"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.

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 -