In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , JJ

writes:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I hate to agree with Len. But he is right on this one.

Dan/W4NTI

Gotta admit too Dan, and give Len credit here, he makes a very good point.

He's just repeating what ARRL and many of us have been saying for about a
year
now - get the facts and comment to FCC in the appropriate places.

He's setting the stage for making rant fodder out of anybody around
here who doesn't submit a set of commnents to the FCC.

That too! As proved elsewhere, you hit that one dead-on.

The deadline for comments is May 3. Today is March 18. Some of us are already
working on comments. Such serious stuff should not be rushed, though, and need
to be thoroughly proofread and spellchecked. And the comments need to go two
places since two sets of regs are changing.

ARRL has been beating this drum from the first. Full details at

http://www.arrl.org


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

He's setting the stage for making rant fodder out of anybody around
here who doesn't submit a set of commnents to the FCC.

Looks like Kellie has already set the stage for his excuses in
not filing a damn thing and will then tawk tuff about nasty
gubmint afterwards.

Kellie tawks tuff all over the place in here. He can't do it to
the FCC? :-)

LHA / WMD

I called that one right on the money didn't I ya PUTZ.

No, all you are doing is TAWKING TUFF...which I "predicted." :-)

Did Kellie file anything on NPRM 04-29? Is he planning to?

Did Kellie file anything on NOI 03-104?

Kellie has all of April to prepare something on 04-29. He won't,
reserving his valuable time to bad-mouthing certain others.

Kellie WANTS BPL to happen?

LHA / WMD

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , JJ

writes:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I hate to agree with Len. But he is right on this one.

Dan/W4NTI

Gotta admit too Dan, and give Len credit here, he makes a very good
point.

He's just repeating what ARRL and many of us have been saying for about a
year
now - get the facts and comment to FCC in the appropriate places.

He's setting the stage for making rant fodder out of anybody around
here who doesn't submit a set of commnents to the FCC.

That too! As proved elsewhere, you hit that one dead-on.

The deadline for comments is May 3. Today is March 18.

You HAVE the Federal Register to "prove" that, do you?

Yesterday, 17 March, there were already 29 comments on
the ECFS.

Some of us are already working on comments.

Mostly for the newsgroup? :-)

Such serious stuff should not be rushed, though, and need
to be thoroughly proofread and spellchecked.

Oh my, Miccolis was one the early birds on 03-104. Did he
"thoroughly proofread and spellcheck" his comment on the
NOI?

And the comments need to go two
places since two sets of regs are changing.

WHICH "two sets of regs?"

The NPRM 04-29 specifically states Part 15 of Title 47 C.F.R.

It concerns incidental radiation, the only thing the FCC can
regulate (with the possible exception of a power line crossing
state boundaries with Access BPL serving more than one state).

WHICH docket is the "correct" one, mighty seer?

ARRL has been beating this drum from the first.

From the "first" what?

Nobody so far has "beat" the National Antenna Consortium and
The Amhearst Alliance on NPRM 04-29 with a 19 Feb 04 filing!
:-)

As of 17 Mar 04, there were 5,731 documents in the ECFS on
NOI 03-104. Did the ARRL file all of those? A "large part" of
those? Are they the "only one" with any sort of "technical
dissertation" about Access BPL and incidental radiation?

Full details at

http://www.arrl.org

NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "FULL DETAILS!"

ARRL is still mentioning NOI 03-104 as if it were a current docket.
Why? It is toast. That NOI is just a digital wastebasket for citizens
getting their complain jollies over with...so they will learn to accept
Access BPL as a given in the future and not complain then.

ARRL can't even (yet) explain why there are TWO dockets on ONE
NPRM. [04-37 and 04-29 for NPRM 04-29]

ARRL hasn't (yet) posted any deadline date on filing for Access
BPL. Why not? Isn't that "important" or something?

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Full details at

http://www.arrl.org

NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "FULL DETAILS!"

ARRL is still mentioning NOI 03-104 as if it were a current docket.
Why? It is toast. That NOI is just a digital wastebasket for citizens
getting their complain jollies over with...so they will learn to accept
Access BPL as a given in the future and not complain then.

ARRL can't even (yet) explain why there are TWO dockets on ONE
NPRM. [04-37 and 04-29 for NPRM 04-29]

ARRL hasn't (yet) posted any deadline date on filing for Access
BPL. Why not? Isn't that "important" or something?

LHA / WMD

Careful, Lean. Once TAFKARJ is toppled, rrap anarchy will follow.

Mitigate the inevitable and have him sign an MOU; he can play King of
the Hill but has to say what you tell him to say.

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Jimmie has tips on everything. He knows what is, what isn't, who is
right, who is wrong, even what the FCC thinks. Information
technology or IT. He's full of IT. :-)

Yours sincerely,
TNAFKNAMPARRL

TNAFKNAMPARRL, TAFKARJ is about to be toppled.

Time to back-channel a mitigating response.

MSIT A8J.

Authenticate.

Roger that, Red Dog Leader, you are 5 by 9 all the way.

Would you repeat the last groups? :-)

Red Dog 7 clear.

squeep

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

Full details at

http://www.arrl.org

NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "FULL DETAILS!"

ARRL is still mentioning NOI 03-104 as if it were a current docket.
Why? It is toast. That NOI is just a digital wastebasket for citizens
getting their complain jollies over with...so they will learn to accept
Access BPL as a given in the future and not complain then.

ARRL can't even (yet) explain why there are TWO dockets on ONE
NPRM. [04-37 and 04-29 for NPRM 04-29]

ARRL hasn't (yet) posted any deadline date on filing for Access
BPL. Why not? Isn't that "important" or something?

LHA / WMD

Careful, Lean. Once TAFKARJ is toppled, rrap anarchy will follow.

Mitigate the inevitable and have him sign an MOU; he can play King of
the Hill but has to say what you tell him to say.

Nevah hoppen, G.I.!

Mr. Southgate will NEVER concede to be told anydamnthing. QED.
He and his court jouster (Mr. Foreign Service) tell others what to say
and when to say it. :-)

Sign a MOU? Him? Might look good in a MOU-MOU though... :-)

"CW gets through when nothing else will" is their credo. Only PCTAs
are "right." All NCTAs are "wrong."

PCTAs are the most civilized of people and they NEVER swear.
NCTAs are all uncouth, ignorant, make mistakes all the time...and
tell bad jokes. :-)

ARRL is perfect all the time, never makes mistakes. [the ARRL
is PCTA]

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

He's setting the stage for making rant fodder out of anybody around
here who doesn't submit a set of commnents to the FCC.

Looks like Kellie has already set the stage for his excuses in
not filing a damn thing and will then tawk tuff about nasty
gubmint afterwards.

Kellie tawks tuff all over the place in here. He can't do it to
the FCC? :-)

LHA / WMD

I called that one right on the money didn't I ya PUTZ.

No, all you are doing is TAWKING TUFF...which I "predicted." :-)

Did Kellie file anything on NPRM 04-29? Is he planning to?

Did Kellie file anything on NOI 03-104?

Kellie has all of April to prepare something on 04-29. He won't,
reserving his valuable time to bad-mouthing certain others.

Kellie WANTS BPL to happen?

LHA / WMD

Careful, Lean. Kellie might knock your code-key in the dirt.

Not to worry...I've got just the bear for him to take pictures of...:-)

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , JJ

writes:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I hate to agree with Len. But he is right on this one.

Dan/W4NTI

Gotta admit too Dan, and give Len credit here, he makes a very good point.

He's just repeating what ARRL and many of us have been saying for about a
year
now - get the facts and comment to FCC in the appropriate places.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Looks like TAFKARJ no longer has the corner on the regulatory
information market. Otta stick to speroni database.

ARRL is TAFKARJ's Big Brother.

And he is probably back there in 1984...and earlier.

LHA / WMD

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/17/2004 11:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Jimmie has tips on everything. He knows what is, what isn't, who is
right, who is wrong, even what the FCC thinks. Information
technology or IT. He's full of IT. :-)

Whew!

Lennie's got a bad case of the "Mee Too's" tonight!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/19/2004 7:49 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Nope, no anger or rage. Len has been working out and now I call him
"Lean."

Actually, I've been out working, not working out.

Doubtful, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one
since "work" is a relative term.

He would praise you for knowing sumptin about about Part 97. Best of
Luck.

He knows it exists. That's a plus. Beyond that, his score isn't
the highest grade on the report card.

MY score on Part 97 isn't the "highest grade"...?!?!


BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! !

What Lennie DOESN'T know about Part 97 could fill libraries!

Impossible. I own a copy of Part 97 and it fills the space of one
small book.

Lennie's understanding and comprehension of Amateur Radio
regulations, both in theory and practice have been ripped apart by
more than ONE poster in this forum, and always to his ultimate
detriment.

Because Amateur Radio exists in a parallel universe where conventional
laws of physics do not apply.

No...becasue that blithering idiot likes to make up his OWN rules as he
goes in order to vindicate his rants.

He's a fool, Brain, and you're his bagboy. What does that say about
you...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(William) writes:

What Lennie DOESN'T know about Part 97 could fill libraries!

Impossible. I own a copy of Part 97 and it fills the space of one
small book.

I have all five volumes of Title 47 C.F.R., soft-cover, printed by
the U.S. Government Printing Office. Part 97 is one of the
smaller sections in the 5th volume.

There are several USGPO branch outlets in major urban centers
and will take orders for publications over the phone, accepting
major credit card payment. USPS regular surface delivery is
free on order shipment.

Lennie's understanding and comprehension of Amateur Radio
regulations, both in theory and practice have been ripped apart by
more than ONE poster in this forum, and always to his ultimate
detriment.

Because Amateur Radio exists in a parallel universe where conventional
laws of physics do not apply.

The sad part is that some, like Robeson, perceive U.S. amateur radio
only in terms of their own involvement. Further, he demands some
kind of "rule by tenure and involvement" (similar to a kind of ancient
tribal leadership by brawn and bravado) solely by the participants.

Robeson reacts in the typical "military syndrome" of absolute pride
in "his outfit" and assumes some kind of officer or NCO rank above
others, demanding uncompromising obeyance to his "orders." If
there is objection to what he says, he goes into the abusive nature
of typical NCOs whipping the troops into line.

The problem is that U.S. amateur radio is NOT a military service
nor even a paramilitary service. It is basically a hobby, a
recreational activity involving radio. It is, by default, a hobby
because federal regulations forbid monetary compensation for
any radio communications rendered.

There is the common thread among the "tribal rule" individuals that
no one unlicensed in amateur radio can possibly know anything
about amateur radio, therefore they should be silent. Preposterous
since U.S. amateur radio activity is widely publicized (among those
who care to find out) and federal regulations forbid any secrecy in
amateur communications.

No one on the staff of the FCC or the Commissioners themselves
are required to have any amateur radio licenses, yet the FCC has
the lawful duty to regulate amateur radio and mitigate interference
matters, up to and including imposing fines and calling on U.S.
Marshals to arrest extreme miscreants. That rather destroys their
concept that "only other amateurs can tell them what to do."

Amateur radios operate by exactly the same physics as radios in
all other radio services. Propagation of radio waves occurs in
exactly the same way as for all other radio services. There are
no exceptions despite some odd ideas and strange misconceptions
among certain radio amateurs.

It is impossible to rationally discuss anything with certain people
(such as Robeson) since they are too emotionally-driven and too
prideful in their concept of their personal hobby involvement. They
must - absolutely - have their way or all are treated to personally
abusive remarks from them.

The above is representative of their non-reasoning in demanding a
morse code test for all new amateurs...pure emotional basis on
what they had to endure long ago (and probably resent).

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

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

What Lennie DOESN'T know about Part 97 could fill libraries!

Impossible. I own a copy of Part 97 and it fills the space of one
small book.

I have all five volumes of Title 47 C.F.R., soft-cover, printed by
the U.S. Government Printing Office. Part 97 is one of the
smaller sections in the 5th volume.

There are several USGPO branch outlets in major urban centers
and will take orders for publications over the phone, accepting
major credit card payment. USPS regular surface delivery is
free on order shipment.

Len, in your best judgement, would you think that Steve could avail
himself to the services of the USGPO and USPS, learn the truth, then
post a retraction of his statement above?

Hell will freeze over first... :-)

Lennie's understanding and comprehension of Amateur Radio
regulations, both in theory and practice have been ripped apart by
more than ONE poster in this forum, and always to his ultimate
detriment.

Because Amateur Radio exists in a parallel universe where conventional
laws of physics do not apply.

The sad part is that some, like Robeson, perceive U.S. amateur radio
only in terms of their own involvement. Further, he demands some
kind of "rule by tenure and involvement" (similar to a kind of ancient
tribal leadership by brawn and bravado) solely by the participants.

Robeson reacts in the typical "military syndrome" of absolute pride
in "his outfit" and assumes some kind of officer or NCO rank above
others, demanding uncompromising obeyance to his "orders." If
there is objection to what he says, he goes into the abusive nature
of typical NCOs whipping the troops into line.

I find it interesting that Steve, having supposedly served in seven
hostile actions, never served in a unit with a single KIA, present or
past.

Even though I was in the USAF, I served the Second Infantry Division.
It has a proud history and I was proud to serve it. Though
hostilities were low due to the cease fire of 1954, I would like to
think that having competant armed forces facing the enemy along the
DMZ helped maintain that cease fire.

The Korean War Cease Fire took place in 1953 but sporadic
fighting happened for at least another three decades. The Korean
War remains in a curious "cease fire" after nearly 51 years, not
over yet. Korea is still divided and the "talks" continue at
Panmunjom on a regular basis. Ridiculous.

Robeson tries to vainly manufacture indiscretions by others but all
that does is to discredit himself. He says that I "associate myself
with KIAs" and that is not true. What I've stated is that I was
assigned to a Signal Battalion, then called the 71st, in February
of 1953. That Signal Battalion was organized in 1946 to directly
serve Far East Command Headquarters then in Tokyo. After the
June, 1950, start of the Korean War, FEC Hq ordered some
personnel and communications equipment from the 71st Sig Svc
Bn to be air-lifted into Korea to reinforce communications there.
The C-54 crashed on landing, killing all on board, on 1 Jul 50. The
main billet (and US Army Central Command offices) was named
"Hardy Barracks" after one of those killed; "Camp Tomlinson"
was made the name of the station ADA transmitter site and
barracks at Kashiwa in mid-1956, also honoring one of those
killed. There were three other casualties from my Signal
Battalion between 1952 and 1956.

I use the term "my Signal Battalion" because I was assigned to
it and remained in it for three years. During that time the name
was changed and between 1956 and 1958 it was consolidated with
the 72nd Signal Battalion at Camp Zama as part of the post-Korea
downsizing of military in Japan. The battalion's name changed
twice more after that, eventually stabilizing as the 78th Signal
Battalion, still at Camp Zama, under the 516th Signal Brigade at
Fort Shafter, Hawaii, that Brigade attached to Headquarters, U.S.
Army Pacific. Callsign ADA remains as that of USARPAC Hq
after 6 decades of providing primary communications.

Even though my service was uneventful and rather ordinary, "my
battalion" earned two Presidential Unit Citations while I was
assigned to it. I've stood Retreat more than once to honor those
few signalmen from the battalion who perished while on duty.
We all "got the message through" in the everyday motto of the
Signal Corps. I'm proud to have been a part of it.

I've been in communications with five former signalmen who were
in my battalion plus a civilian who was a DAC at ADA. One of the
signalmen, Eugene Rosenbaum, served at the same time I did and
we knew each other then. Gene is a long-time radio amateur,
retired from the FAA, and his interest now is in radio controlled
model airplanes. We fought no glorious battles, did not earn any
pretty medals (beyond a Good Conduct medal), just did our duty.
No "hostile actions," just the ordinary hazards of military service.
In the words of one of the signalmen, "we (of the 71st) didn't yield
an inch of Tokyo ground to the communists!" :-)

Actually, we yielded to the USAF. As part of the downsizing after
the Korean War and before the start of Vietnam War, the USAF
was assigned responsibility for all the HF radio, torn-tape
teleprinter relay, and microwave relay activity formerly done by the
Army. That continued by the USAF until 1978 when the whole
thing was shut down and returned to the Japanese. Only a portion
of the huge ADA receiver site (Camp Owada) remains, leased by
the U.S. DIA as a monitoring station.

Camp Tomilinson was built on a former Japanese airfield and about
1 mile by 2 miles in area, festooned with wire antennas for (then)
43 HF transmitters. Barracks and offices and mess for personnel
were in one corner of the airfield. We literally lived IN an antenna
field there (USAF folks did after they took over). The USA and
USAF added some more transmitters, replaced some of the old
ones. 24/7 operation by both service branches.

All of that is gone now. HF radio is no longer a primary medium
for military communications, has been relegated to a secondary
role. Primary medium is the DSN, the "government's own
Internet" through wirelines, fiber-optics, and satellite radio relay
with terrestrial radio relay on microwave troposcatter and LOS
terminals plus towed telephone central office equivalents
available that can connect any unit if any existing communications
infrastructure is totally destroyed.

The problem is that U.S. amateur radio is NOT a military service
nor even a paramilitary service. It is basically a hobby, a
recreational activity involving radio. It is, by default, a hobby
because federal regulations forbid monetary compensation for
any radio communications rendered.

Though monetary compensation is forbidden, it often occurs. Some call
them "repeater dues."

Be that as it may, the Amateur Service has been useful and probably
will continue to be useful in emergency communications when other
comms fail.

Absolutely. ANY useable communications means is always useful
in an extreme emergency.

However, too many hams wallow in that possibility as if it were an
everyday fact, wanting undue praise and respect for being part of
it (yet not ever having been IN any emergency themselves).

They don't understand that most emergencies are rather small-
scale things, unlikely to make the cover of Time or Newsweek.

There is the common thread among the "tribal rule" individuals that
no one unlicensed in amateur radio can possibly know anything
about amateur radio, therefore they should be silent. Preposterous
since U.S. amateur radio activity is widely publicized (among those
who care to find out) and federal regulations forbid any secrecy in
amateur communications.

I've seen it bragged on here that the ARRL Amateur Handbook is found
in professional radio engineers library shelves. Must be a one way
street.

That may be true in some places and I have seen personal copies
of the handbook on individual office bookshelves. Usually we are
all awash in great heaping globs of other printed material and
specifications. Reference textbooks are many and varied in any
engineering environment. An ARRL Handbook there would be a
rare find. Referencing an ARRL Handbook in a Report is likely
to put one in the negative side of personnel review... :-)

If the Handbook is the only big reference they have on radio, and
never having seen what is available on ALL radio, they will
naturally assume professionals use it too. They seldom do.

A column by Robert W. Lucky in this months' issue of Spectrum,
the IEEE membership magazine, addresses "archiving" of
information with an example of his employer's (Lucent) library
closure.

No one on the staff of the FCC or the Commissioners themselves
are required to have any amateur radio licenses, yet the FCC has
the lawful duty to regulate amateur radio and mitigate interference
matters, up to and including imposing fines and calling on U.S.
Marshals to arrest extreme miscreants. That rather destroys their
concept that "only other amateurs can tell them what to do."

I hope someone in authority is watching the nutty one. He really
spooks me.

I have to ask, "WHICH nutty one?" :-)

Amateur radios operate by exactly the same physics as radios in
all other radio services. Propagation of radio waves occurs in
exactly the same way as for all other radio services. There are
no exceptions despite some odd ideas and strange misconceptions
among certain radio amateurs.

Might be because they do not understand other radio services and think
amateur radio is special.

True! Plus they've been fed information from a single source which
uses selective editing to allow only part of the information to reach
them. That results in a cult-like Belief that is very strong.

Unreasonable, but strong.

It is impossible to rationally discuss anything with certain people
(such as Robeson) since they are too emotionally-driven and too
prideful in their concept of their personal hobby involvement. They
must - absolutely - have their way or all are treated to personally
abusive remarks from them.

I tire of him. He's irrational.

Agreed.

The above is representative of their non-reasoning in demanding a
morse code test for all new amateurs...pure emotional basis on
what they had to endure long ago (and probably resent).

LHA / WMD

uphill both ways. bb

:-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

...and because it doesn't matter what anything Heil says about me
in here. I'm going to continue posting as *I* see fit and Heil is
just
so much QRM to work through...until the morse code test is
eliminated. Of course, by that time, I might change my mind and
NOT leave.

And as long as what you "see fit" to publish is so flagrantly
abusive and obviously in error, we will take great pleasure in rubbing
your nose (and that of your favorite marionette) in your foolishness.

Fair enough...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, tell us again how big Part 97 is. I need a good laugh.

It's about the size of an Archie comic book. Not as big as a
regular edition of Reader's Digest. Familiar territory for the
gunnery nurse? :-)

LHA / WMD

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/19/2004 6:27 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

No...becasue that blithering idiot likes to make up his OWN rules as he
goes in order to vindicate his rants.

He's a fool, Brain, and you're his bagboy. What does that say about
you...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

What do posts like this say about you?

Three words come to mind: Rude, Obnoxious, Nuts.

Sure beats "Liar", "Antagonist", and "Surrogate"

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/20/2004 7:27 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Len, in your best judgement, would you think that Steve could avail
himself to the services of the USGPO and USPS, learn the truth, then
post a retraction of his statement above?

There's nothing to retract, Brain.

I have no doubt Lennie can recite the words, inside-out even.

But it's just like learning songs in grade school in other languages...You
sing the song, but what did you just say?

Lennie's already demonstrated that he knows the words, but doesn't
understand what he's reading.

I find it interesting that Steve, having supposedly served in seven
hostile actions, never served in a unit with a single KIA, present or
past.

Oh, but I have. I never said that I didn't

Thier sacrifices were thiers to make, and it is upon them that the respect
and dignity should be appreciated.

Scumbag Extrodinaire Leonard H. Anderson thinks it's OK to somehow "use"
someone else's sacrifices to make himself look good.

If you somehow find it "OK" for him to do that, it makes YOU a scumbag
too.

Even though I was in the USAF, I served the Second Infantry Division.
It has a proud history and I was proud to serve it. Though
hostilities were low due to the cease fire of 1954, I would like to
think that having competant armed forces facing the enemy along the
DMZ helped maintain that cease fire.

No doubt it did and still does. That is not at issue.

What's at issue is someone taking credit for something someone else did.

The problem is that U.S. amateur radio is NOT a military service
nor even a paramilitary service. It is basically a hobby, a
recreational activity involving radio. It is, by default, a hobby
because federal regulations forbid monetary compensation for
any radio communications rendered.

Though monetary compensation is forbidden, it often occurs. Some call
them "repeater dues."

Be that as it may, the Amateur Service has been useful and probably
will continue to be useful in emergency communications when other
comms fail.

Well...gee whiz...I guess this is as close as we will ever get to Brain
acknowledging that his "unlicensed services play a major role in emergency
comms".

There is the common thread among the "tribal rule" individuals that
no one unlicensed in amateur radio can possibly know anything
about amateur radio, therefore they should be silent. Preposterous
since U.S. amateur radio activity is widely publicized (among those
who care to find out) and federal regulations forbid any secrecy in
amateur communications.

I've seen it bragged on here that the ARRL Amateur Handbook is found
in professional radio engineers library shelves. Must be a one way
street.

By whom?

No one on the staff of the FCC or the Commissioners themselves
are required to have any amateur radio licenses, yet the FCC has
the lawful duty to regulate amateur radio and mitigate interference
matters, up to and including imposing fines and calling on U.S.
Marshals to arrest extreme miscreants. That rather destroys their
concept that "only other amateurs can tell them what to do."

I hope someone in authority is watching the nutty one. He really
spooks me.

You spook yourself, Brain? Kinda hard making that midnight head call,
isn't it?

Amateur radios operate by exactly the same physics as radios in
all other radio services. Propagation of radio waves occurs in
exactly the same way as for all other radio services. There are
no exceptions despite some odd ideas and strange misconceptions
among certain radio amateurs.

Might be because they do not understand other radio services and think
amateur radio is special.

Amateur Radio IS special.

No other radio service "bestows" the priviledges upon it's licensees that
Part 97 does.

That Lennie continues to try and make some lame argument about how the
physics of radio is diffrent for Amateurs-vs-other radio users is, well...lame!

It is impossible to rationally discuss anything with certain people
(such as Robeson) since they are too emotionally-driven and too
prideful in their concept of their personal hobby involvement. They
must - absolutely - have their way or all are treated to personally
abusive remarks from them.

I tire of him. He's irrational.

No, Brain. That falls to you.

You blatantly utter assertions you claim as fact in a public forum then
claim ofhers as "nuts" or "irrational" when they "call" you to prove them.

I know you won't accept it, but it's yours to live with.

The above is representative of their non-reasoning in demanding a
morse code test for all new amateurs...pure emotional basis on
what they had to endure long ago (and probably resent).

uphill both ways. bb

And I find it even more humorous that you claim me "irrational" and "nuts"
all the while signing posts "billybeeper" when everyone knows who you are.

And WHAT you are...

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/20/2004 8:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

...and because it doesn't matter what anything Heil says about me
in here. I'm going to continue posting as *I* see fit and Heil is
just
so much QRM to work through...until the morse code test is
eliminated. Of course, by that time, I might change my mind and
NOT leave.

And as long as what you "see fit" to publish is so flagrantly
abusive and obviously in error, we will take great pleasure in rubbing
your nose (and that of your favorite marionette) in your foolishness.


Steve, tell us again how big Part 97 is. I need a good laugh.

If you need a good laugh, Brain, I'd suggest going back and re-reading
some of the lengthy posts that you and the other pathological liar have flooded
the NG with...Especially those about your skill as a DXer from entities wherein
you were not authorized to operate.

And I don't remember saying how big Part 97 is, Brain...I said what Lennie
doesn't know about it could fill libraries.

Try to get THAT straigt too, Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

If someone like him moved next
door to me, I'd give serious thought to planting a "For Sale" sign on my
lawn--or maybe I'd just paint my house lavender and put in a yard full
of pink plastic flamingos.

Did you ever see the John Waters film by that name?

No.

Not for those with weak tummies!

Then again, I was away for a long time.

Glad to have you back, Dave.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/22/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/20/2004 8:43 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Steve, tell us again how big Part 97 is. I need a good laugh.

If you need a good laugh, Brain, I'd suggest going back and
re-reading
some of the lengthy posts that you and the other pathological liar have
flooded
the NG with...Especially those about your skill as a DXer from entities
wherein
you were not authorized to operate.

Now you're lying again. Why didn't you put it in your famous
"""quotation marks""" so we'd all know it was yet another lie?

There's no lie here, Brain.

You've indulged your fantasies in this NG with your exploits in Somalia
without providing one bit of corroborating documentation...not even one
callsign you "worked".

And I don't remember saying how big Part 97 is,

Only because you don't know.

Sure I do. I've pulled the rug out from under Lennie over misquotes or
misinterpretations of Part 97 more than once!

Brain...I said what Lennie
doesn't know about it could fill libraries.

Ever been to a library?

Sure...You ever been to one that had more than one door and a roll of
paper next to your "seat"...?!?!

WRT Part 97, what Len may or may not know about Part 97 cannot be
greater than the total volume of Part 97. That happens to be one
small book. One small book cannot fill a single library, let alone
multiple libraries.

Them's the Facts.

I see...

Only you and Lennie can speak exponentially.

I forgot myself...Please forgive me!

Unless the laws of physics work differently for amateur radio.

Try to get THAT straight too, Putz.

As an arrow.

Hardly. Unless you were AIMING for your foot, that is...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

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.

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

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural locations
which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide service not
available from other technologies?

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access BPL will be
a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have not agreed with the
calculations and first hand-observations of others?

Sure, a lot of us will file comments. Maybe they'll do some good. But just
because you were finally convinced of the BPL threat, don;t be surprised if the
"professionals" don't agree.

In article , PAMNO
(BPL is Good For You!) writes:

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?

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

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

Capitalists first. They want their slice of the "broadband" pie.

Why are you trolling like you WANT Access BPL?

Did you change professions into the Access BPL arena?

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

Incorrect. See the Communications Act of 1934 and the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 as to exactly what the FCC can
regulate.

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.

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural locations
which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide service not
available from other technologies?

"Suburbia" is a part of the urban environment.

Try not to hurt yourself playing little trolling word games.

Feel free to list all the rural areas in the United States along with all
the inhabitants thereof. That's only about 3% of the population, should
not take you too long in here. :-)

Where are the existing Access BPL test sites now? Are those in
"rural areas?" [no, they are not out there]

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access BPL will
be
a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have not agreed with the
calculations and first hand-observations of others?

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here. In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

You are rejecting the ARRL Laboratory findings on Access BPL test
sites. You are rejecting several commenters on 03-104 who have,
independently shown calculations based on their own thinking.
You are rejecting the feelings of - literally - thousands of other U.S.
radio amateurs who think that Access BPL is going to be BAD for
their residential and mobile amateur radio operations.

Why do you want to sit back and welcome BPL?

Don't you want to "work" the HF ham bands from 80 meters and
up?

I guess not.

All you want to do is sit in here and troll for newsgroup word fights.

Not nice dedication to your "amateur community."

LHA / WMD

"N2EY" wrote in message
...


Generally agreed by whom?

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

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

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural
locations
which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide service not
available from other technologies?

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access BPL
will be
a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have not agreed with
the
calculations and first hand-observations of others?

Sure, a lot of us will file comments. Maybe they'll do some good. But just
because you were finally convinced of the BPL threat, don;t be surprised
if the
"professionals" don't agree.

Hello, Jim

Well, let's find out how well BPL works with 100 to 200 watts (don't need a
KW +) into a dipole in an urban environment. It will be *their* problem.
The sword cuts both ways ;)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 3/24/04

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

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 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. :-)

ARRL didn't do a thing, did they? :-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
writes:

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?

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....;-) ;-)

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

Capitalists first.

Aren't you also a capitalist, Len? Or are you something else?

They want their slice of the "broadband" pie.

They want the money. That's the essential definition of "professional" -
getting paid.

Why are you trolling like you WANT Access BPL?

I don't want Access BPL. I'm simply trying to figure out how to fight it. You
don't seem to have any answers besides "comment to the FCC". I already knew
that.

Did you change professions into the Access BPL arena?

Nope, I'm still an *amateur* in the field of HF radio communications. And I
don;t have anyhting to do with BPL "professionally".

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

Incorrect.

They're not professionals? They don't get paid for what they do? I think you
are mistaken.

See the Communications Act of 1934 and the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 as to exactly what the FCC can
regulate.

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.

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural locations
which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide service not
available from other technologies?

"Suburbia" is a part of the urban environment.

No, it isn't.

Try not to hurt yourself playing little trolling word games.

Not me - you're the one who does that. I'm simply truying to figure out how to
defeat BPL. You're avoiding the central issue: How can *amateurs* prevail when
*professionals* are pushing BPL?

Feel free to list all the rural areas in the United States along with all
the inhabitants thereof.

You first, Len. My amateurish work would not meet your professional standards.
;-)

That's only about 3% of the population, should
not take you too long in here. :-)

If you know the answer, why do you ask the question? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Where are the existing Access BPL test sites now?

Look them up on the ARRL website.

Are those in "rural areas?" [no, they are not out there]

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access BPL will
be
a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have not agreed with
the calculations and first hand-observations of others?

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. :-)

Oh no, not me. I leave that to professionals like you, Len. Wasting other
people's time is something you are realy, really good at.

You are rejecting the ARRL Laboratory findings on Access BPL test
sites.

Not me. I've read them, accepted them, met and talked with people who put them
together. I've commented to FCC on the issue and will do so again

It's the FCC, BPL companies, and similar *professionals* who reject them. Even
*you* questioned them at first.

You are rejecting several commenters on 03-104 who have,
independently shown calculations based on their own thinking.

Not me. I find all of those calculations and observations to be convincing. FCC
apparently doesn't. A good number of your fellow "professionls" don't, either.

You are rejecting the feelings of - literally - thousands of other U.S.
radio amateurs who think that Access BPL is going to be BAD for
their residential and mobile amateur radio operations.

"Feelings"?

You've got it backwards, Len. You're wrong again!

Why do you want to sit back and welcome BPL?

I don't. I've been working against it since before you even thought it was a
problem.

Don't you want to "work" the HF ham bands from 80 meters and
up?

I already do. You don't.

I guess not.

All you want to do is sit in here and troll for newsgroup word fights.

Not me, Len. That's what you do.

It's clear you don't know how to convince those "professionals" any more than
anyone else. You don't have any new or different arguments or evidence. You
just want to lecture and criticize.

Now you'll probably respond with a lot of diversions into irrelevant minutiae,
name-calling, inaccurate information, insults, shouting, excessive emoticons,
your resume from a half-century ago and the rest of your usual, "professional"
bag of tricks, in a vain attempt to get me to reply in kind. Wrong again, Len!

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 6:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Still waiting on THAT one...I've given up on any "proof" about your
Somalia claims.

Steve, K4YZ

Still waiting on your Seven Hostile Actions.

Whatta blowhard.

I already stated that I won't give it here. It's not pertient to the
forum.

You, on the other hand, have made statements of fact in this forum about
topics relative to the forum, yet refuse to corroborate.

You've even had the cajones to deny you've made statements even when
provided with the verbatim quotes. Now that's REALLY stupid, but it's status
quo for you.

Now...WHAT "major role" do the unlicensed services provide in "emergency
comms"...?!?!

Or are you the liar I have asserted that you are?

Steve, K4YZ