| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
May 26th 05, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Military and international socio-political politics are another group. Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to be afraid to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here. In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio policy, Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which to make informed opinions or suggestions from. That never stopped Mike Powell or any of his predecessors. "Mike Powell (and his) predecessors" staff out assignmentss who ARE informed on the various issues. Like they were informed about refarming the 220 band to UPS? BPL? "UPS" was not the only entity involved in that "deal" Brain, and Amateur Radio operators are as responsible for that folly as anyone. Well, that's one opinion.... We had more than andequate opportunity to get that band "loaded up" like 2 meters ('Use It Or Lose It") but didn't. That happened for a bunch of reasons. First off, 220 is not a ham band by international treaty. It's primarily land mobile - we get it as a secondary allocation here in Region 2 because the FCC lets us. Most parts of the world have never had a band there. That's why it's not used for satellite comms. And because of the relatively small market, the selection of manufactured rigs for 220 was and is less than for 2 meters or 440. All of which means FCC could reallocate some or all of 220 without waiting for treaty changes. BTW...remember the FIRST 'threat' to the 1.25m band and for what purpose? Yup. It was stopped by two factors: Opposition by hams (including ARRL), and disinterest by the users who would supposedly migrate there. The first threat was from the EIA, who saw an opportunity to sell lots of new radios, antennas and accessories, while relieving the congestion on the existing allocation. The users didn't like the fact that almost all of their existing equipment would become useless. In both cases, the original threat was to the entire band, then part of it. Perhaps more amateur activity would have saved 220-222. But it must Len. Len must be stopped "SOMEhow!" At any cost. Fun fact: I haven't seen anyone here tell Len to shut up (as in "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel") or to go away. But he has done so several times. Who is trying to stop who? I may or may not like the politics of Mr Powell, but whether he has said or done anyhing I didn't like, I can't say he was lying or obviously being deceitful in his dealings with Amateur Radio. C'mon, Steve, anyone who knows a little about radio knows that BPL is a real threat to every radio service that uses the same frequencies. Anyone who knows a little about the whole theory of why FCC exists knows that one of its fundamental purposes is to protect licensed radio services from avoidable interference - either from other radio services, or from other electrical devices and systems. All Mr. Powell had to do was look at the measurements and observations made by any number of observers - including but not limited to ARRL - and it was obvious what would happen. Or look at the experiences in other countries. Or declare that *any* interference complaints would result in immediate BPL system shutdown until the problem was fixed. Instead, the business model overrode the engineering model. Perhaps all the outcry from hams and the ARRL may yet carry the day against BPL. Note how few systems are actually in operation, and how many have shut down. Note also how many that were under consideration have not gone forward due to the interference issue. Meanwhile, DSL, cable and WiFi expand daily. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| N9OGL to bust 2 Meter band Plan With "Information Bulletin" Broadcasts | Policy | |||
| The FAQ (Well, Question 1, at least) | Homebrew | |||
| The FAQ (Well, Question 1, at least) | General | |||
| FCC: Broadband Power Line Systems | Policy | |||
| Ohio/Penn DX Bulletin #651 | Dx | |||
Threaded Mode
