In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?

A guy who sat side-by-side with
this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?!

When did John Kerry sit side-by-side with Hanoi Jane?

And if such proximity disqualifies someone, how about Donald Rumsfeld shaking
hands with, and warmly greeting, Saddam Hussein? How about the blind eye the
Reagan Administration turned to SH's chemical warfare against the Kurds?

Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give
aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with
them...?!?!

Hanoi Jane's treasonous actions (not just words) are well documented (see
www.snopes.com).

What actions of John Kerry do you refer to? He's a decorated veteran who served
in Vietnam, then came back to the USA and opposed that war.

Was he wrong to follow his conscience in doing so? Is anyone who speaks out
against a war - any war - automatically wrong?

Consider this, Steve: During WW2, FDR (a Democrat) ran for reelection in 1944,
in the middle of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen - or
hopefully ever will see. Yet the Republicans nominated someone to run against
him. Was that giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in
conflict with them...?!?!"

Or how about when Richard Nixon (a Republican) ran for reelection in 1972,
during the very war Mr. Kerry fought in. Mr. Nixon had won in 1968, in part on
a platform that involved a "secret plan to end the war" - which was still going
on 4 years later. The Democrats nominated George McGovern to run against him.
Were either the 1968 or1972 campaigns giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's
foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!"

George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human
Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral
conviction and honesty.

How do you know?

He told us that SH had weapons of mass destruction. He told us that there were
solid links between the 9-11 terrorism organizations and SH's regime. Yet up to
now *no* credible evidence has been provided to back up those claims - in fact,
just the opposite has surfaced.

This doesn't mean Mr. Bush is dishonest. He may have just been mistaken or
misled.

Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a
travesty and would send the wrong message to the World.

What message do you wish to send? That the USA will back its leaders no matter
what? That the supply of oil is so important that we will look the other way
while our suppliers do almost anything?

This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.

There's no shortage of those - on either side of the aisle.

I'm not saying Mr. K is any better or worse than Mr. B. What I *am* saying is
that blind acceptance of any leader's pronouncements leads to trouble. And that
condemning someone because of who they allegedly sat next to 30 years ago would
lead to a lot of people being condemned...

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't
be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will
work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?


Very simple reason why not. According to liberals, cheap internet access
(remember it was Gore who "invented the internet" according to his own
statements) is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder
than Bush. After all the government should decide what is best for everyone
and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Economic reality be
damned as far as the liberals are concerned. At least the "rich
corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking
money into it. After all they want to stay rich.

To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as
dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to believe
this combination will happen. The investment is too large. Those who are
willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to DSL
or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but it
is the price that people generally put ahead of speed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't
be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who
will
work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?


Very simple reason why not. According to liberals, cheap internet access
(remember it was Gore who "invented the internet" according to his own
statements) is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder
than Bush. After all the government should decide what is best for
everyone
and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Economic reality
be
damned as far as the liberals are concerned. At least the "rich
corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking
money into it. After all they want to stay rich.

To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as
dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to believe
this combination will happen. The investment is too large. Those who are
willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to
DSL
or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but
it
is the price that people generally put ahead of speed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Dee,

My guess is that the investment costs will be reflected in power bills that
we *have* to pay. Of course, large corporations will get breaks on these
rates. Many utilities now charge an "access" fee so they can charge "lower"
rates. This means that while my bill states a bit over 8 cents per kilowatt
hour, I actually pay close to 13 cents per kilowatt hour. Meanwhile, folks
in Fairport and Spencerport pay something like 3.5 or 4 cents per kilowatt
hour.

All of this welfare to the wealthy (make 50 grand a year and you may well
pay higher taxes than someone making a million a year - they aren't paying
Social Insecurity, plus you have "unearned" income, capital gains ...) is
slowly bringing this country down.

I am frankly tired of folks blaming "liberals", which, loosely defined is
not agreeing with everything the Repooblican party says is gospel. It
appears one cannot even be moderate without being called a card-carrying
liberal. The last time *everyone* followed a leader without question led up
to WWII.

Watch who pays for the infrastructure of BPL. Oh, the operating costs will
be paid by the BPL users (assuming it succeeds), but stand by for who will
pay the initial costs.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/04

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't
be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will
work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?


Very simple reason why not. According to liberals, cheap internet access
(remember it was Gore who "invented the internet" according to his own
statements)

Whoa, hold it right there!

Show us where Algore actually claimed to have "invented the internet".

What he *did* claim, and rightfully so, is to have had a role in enacting the
legislation that made it possible. The record shows that to be a valid claim.

is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder
than Bush.

OTOH, the "liberals" (a term never well defined) are big on environmental
protection, resource conservation and pollution reduction. Since BPL pollutes
the RF spectrum (a limited natural resource), it makes sense they would be
*against* BPL.

After all the government should decide what is best for everyone
and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for.

Isn't a major role of government that of protecting the minority?

Economic reality be
damned as far as the liberals are concerned.

Really?

What's the economic reality of BPL?

At least the "rich
corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking
money into it. After all they want to stay rich.

Is that how the oil industry works? Or the auto industry?

To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as
dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to believe
this combination will happen.

Me too.

It also needs to be compatible. Take your DSL system anywhere in the US, and
the hardware still works. That's not true of BPL.

The investment is too large. Those who are
willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to DSL
or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but it
is the price that people generally put ahead of speed.

All true. In addition, the areas served by those nonspectrumpolluting
technologies keeps growing and growing. Here in Radnor, PA, we can get dialup,
DSL and/or cable service - not to mention satellite.

Then there's the whole issue of wireless access.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54, "John Anderson"
writes:

http://k0bkl.org/bpl.htm

John Anderson K0BKL

I will take a look...

Interesting thing about that name "John Anderson" - reminded me of the 3rd
party candidate who helped defeat Carter in 1980.

One of the biggest reasons we got 8 years of Bill Clinton is that Ross Perot
divided the anti-Clinton voters. And he did the the same trick twice!

Then in 2000, the shoe was on the other foot. Ralph Nader, the latter-day
Harold Stassen, divided the anti-Bush voters enough so that Algore didn't win.
(Exit polls of Nader voters showed that if Nader had dropped out of the race,
about half of his support would have gone to Gore, a quarter to Bush and the
rest would have either stayed home or voted for other 3rd party candidates.)
The difference was enough that close states like Florida would have not been
close at all. Gore would have won decisively.

So we have the amazing irony that the author of "Unsafe At Any Speed" and
lifelong critic of Big Business was the key factor in putting a Texas oilman in
the White House.

And he may do the same trick again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

So we had the

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/20/2004 1:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I'm not saying Mr. K is any better or worse than Mr. B. What I *am* saying is
that blind acceptance of any leader's pronouncements leads to trouble. And
that
condemning someone because of who they allegedly sat next to 30 years ago
would
lead to a lot of people being condemned...

Kerry is a chronic apologist. He will do nothing when this country is
attacked but wring his hands, say "Oh, we're sorry, did something we do/say
offend you?...P L E A S E forgive us"

Having been in the apologist-era Armed Forces of the late 70's, it is my
freverent hope that we DON'T allow ourselve to regress to that stage, which is
exactly what I fear will happen with this candidate.

Carter tried to castrate the Armed Forces in the 70's.

Bill Clinton didn't try to castrate them...he just made it possible for
other guys to play with them....Oh yeah...he let a bunch of ragheads drag some
of our guys through the streets of Mogandishu and them rewarded them by doing
exactly what they wanted us to do.

Kerry? He IS bad news and he'll continue to be bad news. He's already
angry that the Republicans have done exactly what they said they'd do, and it's
an embarrassment to Democrats.

Clinton and his bunch tried to make the economy look good with smoke and
mirrors, and as soon as he was no longer in office and able to hold the mirrors
up, the true nature of his economics became apparent.

Bush Jr, just like his dad and President Reagan before him, have
publically stated that economic recovery, if it is to remain viable, is a slow
and steady process. They were right.

Kerry will be more of the same "Tax 'Em To The Bone Then Flash Them With
Great Entitlement Programs Made With Thier Own Money".

We don't need Kerry. John Edwards had a chance...he just didn't bark as
loud as Kerry. Too bad.

Steve, K4YZ

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Yes,

We got rid of Nixon. Now we need to dump Bush.

Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Nixon resigned.

We impeached Clinton because he didn't have the decency to resign.

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it
for
truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply
won't
be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who
will
work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?


Very simple reason why not. According to liberals, cheap internet
access
(remember it was Gore who "invented the internet" according to his own
statements) is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even
harder
than Bush. After all the government should decide what is best for
everyone
and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Economic
reality
be
damned as far as the liberals are concerned. At least the "rich
corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking
money into it. After all they want to stay rich.

To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap
as
dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to
believe
this combination will happen. The investment is too large. Those who
are
willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to
DSL
or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but
it
is the price that people generally put ahead of speed.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Dee,

My guess is that the investment costs will be reflected in power bills
that
we *have* to pay. Of course, large corporations will get breaks on these
rates. Many utilities now charge an "access" fee so they can charge
"lower"
rates. This means that while my bill states a bit over 8 cents per
kilowatt
hour, I actually pay close to 13 cents per kilowatt hour. Meanwhile,
folks
in Fairport and Spencerport pay something like 3.5 or 4 cents per kilowatt
hour.


Well keep in mind that the utility companies will have to go before the
state's public utilities commision and get their approval to raise electric
rates to pay for internet. This could be a hard sell.

All of this welfare to the wealthy (make 50 grand a year and you may well
pay higher taxes than someone making a million a year - they aren't paying
Social Insecurity, plus you have "unearned" income, capital gains ...) is
slowly bringing this country down.

I am frankly tired of folks blaming "liberals", which, loosely defined is
not agreeing with everything the Repooblican party says is gospel. It
appears one cannot even be moderate without being called a card-carrying
liberal. The last time *everyone* followed a leader without question led
up
to WWII.


That's OK. I'm just as tired of folks blaming "conservatives" for the
world's ills. It cuts both ways. Both groups have had good ideas and bad
ideas.

Watch who pays for the infrastructure of BPL. Oh, the operating costs
will
be paid by the BPL users (assuming it succeeds), but stand by for who will
pay the initial costs.



Again they will have to have the approval of the state's public utility
commission and this could be difficult in some states. Just as people are
unwilling to step up to the cost of cable modems, etc for high speed access,
they will be just as irate or even more irate at proposals to increase
electric rates.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

It would seem prudent to have the ARRL petition the FCC to raise amateur
power limits to partially recover that lost 10 dB. I think perhaps a 10 kw
limit would be close enough. It might also make BPL communications a bit
dicey too

Har! :-) :-) :-)

I was totally flabbergasted at reading the Phase 2 report. They
boldly went where no technical person dared to go in saying
"BPL will 'improve' the electric power line noise problems!"

As of the end of the business day on Friday, 18 June 2004, the
Comment numbers in the FCC ECFS were -

docket 04-37 (NPRM) 1,399
docket 03-104 (NOI) 6,076

There's lots of more-than-one-page real technical problem
presentations there showing that Access BPL is full of snit
than there are for the BPL proponents. I don't think that will
matter much.

The writing seemed clear on the wall last year. BPL *will*
be started. The business folks are geared up for profits.
The President has made both BPL and Broadband a goal.
The good little Republican syncophants are synchronized
to The Word from on high.

It doesn't matter who wins a majority in the General Election.
BPL has started to deploy. Once it is IN, it becomes
legacy. Once the initial costs are taken care of, it is in the
regular profit time and the installers will fight tooth and nail
to keep it. The worm could turn.

With a legacy-status "utility" the BPLers could gain leverage
to actually STOP or cut down on all those nasty interfering
HF emitters...like amateur radio transmitters. Unknown, but
it is a spectre hovering in the background. Look at the troubles
some hams have in getting noisy electric power lines fixed.
Electric power distribution is very "legacy" by now and the
electric utility companies move slowly (if at all) on repairs.


Seriously, however, it is going to be interesting when BPL lines are found
adjacent to an active amateurs' property. BPL *will* be affected by rf.
Fire up your gallons.

Seriously, that's not a good idea. Hams are conditioned now
to be legal. Deliberate interference is illegal. It is much easier
to pull the tickets of a few hams doing deliberate interference
than it is to remove or reduce a legal deliberate interference
source in the form of BPL with government-accepted regulations.

All in all, though, the FCC has NO POWER to proactively stop
Access BPL now. At best all it can do is set the incidental
RF radiation levels and then enforce those. Or, wait about 30
years or so until BPL is truly legacy service and then, like
land telephony, start drafting more stringent regulations. In 30
years from now, few of us will be in a position to do much.

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:



Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will work
for the people,
not the rich corporations!



And replace him with who? John Kerry? A guy who sat side-by-side with
this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?!

Did he? Heard that that photo was fake. And it's not like he was
touring Hanoi with her.
For all we know, Jane might have been a CIA spy.


Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give
aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!

Vietnam was a stupid war. Now if we had a goal and a strategy that made
any sense, maybe we
could have achieved something...


George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human
Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral
conviction and honesty. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a
travesty and would send the wrong message to the World.

Problem is that he's trying to skip over that "separation of church and
state" thing.


This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.


But the economy wasn't in the toilet. I didn't care if Bill got a BJ or
not. But he should
have owned up to it in that court of law. "Okay, I did it. You happy
now? Don't
we have more important things to spend time on?" After a month it would
have
blown over...

Why does GW still claim that Saddam aided Al Queda? Or is it that
Saddam didn't
tell the USA ambassador in Bagdad (or elsewhere) that "Al Queda is
planning an
attack on you guys and I kicked them out of my palace"? Not telling the
cops
about someone hatching a crime conspiracy is illegal.