|
FCC changes Broadband near farms
July 8, 2004
FCC Changes Rules to Promote Use of Unlicensed Broadband Service in Rural Areas. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-249434A1.pdf Powell's statement: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-249434A2.pdf |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... July 8, 2004 FCC Changes Rules to Promote Use of Unlicensed Broadband Service in Rural Areas. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-249434A1.pdf Powell's statement: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-249434A2.pdf At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you think the FCC is finally seeing the light? Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you think the FCC is finally seeing the light? Dan/W4NTI Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush administration. There used to be a time when the FCC was an organization of engineers and technicians that had a clue. Now days, it's lawyers and people getting a favor for the political handjob of yesterday. |
"Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you think the FCC is finally seeing the light? Dan/W4NTI Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush administration. It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were auctioned off to commercial interests? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you think the FCC is finally seeing the light? Dan/W4NTI Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush administration. It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were auctioned off to commercial interests? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Agreed. Doesn't mater if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush^h^h^h^hsitting administration. Happy? |
"Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you think the FCC is finally seeing the light? Dan/W4NTI Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush administration. It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were auctioned off to commercial interests? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Agreed. Doesn't mater if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush^h^h^h^hsitting administration. Happy? You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial interests of that administration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you think the FCC is finally seeing the light? Dan/W4NTI Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush administration. It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were auctioned off to commercial interests? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Agreed. Doesn't mater if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush^h^h^h^hsitting administration. Happy? You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial interests of that administration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL. Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let this get out of the first meeting. As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good' thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez. Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and simple. It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it. Dan/W4NTI |
I think it's characteristic of our modern society: if top-level
management has any understanding of the things they are supposed to be managing, that's purely fortuitous. They tend to be specialists in *management*, not in managing anything specific. E.g., a former Coca-Cola big wheel became the CEO of IBM; if he knew anything about computers, that was a pure coincidence; for that matter, if he knew anything about cola it was likely a pure coincidence too. I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers, whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers. What happened to the practice of having people destined for management positions spend time working in every department of the company so they know exactly what the company does and how? Driving home from Detroit yesterday, we stopped for dinner at a truck stop, where we overheard a waitress telling another customer that she was busier than usual because the cook had called in sick so the managers were having to do the cooking and were not able to help with serving. But in this case the managers were able to cook. What would they have done if the managers could not fill in for the cook? Alan AB2OS On 07/10/04 04:14 pm Dan/W4NTI put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace: You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial interests of that administration. All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL. Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let this get out of the first meeting. As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good' thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez. Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and simple. It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it. |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Jeff B." wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you think the FCC is finally seeing the light? Dan/W4NTI Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush administration. It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were auctioned off to commercial interests? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Agreed. Doesn't mater if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the commercial interests of the Bush^h^h^h^hsitting administration. Happy? You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial interests of that administration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I think he understood your point perfectly. Ergo, the "sitting administration". Think beyond defending GWB and his republican asshole cronies. Let's face it, it doesn't matter if you are democrat or republican, they are all money grabbing pricks who care only for themselves. Unfortunately, I don't see a way of changing it. The voter apathy is disgraceful, and most people don't even bother becoming informed. We're being sold-out and doomed into slavery to pay off the huge government debt. |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message k.net... [snip] It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it. Dan/W4NTI The more I read about BPL, the more I'm convinced that the market place will manage to kill it. There are already at least five technologies (dialup, DSL, cable, WIFI, and fiber optics) that do or could do the job. For BPL to compete, it will need to have the reliability of cable and be as cheap as dialup. That combo isn't going to happen plus the DSL, cable, and WIFI companies are slowly dropping their prices since price is the key factor that keeps people on dialup. The upgrades needed for our powerlines plus the additional boosters, etc is going to mean that BPL will cost a fortune to implement. This cost must be picked up by the customers. So BPL will approach the cost of other, better services yet be subject to all kinds of natural and manmade interruptions (unshielded wires just don't cut it). The thing is, it sounds cheap and simple because we have power lines everywhere. So it's not too hard for proponents to do a snow job on investors and politicians. I even saw an article somewhere that said BPL would reduce powerline noise. But the reality of the situation is that the BPL companies will have to reduce the powerline noise to get BPL to work well. Of course this does not mean that we shouldn't fight it. There are "pie in the sky" investors who will try to make it work so for some areas and some period of time, it will be interfering with various radio services before it is abandoned. Since stopping it before it starts will prevent that period of interference, we need to keep fighting. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:45:01 -0400, Dee D. Flint wrote:
You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial interests of that administration. There are those who feel that the FCC's predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, was a sock-puppet to the Herbert Hoover administration. This was long before FDR and the New Deal alphabet soup agencies. HH was the Secretary of Commerce before he became prez in the era when the Commerce Department did what the FCC does today. I really have to be respectful of him as a person because I actually had the opportunity to shake hands with him when I was a senior in college in the mid-1950s -- he was the kick-off speaker for the fundraising campaign for our then-new engineering building and made it a point to shake the hand of every senior engineering student. He must have been in his 80s by that time. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:44:17 -0400, Minnie Bannister wrote:
I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers, whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers. A family friend who retired from Chrysler shortly after the merger was very adamant that Daimler-Benz was run by folks whose ability in any field was totally outshone by their complete and utter arrogance (don't want to invoke the N**i word). Driving home from Detroit yesterday, we stopped for dinner at a truck stop, where we overheard a waitress telling another customer that she was busier than usual because the cook had called in sick so the managers were having to do the cooking and were not able to help with serving. But in this case the managers were able to cook. What would they have done if the managers could not fill in for the cook? Call the union hall and get temp cooks off the waiting-to-be-employed roster. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:44:17 -0400, Minnie Bannister wrote: I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers, whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers. A family friend who retired from Chrysler shortly after the merger was very adamant that Daimler-Benz was run by folks whose ability in any field was totally outshone by their complete and utter arrogance (don't want to invoke the N**i word). Yeh, yeh, yeh. I heard the same crap about A/B in St Louis. |
Harry K wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:45:01 -0400, Dee D. Flint wrote: I really have to be respectful of him as a person because I actually had the opportunity to shake hands with him when I was a senior in college in the mid-1950s -- he was the kick-off speaker for the fundraising campaign for our then-new engineering building and made it a point to shake the hand of every senior engineering student. He must have been in his 80s by that time. Duhhh, is this supposed to impress somebody? 73 de Harry K Speaking of which, I'm very impressed with your post Harry. Obviously, all three of your synapses fired in perfect order to create such a wonderful, on-topic and thought-inspiring reply. You are a perfect, shining example of everything that is wrong within amateur radio. Now go **** yourself. |
In article t, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL. I disagree slightly, Dan. I think there are folks at FCC who know darn well how bad an idea BPL really is. The problem is that those folks are not in charge. Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let this get out of the first meeting. Only if they had a basic grasp of the physical principles involved. But the folks at the top are not engineers or scientists. They're "regulators". As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good' thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez. Possibly. Look at all the 'next big thing' companies that have come and gone in the past decade or two, and how many trillion dollarss were pumped into them. The Bush administration is still sitting on a jobs deficit and a lackluster economy. *Any* new thing that promises big gains and jobs without massive investment is going to get a lot of attention from an administration desperate to be reelected. Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and simple. BINGO! The guy in the Oval Office sez tone it down, and they did. Do you remember how we got saddled with code test waivers? A King asked Papa Bush for a favor. Papa Bush told FCC to find a way to make it happen. Treaty prevented merely dumping the code test so we got the whole waiver mess. Gee thanks George. It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it. Agreed. And look carefully at how it was done in Iowa. Including the ARRL's important role. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Harry K" wrote in message ... "Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:45:01 -0400, Dee D. Flint wrote: I really have to be respectful of him as a person because I actually had the opportunity to shake hands with him when I was a senior in college in the mid-1950s -- he was the kick-off speaker for the fundraising campaign for our then-new engineering building and made it a point to shake the hand of every senior engineering student. He must have been in his 80s by that time. Duhhh, is this supposed to impress somebody? You snipped incorrectly. The way you snipped makes it appear as if this were my statement and it is not. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
There is a interesting article on QRZ from a young ham. He wrote a very
good comment on BPL to the FCC. Makes for a good read. Dan/W4NTI "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL. I disagree slightly, Dan. I think there are folks at FCC who know darn well how bad an idea BPL really is. The problem is that those folks are not in charge. Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let this get out of the first meeting. Only if they had a basic grasp of the physical principles involved. But the folks at the top are not engineers or scientists. They're "regulators". As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good' thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez. Possibly. Look at all the 'next big thing' companies that have come and gone in the past decade or two, and how many trillion dollarss were pumped into them. The Bush administration is still sitting on a jobs deficit and a lackluster economy. *Any* new thing that promises big gains and jobs without massive investment is going to get a lot of attention from an administration desperate to be reelected. Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and simple. BINGO! The guy in the Oval Office sez tone it down, and they did. Do you remember how we got saddled with code test waivers? A King asked Papa Bush for a favor. Papa Bush told FCC to find a way to make it happen. Treaty prevented merely dumping the code test so we got the whole waiver mess. Gee thanks George. It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it. Agreed. And look carefully at how it was done in Iowa. Including the ARRL's important role. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Regardless of who would be president, the president is still a "puppet-on-a-string" for their respective parties anyways...... Regardless of political party. The party controls what is going on. Ryan KC8PMX You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial interests of that administration. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: There is a interesting article on QRZ from a young ham. He wrote a very good comment on BPL to the FCC. Makes for a good read. Yep, that was a really good one. He writes better than I do, and he's just out of high school. But he's not a newcomer, Dan. He's been licensed since age 10. At least one nonamateur here would have denied him a license for four years, based solely on age. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: There is a interesting article on QRZ from a young ham. He wrote a very good comment on BPL to the FCC. Makes for a good read. Yep, that was a really good one. He writes better than I do, and he's just out of high school. But he's not a newcomer, Dan. He's been licensed since age 10. At least one nonamateur here would have denied him a license for four years, based solely on age. 73 de Jim, N2EY Rgr that...hi. Dan/W4NTI |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com