| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| NPRM and VEC | General | |||
| BPL NPRM Approved | Policy | |||
| BPL NPRM | Policy | |||
| NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse coderequirement. | Policy | |||
| NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||