"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
"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

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 ;)

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(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...and has randomly-distributed "feed points"
from discontinuities all along both overhead and underground
electric power lines. That would be the case for Access BPL.

That observation isn't rocket science. It can be done by anyone
in the vicinity of overhead power lines...and trying to find a
reference to such long-stretching antennas in the best library
anywhere (nothing there).

Trying to come close to a computer model, even with Roy
Lewallen's excellent EZNEC might be done...but only for one
specific community area. THINK. The electric power lines
WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES. They work okay at 60 Hz. 60 Hz doesn't worry about
VSWR or discontinuities and those lines only need to worry
if a splice or other connection conducts and that everything is
insulated that should be insulated.

The electric power distribution lines don't even come close to
having any sort of constant impedance. LOOK. THINK about
observated spacings in overhead systems you can see at any
time there is sufficient light. Do you see uniformity? None
there. Go to another location and observe. Do you see any
uniformity to the first location? Maybe. Try another community.
Is that uniform? ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION LINES IN
CITIES WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES. THERE IS NO ELECTRIC STANDARD ANYWHERE
THAT SAYS THOSE MUST BE RF TRANSMISSION LINES.

If you can't understand that, then you are just wasting time for
everyone with trying to troll for arguments in here.

Now pull out your two degrees, wipe the dead ivy leaves from
them and show how YOUR "professionalism" says the Access
BPL will be safe and amateurs (or anyone else) won't have to
worry...go ahead, make everyone's day...

LHA / WMD

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.

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

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

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

Nice job.

Steve, K4YZ

"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

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(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.

and has randomly-distributed "feed points"
from discontinuities all along both overhead and underground
electric power lines. That would be the case for Access BPL.

That part is unique.

That observation isn't rocket science. It can be done by anyone
in the vicinity of overhead power lines...and trying to find a
reference to such long-stretching antennas in the best library
anywhere (nothing there).

Look under "Beverage" ;-)

Trying to come close to a computer model, even with Roy
Lewallen's excellent EZNEC might be done...but only for one
specific community area.

Then go ahead and do it.


THINK. The electric power lines
WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES.

Why are you shouting, Len?

They work okay at 60 Hz. 60 Hz doesn't worry about
VSWR or discontinuities and those lines only need to worry
if a splice or other connection conducts and that everything is
insulated that should be insulated.

The electric power distribution lines don't even come close to
having any sort of constant impedance. LOOK. THINK about
observated spacings in overhead systems you can see at any
time there is sufficient light. Do you see uniformity? None
there. Go to another location and observe. Do you see any
uniformity to the first location? Maybe. Try another community.
Is that uniform? ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION LINES IN
CITIES WERE NEVER DESIGNED AS HF-VHF TRANSMISSION
LINES. THERE IS NO ELECTRIC STANDARD ANYWHERE
THAT SAYS THOSE MUST BE RF TRANSMISSION LINES.

I know all that, Len. I knew it way back in my Novice days, I knew it when I
first read about the BPL concept.

The question isn't *why* BPL is a bad idea. The question is how *amateurs* are
supposed to convince the *professionals* that BPL is a bad idea.

Should we do it by the methods you demonstrate, including the shouting (all
capitals)? Is that the way you professionals interact?

If you can't understand that, then you are just wasting time for
everyone with trying to troll for arguments in here.

I understand why BPL is a bad idea, Len. That's not the problem.

The problem is how to convince the FCC. For example, consider these quotes from
the Wall street Journal:

"The FCC and the utilities say new technologies have eliminated the
interference and accuse the hams of exploiting the issue for their own
gains."

'"We haven't seen the sun darken and everything electrical turn to
white noise and haze during a deployment," says Matt Oja, an executive at
Progress Energy, whose test Mr. Powell visited. "This is a fairly vocal
group that has been whipped into a frenzy by their organization." (ARRL).'

Or how about this one:

'Ed Thomas, the FCC's chief engineer, says the commission has spent a year
listening to the hams' concerns about power lines and is getting frustrated.
"Why is this thing a major calamity?" he says. "And honestly, I'd love the
answer to that."'

That's the *chief engineer* of the FCC saying that. Here it is again:

"Why is this thing a major calamity? And honestly, I'd love the
answer to that."

How do *amateurs* convince Mr. Thomas that BPL *is* a major calamity?

Now pull out your two degrees, wipe the dead ivy leaves from
them and show how YOUR "professionalism" says the Access
BPL will be safe and amateurs (or anyone else) won't have to
worry...go ahead, make everyone's day...

I've never claimed anything of the sort, Len. You're wrong - again...

On 24 Mar 2004 11:58:45 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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.

If "they" don't agree it won't be the first stupid regulatory action
that "they" have taken lately.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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.

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.

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

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

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"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





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.

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

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

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.

"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