| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
July 2nd 04, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| 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 | |||
Threaded Mode
