"Alun" wrote in message
...
What's irresponsible about excercising our privileges on our frequencies.
How could it be jamming when BPL isn't a radio transmission? I have not
and
would never advocate jamming.

Alun,

I did not suggest that *you* were advocating operations designed to
intentionally disrupt BPL.

However, I have seem some comments that, if they don't outright advocate it,
come so close
that the BPL spin doctors could clearly make them look so.

We do have a right to use our frequencies in legitimate ways that our
licenses permit.

All I am saying is that discussing - even if in jest - operations designed
specifically to disrupt
BPL are a VERY bad idea and will harm our cause.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:39:52 -0000,
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.

73,
Carl - wk3c




: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .


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.

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .

--
Best Regards, Keith
NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/
Pax melior est quam iustissimum bellum.
Replace spam.858c7d95 with wvi dot com & del _

While I haven't searched the net and there is no URL given, and I believe
that the above "article"
is contrived - I think it PERFECTLY illustrates the point I was trying to
make.

Carl - wk3c

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:39:52 -0000,
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.

73,
Carl - wk3c




: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .


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.

: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .

--
Best Regards, Keith
NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/
Pax melior est quam iustissimum bellum.
Replace spam.858c7d95 with wvi dot com & del _

While I haven't searched the net and there is no URL given, and I believe
that the above "article"
is contrived - I think it PERFECTLY illustrates the point I was trying to
make.

Carl - wk3c

ect: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 8:46 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (N2EY)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

How did you make it through the U.S. Marine Corp without ever meeting a
sailor?

What does having served in the U. S. Marine Corps or meeting sailors have
to do with my training and education as a Nurse, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
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...?

Who cares, as long as I stay plonked! 8^)

- Always wondered why that one kept responding to my posts when he knew
I read them and replied only to that which deserved reply.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Keith wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:37:31 GMT,
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.


That isn't the point Phil, these emails and newsgroup posts could
be presented to the FCC and Congress to prove that all the interference
to BPL is intentional by ham radio operators and that the government
should stop the hams from destroying the Internet or whatever
argument the deep pockets of the BPL industry want to use
to stop complaints by ham radio operators.

Though it would probably be a Pandoras box to try to use newsgroup
postings as evidence!!!! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 9:25 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/26/2004 9:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

Refusing to answer the questions of a belligerant is "proof?"

You keep proving that your nuts.

No.

I keep proving you are a lair. Well...I don't prove it...YOU do.

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...

You had a whole list of questions. Now you have only "ONE."

Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

Wasn't lying in either case.

I've narrowed it down to only one at present, and you STILL can't give a
straight answer.

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...

Do you have gray hair yet?

Quite a few. None due to you...matter of fact, the fun I ahve here
probably defers quite a few of them! You DO make it soooooooooo easy, Brain!

Or are you admitting your mistruthfulness in your silence?

Steve, K4YZ

That's what Assuming Steve assumes.

That's what Brainless Brian proves.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 3/27/2004 9:46 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 9:25 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/26/2004 9:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

Refusing to answer the questions of a belligerant is "proof?"

You keep proving that your nuts.

No.

I keep proving you are a lair.

My bad.

But you ARE a "LIAR".

Steve, K4YZ