In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

The major "kudos" ought to go to the Cedar Rapids team that put
together an excellent picture of a detailed example of their BPL
test system. One can see it in several Comments on docket
04-37 at the FCC ECFS.

"Kudos to ARRL?" Why? The Cedar Rapids amateur club
did all the work...had the calibrated instruments for valid data
collection. No computer simulations there. Actual on-air tests.

If someone wants to express gratitude to "all involved," the names
and callsigns are in the several 04-37 Comments of the last week.
Write them DIRECT, don't assume that "all" read this din of
inequity called a newsgroup.

Len,

The purpose was, obviously, to let eveyone know what we knew in the first
place - BPL *will* cause interference. Whatever you may think, this will
also cause interference to low band VHF users as well. I shan't get into
who uses that.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

The major "kudos" ought to go to the Cedar Rapids team that put
together an excellent picture of a detailed example of their BPL
test system. One can see it in several Comments on docket
04-37 at the FCC ECFS.

"Kudos to ARRL?" Why? The Cedar Rapids amateur club
did all the work...had the calibrated instruments for valid data
collection. No computer simulations there. Actual on-air tests.

If someone wants to express gratitude to "all involved," the names
and callsigns are in the several 04-37 Comments of the last week.
Write them DIRECT, don't assume that "all" read this din of
inequity called a newsgroup.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/04

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Len,

The purpose was, obviously, to let eveyone know what we knew in the
first place - BPL *will* cause interference. Whatever you may think,
this will also cause interference to low band VHF users as well. I
shan't get into who uses that.


I don't know who you have in mind, but the state police use it here. That
may be enough to kill BPL right there.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

The major "kudos" ought to go to the Cedar Rapids team that put
together an excellent picture of a detailed example of their BPL
test system. One can see it in several Comments on docket
04-37 at the FCC ECFS.

"Kudos to ARRL?" Why? The Cedar Rapids amateur club
did all the work...had the calibrated instruments for valid data
collection. No computer simulations there. Actual on-air tests.

If someone wants to express gratitude to "all involved," the names
and callsigns are in the several 04-37 Comments of the last week.
Write them DIRECT, don't assume that "all" read this din of
inequity called a newsgroup.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/04

In article , Alun
writes:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Len,

The purpose was, obviously, to let eveyone know what we knew in the
first place - BPL *will* cause interference. Whatever you may think,
this will also cause interference to low band VHF users as well. I
shan't get into who uses that.

I don't know who you have in mind, but the state police use it here. That
may be enough to kill BPL right there.

Not enough in my viewpoint. Nearly all states use the 30-50 MHz
bands for highway patrol communications as well as 150+ MHz.
Access BPL is not described (so far) as having radiated RF
byproducts above 88 MHz so the first, oldest, and now least-
used PLMRS bands at 30 to 50 MHz will be the only ones
(supposedly) affected.

Fringe-area "low band" TV receivers for channels 2 through 6
would be affected by BPL. That's a few hundred thousand plus
in the rural areas that are supposed to be the BPL broadband
treat. [Damocles' sword again, cutting two ways]

The majority of those affected by BPL would be the HF users.
The federal government has a whole potfull of fixed frequency
assignments in HF...as can be seen in the tabulations of the
NTIA Phase 1 study and in the Comments of ARINC on docket
04-37. [50,000+ or somewhere in that number region] ARINC,
true to its founding prior to WW2, is a private aviation service
running some of the HF comm facilities for long distance flights.
ARINC is very big in other areas such as acting as the
standards Hq for commercial air carriers, including the US (and,
by adoption, ICAO) radionavigation systems technical standards.

Note: Cedar Rapids, IA, has long been the home town of Collins
Radio. Collins is still busy making civil as well as military
avionics although they've been out of the amateur radio market
area for years. It shouldn't hurt a bit to have a major avionics
corporation in the area with a strong amateur radio identification
and HF commercial radio identification to help the fight against
BPL.

The USA broadcast industry is against BPL even though the
major money income comes from AM and FM BC band ad
sales...neither band expected to be interfered with by BPL.
There's support in the industry for RF-pollution-free bandspace
for US SW BC band broadcasters even though they are a drop
in the program bucket for broadcasting. BPL will make about
a third of all SW BC band listening impossible in the USA due
to RFI.

There's all sorts of objections to BPL from the ESTABLISHED
radio services, amateur included. Nonetheless, Access BPL
is still going to exist...at least for a while. The Chairman of the
FCC loves it (politically, certainly not for technical or legal
reasons) and the Acting Secretary of the NTIA politically loves
it because the USA President (for now) loves it. Both have
made public statements to that regard.

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

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

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while. Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

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

Jim, N2EY

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.

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

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

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

Filed a complaint with FCC that helped get the system shut down.

Identify that "help."

From "Amateur Radio Newsline" of July 2, 2004: (Note that ARN bills
itself as an alternative to ARRL, and is hardly a cheerleader for the
League.)

Quoting:

"BPL: SCORE ONE FOR THE GOOD GUYS"

"A major broadband-over-power line pilot test by Alliant Energy in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa is shut down after local hams document the harmful
interference and the Federal Communications Commission gets a formal
complaint from the A-R-R-L."

(some snipped)

"It took nearly three months to accomplish the mission, but amateurs
in Cedar Rapids - armed with ample data and the muscle of the American
Radio Relay League - convinced Alliant to prematurely halt their B-P-L
test."

"Jim Spencer, W0SR, first discovered the interference on his HF radio
right after Alliant launched its B-P-L testing March 30. Spencer, who
quickly mobilized other Cedar Rapids hams to form a technical
committee, says the interference was so severe that it wiped out his
and others' ability to use their radios."

"Spencer says the group worked with Alliant officials to try to
resolve the interference and conducted several test measurements with
the utility's cooperation."

"Spencer tells Amateur Radio Newsline the group appealed to Alliant to
shut down the system and stop the interference on several occasions."

"But it was clear the B-P-L industry was telling Alliant's managers
something else."

(more snipped)

"Spencer says communications between his technical group and Alliant
officials were civil, but they accomplished little action. He says he
and others filed complaints with the FCC. "I think in 21
communications I received one simple response basically told me to go
back to the power company - the operator of the system," Spencer says.
"And, of course, I had done that all the time."

"So, we had been asking the utility company to close it down, we had
been asking the FCC to help us and then the ARRL went and escalated
that.""

"Wade Walstrom, W0EJ, is the ARRL's Midwest Division Director.

He says the league's FCC complaint finally got the utility's
attention."

""The thrust of the complaint was that they were now aware that the
system was causing interference and didn't shut the system off so now
that makes it willful interference," Walstrom said... Alliant stopped
the B-P-L pilot test on June 25 saying it had gathered the necessary
data to make a determination on whether a general rollout of B-P-L
would be worth pursuing, according to Spencer."

(rest snipped)

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

No, they didn't. It was a team effort, and ARRL was on the team.

You're just plain wrong about the "did it themselves" part, Len.

They TOOK ACTION.

And it wasn't effective until ARRL filed the complaint.

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

So did ARRL.

What have you done, Len, except stuff the FCC's inbox with spam? ;-)

---

Here's another bit of news you may find interesting, Len:

http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...ST&f=3&t=65515

They're the Reply Comments of a young radio amateur. Just graduated
from high school. Very well written, to the point, and hopefully
effective. And he's just 18. You would never guess it from the writing
style.

But he's not a newcomer. According to his QRZ.com profile, this ham
was licensed at the age of 10 and has been an active radio amateur
ever since.

If Len Anderson (a life-long non-radio-amateur) made the rules, that
young ham would have not been allowed to hold any class of amateur
license until he was at least 14 years old.

Kinda says it all.....