On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:47:48 GMT, "AK" wrote:

BPL - impact on radio communications
As tests and any sort of technical common sense would make obvious,
broadband transmissions on miles of unshielded power lines will create havoc
with the reception of micro-volt level radio communication signals. The
concept is pure nonsense to anyone with a technical background. My BSEE
(with communications specialization) and top FCC commercial and amateur
radio licenses does not make me a great expert, but anyone with a
comprehension of radio transmission and reception knows that the BPL concept
does not work, unless basic MF & HF radio is sacrificed. BPL is a poorly
thought out concept, with the unlikely potential for profit driving this
otherwise unfathomable concept. Please get some honest technical input
before allowing this BPL debacle to continue.
Sincerely, AK

Nice letter, but it will fall on deaf ears -- FCC head Michael Powell
is a cheerleader for BPL.

My suggestion: vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2nd. Kerry does not like
Powell. Powell will be out. And we can start afresh with a new FCC
head, one who might worry more about the consequences of BPL than this
business-friendly administration ever will.

Bob
k5qwg


"yea right" wrote in message
news
If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi


If you can't think of any thing to type or wish to make this as painless
as possible, you can cut-n-paste the comment I typed below.

Thanks for the info & the FCC link. AK

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...

Nice letter, but it will fall on deaf ears -- FCC head Michael Powell
is a cheerleader for BPL.

Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.
My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge of.

AK

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:06:30 GMT, "AK" wrote:


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
.. .

Nice letter, but it will fall on deaf ears -- FCC head Michael Powell
is a cheerleader for BPL.

Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.

When Powell travels to industry functions/conventions, his hotel
room/suite is usually paid for by broadcast reps. He hangs out with
them, parties with them. As an attorney, he used to represent media
conglomerates. His preferences are well known.

Bob
k5qwg


My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge of.

AK

"AK" wrote in message
news:awsxc.17938$4S5.15367@attbi_s52...


Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people
pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.
My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days
when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers
who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge
of.

AK



Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace. Do you really
think any politician will vote to preempt a failure? Let's say politician A
blocks BPL. Politician B says "Mr. A wants to restrict your freedom to
choose! I say every American has the God given right to pick which ever
high speed internet access plan he can get!!" Then sleazeball campaigner B
starts a whispering campaign -- "Who's pocket is A in? The phone company's?
The cable company's? The satellite company's? All of them? Well, there
must be some reason he wants to restrict your freedom!!" The upcoming
election might be close, and nobody is going to restrict "Freedom" this
year.

Note that I used the non-partisan terms A and B to describe the politicians.
I know there people around who think one party or another is the Repository
of Morality and the other is the Heart of Evil, but I ain't one of 'em.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"AK" wrote in message
news:awsxc.17938$4S5.15367@attbi_s52...


Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people
pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest
reps.
My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days
when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers
who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge
of.

AK



Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace.

That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to bounce
back once destroyed. Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the "unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

Do you really
think any politician will vote to preempt a failure? Let's say politician
A
blocks BPL. Politician B says "Mr. A wants to restrict your freedom to
choose! I say every American has the God given right to pick which ever
high speed internet access plan he can get!!"

You must be that same guy that thought he had a God given right to dump
whatever he wanted into the Nashua river when I lived along it. His
corporate garbage killed all the fish and stunk-up the river for the rest of
the world, but using the river for his personal dumping ground was his
"right"! Some good ol' New England Yankee took on this
"my-rights-over-everyone-else" guy by paying a cement truck to dump a full
load of concrete in the guy's drainage canal to the river. The sheriff was
called, saw what was done, heard why it was done, and went home without
issuing any citation. Too bad that a load of concrete won't stop BPL.

ak

In article flFxc.1843$2i5.155@attbi_s52, AK wrote:

Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace.

That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to bounce
back once destroyed. Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the "unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

There's an interesting analogy to this situation playing out in the
airwaves right now. My understanding of this situation is as follows
(and may be a bit incorrect).

Some years ago, the FCC decided to allow a company which I believe was
called Fleet Telecommunications to set up some digital-packet-oriented
communication on a set of frequencies in the 800 MHz range. These
frequencies were located quite close to the 800 MHz narrow-band FM
channels allocated to publics-safety ground (trunked police and fire
systems, etc.).

There was concern expressed at the time that these digital channels
might cause interference with the existing analog channels
(intermodulation and receiver desensing, I think). The FCC agreed to
allow the allocations, on the condition that the digital operator
ensure that interference to existing allocations would not occur or
would be abated.

Subsequently (I'm hazy on the details) Fleet either went out of
business or was bought up... in either case, Nextel ended up as the
owner of these 800 MHz digital allocations. Nextel has used them as
the basis of much of its current-generation cellphone system.

The result: significant, and sometimes very severe, interference to
public-safety radio operations. There have been numerous reports of
police and firefighters being unable to use their radios successfully,
when in proximity to Nextel cellular sites. This has resulted in very
real danger to life-and-limb for police officers and firefighters.

Nextel has taken some steps to abate specific instances of this
(reducing power) when it's called to their attention, but the problem
remains.

There's a whole massive brouhaha taking place now, about "rebanding"
the 800 MHz spectrum. This will probably involve consolidating the
public-safety frequencies (requiring modification or replacement of
much equipment - Nextel has offered to pay $billions to do this but
there's concern that it'll cost twice that much), and moving at least
some of Nextel's cellular allocations upwards to a higher frequency
band. Nextel wants a big block of spectrum space in compensation,
while other companies claim that the FCC has no legal authority to
simply hand over that space to Nextel and that the law requires the
spectrum to be auctioned to the highest bidder. No matter what the
FCC decides to do, it's likely to end up being challenged in Federal
court and delayed for years.

It's a horrible mess. Some claim that the FCC *could* have acted, on
its own authority, to order Nextel to shut down operations in the
interleaved bands, because their system is apparently violating the
"we will not cause interference to other licensed operations" clauses
which were part of the original Fleet allocation grant. The FCC has
apparently asserted that it doesn't have authority to act on its own
in the absence of a formal legal complaint from a public-safety radio
organization... and no city or county or state has been willing to
file such a complaint (perhaps because the cost of pursuing it
against a deep-pockets company like Nextel would be very high indeed).

I agree that if BPL is rolled out en mass, it _is_ likely to cause
serious interference with HF operations (amateur and otherwise), and
that the momentum of "Hey, we've invested billions to field BPL, you
can't just shut us down" is likely to override the original "No, there
won't be interference" promised.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article flFxc.1843$2i5.155@attbi_s52, AK wrote:

Great. If BPL is unworkable, let it fail in the marketplace.

That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to
bounce
back once destroyed. Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas
that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use
satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the
"unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum
disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

There's an interesting analogy to this situation playing out in the
airwaves right now. My understanding of this situation is as follows
(and may be a bit incorrect).

Some years ago, the FCC decided to allow a company which I believe was
called Fleet Telecommunications to set up some digital-packet-oriented
communication on a set of frequencies in the 800 MHz range. These
frequencies were located quite close to the 800 MHz narrow-band FM
channels allocated to publics-safety ground (trunked police and fire
systems, etc.).

There was concern expressed at the time that these digital channels
might cause interference with the existing analog channels
(intermodulation and receiver desensing, I think). The FCC agreed to
allow the allocations, on the condition that the digital operator
ensure that interference to existing allocations would not occur or
would be abated.

Subsequently (I'm hazy on the details) Fleet either went out of
business or was bought up... in either case, Nextel ended up as the
owner of these 800 MHz digital allocations. Nextel has used them as
the basis of much of its current-generation cellphone system.

The result: significant, and sometimes very severe, interference to
public-safety radio operations. There have been numerous reports of
police and firefighters being unable to use their radios successfully,
when in proximity to Nextel cellular sites. This has resulted in very
real danger to life-and-limb for police officers and firefighters.

Nextel has taken some steps to abate specific instances of this
(reducing power) when it's called to their attention, but the problem
remains.

There's a whole massive brouhaha taking place now, about "rebanding"
the 800 MHz spectrum. This will probably involve consolidating the
public-safety frequencies (requiring modification or replacement of
much equipment - Nextel has offered to pay $billions to do this but
there's concern that it'll cost twice that much), and moving at least
some of Nextel's cellular allocations upwards to a higher frequency
band. Nextel wants a big block of spectrum space in compensation,
while other companies claim that the FCC has no legal authority to
simply hand over that space to Nextel and that the law requires the
spectrum to be auctioned to the highest bidder. No matter what the
FCC decides to do, it's likely to end up being challenged in Federal
court and delayed for years.

It's a horrible mess. Some claim that the FCC *could* have acted, on
its own authority, to order Nextel to shut down operations in the
interleaved bands, because their system is apparently violating the
"we will not cause interference to other licensed operations" clauses
which were part of the original Fleet allocation grant. The FCC has
apparently asserted that it doesn't have authority to act on its own
in the absence of a formal legal complaint from a public-safety radio
organization... and no city or county or state has been willing to
file such a complaint (perhaps because the cost of pursuing it
against a deep-pockets company like Nextel would be very high indeed).

I agree that if BPL is rolled out en mass, it _is_ likely to cause
serious interference with HF operations (amateur and otherwise), and
that the momentum of "Hey, we've invested billions to field BPL, you
can't just shut us down" is likely to override the original "No, there
won't be interference" promised.

That's real interesting about Nextel. My experience with the 800 MHz bands
(LTR trunking systems) ended before digital cell phones existed, but I can
certainly believe that frequency spreading must cause some com channel
interference if you are near the transmitter site. Well, anyone who really
believes that the FCC will mitigate interference to amateur radio that is
caused by big-lobbying power companies should also believe in "temporary
taxes" and Santa Clause.

AK

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:32:31 -0000, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

I agree that if BPL is rolled out en mass, it _is_ likely to cause
serious interference with HF operations (amateur and otherwise), and
that the momentum of "Hey, we've invested billions to field BPL, you
can't just shut us down" is likely to override the original "No, there
won't be interference" promised.

You've hit on a key issue here -- interests will cry out
against "premature regulation" or promise to mitigate if regulation is
already in place. Then, when damage to others has been shown to exist,
they claim they've been led down the garden path by being allowed to
proceed in the first place. Next they complain about the "crushing
burden" it would impose on them and their investors to mitigate
damages as per the original contract. Standard tactis for running
roughshod ofer the rights of others.

"AK" wrote in message
news:flFxc.1843$2i5.155@attbi_s52...


That's one of those nonsense comments that sounds good, but doesn't work.
Once "the marketplace" gets tested, amateur radio and most of the other
users of HF and MF radio reception will be out of business - never to
bounce
back once destroyed.

NEVER to bounce back? Shortwave radio is that fragile? Must not be much
keeping it going right now.



Meanwhile, BPL will be "workable" for those areas that
never had good cable access and where people were too cheap to use
satellite
or telephone alternatives. BPL isn't "unworkable" - it's the
"unreasonable"
sacrifices that must be made to allow nationwide radio spectrum disruption
for some trivial gain to a few people and a few big businesses.

If there's more people who actually want BPL more than SW radio, then maybe
they should have it. However, I seem to have less faith than you that BPL
actually works. I do have faith that people won't spend money on a system
which is unreliable.



You must be that same guy that thought he had a God given right to dump
whatever he wanted into the Nashua river when I lived along it. His
corporate garbage killed all the fish and stunk-up the river for the rest
of
the world, but using the river for his personal dumping ground was his
"right"!

You assume wrong. I'm not the same guy. I've never dumped anything toxic
in the Nashua river, even when you weren't living along it. In fact, I've
never been anywhere around the Nashua river.


Some good ol' New England Yankee took on this
"my-rights-over-everyone-else" guy by paying a cement truck to dump a full
load of concrete in the guy's drainage canal to the river. The sheriff was
called, saw what was done, heard why it was done, and went home without
issuing any citation. Too bad that a load of concrete won't stop BPL.

ak



Stopping BPL is simple. It's a political numbers game. Unfortunately,
there's more potential customers for high speed internet access than there
are SW hobbyists. I'm sure you've noticed that no Democrat is taking an
anti-BPL stance. BPL has already been approved in a couple of areas.

Or, just maybe, the politicans expect BPL to fail or succeed on it's own
merits. If it fails on it's own, then nobody gets the blame for keeping it
away from the customers.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Stopping BPL is simple. It's a political numbers game. Unfortunately,
there's more potential customers for high speed internet access than there
are SW hobbyists. I'm sure you've noticed that no Democrat is taking an
anti-BPL stance. BPL has already been approved in a couple of areas.

Or, just maybe, the politicans expect BPL to fail or succeed on it's own
merits. If it fails on it's own, then nobody gets the blame for keeping
it
away from the customers.

I see, Frank. You are just a might-&-money makes right sort of guy. Maybe if
the FCC will just authorize all U.S. hams to run 10KW on MF and HF
frequencies, and give us full immunity to any interference claims, amateur
radio can co-exist with BPL.

ak