Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Alun" wrote in message
...

Maybe we could come up with a certificate for operating from BPL test
sites, with endorsements for 500W, 1kW and 1.5kW?


Gentlemen (and other denizens of RRAP :-)

Suggestions of deliberate interference to ANYTHING (including BPL, which
under the law has no right to protection from licensed services) will NOT make any
friends for us at the FCC, on Capital Hill, or in the court of public opinion ...
especially when all of those venues are mostly ill-informed on the real nature of the
problem ...

If these suggestions, even if offered in jest, get into the hands of the BPL
spin doctors, they will not hesitate to publicly tar and feather the amateur radio
service, at the FCC, to Congresspersons, and as widely as possible in the press (and we know how
the press likes a controversial story, don't we?)

PLEASE, I implore you - drop these concepts from public venues like usenet!
You will do FAR more harm than good.

We MUST "take the high road" on the BPL issue ... that doesn't mean rolling
over and taking it ... but it does mean not shooting ourselves in the foot with such
irresponsible talk.

I changed the thread to get away from that talk.


Agreed! This brings up the chance to relate this thread to the recent
one where a poster here made the assertion that if we know our
transmissions will cause disruption to BPL access, then simply
transmitting at all would constitute willful and malicious interference.
Or at least willful.

IOW, if I know my neighbor has BPL access, does my continued use of my
HF amateur privileges when I know that tests show that the only HF
signal that did not knock a BPL signal out was at the QRP level
constitute that willful interference?

I say no, but the other side has an interesting interpretation.

Maybe Phil could weigh in on this one too?


I would predict before this is all over, someone or group will call for
the elimination of Amateur radio, or at least it's access to HF
frequencies, in order to serve the greater good, so that we may allow
millions of Americans access to the internet through BPL.

Not that that is likely to happen, but I'll bet someone comes up with
the suggestion.


Disturbing thoughts indeed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Phil Kane wrote:
On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:


I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.


That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.


There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access,
because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices
would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done
about it.

All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 25 Mar 2004 12:59:21 GMT, N2EY wrote:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any urban
radio environment.

Generally agreed by whom?

ARRL, FEMA, NTIA, the remaining amateur radio publications, just
for starters. :-)

But not the Wall Street Journal, or the chief engineer of the FCC, or the
Commissioners....;-) ;-)

Both the Commissioners and the Chief of the Office of Science and
Technology dance to the tune of the politicians who control them.

But Phil - they're "professionals", just like Len!

It embarasses the hell out of me.....

Why? You don't work for FCC any more, Phil.

Irrelevant to the BPL situation. FCC could prevent BPL from going forward if
they wanted to.

Unless an Access BPL system goes across state borders, about
all that the FCC can regulate is the incidental RF radiation from
the system. Incidental RF radiation is a main subject in Part 15,
Title 47 C.F.R. Part 15 doesn't deal in "communications" systems
and NPRM 04-29 is only about revisions to Part 15.

Again, irrelevant. And probably incorrect. The noise from BPL systems will
clearly cross state lines.

The "it doesn't cross state lines" argument was tried by the CBers
and it failed in court on the "effects are able to cross state
lines" theory. To avoid such hassles again, The Congress amended
the Comm Act (Section 301) to give the FCC authority over all
(non-US government) radiofrequency signals or energy transmitted
(intentionally or incidentally) at any place in the US and received
at any other place in the US regardless of intrastate or interstate
considerations.

Thanks, Phil.

So Len is wrong - *again*.

Now ----

Are you aware than an entrepreneur in RURAL eastern Oregon has set
up a 600-square-mile system of "Wi-Fi" wireless access points to
bring high-speed broadband internet service to an area whose main
activities are ranching, a rail yard (Hermiston, OR) and the
wide-open spaces of the US Army's Umatilla Chemical Weapons Depot.
Not exactly "high-density urban population".....and he expects to
recoup his investment with no problem.

No, Iwas not aware of that! Details, links, please? Being able to
point to such an installation would be an asset in comments to FCC.

This was reported in The Oregonian (Portland, OR) newspaper last week.

Somebody should tell WSJ.

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Indeed!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would
think
that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed experience would
know the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

NOBODY has EVER worked with ANY sort of "antenna" that
stretches for miles..

Yes, they have. One type is called a Beverage antenna, after its inventor,
H.H.Beverage.

Old Bev NEVER tried any "antenna" that can go MILES in mutually
perpendicular directions using MANY different and randomly-
varying paths in each direction. You should get to a community's
civil engineering office and look at the various electric line routings.

If you can't get out and LOOK at the surroundings where you are,
that's not my problem. The evidence is right in front of you, above
you, maybe below you. Old history books won't help you there.

I'd suggest you get a strong beverage, one that will relax you first
before trying to pull off that "ancient wisdom" dums**t again.

You waste too much of too many folks' time with arguments
over semantic minutae.

Plonk

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any urban
radio environment.


Generally agreed by whom?

The BPL developers don't agree. And they're professionals.

Sure, they were by investors told to build something that could get
digital information over
power cables. The fact that it will radiate was not an issue for them.
But a big
issue for us.

The FCC doesn't agree. They're professionals too, and regulators of all
"civilian" radio and wire communications in the USA.

Bullshjt, they're just brearucrats who are lawyers and not engineers.

They're "professionals, though. Just like Len!

They probably
figure that they can sue whatever out of existance to solve problems....

The FCC also created the six-tiered amateur license structure
prior to R&O 99-412 and established 13 and 20 WPM morse
code rates. :-)

Yep, back when the agency was run by technically knowledgeable people
who would have laughed BPL right out the door.

Six classes of license dates back to 1951.
13 wpm code test dates back to 1936
20 wpm code test dates back to the early 1920s

Tell us, Len - how do we *amateurs* fight something the
*professionals* say is a good thing? How do we convicne them it *is* a
"major calamity"?

Or don't you know how to do that?

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...

You can continue to argue among yourselves in here on the subject,
or you can put forth some effort for your "amateur community"
(which shows your dedication and committment) by communicating
with the FCC. See docket 04-37 in the FCC ECFS.

LHA / WMD

In article , (The
Confrontational Newsgroupie Amateur
Formerly Known As Reverend Jim puts on his cammies, locks
and loads 22 shorts) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any urban
radio environment.

Generally agreed by whom?

The BPL developers don't agree. And they're professionals.

Sure, they were by investors told to build something that could get
digital information over
power cables. The fact that it will radiate was not an issue for them.
But a big
issue for us.

The FCC doesn't agree. They're professionals too, and regulators of all
"civilian" radio and wire communications in the USA.

Bullshjt, they're just brearucrats who are lawyers and not engineers.

They're "professionals, though. Just like Len!

Tsk, tsk, tsk...skipping someone in the attributions, are you?

Now you are acting like an adolescent trolling for a FIGHT!

They probably
figure that they can sue whatever out of existance to solve problems....

The FCC also created the six-tiered amateur license structure
prior to R&O 99-412 and established 13 and 20 WPM morse
code rates. :-)

Yep, back when the agency was run by technically knowledgeable people
who would have laughed BPL right out the door.

Six classes of license dates back to 1951.
13 wpm code test dates back to 1936
20 wpm code test dates back to the early 1920s

Still chanting Morse Code Uber Alles are you? :-)

Poor baby.

3 classes of new licenses dates back to 2000.

5 words per minute singular code test rate dates back to 2000.

This year is 2004.

Tell us, Len - how do we *amateurs* fight something the
*professionals* say is a good thing? How do we convicne them it *is* a
"major calamity"?

Or don't you know how to do that?

I don't know how to "convicne" them or what that word means.

As to CONVINCING any group, all I can suggest is communicating
your grievances to your government. If you are a United States
citizen, then you are given that right by the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution.

For grievances about Access BPL and NPRM 04-29 concerning
amendments to Part 15, Title 47 C.F.R., for Access BPL, you have
three very quick access routes through the FCC website at dockets
04-27, 04-29, 03-104 which can all be made through the FCC
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). If you don't know how
to use that route, the FCC has made a good Help page available
to all. You may alternately or simultaneously choose to comment
via other media. The methods for that are also explained on an
FCC Help page available to all.

As of the close of FCC office hours on 25 March 2004, there were
108 documents filed under docket 04-37, 6 documents under
docket 04-29, 5813 documents under docket 03-104. I have made
my comments to the FCC on all three dockets plus I am finishing
surface mail correspondence with my federal Senator and federal
Representative in reference to NPRM 04-29 and Access BPL.

You are welcome to do nothing but sit in here and pick verbal bar
fights with others if you wish. That is a free option but it doesn't
make any sort of communications to federal regulators about
Access BPL one way or the other. Your choice.

Plonk

LHA / WMD

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:35:02 -0000, Keith wrote:

Consumers Internet Federation Oppose Ham Radio Operators Potential
Interference to BPL

San Francisco, CA - CIF today asked Congress to pass legislation
to protect Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) users from interference
by misguided ham radio operators. The ham radio operators through
email lists and newsgroups are making plans to disrupt the critical
infrastructure of the Internet in a terrorist like movement.
These acts will dramatically impact Internet users'
rights to access to the Internet. Legislation would require
anyone who interferes with a BPL system to immediately cease
all ham radio or CB operations until they no longer interfere
with a BPL users business or home system.
BPL promises Internet users a Broadband Nirvana and is endorsed by
FCC Chairman Michael Powell as a solution to the lack of broadband
choices for consumers.

Pardon me while I barf.

Then again, "interfere" and "interference" have specific definitins
in both national and international communications law which refer to
interruptions of LICENSED communication services.......of which BPL
is most assuredly not.

No one is disputing that BPL is a Part 15 "unintentional radiator"
which is not protected. The dispute is over the level of allowable
signal or noise permitted under rules pertaining to said applications.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:11:05 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

IOW, if I know my neighbor has BPL access, does my continued use of my
HF amateur privileges when I know that tests show that the only HF
signal that did not knock a BPL signal out was at the QRP level
constitute that willful interference?

I say no, but the other side has an interesting interpretation.

Maybe Phil could weigh in on this one too?

This attorney says that if you are operating within the FCC Rule
requirements then any interception by a system which is not intended
to receive those signals - be it an audio device or a BPL system -
is the problem of the affected system operator and not of the
transmitter operator or licensee.

In communications regulatory law, "willful" is defined as knowing
that you are doing an act regardless of the intent of doing that act
or its effects - it is the opposite of "accidental".

For example, operating a transmitter is a willful act - you know
that you are operating a transmitter. If operation of that
transmitter is a violation (such as on an unauthorized frequency)
that is a willful violation regardless of any intent to violate FCC
rules.

Operating a radio transmitter in full compliance with the terms of
license and FCC rules is not "in violation".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 26 Mar 2004 09:17:15 -0800, N2EY wrote:

But not the Wall Street Journal, or the chief engineer of the FCC, or the
Commissioners....;-) ;-)

Both the Commissioners and the Chief of the Office of Science and
Technology dance to the tune of the politicians who control them.

But Phil - they're "professionals", just like Len!

It embarasses the hell out of me.....

Why? You don't work for FCC any more, Phil.

Loyalty and respect die hard......I spent a lot of years there at a
time when the agency had national and international respect for
doing things right and put a lot of effort into carrying my share of
that load.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane