed electronics.

The gunnery nurse is on a peak of his manic-depressive cycle
again and busy trying to peddle it to a single destination in his
twilight zone.

tRoll keeps slipping in his macro butter. The Katapult King is off
on an old-radio bender (better than shooting bears for the navy).
Now Hampton wants to get agressive against an enemy of radio
that hasn't been installed everywhere.

To them there are Monsters Under The Bed everywhere (not
realizing they are looking into mirrors when saying that).

I think that all the regulars ought to go on back to tawking about all
them amateur radio policy subjects like trolleys, muscle cars for
orion-sitters, old radio broadcast stations, making fun of the U.S.
military, making fun of others not liking them, architects, show biz
folk, and the legality of federally licensed amateurs to do anything
because they are Federally Authorized..

What with all those multiple copies of TAFKA Rev Jim's (which "is
not his fault" even though I don't get such repeats on other news-
groups or other problems with AOL), it's not worth staying in here.
Except to see the creativity in rationalizing they are always correct
and all others are mistaken.

LHA / WMD

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

The marketing hype is cheap broadband for the rural areas. Economic reality
is that it will probably never be extended into the rural areas even if some
suburban areas do go for it.

You have the "studies" to prove this as a fact?

Every single transformer between the injection
point of the signal and the end user must be bypassed with the BPL signal
for that signal to work.

Of course you KNOW the EXACT CHARACTERISTICS of "a BPL
signal," don't you?

I don't and won't presume to guess. But, you are AUTHORIZED by the
FCC to "legally interfere with any unlicensed service (of any kind)" and
are therefore blameless.

If you only have one user every few miles, it will
never pay off. And of course you've mentioned the power and/or signal
boosters required. Periodic boosters all along the line will be needed.

Ah so, the federal authorization magically makes all amateurs into
technical experts who KNOW things all through answering a few
questions and passing a morse code test.

Must be that new "interest" thing in hum radio.

LHA / WMD

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Interfering with a Part 15 device doesn't happen to be illegal.

Part 15 devices are not allowed to interfere with any licensed radio service
and must accept (i.e. tolerate) interference from any licensed radio
service.

Riiiiiight. Do your TVI thing, Mama Dee, interfere with pacemakers
and wired telephones and CB radios and whatever you want. You
have the "legal right" to do that from your federal authorization?

Must be all that "interest" thing in hum radio.

LHA / WMD

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field
into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest.

Of course. "Interest."

Feel free to "return favors" to cardiac patients using pacemakers and
other medical devices using RF coupling. Mama Dee says that sort
of thing is LEGAL because YOU HAVE A LICENSE and the federal
AUTHORIZATION to do such.

Feel free to generate TVI with your authorized amateur radio license
even though broadcast TV is also authorized. "Return with interest."
I'll bet Mama Dee will say that is perfectly legal, too.

Feel free to spritz your neighbors with RF 24/7. You are authorized to
transmit and it is so difficult to measure EM radiation levels by
amateurs. "Return with interest" all the irritation they caused you.

"Interest" in amateur radio.

LHA / WMD