Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting, inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC: I'd almost think you were angry with them or something.......... Seriously, it's a great letter. Good work, Carl. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting, inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC: Good work!! Hope you will post any reply you receive....if you get one. The BPL folks really have their heads in the sand. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Coslo wrote:
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting, inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC: I'd almost think you were angry with them or something.......... Seriously, it's a great letter. Good work, Carl. To quote Carl's letter: "With all due respect - Hogwash". I don't think it is a good letter at all. It would have been better if Carl had delayed in sending it for several days, cooled his jets and had written a toned-down response. The version he sent is inflammatory and combative. Then again, Carl is generally inflammatory and combative. At least he left out the "electronic paintball wars" stuff in his description of amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , JJ
writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting, inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC: Good work!! Hope you will post any reply you receive....if you get one. The BPL folks really have their heads in the sand. Yes, very good work, Carl. Thanks for posting. Perhaps we should all write to UPLC. One thing to remember, though: It makes a sort of twisted sense that the BPL folks would simply 'stonewall', saying there is no harmful interference, their systems are clean, Part 15 supports them, blah, blah, blah. If they start admitting that yes, the interference is real, that power lines do radiate, that the signals carry for many miles, etc., then they've set themselves up to be shut down, or have their systems modified to the point of unusability. Thanks again, Carl 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting, inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC: I'd almost think you were angry with them or something.......... Seriously, it's a great letter. Good work, Carl. To quote Carl's letter: "With all due respect - Hogwash". I don't think it is a good letter at all. It would have been better if Carl had delayed in sending it for several days, cooled his jets and had written a toned-down response. The version he sent is inflammatory and combative. Then again, Carl is generally inflammatory and combative. At least he left out the "electronic paintball wars" stuff in his description of amateur radio. Dave K8MN Personally I think he wasn't strong enough in his statements. The "vacuum tube" phrase should have been attacked with a selected sample of some of the technology firsts that the amateur community has accomplished. Perhaps even selected info on the fast response and assembly of stations at the WTC disaster. However, his response was good in my opinion. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting, inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC: I'd almost think you were angry with them or something.......... Seriously, it's a great letter. Good work, Carl. To quote Carl's letter: "With all due respect - Hogwash". I don't think it is a good letter at all. It would have been better if Carl had delayed in sending it for several days, cooled his jets and had written a toned-down response. Well Dave, we could say "With all due respect, sirs, we don't want to insinuate that you might not be accurate, but we don't really think that your assessment is possibly not totally of the same opinion that we have. All apologies if we might be wrong, but we really think that, well we were kind of hoping that maybe you would.........." Yeah, Carl used Hogwash in his letter. I personally think he pulled his punch there anyhow. Hogwash is putting it quite politely. The UPLC doc uses exaggeration, innuendo, gratuitous insults, and monumental inaccuracies. And while we are on the gratuitous line, it makes an equally monumental stretch in connecting BPL with Home security. The version he sent is inflammatory and combative. Then again, Carl is generally inflammatory and combative. At least he left out the "electronic paintball wars" stuff in his description of amateur radio. I disagree with Carl on a number of issues, but on this one I believe he is spot on. We didn't start the volley of insults, UPLC did. The question of whether we want to be in this position is moot. We can either stand by and let them stomp on us, or we can take a more active stand. YMMV - Mike KB3EIA - |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
N2EY wrote:
In article , JJ writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting, inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC: Good work!! Hope you will post any reply you receive....if you get one. The BPL folks really have their heads in the sand. Yes, very good work, Carl. Thanks for posting. Perhaps we should all write to UPLC. One thing to remember, though: It makes a sort of twisted sense that the BPL folks would simply 'stonewall', saying there is no harmful interference, their systems are clean, Part 15 supports them, blah, blah, blah. If they start admitting that yes, the interference is real, that power lines do radiate, that the signals carry for many miles, etc., then they've set themselves up to be shut down, or have their systems modified to the point of unusability. Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference mitigation. - mike KB3EIA - |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: response to UPLC new release/comments on BPL
From: Mike Coslo Date: 7/2/2004 8:09 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference mitigation. "Mitigation" is four syllables, Mike, so right away you lost half the population's ability to make any sense of it... Few will notice or appreciate that disparity you point out, even though it's a very valid one...Just like the folks who ignore the "Part 15" caveat on thier "consumer electroics" devices at home who get "stepped on" by a licensed transmitter ("those !@#$%^ hams"...regardless of what service is the culprit) and then demand the FCC "do something" about "them". UPLC will manage to loud-mouth thier plan into deployment...They will forego any really adequate shielding, in OR out, and then the "consumer" will be left barking about how badly it works. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference mitigation. You would think so, but that's not how it works. Take cell phones. How many "average people" really know the most basic things about how they work? I'm not talking about CDMA or even analog vs. digital, but just the idea that they are little radio transceivers? Look at the people opposing cell towers as "sources of radiation" - yet demanding perfect coverage, and holding the dern things next to their heads for many minutes per day. Note how the solutions that have evolved have included disguised sites, and the use of more cells with reduced coverage. "Inverse square law"? Puhleeze! Why do you think the 'phone folks revived the term "wireless"? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth | Policy | |||
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC | Homebrew | |||
UPLC on BPL: ignore armchair amateurs who still use vacuum tubetransmitters | Policy | |||
BPL - act today to save our HF bands | Antenna | |||
IMPORTANT! FCC OET extends Reply Comment Period on BPL | Policy |