About Us

March 27th 04, 09:58 AM

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.

March 27th 04, 10:18 PM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

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.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...:-)

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Since the FCC has NO power to "stop" any Access BPL now,
the thousands of amateurs complaining about it aren't going to be
at all effective in stopping it. All that proceedings 04-37, 03-104,
and 04-29 in the ECFS are seemingly good for is a place to vent
steam generated by whatever frustrations all those thousands of
amateurs must have.

Anyone who really wants to "stop" Access BPL would have better
luck contacting their federal congressperson or senator and tell
Congress to stop it. The FCC doesn't have the legal power to
stop Access BPL; all the FCC can do right now is to set regulations
for incidental RF radiation levels.

I've made my comments on all three proceedings. That's in the
public record. Maybe it is effective, maybe not. The point is that
I and all of us can DO it. We have the direct input to the FCC and
the congresspersons have web addresses and postal addresses.
I am NOT going to do anyone's work for them. I sure as heck
can't tell anyone in this newsgrope what to do, can I? :-)

Besides, argumentative one, you've implied so many times that
you "know" what the FCC thinks. That's a key to get them to
"stop" Access BPL, isn't it? Why don't you spread around that
information for all to share? Show your dedication and
committment to the "amateur community."

LHA / WMD

March 28th 04, 04:07 PM

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

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.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the authority
to stop it.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Sure they can "stop it".

Steve, K4YZ

March 28th 04, 11:32 PM

In article , (the
paralegal gunnery nurse) rants, raves, and writes:

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the
authority to stop it.

To "stop" WHAT? There's NO Report and Order from the FCC saying
that Access BPL exists per se. If the proposed rulemaking given in
NPRM 04-29 becomes an R&O, then it has a specific definition in
terms of incidental RF radiation levels.

Right now, the FCC regulations on incidental radiation devices, Part
15, Title 47 C.F.R., simply acknowledge devices that radiate RF and
include maximum signal levels. There are limitations on the FCC's
"stopping" power since they must investigate interference claims
first in order to determine unspecified or unidentifiable sources of
such interference. There are NO "radio police officers" at the FCC,
just an Enforcement Bureau which may or may not ask for U.S.
Federal Marshals to be the "police officers" accompanying FCC
investigating agents.

There are NO widely-distributed public documents on the technical
details of any of the Access BPL systems currently undergoing
tests. There are NO specific details available on the incidental RF
radiation signal levels from any of those Access BPL test sites.
The FCC doesn't have any. The ARRL has only some audio and
video examples for download. Access BPL proponents have NO
specific data for public release other than a lot of PR BS. NO
radio amateurs have done any quantitative calculation or modeling
to simulate the actual Access BPL test installations' levels.

Further, the FCC is NOT "in charge" of approval or disapproval
of Access BPL as a system despite what a lot of commenters on
three ECFS procedings think. All the FCC can do is regulate the
amount of incidental RF radiation from the system. Right now,
NOBODY, probably not even the proponents, have any real
numbers on those RF radiation levels. Until someone comes up
with those real numbers from real tests done by real instruments
at real sites, all the complainants are shouting and hollering in
the dark, posturing and ranting like so many did during the
McCarthy communist witch hunting during the 1950s. Federal
law on technical subjects requires actual information that can be
incorporated into that law. Until then all of the fuss and furor,
the fist-shaking and shield-waving, posturing, and epithet-throwing,
threats of "action" is just a lot of silly, ignorant BS tossing.

In NPRM 04-29, the FCC is asking for DATA to use, just as they
did in NOI 03-104. I don't see any of that data.in 5,956 documents
of three proceedings in the ECFS. Show real numbers.

Kind of spoils all your ranting and posturing with reality of the
situation, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk.

LHA / WMD

March 29th 04, 12:04 AM

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/28/2004 3:32 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , (the
paralegal gunnery nurse) rants, raves, and writes:

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the
authority to stop it.

To "stop" WHAT? There's NO Report and Order from the FCC saying
that Access BPL exists per se. If the proposed rulemaking given in
NPRM 04-29 becomes an R&O, then it has a specific definition in
terms of incidental RF radiation levels.

What "R&O" is required for the FCC to go to Joe Schmo's Cable Company and
say "your system is interfering with Commission licensees, and you'll either
stop it or we'll invoke NAL's..???

Right now, the FCC regulations on incidental radiation devices...(SNIP)

Thank you for YOUR "paralegal" advice, Lennie, but it doesn't stack up.

Kind of spoils all your ranting and posturing with reality of the
situation, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk.

Lennie, NOTHING you cited "ruins" anything.

I am a Commission licensee. If I start experiencing interference to my
otherwise properly operating station, it's teh FCC's OBLIGATION to resolve the
issue.

Sorry you don't agree.

Steve, K4YZ

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