Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 7:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make the
use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should the
offended person so desire.

Too bad we don't have a "conduct unbecoming" regulation.

Yes. I'd take great pleasure in seeing you adn Lennie prosecuted under it.

You'd spend all of your time at Captain's Mast rather than harassing
and stalking others.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Tell me about that misister's non-judicial punishment.

No, document it.

How can a civilian be "punichsed" under military law, Brain?

I did NOT state is was a military person. We were discussing profanity.

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in public
correspondence?

Yes. No.

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of communication...?!?!

You don't show verbal comments, they are not official navy
"documents."

Ahhhhhh....so no "verbal comments" of a Naval officer have ever been
"documented"...?!?! Those comments were never "credited" to a person in an
official position?

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

darn

Glad to disappoint you again.

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 7:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make the
use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should the
offended person so desire.

Too bad we don't have a "conduct unbecoming" regulation.

Yes. I'd take great pleasure in seeing you adn Lennie prosecuted under it.

You'd spend all of your time at Captain's Mast rather than harassing
and stalking others.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Tell me about that misister's non-judicial punishment.

No, document it.

How can a civilian be "punichsed" under military law, Brain?

I did NOT state is was a military person. We were discussing profanity.

Many ministers wear the uniform. You brought in the minister and the
UCMJ. Why would you bring in someone not subject to the UCMJ, then
start backpeddling?

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in public
correspondence?

Yes. No.

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of communication...?!?!

Steve is saying that all professional communications must be written.

You don't show verbal comments, they are not official navy
"documents."

Ahhhhhh....so no "verbal comments" of a Naval officer have ever been
"documented"...?!?! Those comments were never "credited" to a person in an
official position?

Hmmm? You tell me.

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

darn

Glad to disappoint you again.

Steve, you've been a monumental disappointment, and probably not just
to me.

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 11:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 7:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make
the
use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should
the
offended person so desire.

Too bad we don't have a "conduct unbecoming" regulation.

Yes. I'd take great pleasure in seeing you adn Lennie prosecuted under
it.

You'd spend all of your time at Captain's Mast rather than harassing
and stalking others.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Tell me about that misister's non-judicial punishment.

No, document it.

How can a civilian be "punichsed" under military law, Brain?

I did NOT state is was a military person. We were discussing
profanity.

Many ministers wear the uniform. You brought in the minister and the
UCMJ. Why would you bring in someone not subject to the UCMJ, then
start backpeddling?

No backpeddling, Brain.

I am very, VERY sorry that you can't/won't keep up, but do I REALLY need to
spoon feed each and ever answer to you?

Are you REALLY that childish and inept, or is it just an act?

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in
public
correspondence?

Yes. No.

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of
communication...?!?!

Steve is saying that all professional communications must be written.

In 18 years of service in the USMC, I can honestly say I NEVER head ANY
USMC or USN officer use "profanity" in thier official capacity. As I
said...did I hear any of them EVER swear? Of course, but NOT in order to do
thier jobs, communicate a point or otherwise use it to try an effectively
express themselves.

It wasn't necessary.

You don't show verbal comments, they are not official navy
"documents."

Ahhhhhh....so no "verbal comments" of a Naval officer have ever been
"documented"...?!?! Those comments were never "credited" to a person in an
official position?

Hmmm? You tell me.

Sorry, Brain. You were, again, the one making an unenable assertion.

You're up again, PutzBoy.

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

darn

Glad to disappoint you again.

Steve, you've been a monumental disappointment, and probably not just
to me.

I am sure you'd like to think so.

I have correspondence to the contrary on many numerous counts.

Sorry. Sucks to be you...Again.

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 11:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 7:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make
the
use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should
the
offended person so desire.

Too bad we don't have a "conduct unbecoming" regulation.

Yes. I'd take great pleasure in seeing you adn Lennie prosecuted under
it.

You'd spend all of your time at Captain's Mast rather than harassing
and stalking others.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Tell me about that misister's non-judicial punishment.

No, document it.

How can a civilian be "punichsed" under military law, Brain?

I did NOT state is was a military person. We were discussing
profanity.

Many ministers wear the uniform. You brought in the minister and the
UCMJ. Why would you bring in someone not subject to the UCMJ, then
start backpeddling?

No backpeddling, Brain.

I am very, VERY sorry that you can't/won't keep up, but do I REALLY need to
spoon feed each and ever answer to you?

Are you REALLY that childish and inept, or is it just an act?

Look, kook, you're the one who thought them relative and necessary to
make your point. But they apparently didn't make your point nor were
they necessary or even related to your point.

Just don't go taking it out on me for your pointless mention of the
UCMJ and ministers.

Not my problem.

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 9:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I am very, VERY sorry that you can't/won't keep up, but do I REALLY
need to
spoon feed each and ever answer to you?

Are you REALLY that childish and inept, or is it just an act?

Look, kook, you're the one who thought them relative and necessary to
make your point. But they apparently didn't make your point nor were
they necessary or even related to your point.

Just don't go taking it out on me for your pointless mention of the
UCMJ and ministers.

Not my problem.

Brain...it IS YOUR problem when you can't keep your stories straight,
present some valid corroboration of your assertions, or be stand-up enough to
admit that you've been mistruthful when it's proven that you WERE mistruthful.

I just have a great time watching you do it.

Thanks.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 27 Mar 2004 08:05:03 GMT, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

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.

Y'know, you're right.

Until Carter got in, the Chairman was Dick Wiley, an extremely
knowledgeable comm lawyer who could understand things technical
without any problem and knew what the Commission was supposed to do.
Very impressive.

Carter replaced him with Charlie Ferris, Tip O'Neill's bag-carrier,
in a patently political payback. Ferris brought in the economists
and the consumer-ists for top management and policy-setting positions
and the slippery slope started.

Which was recognized by only a few at the time.

In the Reagan-Bush_I years that followed Carter, there were a
succession of lightweight Chairmen epitomized by "Madman Mark"
Fowler, a comm lawyer who couldn't get a significant law partnership
after he was replaced by Reed Hundt - the guy who took the field
apart because he didn't understand what enforcement was all about
and why the agency had to do it - when Clinton got in. Hundt was
followed by Bill Kenard, whose greatest achievement was to make the
spectrum auction system work. Bush_II brought us Michael Powell, the
cheerleader of BPL.

Republicans and Democrats both. Let's see - Carter plus Clinton is 12 years,
Reagan plus Bushes is 16 years. Pretty balanced.

And Jim wonders why I'm embarrassed ??

Not any more.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 9:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I am very, VERY sorry that you can't/won't keep up, but do I REALLY
need to
spoon feed each and ever answer to you?

Are you REALLY that childish and inept, or is it just an act?

Look, kook, you're the one who thought them relative and necessary to
make your point. But they apparently didn't make your point nor were
they necessary or even related to your point.

Just don't go taking it out on me for your pointless mention of the
UCMJ and ministers.

Not my problem.

Brain...it IS YOUR problem when you can't keep your stories straight,

It wasn't my story to keep straight, you kook, it was yours.

present some valid corroboration of your assertions, or be stand-up enough to
admit that you've been mistruthful when it's proven that you WERE mistruthful.

You were "mistruthful" with your minister and UCMJ nonsense. Either
it was or it was not relevant.

You bring it up as if it were relevant, then when I address it, you
say it wasn't relevant.

You just talk nonsense, day after day.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:

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 the actual buzzphrase is "areas underserved by broadband" or some
such.

Not areas "undeserved" by broadband? ;^)

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just
as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable,
and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost
cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies
don;t serve those areas yet.

I find it exceptionally misleading that people are being allowed to
believe that the signals are just going to travel by the power lines
from start to finish.

Of course it's misleading, but that's nothing new. Notice how the word "radio"
is avoided by people pushing "new wireless technologies".

Remember, Mike, they're all "professionals". They must know what's best, right?

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!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones
that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a
network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't
inexpensive!

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.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other
competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Or just do the right thing, and run the silly signal the rest of the way
into the house via accepted and technically astute methods.

note: I'm making a bit of an assumption that this can be done.

Of course it can be done. But it costs $$ to do it, and the DSL and cablemodem
folks don't see an adequate ROI. Yet.

This is the downside of "deregulation". Once upon a time, "the phone company"
had to serve everyone pretty much equally, regardless of cost, in return for
having a monopoly. Not true any more.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that
BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may
mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

I wonder how the costs compare between a BPL line system and a
cable system?

Depends on the particular situation. If there is currently no cable system, the
cost of running new cable and all that goes with it is quite high, compared to
putting in a few BPL taps and repeaters. OTOH, if the infrastructure is in
place it's a different story.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

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.

I know exactly what you mean, Phil.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that
BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may
mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""

Good work!

Right there is the evidence that the proponents are being less than
accurate in their portrayal of BPL.

It just means they define "infrastructure" differently.

They don't consider the addition of fiber, taps or bypass couplers to be
"installation of infrastructure". They do consider ahving to run actual wires,
particularly into subscribers' homes, as "instalation of infrastructure".

Running the last mile of wire is expensive because of all the labor involved.
Running the last couple of dozen/hundred feet into the subscriber's house or
business is even more expensive because of the labor and having to work in
somebody's house or business. The liability is high, too.

Since BPL is slower than some other broadband services, and the
infrastructure appears to be similar to running fiber, is the slowing
attributed to the "existing infrastructure" part of the line?

As I understand it, none of the systems uses the whole 2-80 MHz spectrum at the
same time. This is because you couldn't "repeat" (amplify) without interfering
with yourself. So a system might use, say, 30-40 MHz in one length of line,
then translate to, say, 15-25 MHz for the next length so that the MV line
doesn't have to break.

It appears that in the Penn Yan system, only one set of frequencies is used
because the system only goes about 9 blocks.

I'm ignorant of the finer details of BPL, so I may be way off here.

Seems like if they have to run fiber, and do all the repeaters, etc.
why not just........ run fiber and put the signals into the houses as
they should be?

Because of the cost of getting the fiber in the houses, and the terminal
equipment once it gets there. And back at the office.

To my way of thinking, the "best" answer with current technology lies in the
various "Wi-Fi" ("wireless") technologies. No installation cost in the
subscriber homes or businesses, no RFI issues, lots of bandwidth, and will even
work with a lapper that isn't plugged in.

More than 15 years ago, I was talking about how we should each have a "personal
fiber" that would handle all our comm needs - telephone, data, TV, etc. No EMI
or RFI because it's light! But between the installation and equipment costs
it's just not feasible. Yet.

There was also the fact that regulations prohibit certain things, in an
attemprt to prevent monopolies. At least back then, a telephone company could
not offer "cable" TV, and the cable company could not offer telephone service,
because of federal regulations.

Any good sources of the nitty-gritty of BPL technology?

One of the best (Carl, WK3C) replied to your post, Mike. Carl has experienced
BPL first-hand.

73 de Jim, N2EY