N2EY wrote:

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


Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did. I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Phil Kane wrote:
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".

You obviously haven't be paying attention to the group official rules
interpreter, Frankie Gilligan. According to him that would be malicious
interference and would completely be the hams fault and the ham would be
operating illegally.

JJ wrote:
Phil Kane wrote:

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".


You obviously haven't be paying attention to the group official rules
interpreter, Frankie Gilligan. According to him that would be malicious
interference and would completely be the hams fault and the ham would be
operating illegally.

Hehe, too bad Frank seems to have disappeared. I would have like to see
how he would have fared against Phil! I think Phil's opinion holds a bit
more authority, no?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

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.

Jim...is it just me, or does Lennie switch to profanity (actual or
ins*nu*ated) or suggest dropping to killfile ("plonk") when he's getting backed
into a corner by someone who can argue with him and make him look
silly....again...?

Seems he's been doing both a lot lately...

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (N2EY)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

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

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

I consider myself a "professional" too, but I don't remember ahving been
taught that profanity is an effective means of communication.

Must be a night-school engineer's course.

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.

Those days left with Jimmy Carter's administration.

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?

Sure...you bombard newsgroups for which you have no vested interest with
years of aggitation, argument and profanity.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/26/2004 12:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"

Leonard H. Anderson, alleged retired professional engineer.

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/26/2004 9:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/25/2004 2:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

If they are statements of fact, you'll just have to accept them.

Best of Luck

I guess "just have to accept them" is OK for you and your co-liar but
not
for anyone else.

You have to accept facts, don't you?

Were they or weren't they statements of fact?

If they weren't statements of fact, why did you call them that in the
last 60 posts or so?

And sorry, I don't....Because I know better, and so do you.

I only know that your nuts. Again and again.

It's been proven, Brain...You're lying. Everything else is downhill
from
here.

So where is the proof?

The "proof" is in your steadfast refusal to answer the question "What
"major role" do unlicensed radio services play in "emergency comms""...?!?!

No "luck" needed. You skillfully navigated yourself into that one.

Nice job.

Dunno, Steve, you're the one calling them statements of fact. You're
the navigator. You're the skillful one. Pffft.

Only "skillful" in that I keep trying to straighten out the spin you keep
trying to put on answering ONE question, Brain...

Everyone else on here knows that much of what is posted is called
"opinion."

Best of luck.

No luck needed. Still waiting on the answer, Brain...

Or are you admitting your mistruthfulness in your silence?

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

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. \

How do you know, Len? Did you know Mr. Beverage?

You should get to a community's
civil engineering office and look at the various electric line routings.

Why? Anyone can see where they run, just by looking.

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.

What is your point, Len? I know what power lines look like, how they work,
voltage levels, etc. In fact I probably know more about the electric power
distribution network than you do, particularly at the medium-voltage level.

You keep ducking the question of *how* to convince the "professionals" at FCC
and the BPL companies that BPL is not a good idea.

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 don't really know how to convince them, do you, Len?

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

Not me, Len. You're the absolute master of that sort of debate. You post here
more often, and at greater length, than anyone else. Yet you actually say
little or nothing of practical value. You're full of criticism for others,
particularly the ARRL, but can't take even the most well-mannered criticism or
disagreement on any issue.

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to even
us poor dumb amateurs.

Plonk

I don't think so.