This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum), the FCC seems disposed
to encourage it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. The noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

-------------------

From:
Amateur Radio Station N0JAA
4:00 PM

Subject:
[ARLI] FCC Commissioner's Comments Concerning BPL
To:
, ,




The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.

This is from today's FCC Digest.

Paul, N0JAA

----------------------


Reaching Broadband Nirvana
United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery)


Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I
have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this
important juncture for BPL.

As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I also fundamentally
believe that the FCC can best promote consumer welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these key goals. It will not only bring broadband to
previously unserved communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I
want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and diversified marketplace is
something I would call broadband Nirvana. We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL technology is a major step forward.

While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is: What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking with my Nirvana
metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the path to enlightenment?

I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services. After all, regulatory
parity and a level playing field are intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology platforms are established. Many of our regulations
are premised on the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become
unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services that need room to breathe.

The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further
undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LECs broadband services as if they were the only available offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect that we will eliminate many existing rules and
substantially modify others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market.

Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many competition-related regulations, other types of regulation may well remain necessary. For example, the
FCC must implement public policy goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition. Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals
generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to protect consumers
where market failures are identified. Although, as I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services when the were introduced, it was also right
to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that, while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we
should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few questions if we have time.


******------****** please click on one or more of the links below to send a blank subscribe message.
Amateur Radio Legal Issues List
(A list for discussing legal and legislative issues impacting Amateur Radio from Congress and the FCC)
What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Jeezehus-H-christ...get F-N real !!

"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...


Another no-callsign anti-ham Troll.

(yawn)

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

recalcitrant ham op wrote:

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Hams are the least of the problems. There are many other users of the
HF range who will be effected other than hams. Here's just a few:

US Coast Guard makes high use of HF
All branches of the military
Many long distance marine comms are still on HF
TransAtlantic and Pacific Air Traffic Control Comms are HF
(Imagine if the ATC ground station can't hear an Aircraft call is
position).


And that's just a few services who are heavy uses of HF.

George
http://www.MilAirComms.com
With DSL who needs BPL?

GeorgeF wrote:



recalcitrant ham op wrote:

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Hams are the least of the problems. There are many other users of the
HF range who will be effected other than hams. Here's just a few:

US Coast Guard makes high use of HF
All branches of the military
Many long distance marine comms are still on HF
TransAtlantic and Pacific Air Traffic Control Comms are HF
(Imagine if the ATC ground station can't hear an Aircraft call is
position).


And that's just a few services who are heavy uses of HF.

So why is the FCC going through with it? I would think that the heavy
military use of HF (I'm including the Coast Guard as part of the armed
forces) would keep BPL from happening. Mil HF comms pop up on unexpected
freqs at odd times (probably to keep other people from listening) and
interference from 2-30 Mhz would be a big problem, especially at bases
in urban areas like Camp Pendleton and Travis AFB.

George
http://www.MilAirComms.com
With DSL who needs BPL?

Cable modems are faster than DSL yet don't have the interference and
reliability problems of BPL.

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:

What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.


--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out.
=======================================


You really are a dumbass ain't ya Kieth? Tell me, in you apparantly drug
clouded brain. How BPL and CW have anything to do with each other?

Oh never mind. You ain't worth reading anylonger.

Dan/W4NTI

"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Jeezehus-H-christ...get F-N real !!


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI



Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:


What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.


--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out.

=======================================


You really are a dumbass ain't ya Kieth? Tell me, in you apparantly drug
clouded brain. How BPL and CW have anything to do with each other?

Oh never mind. You ain't worth reading anylonger.

Dan/W4NTI


Keith,

Just ignore Dan. Everyone in his mind is a DUMBASS. the only one who
is perfect is HIM, PERIOD.


--
73

Frank K3EKO

"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Fortunately, our HF bands are interleave in between
allocation for aeronautical mobile, maritime mobile,
DoD, private fixed service, short wave broadcasting,
etc.

I do not believe that we will be anywhere near close
to being alone in this battle.

Carl - wk3c