In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

If it gets done. It probably won't. FCC is not bound by any strict deadlines
for enforcement.

There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you address
your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL.

But they *can* give needed help, and act to coordinate efforts. And if
nothing
else, ARRL has continued to publicize the BPL threat both inside and outside
the amateur community, and to spread accurate information on what is going
on.
The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for its
help.

They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring
licenses
and fees.

Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest to
give up.

Many highly-touted new technologies have fallen by the wayside once their
disadvantages became known.

There's also the economic angle. The price of DSL keeps dropping, as does
Wi-Fi, while the areas covered by those technologies and cable keep
expanding.
If BPL cannot compete in price and performance, it's all over.

It is interesting to note that the Cedar Rapids system used (past tense,
thankfully) BPL to get the signals to poles near the subscriber's homes, but
then depended on Wi-Fi for the actual "connection" to the customer. Thus,
they
can replace the BPL component with fiber or coax with no effect on the
customer.

Of course from both an engineering and common-sense standpoint, it would make
sense to go the fiber/Wi-Fi route from the very beginning, if the goal is
broadband access without having to do work on the customer's premises. But
both
engineering and common sense are sadly lacking in some places - even among
the
professionals who are trying to bring us BPL.

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while.

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

http://www.telecomottawa.com/index.p...wDetails&id=30

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error? Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

If it gets done. It probably won't. FCC is not bound by any strict deadlines
for enforcement.

Well, what are you going to DO about it? Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you address
your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

Someone die and you were appointed New Headmaster?

Hell, yes, I would refer to FCC Chairman Powell as "Mikey" right
to his face...if I was commenting on the idiotic decisions to
abandon all existing radio services and government radio services
to the RF noise pollution of Access BPL.

I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL.

But they *can* give needed help, and act to coordinate efforts. And if nothing
else, ARRL has continued to publicize the BPL threat both inside and outside
the amateur community, and to spread accurate information on what is going on.

What is that statement you make...another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount?

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL. You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for its
help.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

Identify that "help."

The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

They TOOK ACTION.

They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

I CAN do a fair estimation of man-hours because I've done fair
estimations of man-hours and effort on lots of contract
proposals in the past.

Just what has the judgemental, finger-waving James Miccolis
DONE against Access BPL? Besides sit in here and wag a
disapproving finger and play space guru games in words with
Weiner von Brawn?!?

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring
licenses and fees.

Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest to
give up.

Are you going to break into a rendition of "Tommorrow" from the
musical "Little Orphan Annie?"

IFF is the old acronym for radar transponders. IFF is also an
older contraction in English meaning I, and only IF. This isn't
the former nor the latter and your wish fulfillment hasn't yet been
filled. The EXISTING ACCESS BPL SYSTEM *ARE* RADIATING
EXCESS RF ENERGY ON HF in every community that is trying
it out.

"Maybies" don't cut it.

Many highly-touted new technologies have fallen by the wayside once their
disadvantages became known.

Yeah, like telephones, radio, heavier-than-air craft, television and
[ta-dahh] cellular telephony and the Internet!

Right. All "big disadvantaged things" that nobody "needs."

At time now, one in three Americans has a cell phone subscription
and one out of five American households have some form of Internet
access. According to the U.S. Census Bureau. But, what do they
know, right?

There's also the economic angle. The price of DSL keeps dropping, as does
Wi-Fi, while the areas covered by those technologies and cable keep expanding.
If BPL cannot compete in price and performance, it's all over.

"Price of DSL keeps dropping?!?!?" Look again.

Who are the Wi-Fi (really Wi-FAX) providers? IEEE 802.16 standard
is hardly dry in its approved specifications for Wi-FAX and you are
thinking it is all over the USA?

You are avoiding the issues by trying to hide. Access BPL radiates
incidental RF radiation NOW in HF and some at low-VHF. By test.
By measurements of both government and private industry groups.


Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while.

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

NONE of the Access BPL systems use the "entire HF spectrum."
Only MOST of it. Enough to cream any low-level received signals
in pseudo-random noise.

Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

BPL began in Norway 10 years ago, as PLC or Power Line
Communications. It didn't get far then.

The REPUBLICAN administration of NOW made broadband and
broadband over power lines a "big high-tech new thing" for rural
America. See MIKEY Powell's enthusiastic support in public.
See MIKEY Gallagher's enthusiastic support in public [NTIA].

Do you need pop-ups on your browser screen to understand
the toadying to the prez going on? Nationwide billboards (like
Wall Drug Store) to advertise it?

Or are you just trying to incite another newsgroup flame war?

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do. FCC has the authority to shut down a source of interference.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Or if it causes harmful interference.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

Only with FCC approval. FCC also regulates communications by "wire" as well as
radio. That's why a "56K" modem can't go quite that fast.

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of
the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Not yet. But, if FCC were of a mind to, they could set Part 15 levels even
lower than the German levels. Or rule that BPL systems require certification
before entering operation.

Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error?

There's no error. FCC has the authority - if they chose to use it. They
haven't.

Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.

There's no reason to shout, Len.

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

Why?

The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

If it gets done. It probably won't. FCC is not bound by any strict deadlines
for enforcement.

Well, what are you going to DO about it?

What can a mere amateur like me do about it? The professionals keep saying BPL
is a good thing, needed for homeland security, creates jobs, etc. I filed
comments on the NOI but it apparently made no difference. Both the FCC Chairman
and Our President say we need BPL. Our President has left it up to NTIA to
solve any interference issues.

What counterarguments can I offer that will change all their minds? Besides -
you keepo telling me that FCC can't stop BPL anyway.

Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

I've never said that, Len.

And all I have is a dialup connection.

The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

Have you actually heard any of it?

And why are you so concerned? You're not a radio amateur.

There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you address
your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

Someone die and you were appointed New Headmaster?

No. Did someone appoint you to that position?

Hell, yes, I would refer to FCC Chairman Powell as "Mikey" right
to his face...if I was commenting on the idiotic decisions to
abandon all existing radio services and government radio services
to the RF noise pollution of Access BPL.

Do you think it would help?

I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

I must have missed that in your comments. Did it help stop BPL?

The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL.

But they *can* give needed help, and act to coordinate efforts. And if
nothing
else, ARRL has continued to publicize the BPL threat both inside and outside
the amateur community, and to spread accurate information on what is going
on.

What is that statement you make...another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount?

Just some simple facts, Len. Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL.

Neither are you.

You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

I think it really bothers you that ARRL is playing any role at all in it. You
ever meet Ed Hare, W1RFI, or see his presentation?

The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for its
help.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

I don't know. But both the Iowa group and the affected amateur thanked them.

Identify that "help."

Why?

Do you think they would have thanked ARRL for no help?

The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you help them?

Why would they thank ARRL if they "WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES."

They TOOK ACTION.

Nobody denies that.

They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

They experienced demonstrable interference from BPL.

What do you suggest others do?

They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

I'm not. I'm simply asking some questions. You haven't provided answers.

I CAN do a fair estimation of man-hours because I've done fair
estimations of man-hours and effort on lots of contract
proposals in the past.

How long ago was that? Did it involve HF interference elimination?

Just what has the judgemental, finger-waving James Miccolis
DONE against Access BPL?

I'm not making any judgements nor waving any fingers, Len. I'm just asking
questions.

And I have done a few things. Probably more than you.

Besides sit in here and wag a
disapproving finger and play space guru games in words with
Weiner von Brawn?!?

What *are* you talking about, Len?

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring
licenses and fees.

Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Doesn't matter. If something interferes with licensed radio services, FCC has
regulatory power.

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Because the internet information can cross state boundaries, FCC has authority.


Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest
to give up.

Are you going to break into a rendition of "Tommorrow" from the
musical "Little Orphan Annie?"

Nope. Are you?

IFF is the old acronym for radar transponders.

Like the APX-6. Converted by hams for use on 1296 MHz.

IFF is also an
older contraction in English meaning I, and only IF.

Actually, it's an acronym. Sort of.

This isn't
the former nor the latter and your wish fulfillment hasn't yet been
filled.

Yes, it is.

The EXISTING ACCESS BPL SYSTEM *ARE* RADIATING
EXCESS RF ENERGY ON HF in every community that is trying
it out.

I could have told you that a year ago, Len. What's with all the shouting?

"Maybies" don't cut it.

Many highly-touted new technologies have fallen by the wayside once their
disadvantages became known.

Yeah, like telephones, radio, heavier-than-air craft, television and
[ta-dahh] cellular telephony and the Internet!

Right. All "big disadvantaged things" that nobody "needs."

Beta VCRs, the Iridium system, "quadraphonic" sound, 8 track tapes, old-format
laser discs....

Heck, technology changes so fast these days that the IRS considers a computer
fully depreciated in just 3 years.

At time now, one in three Americans has a cell phone subscription
and one out of five American households have some form of Internet
access. According to the U.S. Census Bureau. But, what do they
know, right?

What is the significance of those facts, Len? Neither has anything to do with
BPL or amateur radio.

There's also the economic angle. The price of DSL keeps dropping, as does
Wi-Fi, while the areas covered by those technologies and cable keep
expanding.
If BPL cannot compete in price and performance, it's all over.

"Price of DSL keeps dropping?!?!?" Look again.

I did. My local providers have reduced the price of DSL repeatedly. It's
getting so that I'm seriously considering changing to DSL as part of a bundled
package of cell, POTS and internet access.

Who are the Wi-Fi (really Wi-FAX) providers? IEEE 802.16 standard
is hardly dry in its approved specifications for Wi-FAX and you are
thinking it is all over the USA?

Not at all. But it's in many locations and growing fast. No interference
problems like BPL. Complete portability. But hey, what do I know? Ask WK3C,
Carl Stevenson. He's much more knowledgeable about that stuff than I.

You are avoiding the issues by trying to hide.

Not at all, Len. I'm right here.

Access BPL radiates
incidental RF radiation NOW in HF and some at low-VHF. By test.
By measurements of both government and private industry groups.

Interesting that you don't mention ARRL's measurements and observations. Did
you see the videos?

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while.

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

NONE of the Access BPL systems use the "entire HF spectrum."
Only MOST of it. Enough to cream any low-level received signals
in pseudo-random noise.

Why does that bother you, Len?

Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

I'm not hiding from anything.

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

BPL began in Norway 10 years ago, as PLC or Power Line
Communications. It didn't get far then.

Must have interfered with lutefisk production.

The REPUBLICAN administration of NOW made broadband and
broadband over power lines a "big high-tech new thing" for rural
America.

Yep - even though none of the test sites are truly rural.

Note that the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan gave is VEC testing
and 10 year amateur licenses.

The Republican administration of George Bush (the elder) gave us medical
waivers for code tests, the no-code-test Technician license, and set in motion
the end of the maritime Morse requirements.

The Republican administration of "now" supported the revision of treaty part
S25.5 to eliminate the requirement for Morse code testing, thereby clearing the
path for the elimination of all code testing in the USA.

I recall someone here saying the FCC was the "expert agency" composed of
"professional regulators" who had looked at the arguments and "made the right
choice". Or words to that effect, anyway.

Now you tell me the FCC doesn't knwo what they're doing?

See MIKEY Powell's enthusiastic support in public.
See MIKEY Gallagher's enthusiastic support in public [NTIA].

I don't think you'd talk to them that way in person.

Do you need pop-ups on your browser screen to understand
the toadying to the prez going on? Nationwide billboards (like
Wall Drug Store) to advertise it?

Not at all.

Or are you just trying to incite another newsgroup flame war?

Not me. I'm not the one yelling and screaming and calling people names.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do. FCC has the authority to shut down a source of interference.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Or if it causes harmful interference.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

Only with FCC approval. FCC also regulates communications by "wire" as well as
radio. That's why a "56K" modem can't go quite that fast.

Nope. No "FCC approval" required as long as Access BPL doesn't
have incidental RF radiation beyond Commission regulations.

You best reread the Telecommunications Act of 1996.


All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of
the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Not yet. But, if FCC were of a mind to, they could set Part 15 levels even
lower than the German levels. Or rule that BPL systems require certification
before entering operation.

Not with MIKEY Powerll as Chief Commissioner or MIKEY Gallagher as
the NTIA acting secretary. Two toadies for the prez for the price of one!


Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error?

There's no error. FCC has the authority - if they chose to use it. They
haven't.

As long as an Access BPL provider doesn't radiate incidental RF beyond
Commission regulations, the FCC CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

You still don't understand just who approves or disapproves a provider.

Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.

There's no reason to shout, Len.

"Shout?" Your eyes are too sensitive to opposition. Turn down your
display brightness or wear shades.

[wear shades and no one will recognize you in here? hi, hi. :-) ]

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

Why?

To LEARN something.

The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

If it gets done. It probably won't. FCC is not bound by any strict deadlines
for enforcement.

Well, what are you going to DO about it?

What can a mere amateur like me do about it? The professionals keep saying BPL
is a good thing, needed for homeland security, creates jobs, etc. I filed
comments on the NOI but it apparently made no difference. Both the FCC
Chairman and Our President say we need BPL. Our President has left it up to
NTIA to
solve any interference issues.

Then why are you blaming others who HAVE DONE SOMETHING because
you feel inadequate? That's irrational.

What counterarguments can I offer that will change all their minds? Besides -
you keepo telling me that FCC can't stop BPL anyway.

I don't "keepo" anything. :-)

Get creative. Don't sit around like a self-made guru and font of knowledge
without any spritzer. We can't help your feelings of inadequacy...


Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

I've never said that, Len.

No? Not even once? :-)

And all I have is a dialup connection.

Now, now...you've said many, many times you "know' what FCC will do!

You pretend to be an "insider" with all that "knowledge." :-)


The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

Have you actually heard any of it?

Only recordings. I HAVE heard plenty of random garbage from HV
corona, neon signs, arc welders, low-power RF bulbs now all the
sales rage in do-it-yourself stores to "cut down on electricity
consumption."

And why are you so concerned? You're not a radio amateur.

I am a radio professional. Professionals GET concerned.

There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you address
your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

Someone die and you were appointed New Headmaster?

No. Did someone appoint you to that position?

Never claimed to. :-) YOU are the one trying to ask leading questions.

Hell, yes, I would refer to FCC Chairman Powell as "Mikey" right
to his face...if I was commenting on the idiotic decisions to
abandon all existing radio services and government radio services
to the RF noise pollution of Access BPL.

Do you think it would help?

It would help ME. :-)

It wouldn't be done unless BPL was a fait accompli. I think it is.


I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

I must have missed that in your comments. Did it help stop BPL?

My telling the truth in here hasn't stopped you one bit. :-)

I take it you aren't concerned about Access BPL? You feel NO
danger of it polluting HF in the near future?

You should. All radio amateurs should. Now if you've READ the NTIA
reports, READ the reports of the Cedar Rapids group on measured RF
interference, you SHOULD be concerned. Be very concerned!

But, no, your only "concern" is trying to have weak verbal fisticuffs in
here, trying to "assert" yourself by talking down to others... Tsk.

The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL.

But they *can* give needed help, and act to coordinate efforts. And if
nothing
else, ARRL has continued to publicize the BPL threat both inside and
outside
the amateur community, and to spread accurate information on what is going
on.

What is that statement you make...another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount?

Just some simple facts, Len. Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The FIRST league "reports" were only computer simulations. It took some
months before they could hire a professional instrumentation service to get
first-hand data on the REAL RF radiation.

Money for the ARRL hired service came out of the league's budget. There
was NO money reported spent by the Cedar Rapids amateur group.

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL.

Neither are you.

Childish response. Tsk.

Why are you objecting by doing such childish commentary?

The only rational answer is that you really don't know much about BPL
and/or want it to come in to everyone's urban residences....and radios.

You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

I think it really bothers you that ARRL is playing any role at all in it. You
ever meet Ed Hare, W1RFI, or see his presentation?

Doesn't bother me at all. :-)

It DOES bother the heck out of you, though, because you bristle and
get most hostile at the slightest negativism of your beloved leadue!

The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for its
help.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

I don't know. But both the Iowa group and the affected amateur thanked them.

See? One little harmless NON-praise of ARRL and you get hostile. Tsk.

Identify that "help."

Why?

So everyone one know what the Great ARRL can do! :-)

Do you think they would have thanked ARRL for no help?

I don't know what "they think." Telepathy not an attribute here.

But, you try with the leading, hostile question again! :-)

The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you help them?

I read their reports. Plural. Several Comments. Detailed data on their
measurements, procedures, instrument descriptions, photos, drawings.
Good stuff! Shows they know what they were doing.

Why would they thank ARRL if they "WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES."

They TOOK ACTION.

Nobody denies that.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you help them?

:-)


They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

They experienced demonstrable interference from BPL.

What do you suggest others do?

Why do you need ACTION spelled out? It's OBVIOUS.

Obvious to all but those self-elect guru extras who sit in here and try
to pick fights with others because they sound warnings and wave flags.

:-)


They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

I'm not. I'm simply asking some questions. You haven't provided answers.

No, you are NOT "simply asking some questions." :-)

You are deliberately asking leading questions with hostile intent.

You just want to ARGUE...then try to wear others down in sheer length of
"replies." :-)

I CAN do a fair estimation of man-hours because I've done fair
estimations of man-hours and effort on lots of contract
proposals in the past.

How long ago was that? Did it involve HF interference elimination?

A year and a half ago. Yes, it did.

Sunnuvagun!!! :-)


Just what has the judgemental, finger-waving James Miccolis
DONE against Access BPL?

I'm not making any judgements nor waving any fingers, Len. I'm just asking
questions.

Nope. You are provoking arguments for the sake of your love of
arguments. :-)


And I have done a few things. Probably more than you.

How do you KNOW? Were you THERE? Did you help?


Besides sit in here and wag a
disapproving finger and play space guru games in words with
Weiner von Brawn?!?

What *are* you talking about, Len?

Tsk. All those many words and "answers" on aerospace and you
pretend "not understanding?!?" Tsk.

Describe to us your professional experience in aerospace. Give us a
baseline of your judgement on space matters through actual space
work performed.

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring
licenses and fees.

Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Doesn't matter. If something interferes with licensed radio services, FCC has
regulatory power.

But only to removal of the interfering source.

So far, all the FCC has done about ordinary, pre-BPL electric power line
RF interference has been a lot of letters. Of paper. Incomplete
"regulation."

ARINC reported it still has RF interference to one of its HF receiving
sites.
That's in their Comments. FCC hasn't exercised any "regulatory power"
on clearing that up yet.

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Because the internet information can cross state boundaries, FCC has
authority.

Tsk, tsk. Best you go read that Telecommunications Act of 1996...

You may have been admitted to a bar, but you haven't been admitted to
a Bar Association.


Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest
to give up.

Are you going to break into a rendition of "Tommorrow" from the
musical "Little Orphan Annie?"

Nope. Are you?

Tsk. Jimmie can't take the slightest negativism. :-)


IFF is the old acronym for radar transponders.

Like the APX-6. Converted by hams for use on 1296 MHz.

To borrow something from Weiner von Brawn, your buddy in space -

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Jimmie, don't bother with WW2 surplus. Get with present-day
transponders. Radar transponders. "Mode 4." What a "KIR" and
"KIT" are. [military] What's an "ATCRBS?" Why the three pulses in
transponders with the middle one at varying levels? Why use two
pulses? Go get some REAL transponder info, stuff that is used NOW,
not before you were born.

Try Teledyne Electronics, Newbury Park, CA. My employer for a while.
Made nothing but military radar transponders there. Tsk.

IFF is also an
older contraction in English meaning I, and only IF.

Actually, it's an acronym. Sort of.

CONTRACTION. Don't try to give birth to something new...

This isn't
the former nor the latter and your wish fulfillment hasn't yet been
filled.

Yes, it is.

Jimmie dropped into "nyah-nyah mode" again. He needs to trim up
his coincidence detector, he be triggering on "fruit." :-)

The EXISTING ACCESS BPL SYSTEM *ARE* RADIATING
EXCESS RF ENERGY ON HF in every community that is trying
it out.

I could have told you that a year ago, Len. What's with all the shouting?

Tsk. "You could have told a year ago!" Well, why didn't you?

How about two years ago? Three? Ten? Did you keep informed on
the Norwegian-Swedish PLC trials? The potential was THERE. Did
you keep informed on the following European PLC trials? In the UK?

I doubt it. You are as informed on Access BPL as you pretend to be
about the aerospace business.

"Maybies" don't cut it.

Many highly-touted new technologies have fallen by the wayside once their
disadvantages became known.

Yeah, like telephones, radio, heavier-than-air craft, television and
[ta-dahh] cellular telephony and the Internet!

Right. All "big disadvantaged things" that nobody "needs."

Beta VCRs, the Iridium system, "quadraphonic" sound, 8 track tapes,
old-format laser discs....

Heck, technology changes so fast these days that the IRS considers a computer
fully depreciated in just 3 years.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I could have told you that in 1974 after the IRS audited
my tax return for 1973 on my HP-35 scientific calculator. 3-year-
depreciation. Nothing new. :-)

At time now, one in three Americans has a cell phone subscription
and one out of five American households have some form of Internet
access. According to the U.S. Census Bureau. But, what do they
know, right?

What is the significance of those facts, Len? Neither has anything to do with
BPL or amateur radio.

What is the significance of your mighty verbose output on AEROSPACE
and national economy and the presidential elections in an amateur radio
policy newsgroup?

Don't act childish or churlish with those attempts at leading questions.
Google has it all archived.

BPL *will* hit all amateurs, all SWLs, all CBers, all other radio services
using HF right in the antenna port if they try to receive close to a BPL
line. The test sites have already been measured to do that.


There's also the economic angle. The price of DSL keeps dropping, as does
Wi-Fi, while the areas covered by those technologies and cable keep
expanding.
If BPL cannot compete in price and performance, it's all over.

"Price of DSL keeps dropping?!?!?" Look again.

I did. My local providers have reduced the price of DSL repeatedly. It's
getting so that I'm seriously considering changing to DSL as part of a
bundled package of cell, POTS and internet access.

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?"

Who are the Wi-Fi (really Wi-FAX) providers? IEEE 802.16 standard
is hardly dry in its approved specifications for Wi-FAX and you are
thinking it is all over the USA?

Not at all. But it's in many locations and growing fast. No interference
problems like BPL. Complete portability. But hey, what do I know? Ask WK3C,
Carl Stevenson. He's much more knowledgeable about that stuff than I.

Tsk. I thought, indeed many thought, you knew MORE than anyone.

Carl is an IEEE member. So am I. So what. WE can both access
information on IEEE standards...as you can, if you try. You are NOT
an IEEE member despite being a professional.

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?" :-)

IEEE isn't advocating for BPL. Just the opposite.

You want to oppose the IEEE's objections because your poor little
newsgroup pride is "hurt?" Awwww....

You are avoiding the issues by trying to hide.

Not at all, Len. I'm right here.

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?"

Access BPL radiates
incidental RF radiation NOW in HF and some at low-VHF. By test.
By measurements of both government and private industry groups.

Interesting that you don't mention ARRL's measurements and observations. Did
you see the videos?

Did you see over a thousand comments on docket 04-37?

Did you see the full Cedar Rapids amateur group comment and
report on their Cedar Rapids BPL interference measurements/

I don't think so. All you want to do is "praise the league and pass
all the mighty notion." :-)

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while.

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

NONE of the Access BPL systems use the "entire HF spectrum."
Only MOST of it. Enough to cream any low-level received signals
in pseudo-random noise.

Why does that bother you, Len?

Why are you so antagonistic at anyone pointing out flaws with the
ARRL?

Do you want to spend your BPL objection time watching league
videos and play-acting at being an RFI guru?

Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

I'm not hiding from anything.

Sure you are. You'd rather be in here ARGUING for the sake of
arguing and trying to wear others down with your lengthy posts. :-)

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

BPL began in Norway 10 years ago, as PLC or Power Line
Communications. It didn't get far then.

Must have interfered with lutefisk production.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Ethnic slurs and insults? From the double-degreed
ivy-trimmed wonder of the amateur world?

No. There was no reported "interference" with whitefish treatments.

Both Norway and Sweden trials showed considerable SWL
interference. In case you wondered, Europe actually uses SW BC
for listening. [not for treating fish with lye]


The REPUBLICAN administration of NOW made broadband and
broadband over power lines a "big high-tech new thing" for rural
America.

Yep - even though none of the test sites are truly rural.

Note that the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan gave is VEC testing
and 10 year amateur licenses.

What has that to do with a BPL Pilot Project in Cedar Rapids in
2003-2004?

Answer: Not a thing.

The Republican administration of George Bush (the elder) gave us medical
waivers for code tests, the no-code-test Technician license, and set in
motion the end of the maritime Morse requirements.

Poor baby. More with misdirection into presidential and party politics.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Maritime World was already dropping manual
telegraphy by 1990 and had begun earlier than that.

The BPL test in Cedar Rapids doesn't have a thing to do with "medical
waivers," "code tests," or Technician class licenses, or "setting much
in motion" except showing that BPL is BAD for HF.

The Republican administration of "now" supported the revision of treaty part
S25.5 to eliminate the requirement for Morse code testing, thereby clearing
the
path for the elimination of all code testing in the USA.

I recall someone here saying the FCC was the "expert agency" composed of
"professional regulators" who had looked at the arguments and "made the right
choice". Or words to that effect, anyway.

Now you tell me the FCC doesn't knwo what they're doing?

Jimmie lose his "professional" job? He only an "amateur?" Tsk.

Why Jimmie so against "professionals?" Jimmie not get enough
salary?

See MIKEY Powell's enthusiastic support in public.
See MIKEY Gallagher's enthusiastic support in public [NTIA].

I don't think you'd talk to them that way in person.

I KNOW I would, Jimmie. No problem to me.

YOU do NOT know what I do, can do, have done...you won't listen
or acknowledge. Tsk.


Do you need pop-ups on your browser screen to understand
the toadying to the prez going on? Nationwide billboards (like
Wall Drug Store) to advertise it?

Not at all.

Poor baby. Can't understand that BPL is going to be an RF
polluter of HF and low-VHF frequencies. Wants to argue for the
sake of argument. Tsk.


Or are you just trying to incite another newsgroup flame war?

Not me. I'm not the one yelling and screaming and calling people names.

They you go and chastise Steve Robeson. HE yells and screams and
curses and calls other people names. He is an amateur. Another
"extra."

Police your own, chief.

LHA / WMD

Subject: BPL Pilot Project In Cedar Rapids Shuts Down
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 7/2/2004 4:33 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Wrong....Again.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

Not as long as it creates interference.

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of
the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error? Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.

Then the FCC CAN stop it. Wether they will or not is subject to
debate. But they CAN stop it.

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

The NTIA does not enact nor enforce FCC rules and regulations.

Well, what are you going to DO about it? Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

No one has made that assertion in this thread, Lennie.

Please try to keep your emotions from interfering with judgement.

(oooooops....too late...)

The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

Uh huh.

And the FCC has issued dozens of letters to those carriers demanding they
clean up their act or else.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you address
your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

Someone die and you were appointed New Headmaster?

Hell, yes, I would refer to FCC Chairman Powell as "Mikey" right
to his face...if I was commenting on the idiotic decisions to
abandon all existing radio services and government radio services
to the RF noise pollution of Access BPL.

And you'd be escorted out of the proceeding by federal marshals.

I see you're back to profanity to "effectively" express yourself.

Tsk tsk tsk. Fourteen years of night school, down the drain.

I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

So are your frequent misrepresentations of the character of Amateur Radio,
your military record, and your professional "career".

Your point?

What is that statement you make...another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount?

Another personal attack on someone who didn't attack you personally.

Putz.

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL. You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

That's not what he said.

Nice try at yet another "smear the League".

The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for its
help.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

Identify that "help."

The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

They TOOK ACTION.

They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

Uh huh.

Supported by League elected field leadership.

They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

He asked you a direct question.

What have YOU done to help support the anti-BPL effort?

I CAN do a fair estimation of man-hours because I've done fair
estimations of man-hours and effort on lots of contract
proposals in the past.

Uh huh.

A non-answer "answer".

Just what has the judgemental, finger-waving James Miccolis
DONE against Access BPL? Besides sit in here and wag a
disapproving finger and play space guru games in words with
Weiner von Brawn?!?

TWO personal attacks in one paragraph! How efficient!

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring
licenses and fees.

Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Clue: It IS a communications technique deployed via an FCC-controlled
medium.

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

And that "incidental radiation" IS an FCC regulated value.

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

It already IS under FCC control.

Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest
to
give up.

Are you going to break into a rendition of "Tommorrow" from the
musical "Little Orphan Annie?"

Are you ever going to participate in that "civil debate" that you always
lament others as allegededly not doing?

IFF is the old acronym for radar transponders. IFF is also an
older contraction in English meaning I, and only IF. This isn't
the former nor the latter and your wish fulfillment hasn't yet been
filled. The EXISTING ACCESS BPL SYSTEM *ARE* RADIATING
EXCESS RF ENERGY ON HF in every community that is trying
it out.

"Maybies" don't cut it.

Was there a point to be made other than your attempt to detour the
discussion over some typos?

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

NONE of the Access BPL systems use the "entire HF spectrum."
Only MOST of it. Enough to cream any low-level received signals
in pseudo-random noise.

Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

A thorough read of Jim's posts indicate otherwise.

And at least Jim HAS a license that allows him to USE those HF
allocations.

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

BPL began in Norway 10 years ago, as PLC or Power Line
Communications. It didn't get far then.

The REPUBLICAN administration of NOW made broadband and
broadband over power lines a "big high-tech new thing" for rural
America. See MIKEY Powell's enthusiastic support in public.
See MIKEY Gallagher's enthusiastic support in public [NTIA].

Do you need pop-ups on your browser screen to understand
the toadying to the prez going on? Nationwide billboards (like
Wall Drug Store) to advertise it?

Or are you just trying to incite another newsgroup flame war?

Seems to me that YOU are the one suggesting one...

Not that you are known for discussing anything WITHOUT making a "flame
war" out of it...

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Sigmund Fraud) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do.

If the Access BPL system does not radiate incidental RF beyond
FCC regulations, the FCC is powerless to do anything about an
Access BPL system.

That might change in the future...but then the NTIA and FCC
would be vying for control of the information highway.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Wrong....Again.

Incorrect. Quite right as I stated.

The FCC has NO power at present to control broadband
distribution of the Internet or other data services on any Access
BPL system. All the FCC can do - and are apparently NOT doing -
is checking the incidental RF radiation levels of installed Access
BPL systems in the USA.

Where is it indicated by the FCC has actually gone out and
measured the incidental RF radiation from any installed Access
BPL system? Answer: They haven't.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

Not as long as it creates interference.

The installed Access BPL systems ARE creating incidental RF
radiation on HF and low-VHF. Now.

FCC hasn't done any measurements. Other folks have.

Docket 04-37 is about an NPRM by the FCC to further define the
test and measurement parameters of BPL plus add a definition
in Part 15 about Access BPL. The FCC hasn't done any
measurements...they haven't established - for themselves - a way
to do it. Not even a year after they asked about it (docket 03-104
an NOI or Notice of Inquiry).

The FCC is NOT acting on their chartered (by law) task of civil
radio. Access BPL is NOT a radio service.


All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of
the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error? Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.

Then the FCC CAN stop it. Wether they will or not is subject to
debate. But they CAN stop it.

All the FCC seems to be doing is sending letters.

There are several open issues of electric power lines in the USA
causing excessive incidental RF radiation. That hasn't been
stopped.

The measured incidental RF radiation from already-installed
BPL test systems has already exceeded FCC regulations. Those
test systems haven't been stopped.

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

The NTIA does not enact nor enforce FCC rules and regulations.

No kidding? :-)

Why did you bring up your supreme court ruling?

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 pretty well outlines (by law)
which agency does what and where.

If you bother to look (which you obviously haven't), the NTIA does
have the legally-authorized power to measure things like the
incidental RF radiation from unintentional emitters. NTIA also has
power to consider spectrum utilization insofar as the entirety of
the United States.

The NTIA study does NOT try to take over anything. It is a study
of already-installed Access BPL systems and comment on the
impact of such incidental RF radiation on existing radio services,
both civil and government.

Well, what are you going to DO about it? Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

No one has made that assertion in this thread, Lennie.

Well, what is the forever murine going to DO about BPL?

Point fingers, shout and yell because his little pride has been
hurt in the newsgroup? Tsk, tsk. Poor baby.

Access BPL has already been proved to radiate excessive RF
noise at all test installations in the USA. Enough so that the
NTIA higher echelons have declared - A 10 db increase in the
noise floor on HF is a small price to pay for increased availability
of broadband for all citizens.

So, the forever murine wants to accept an HF noise floor that
is ten times higher in noise power? Apparently so.

Please try to keep your emotions from interfering with judgement.

(oooooops....too late...)

The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

Uh huh.

And the FCC has issued dozens of letters to those carriers demanding they
clean up their act or else.

WHERE are all those "dozens of letters" to "carriers?" [service
providers]

There's no, repeat NO, evidence of "dozens of letters" in public view.


I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

So are your frequent misrepresentations of the character of Amateur
Radio, your military record, and your professional "career".

Irrelevant in this discussion. The forever murine wants to FIGHT
over old, old issues he lost long ago in here. That is NOT a part
of the good work done by the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, amateur radio
organization on their Access BPL problems.

Dozens of licensed radio amateurs, organizations have already
chided the Commission on their apparent ignorance of technical
matters concerning Access BPL. Add to that at least four
state-licensed professional engineers who have no amateur radio
licenses. It's all there in over 1500 Comments on docket 04-37.


Another personal attack on someone who didn't attack you personally.

Putz.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The forever murine resorts to Yiddish colloquialisms
which are pejoratives again?

The forever murine speaks Yiddish? Hebrew? He thinks it is "okay"
to use foreign (to him) cuss words because he isn't familiar with
the language? Yet the forever murine tries to object when another
uses Anglo-Saxon four-letter words...saying that is "profanity!"

:-)

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL. You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

That's not what he said.

Rev. Jimmie cannot fault the ARRL in much. The League is
sacrosanct to him. That's what he has said repeatedly in many
many messages in here.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

Identify that "help."

The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

They TOOK ACTION.

They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

Uh huh.

Supported by League elected field leadership.

Describe this "field leadership." :-)

You cannot describe it because you do NOT know it. All you can
do is mouth very general phrases. Tsk.


How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

He asked you a direct question.

Nope. It was a leading question. Irrelevant.

I praised the Cedar Rapids amateur radio group for their efforts
which are clearly seen in several docket 04-37 comments.

Somehow the forever murine can't understand that.

What have YOU done to help support the anti-BPL effort?

Far far more than the forever murine has done. :-)


Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Clue: It IS a communications technique deployed via an FCC-controlled
medium.

Incorrect. It is not a "communications technique." Try to get
reasonably close to the correct nomenclature.

The FCC does not "control mediums." It regulates USA civil radio
according to Congressional laws Communications Act of 1934 and
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Access BPL systems are NOT radio systems. They do not
intentionally broadcast any information, broadband or otherwise.

The FCC can regulate the incidental RF radiation from devices.
So far, the FCC doesn't do a good job on those incidental RF
radiation devices other than Access BPL.

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

And that "incidental radiation" IS an FCC regulated value.

It is a level. [try to use common terms, it makes it easier for others
to understand what you are mumbling about...]

So far, the only "regulation" on incidental RF radiation devices has
been some letter writing and trying to calm down irritated citizens
who are still victims of RF noise pollution.

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

It already IS under FCC control.

The forever murine still doesn't understand the issue over Access
BPL. Try to understand. It is difficult but, if you apply yourself
dilligently, you MIGHT be able to understand.


Are you ever going to participate in that "civil debate" that you always
lament others as allegededly not doing?

Not in an atmosphere of the forever murine always calling his
perceived enemies as "putz." :-)



Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

A thorough read of Jim's posts indicate otherwise.

Incorrect.

And at least Jim HAS a license that allows him to USE those HF
allocations.

That AMATEUR radio license doesn't have any legal power to
pollute RF. Read Part 97 carefully.

AMATEUR radio licenses are rather limited in their "USE" of HF
communications. That's the LAW. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do. FCC has the authority to shut down a source of interference.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Or if it causes harmful interference.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

Only with FCC approval. FCC also regulates communications by "wire" as well
as
radio. That's why a "56K" modem can't go quite that fast.

Nope. No "FCC approval" required as long as Access BPL doesn't
have incidental RF radiation beyond Commission regulations.

You best reread the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Why?

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of
the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Not yet. But, if FCC were of a mind to, they could set Part 15 levels even
lower than the German levels. Or rule that BPL systems require certification
before entering operation.

Not with MIKEY Powerll as Chief Commissioner or MIKEY Gallagher as
the NTIA acting secretary. Two toadies for the prez for the price of one!

So you agree! The FCC has the power, they just won't use it with the current
people in place there.

Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error?

There's no error. FCC has the authority - if they chose to use it. They
haven't.

As long as an Access BPL provider doesn't radiate incidental RF beyond
Commission regulations, the FCC CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

They can lower the regulatory limit. They can write new regulations, saying
that existing Part 15 rules were meant for point-source radiators like computer
monitors, not distributed systems like BPL.

You still don't understand just who approves or disapproves a provider.

You still ignore the role fo FCC in nonradio communications.

Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.

There's no reason to shout, Len.

"Shout?"

Yes, shout. As in using all capitals. Doing so doesn't make your words more
true.

Your eyes are too sensitive to opposition. Turn down your
display brightness or wear shades.

[wear shades and no one will recognize you in here? hi, hi. :-) ]

We'd all recognize you, Len, even though you've tried to hide before.

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

Why?

To LEARN something.

What?

The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

If it gets done. It probably won't. FCC is not bound by any strict
deadlines
for enforcement.

Well, what are you going to DO about it?

What can a mere amateur like me do about it? The professionals keep saying
BPL
is a good thing, needed for homeland security, creates jobs, etc. I filed
comments on the NOI but it apparently made no difference. Both the FCC
Chairman and Our President say we need BPL. Our President has left it up to
NTIA to
solve any interference issues.

Then why are you blaming others who HAVE DONE SOMETHING because
you feel inadequate?

I'm not blaming anybody. I'm simply asking a simple question and stating some
facts.

That's irrational.

It is? How?

What counterarguments can I offer that will change all their minds? Besides
-
you keepo telling me that FCC can't stop BPL anyway.

I don't "keepo" anything. :-)

Get creative. Don't sit around like a self-made guru and font of
knowledge
without any spritzer. We can't help your feelings of inadequacy...

In other words, you don't know what to do either. So you lash out at me for
asking the question.

Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

I've never said that, Len.

No? Not even once? :-)

Nope.

Now, I have said things like:

"sometimes, CW gets through when other available modes do not"

which is an absolutely true statement.

And all I have is a dialup connection.

Now, now...you've said many, many times you "know' what FCC will do!

?? How does that follow from having a dialup connection?

You pretend to be an "insider" with all that "knowledge." :-)

Not me.

The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

Have you actually heard any of it?

Only recordings.

Recordings made by whom? Supplied to you how?

I HAVE heard plenty of random garbage from HV
corona, neon signs, arc welders, low-power RF bulbs now all the
sales rage in do-it-yourself stores to "cut down on electricity
consumption."

None of them are BPL.

And why are you so concerned? You're not a radio amateur.

I am a radio professional.

Really? I thought you were retired.

Professionals GET concerned.

Usually, only when there is money involved. Money for them. The UPLC folks are
all professionals.

There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you
address your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

Someone die and you were appointed New Headmaster?

No. Did someone appoint you to that position?

Never claimed to. :-)

You just act that way.

YOU are the one trying to ask leading questions.

What's the problem with my questions? Don't you know the answers?

Hell, yes, I would refer to FCC Chairman Powell as "Mikey" right
to his face...if I was commenting on the idiotic decisions to
abandon all existing radio services and government radio services
to the RF noise pollution of Access BPL.

Do you think it would help?

It would help ME. :-)

Do you think it would help stop BPL?

It wouldn't be done unless BPL was a fait accompli. I think it is.

Sounds like a "yes" to me.

Would you advise the rest of us to refer to Chairman Powell that way? How about
we all make up derisive nicknames for the various commissioners and other
regulators?

Is that the professional thing to do?

I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

I must have missed that in your comments. Did it help stop BPL?

My telling the truth in here hasn't stopped you one bit. :-)

What truth?

I take it you aren't concerned about Access BPL? You feel NO
danger of it polluting HF in the near future?

I'm very concerned. But so far, the only advice on how to fight it that you
have given is for me to make up insulting nicknames for FCC personnel. Somehow
I think that's night the right approach.

You should. All radio amateurs should.

Why are *you* so concerned? You're not a radio amateur.

Now if you've READ the NTIA
reports, READ the reports of the Cedar Rapids group on measured RF
interference, you SHOULD be concerned. Be very concerned!

I am. But concern alone doesn't change anything.

But, no, your only "concern" is trying to have weak verbal fisticuffs in
here, trying to "assert" yourself by talking down to others... Tsk.

Not me, Len. That's your role here. Referring to others as "feldwebel" and
"idiot" and such.

The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL.

But they *can* give needed help, and act to coordinate efforts. And if
nothing
else, ARRL has continued to publicize the BPL threat both inside and
outside
the amateur community, and to spread accurate information on what is going
on.

What is that statement you make...another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount?

Just some simple facts, Len. Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The FIRST league "reports" were only computer simulations.

That's all that was available at the time.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

It took some
months before they could hire a professional instrumentation service to
get
first-hand data on the REAL RF radiation.

There were also on-site observations made by W1RFI and others.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Money for the ARRL hired service came out of the league's budget. There
was NO money reported spent by the Cedar Rapids amateur group.

Is money spent the only measure for you?

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL.

Neither are you.

Childish response. Tsk.

Infantile statement by you. Tsk.tsk ;-)

Why are you objecting by doing such childish commentary?

Why are you avoiding simple, direct questions?

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The only rational answer is that you really don't know much about BPL
and/or want it to come in to everyone's urban residences....and radios.

Nope.

I'm simply looking for effective ways to fight it.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

I think it really bothers you that ARRL is playing any role at all in it.
You
ever meet Ed Hare, W1RFI, or see his presentation?

Doesn't bother me at all. :-)

I think it does.

It DOES bother the heck out of you, though, because you bristle and
get most hostile at the slightest negativism of your beloved leadue!

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for
its
help.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

I don't know. But both the Iowa group and the affected amateur thanked them.

See? One little harmless NON-praise of ARRL and you get hostile. Tsk.

Nope.

Identify that "help."

Why?

So everyone one know what the Great ARRL can do! :-)

Do you think they would have thanked ARRL for no help?

I don't know what "they think." Telepathy not an attribute here.

But, you try with the leading, hostile question again! :-)

The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you help them?

I read their reports. Plural. Several Comments. Detailed data on their
measurements, procedures, instrument descriptions, photos, drawings.
Good stuff! Shows they know what they were doing.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Why would they thank ARRL if they "WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES."

They TOOK ACTION.

Nobody denies that.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you help them?

Did you?

They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

They experienced demonstrable interference from BPL.

What do you suggest others do?

Why do you need ACTION spelled out? It's OBVIOUS.

You don't have any ideas, do you?

Obvious to all but those self-elect guru extras who sit in here and try
to pick fights with others because they sound warnings and wave flags.

:-)

IOW, you don't know either.

They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

I'm not. I'm simply asking some questions. You haven't provided answers.

No, you are NOT "simply asking some questions." :-)

Yes I am.

You are deliberately asking leading questions with hostile intent.

No answers, huh?

You just want to ARGUE...then try to wear others down in sheer length of
"replies." :-)

Not me. I don;t have the time.

I CAN do a fair estimation of man-hours because I've done fair
estimations of man-hours and effort on lots of contract
proposals in the past.

How long ago was that? Did it involve HF interference elimination?

A year and a half ago. Yes, it did.

Where?

Sunnuvagun!!! :-)

Son of something else ;-) ;-)

Just what has the judgemental, finger-waving James Miccolis
DONE against Access BPL?

I'm not making any judgements nor waving any fingers, Len. I'm just asking
questions.

Nope. You are provoking arguments for the sake of your love of
arguments. :-)

Not me.

And I have done a few things. Probably more than you.

How do you KNOW? Were you THERE? Did you help?

Yep.

Besides sit in here and wag a
disapproving finger and play space guru games in words with
Weiner von Brawn?!?

What *are* you talking about, Len?

Tsk. All those many words and "answers" on aerospace and you
pretend "not understanding?!?" Tsk.

I don't pretend.

Describe to us your professional experience in aerospace. Give us a
baseline of your judgement on space matters through actual space
work performed.

Why? Has nothing to do with BPL.

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring
licenses and fees.

Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Doesn't matter. If something interferes with licensed radio services, FCC
has
regulatory power.

But only to removal of the interfering source.

That's all I ask.

So far, all the FCC has done about ordinary, pre-BPL electric power line
RF interference has been a lot of letters. Of paper. Incomplete
"regulation."

None of them ever got fixed?

ARINC reported it still has RF interference to one of its HF receiving
sites.
That's in their Comments. FCC hasn't exercised any "regulatory power"
on clearing that up yet.

Maybe a professional like you could get it fixed.

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Because the internet information can cross state boundaries, FCC has
authority.

Tsk, tsk. Best you go read that Telecommunications Act of 1996...

You may have been admitted to a bar, but you haven't been admitted to
a Bar Association.

Have you?

Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest
to give up.

Are you going to break into a rendition of "Tommorrow" from the
musical "Little Orphan Annie?"

Nope. Are you?

Tsk. Jimmie can't take the slightest negativism. :-)

Who is "Jimmie"?

IFF is the old acronym for radar transponders.

Like the APX-6. Converted by hams for use on 1296 MHz.

To borrow something from Weiner von Brawn, your buddy in space -

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Jimmie, don't bother with WW2 surplus. Get with present-day
transponders. Radar transponders. "Mode 4." What a "KIR" and
"KIT" are. [military] What's an "ATCRBS?" Why the three pulses in
transponders with the middle one at varying levels? Why use two
pulses? Go get some REAL transponder info, stuff that is used NOW,
not before you were born.

Why?

Try Teledyne Electronics, Newbury Park, CA. My employer for a while.
Made nothing but military radar transponders there. Tsk.

That's nice. Has nothing to do with BPL.

IFF is also an
older contraction in English meaning I, and only IF.

Actually, it's an acronym. Sort of.

CONTRACTION. Don't try to give birth to something new...

Acronym.

This isn't
the former nor the latter and your wish fulfillment hasn't yet been
filled.

Yes, it is.

Jimmie dropped into "nyah-nyah mode" again. He needs to trim up
his coincidence detector, he be triggering on "fruit." :-)

Are you a fruit, Len? Or a vegetable?

The EXISTING ACCESS BPL SYSTEM *ARE* RADIATING
EXCESS RF ENERGY ON HF in every community that is trying
it out.

I could have told you that a year ago, Len. What's with all the shouting?

Tsk. "You could have told a year ago!" Well, why didn't you?

I did. You argued about it then.

How about two years ago? Three? Ten? Did you keep informed on
the Norwegian-Swedish PLC trials? The potential was THERE. Did
you keep informed on the following European PLC trials? In the UK?

Why should I? All of them were shut down, weren't they?

Why didn't *you* talk about them?

I doubt it. You are as informed on Access BPL as you pretend to be
about the aerospace business.

I don't pretend.

"Maybies" don't cut it.

Many highly-touted new technologies have fallen by the wayside once their
disadvantages became known.

Yeah, like telephones, radio, heavier-than-air craft, television and
[ta-dahh] cellular telephony and the Internet!

Right. All "big disadvantaged things" that nobody "needs."

Beta VCRs, the Iridium system, "quadraphonic" sound, 8 track tapes,
old-format laser discs....

Heck, technology changes so fast these days that the IRS considers a
computer
fully depreciated in just 3 years.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I could have told you that in 1974 after the IRS audited
my tax return for 1973 on my HP-35 scientific calculator. 3-year-
depreciation. Nothing new. :-)

What's your point?

At time now, one in three Americans has a cell phone subscription
and one out of five American households have some form of Internet
access. According to the U.S. Census Bureau. But, what do they
know, right?

What is the significance of those facts, Len? Neither has anything to do
with BPL or amateur radio.

What is the significance of your mighty verbose output on AEROSPACE
and national economy and the presidential elections in an amateur radio
policy newsgroup?

"You can not answer a question with another question" - Leonard H. Anderson.

Don't act childish or churlish with those attempts at leading questions.
Google has it all archived.

BPL *will* hit all amateurs, all SWLs, all CBers, all other radio services
using HF right in the antenna port if they try to receive close to a BPL
line. The test sites have already been measured to do that.

Measured by whom?

There's also the economic angle. The price of DSL keeps dropping, as does
Wi-Fi, while the areas covered by those technologies and cable keep
expanding.
If BPL cannot compete in price and performance, it's all over.

"Price of DSL keeps dropping?!?!?" Look again.

I did. My local providers have reduced the price of DSL repeatedly. It's
getting so that I'm seriously considering changing to DSL as part of a
bundled package of cell, POTS and internet access.

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?"

Simple. If BPL can't compete in the marketplace, it won't last.

Who are the Wi-Fi (really Wi-FAX) providers? IEEE 802.16 standard
is hardly dry in its approved specifications for Wi-FAX and you are
thinking it is all over the USA?

Not at all. But it's in many locations and growing fast. No interference
problems like BPL. Complete portability. But hey, what do I know? Ask WK3C,
Carl Stevenson. He's much more knowledgeable about that stuff than I.

Tsk. I thought, indeed many thought, you knew MORE than anyone.

You were wrong. In error.

Carl is an IEEE member. So am I. So what.

Yep. ;-)

WE can both access
information on IEEE standards...as you can, if you try. You are NOT
an IEEE member despite being a professional.

That's nice. Will is stop BPL?

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?" :-)

IEEE isn't advocating for BPL. Just the opposite.

Yet they haven't stopped it, have they?

Has IEEE done any measurements or helped in test cases like Cedar Rapids?

You want to oppose the IEEE's objections because your poor little
newsgroup pride is "hurt?"

Nope. I welcome all help in fighting the BPL menace.

Even yours - but you don't offer any.

Awwww....

You are avoiding the issues by trying to hide.

Not at all, Len. I'm right here.

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?"

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Access BPL radiates
incidental RF radiation NOW in HF and some at low-VHF. By test.
By measurements of both government and private industry groups.

Interesting that you don't mention ARRL's measurements and observations. Did
you see the videos?

Did you see over a thousand comments on docket 04-37?

Yes.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Did you see the full Cedar Rapids amateur group comment and
report on their Cedar Rapids BPL interference measurements/

Yes

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

I don't think so. All you want to do is "praise the league and pass
all the mighty notion." :-)

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while.

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

NONE of the Access BPL systems use the "entire HF spectrum."
Only MOST of it. Enough to cream any low-level received signals
in pseudo-random noise.

Why does that bother you, Len?

Why are you so antagonistic at anyone pointing out flaws with the
ARRL?

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Do you want to spend your BPL objection time watching league
videos and play-acting at being an RFI guru?

What have *you* done, Len, besides make up nicknames for government officials?

Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

I'm not hiding from anything.

Sure you are. You'd rather be in here ARGUING for the sake of
arguing and trying to wear others down with your lengthy posts. :-)

Not me.

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

BPL began in Norway 10 years ago, as PLC or Power Line
Communications. It didn't get far then.

Must have interfered with lutefisk production.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Ethnic slurs and insults?

Just a bit of humor, Len.

From the double-degreed
ivy-trimmed wonder of the amateur world?

No. There was no reported "interference" with whitefish treatments.

Both Norway and Sweden trials showed considerable SWL
interference. In case you wondered, Europe actually uses SW BC
for listening. [not for treating fish with lye]

I use it too. SWBC, that is, not lye-treated fish.

The REPUBLICAN administration of NOW made broadband and
broadband over power lines a "big high-tech new thing" for rural
America.

Yep - even though none of the test sites are truly rural.

Note that the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan gave is VEC testing
and 10 year amateur licenses.

What has that to do with a BPL Pilot Project in Cedar Rapids in
2003-2004?

Answer: Not a thing.

Wrong answer.

The Republican administration of George Bush (the elder) gave us medical
waivers for code tests, the no-code-test Technician license, and set in
motion the end of the maritime Morse requirements.

Poor baby. More with misdirection into presidential and party politics.

Wrong answer.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Maritime World was already dropping manual
telegraphy by 1990 and had begun earlier than that.

The BPL test in Cedar Rapids doesn't have a thing to do with "medical
waivers," "code tests," or Technician class licenses, or "setting much
in motion" except showing that BPL is BAD for HF.

Yes, they do.

The Republican administration of "now" supported the revision of treaty part
S25.5 to eliminate the requirement for Morse code testing, thereby clearing
the path for the elimination of all code testing in the USA.

The pattern is set: Republican administrations seek less regulation of radio,
even to the point of allowing spectrum pollution by BPL.

There was also the "deregulation" of broadcast owners

I recall someone here saying the FCC was the "expert agency" composed of
"professional regulators" who had looked at the arguments and "made the
right
choice". Or words to that effect, anyway.

Now you tell me the FCC doesn't knwo what they're doing?

See MIKEY Powell's enthusiastic support in public.
See MIKEY Gallagher's enthusiastic support in public [NTIA].

I don't think you'd talk to them that way in person.

I KNOW I would, Jimmie. No problem to me.

YOU do NOT know what I do, can do, have done...you won't listen
or acknowledge. Tsk.

All I've seen from you are voluminous comments, posts in newsgroups, and name
calling.


Do you need pop-ups on your browser screen to understand
the toadying to the prez going on? Nationwide billboards (like
Wall Drug Store) to advertise it?

Not at all.

Poor baby. Can't understand that BPL is going to be an RF
polluter of HF and low-VHF frequencies. Wants to argue for the
sake of argument. Tsk.

Or are you just trying to incite another newsgroup flame war?

Not me. I'm not the one yelling and screaming and calling people names.

They you go and chastise Steve Robeson.

Why?

HE yells and screams and curses and calls other people names.

Just like you.

Guys...
Can you PLEASE be a little less lazy about your editing??
The vast majority of people aren't going to read you stuff
if they have to wade through mess like that below; it's a swamp.
If we want to follow the whole conversation, we can follow
the thread. In the mean time, please cut out everything except
that to which you are specifically responding.
It really isn't hard at all.
Thanks.


N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article ,



(N2EY) writes:


In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:


Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do. FCC has the authority to shut down a source of interference.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Or if it causes harmful interference.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.


Only with FCC approval. FCC also regulates communications by "wire" as well

as

radio. That's why a "56K" modem can't go quite that fast.

Nope. No "FCC approval" required as long as Access BPL doesn't
have incidental RF radiation beyond Commission regulations.

You best reread the Telecommunications Act of 1996.


Why?


All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.


It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of

the

systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.


But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Not yet. But, if FCC were of a mind to, they could set Part 15 levels even
lower than the German levels. Or rule that BPL systems require certification
before entering operation.

Not with MIKEY Powerll as Chief Commissioner or MIKEY Gallagher as
the NTIA acting secretary. Two toadies for the prez for the price of one!


So you agree! The FCC has the power, they just won't use it with the current
people in place there.


Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error?

There's no error. FCC has the authority - if they chose to use it. They
haven't.

As long as an Access BPL provider doesn't radiate incidental RF beyond
Commission regulations, the FCC CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.


They can lower the regulatory limit. They can write new regulations, saying
that existing Part 15 rules were meant for point-source radiators like computer
monitors, not distributed systems like BPL.

You still don't understand just who approves or disapproves a provider.


You still ignore the role fo FCC in nonradio communications.

Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.


There's no reason to shout, Len.

"Shout?"


Yes, shout. As in using all capitals. Doing so doesn't make your words more
true.


Your eyes are too sensitive to opposition. Turn down your
display brightness or wear shades.

[wear shades and no one will recognize you in here? hi, hi. :-) ]


We'd all recognize you, Len, even though you've tried to hide before.

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

Why?

To LEARN something.


What?

The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

If it gets done. It probably won't. FCC is not bound by any strict

deadlines

for enforcement.

Well, what are you going to DO about it?

What can a mere amateur like me do about it? The professionals keep saying

BPL

is a good thing, needed for homeland security, creates jobs, etc. I filed
comments on the NOI but it apparently made no difference. Both the FCC
Chairman and Our President say we need BPL. Our President has left it up to
NTIA to
solve any interference issues.

Then why are you blaming others who HAVE DONE SOMETHING because
you feel inadequate?


I'm not blaming anybody. I'm simply asking a simple question and stating some
facts.


That's irrational.


It is? How?


What counterarguments can I offer that will change all their minds? Besides

-

you keepo telling me that FCC can't stop BPL anyway.

I don't "keepo" anything. :-)

Get creative. Don't sit around like a self-made guru and font of
knowledge
without any spritzer. We can't help your feelings of inadequacy...


In other words, you don't know what to do either. So you lash out at me for
asking the question.


Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

I've never said that, Len.

No? Not even once? :-)


Nope.

Now, I have said things like:

"sometimes, CW gets through when other available modes do not"

which is an absolutely true statement.


And all I have is a dialup connection.

Now, now...you've said many, many times you "know' what FCC will do!


?? How does that follow from having a dialup connection?

You pretend to be an "insider" with all that "knowledge." :-)


Not me.

The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

Have you actually heard any of it?

Only recordings.


Recordings made by whom? Supplied to you how?


I HAVE heard plenty of random garbage from HV
corona, neon signs, arc welders, low-power RF bulbs now all the
sales rage in do-it-yourself stores to "cut down on electricity
consumption."


None of them are BPL.


And why are you so concerned? You're not a radio amateur.

I am a radio professional.


Really? I thought you were retired.


Professionals GET concerned.


Usually, only when there is money involved. Money for them. The UPLC folks are
all professionals.


There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you
address your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

Someone die and you were appointed New Headmaster?

No. Did someone appoint you to that position?

Never claimed to. :-)


You just act that way.


YOU are the one trying to ask leading questions.


What's the problem with my questions? Don't you know the answers?

Hell, yes, I would refer to FCC Chairman Powell as "Mikey" right
to his face...if I was commenting on the idiotic decisions to
abandon all existing radio services and government radio services
to the RF noise pollution of Access BPL.

Do you think it would help?

It would help ME. :-)


Do you think it would help stop BPL?


It wouldn't be done unless BPL was a fait accompli. I think it is.


Sounds like a "yes" to me.

Would you advise the rest of us to refer to Chairman Powell that way? How about
we all make up derisive nicknames for the various commissioners and other
regulators?

Is that the professional thing to do?


I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

I must have missed that in your comments. Did it help stop BPL?

My telling the truth in here hasn't stopped you one bit. :-)


What truth?

I take it you aren't concerned about Access BPL? You feel NO
danger of it polluting HF in the near future?


I'm very concerned. But so far, the only advice on how to fight it that you
have given is for me to make up insulting nicknames for FCC personnel. Somehow
I think that's night the right approach.

You should. All radio amateurs should.


Why are *you* so concerned? You're not a radio amateur.


Now if you've READ the NTIA
reports, READ the reports of the Cedar Rapids group on measured RF
interference, you SHOULD be concerned. Be very concerned!


I am. But concern alone doesn't change anything.

But, no, your only "concern" is trying to have weak verbal fisticuffs in
here, trying to "assert" yourself by talking down to others... Tsk.


Not me, Len. That's your role here. Referring to others as "feldwebel" and
"idiot" and such.


The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL.

But they *can* give needed help, and act to coordinate efforts. And if
nothing
else, ARRL has continued to publicize the BPL threat both inside and

outside

the amateur community, and to spread accurate information on what is going
on.

What is that statement you make...another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount?

Just some simple facts, Len. Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The FIRST league "reports" were only computer simulations.


That's all that was available at the time.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?


It took some
months before they could hire a professional instrumentation service to
get
first-hand data on the REAL RF radiation.


There were also on-site observations made by W1RFI and others.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Money for the ARRL hired service came out of the league's budget. There
was NO money reported spent by the Cedar Rapids amateur group.


Is money spent the only measure for you?

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL.

Neither are you.

Childish response. Tsk.


Infantile statement by you. Tsk.tsk ;-)

Why are you objecting by doing such childish commentary?


Why are you avoiding simple, direct questions?

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The only rational answer is that you really don't know much about BPL
and/or want it to come in to everyone's urban residences....and radios.


Nope.

I'm simply looking for effective ways to fight it.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

I think it really bothers you that ARRL is playing any role at all in it.

You

ever meet Ed Hare, W1RFI, or see his presentation?

Doesn't bother me at all. :-)


I think it does.

It DOES bother the heck out of you, though, because you bristle and
get most hostile at the slightest negativism of your beloved leadue!


Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for

its

help.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

I don't know. But both the Iowa group and the affected amateur thanked them.


See? One little harmless NON-praise of ARRL and you get hostile. Tsk.


Nope.

Identify that "help."


Why?

So everyone one know what the Great ARRL can do! :-)


Do you think they would have thanked ARRL for no help?

I don't know what "they think." Telepathy not an attribute here.

But, you try with the leading, hostile question again! :-)


The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you help them?

I read their reports. Plural. Several Comments. Detailed data on their
measurements, procedures, instrument descriptions, photos, drawings.
Good stuff! Shows they know what they were doing.


Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Why would they thank ARRL if they "WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES."

They TOOK ACTION.

Nobody denies that.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you help them?


Did you?

They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

They experienced demonstrable interference from BPL.

What do you suggest others do?

Why do you need ACTION spelled out? It's OBVIOUS.


You don't have any ideas, do you?

Obvious to all but those self-elect guru extras who sit in here and try
to pick fights with others because they sound warnings and wave flags.

:-)


IOW, you don't know either.

They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

I'm not. I'm simply asking some questions. You haven't provided answers.

No, you are NOT "simply asking some questions." :-)


Yes I am.

You are deliberately asking leading questions with hostile intent.


No answers, huh?

You just want to ARGUE...then try to wear others down in sheer length of
"replies." :-)


Not me. I don;t have the time.

I CAN do a fair estimation of man-hours because I've done fair
estimations of man-hours and effort on lots of contract
proposals in the past.

How long ago was that? Did it involve HF interference elimination?

A year and a half ago. Yes, it did.


Where?

Sunnuvagun!!! :-)


Son of something else ;-) ;-)


Just what has the judgemental, finger-waving James Miccolis
DONE against Access BPL?

I'm not making any judgements nor waving any fingers, Len. I'm just asking
questions.

Nope. You are provoking arguments for the sake of your love of
arguments. :-)


Not me.

And I have done a few things. Probably more than you.

How do you KNOW? Were you THERE? Did you help?


Yep.

Besides sit in here and wag a
disapproving finger and play space guru games in words with
Weiner von Brawn?!?

What *are* you talking about, Len?

Tsk. All those many words and "answers" on aerospace and you
pretend "not understanding?!?" Tsk.


I don't pretend.

Describe to us your professional experience in aerospace. Give us a
baseline of your judgement on space matters through actual space
work performed.


Why? Has nothing to do with BPL.


Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring
licenses and fees.

Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Doesn't matter. If something interferes with licensed radio services, FCC

has

regulatory power.

But only to removal of the interfering source.


That's all I ask.

So far, all the FCC has done about ordinary, pre-BPL electric power line
RF interference has been a lot of letters. Of paper. Incomplete
"regulation."


None of them ever got fixed?


ARINC reported it still has RF interference to one of its HF receiving
sites.
That's in their Comments. FCC hasn't exercised any "regulatory power"
on clearing that up yet.


Maybe a professional like you could get it fixed.

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Because the internet information can cross state boundaries, FCC has
authority.

Tsk, tsk. Best you go read that Telecommunications Act of 1996...

You may have been admitted to a bar, but you haven't been admitted to
a Bar Association.


Have you?

Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest
to give up.

Are you going to break into a rendition of "Tommorrow" from the
musical "Little Orphan Annie?"

Nope. Are you?

Tsk. Jimmie can't take the slightest negativism. :-)


Who is "Jimmie"?

IFF is the old acronym for radar transponders.

Like the APX-6. Converted by hams for use on 1296 MHz.

To borrow something from Weiner von Brawn, your buddy in space -

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Jimmie, don't bother with WW2 surplus. Get with present-day
transponders. Radar transponders. "Mode 4." What a "KIR" and
"KIT" are. [military] What's an "ATCRBS?" Why the three pulses in
transponders with the middle one at varying levels? Why use two
pulses? Go get some REAL transponder info, stuff that is used NOW,
not before you were born.


Why?

Try Teledyne Electronics, Newbury Park, CA. My employer for a while.
Made nothing but military radar transponders there. Tsk.


That's nice. Has nothing to do with BPL.


IFF is also an
older contraction in English meaning I, and only IF.

Actually, it's an acronym. Sort of.

CONTRACTION. Don't try to give birth to something new...


Acronym.

This isn't
the former nor the latter and your wish fulfillment hasn't yet been
filled.

Yes, it is.

Jimmie dropped into "nyah-nyah mode" again. He needs to trim up
his coincidence detector, he be triggering on "fruit." :-)


Are you a fruit, Len? Or a vegetable?

The EXISTING ACCESS BPL SYSTEM *ARE* RADIATING
EXCESS RF ENERGY ON HF in every community that is trying
it out.

I could have told you that a year ago, Len. What's with all the shouting?

Tsk. "You could have told a year ago!" Well, why didn't you?


I did. You argued about it then.

How about two years ago? Three? Ten? Did you keep informed on
the Norwegian-Swedish PLC trials? The potential was THERE. Did
you keep informed on the following European PLC trials? In the UK?


Why should I? All of them were shut down, weren't they?

Why didn't *you* talk about them?

I doubt it. You are as informed on Access BPL as you pretend to be
about the aerospace business.


I don't pretend.

"Maybies" don't cut it.


Many highly-touted new technologies have fallen by the wayside once their
disadvantages became known.

Yeah, like telephones, radio, heavier-than-air craft, television and
[ta-dahh] cellular telephony and the Internet!

Right. All "big disadvantaged things" that nobody "needs."

Beta VCRs, the Iridium system, "quadraphonic" sound, 8 track tapes,
old-format laser discs....

Heck, technology changes so fast these days that the IRS considers a
computer
fully depreciated in just 3 years.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I could have told you that in 1974 after the IRS audited
my tax return for 1973 on my HP-35 scientific calculator. 3-year-
depreciation. Nothing new. :-)


What's your point?

At time now, one in three Americans has a cell phone subscription
and one out of five American households have some form of Internet
access. According to the U.S. Census Bureau. But, what do they
know, right?

What is the significance of those facts, Len? Neither has anything to do
with BPL or amateur radio.

What is the significance of your mighty verbose output on AEROSPACE
and national economy and the presidential elections in an amateur radio
policy newsgroup?


"You can not answer a question with another question" - Leonard H. Anderson.

Don't act childish or churlish with those attempts at leading questions.
Google has it all archived.

BPL *will* hit all amateurs, all SWLs, all CBers, all other radio services
using HF right in the antenna port if they try to receive close to a BPL
line. The test sites have already been measured to do that.


Measured by whom?


There's also the economic angle. The price of DSL keeps dropping, as does
Wi-Fi, while the areas covered by those technologies and cable keep
expanding.
If BPL cannot compete in price and performance, it's all over.

"Price of DSL keeps dropping?!?!?" Look again.

I did. My local providers have reduced the price of DSL repeatedly. It's
getting so that I'm seriously considering changing to DSL as part of a
bundled package of cell, POTS and internet access.

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?"


Simple. If BPL can't compete in the marketplace, it won't last.

Who are the Wi-Fi (really Wi-FAX) providers? IEEE 802.16 standard
is hardly dry in its approved specifications for Wi-FAX and you are
thinking it is all over the USA?

Not at all. But it's in many locations and growing fast. No interference
problems like BPL. Complete portability. But hey, what do I know? Ask WK3C,
Carl Stevenson. He's much more knowledgeable about that stuff than I.

Tsk. I thought, indeed many thought, you knew MORE than anyone.


You were wrong. In error.

Carl is an IEEE member. So am I. So what.


Yep. ;-)


WE can both access
information on IEEE standards...as you can, if you try. You are NOT
an IEEE member despite being a professional.


That's nice. Will is stop BPL?


But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?" :-)

IEEE isn't advocating for BPL. Just the opposite.


Yet they haven't stopped it, have they?

Has IEEE done any measurements or helped in test cases like Cedar Rapids?

You want to oppose the IEEE's objections because your poor little
newsgroup pride is "hurt?"


Nope. I welcome all help in fighting the BPL menace.

Even yours - but you don't offer any.


Awwww....


You are avoiding the issues by trying to hide.

Not at all, Len. I'm right here.

But, "what has that to do with BPL or amateur radio?"


Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Access BPL radiates
incidental RF radiation NOW in HF and some at low-VHF. By test.
By measurements of both government and private industry groups.

Interesting that you don't mention ARRL's measurements and observations. Did
you see the videos?

Did you see over a thousand comments on docket 04-37?


Yes.

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Did you see the full Cedar Rapids amateur group comment and
report on their Cedar Rapids BPL interference measurements/


Yes

Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?


I don't think so. All you want to do is "praise the league and pass
all the mighty notion." :-)


Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while.

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

NONE of the Access BPL systems use the "entire HF spectrum."
Only MOST of it. Enough to cream any low-level received signals
in pseudo-random noise.

Why does that bother you, Len?

Why are you so antagonistic at anyone pointing out flaws with the
ARRL?


Would you rather that ARRL not be involved?

Do you want to spend your BPL objection time watching league
videos and play-acting at being an RFI guru?


What have *you* done, Len, besides make up nicknames for government officials?

Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

I'm not hiding from anything.

Sure you are. You'd rather be in here ARGUING for the sake of
arguing and trying to wear others down with your lengthy posts. :-)


Not me.

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

BPL began in Norway 10 years ago, as PLC or Power Line
Communications. It didn't get far then.

Must have interfered with lutefisk production.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Ethnic slurs and insults?


Just a bit of humor, Len.


From the double-degreed
ivy-trimmed wonder of the amateur world?

No. There was no reported "interference" with whitefish treatments.

Both Norway and Sweden trials showed considerable SWL
interference. In case you wondered, Europe actually uses SW BC
for listening. [not for treating fish with lye]


I use it too. SWBC, that is, not lye-treated fish.

The REPUBLICAN administration of NOW made broadband and
broadband over power lines a "big high-tech new thing" for rural
America.

Yep - even though none of the test sites are truly rural.

Note that the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan gave is VEC testing
and 10 year amateur licenses.

What has that to do with a BPL Pilot Project in Cedar Rapids in
2003-2004?

Answer: Not a thing.


Wrong answer.


The Republican administration of George Bush (the elder) gave us medical
waivers for code tests, the no-code-test Technician license, and set in
motion the end of the maritime Morse requirements.

Poor baby. More with misdirection into presidential and party politics.


Wrong answer.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Maritime World was already dropping manual
telegraphy by 1990 and had begun earlier than that.

The BPL test in Cedar Rapids doesn't have a thing to do with "medical
waivers," "code tests," or Technician class licenses, or "setting much
in motion" except showing that BPL is BAD for HF.


Yes, they do.

The Republican administration of "now" supported the revision of treaty part
S25.5 to eliminate the requirement for Morse code testing, thereby clearing
the path for the elimination of all code testing in the USA.


The pattern is set: Republican administrations seek less regulation of radio,
even to the point of allowing spectrum pollution by BPL.

There was also the "deregulation" of broadcast owners


I recall someone here saying the FCC was the "expert agency" composed of
"professional regulators" who had looked at the arguments and "made the
right
choice". Or words to that effect, anyway.


Now you tell me the FCC doesn't knwo what they're doing?

See MIKEY Powell's enthusiastic support in public.
See MIKEY Gallagher's enthusiastic support in public [NTIA].

I don't think you'd talk to them that way in person.

I KNOW I would, Jimmie. No problem to me.

YOU do NOT know what I do, can do, have done...you won't listen
or acknowledge. Tsk.


All I've seen from you are voluminous comments, posts in newsgroups, and name
calling.



Do you need pop-ups on your browser screen to understand
the toadying to the prez going on? Nationwide billboards (like
Wall Drug Store) to advertise it?

Not at all.

Poor baby. Can't understand that BPL is going to be an RF
polluter of HF and low-VHF frequencies. Wants to argue for the
sake of argument. Tsk.


Or are you just trying to incite another newsgroup flame war?


Not me. I'm not the one yelling and screaming and calling people names.


They you go and chastise Steve Robeson.


Why?


HE yells and screams and curses and calls other people names.


Just like you.

In article , David Stinson
writes:

Guys...
Can you PLEASE be a little less lazy about your editing??

Roger that. Abbreviate. Trim. Polish. Edit. Publish.

Hihi.

LHA

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do. FCC has the authority to shut down a source of interference.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Or if it causes harmful interference.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

Only with FCC approval. FCC also regulates communications by "wire" as well
as
radio. That's why a "56K" modem can't go quite that fast.

Nope. No "FCC approval" required as long as Access BPL doesn't
have incidental RF radiation beyond Commission regulations.

You best reread the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Why?

For one thing, you MIGHT learn something new. :-)

Just think...you could then be the Informed Guru preaching to the
masses in r.r.a.p. all about how they should act, do, perform, etc.

But...all you really seem to want to do in here is do lengthy
arguments for the sake of arguments' sake. :-)

Sorry, Jimmie, but you are wasting lots of folks' time...

Now go back to orbit and tell us all about SPACE and your
intimate knowledge of the aerospace industry, etc. That's a
regular feature in here and your sidekicks don't want to miss a
single minute of it...

Good luck on your new job as a traveling salesman.