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

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!

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
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!





Maybe we could come up with a certificate for operating from BPL test
sites, with endorsements for 500W, 1kW and 1.5kW?

"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

"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.

"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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"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



I disagree. I consider it to be valid testing. The ARRL has been active in
looking at what would be radiated by UPL, but those who propose it don't
care about that. If, OTOH, it can be shown that BPL falls over when exposed
to licenced services, they will care about that. Our position is stronger
now than it would be with millions of entrenched BPL users in place.

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 -

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

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.