"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

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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

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

Best of Luck

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.