About Us

March 24th 04, 09:54 PM

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NPRM and VEC	Richard Hoskins	General	2	April 21st 04 06:51 AM
BPL NPRM Approved	Keith	Policy	78	March 4th 04 03:11 AM
BPL NPRM	Len Over 21	Policy	5	February 23rd 04 04:15 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse coderequirement.	D. Stussy	Policy	0	July 31st 03 08:12 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement.	Keith	Policy	1	July 31st 03 04:46 AM

Menu

About Us