![]() |
|
If you value SW or HAM radio....
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. /******************************/ In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will be destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be reduced to users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas. Emergency communications will be hindered to levels directly responsible for the loss of life. There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will never be able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass distribution of video much less the up-and-coming HDTV. Please do not destroy the foundation of radio communication for a unneeded technology that is only a band-aid and hindrance to the advancement of broadband technology. |
Excellent - can I copy this to other groups etc?
Mike "yea right" wrote in message ... 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. /******************************/ In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will be destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be reduced to users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas. Emergency communications will be hindered to levels directly responsible for the loss of life. There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will never be able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass distribution of video much less the up-and-coming HDTV. Please do not destroy the foundation of radio communication for a unneeded technology that is only a band-aid and hindrance to the advancement of broadband technology. |
Please Do so, Mike
In article , "Mike Terry" writes: Excellent - can I copy this to other groups etc? Mike "yea right" wrote in message .. . 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. /******************************/ In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will be destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be reduced to users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas. Emergency communications will be hindered to levels directly responsible for the loss of life. There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will never be able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass distribution of video much less the up-and-coming HDTV. Please do not destroy the foundation of radio communication for a unneeded technology that is only a band-aid and hindrance to the advancement of broadband technology. |
Here's the text I entered - feel free to cut / paste / modify, etc.
Dear Commissioners, I wish to express my opposition to Broadband Over Power Line (BPL). My opposition is based on the interference to the Amateur Radio service and to those listening to shortwave radio. The Amateur Radio service was a valuable service on 9/11, providing communications backup and helping survivors contact loved ones. Given the current terrorist threat we now face, I believe that it is unreasonable to hamper this valuable - and free - resource with a known source of interference. Further, it is simply unnecessary. While I'm sure that the power companies are looking for a new profit center, that is insufficient reason to allow them to run roughshod over others who don't have the enormous budgets for political lobbyists. There are other alternatives available for broadband that don't interfere with other services, including cable, DSL and satellites services such as DirectWay. Thanks you for considering my petition. Charlie, KS1C |
As a SW listener, how will this affect what I can hear and locate? Can
someone send me the basics as to what this FCC action is? Does it only affect certain mhz? My email address is above. I get a lot of terrible spam, so please make sure you include the subject title or one I will recognize as I frequently just have to select all and delete. Thanks. maria Charlie wrote: Here's the text I entered - feel free to cut / paste / modify, etc. Dear Commissioners, I wish to express my opposition to Broadband Over Power Line (BPL). My opposition is based on the interference to the Amateur Radio service and to those listening to shortwave radio. The Amateur Radio service was a valuable service on 9/11, providing communications backup and helping survivors contact loved ones. Given the current terrorist threat we now face, I believe that it is unreasonable to hamper this valuable - and free - resource with a known source of interference. Further, it is simply unnecessary. While I'm sure that the power companies are looking for a new profit center, that is insufficient reason to allow them to run roughshod over others who don't have the enormous budgets for political lobbyists. There are other alternatives available for broadband that don't interfere with other services, including cable, DSL and satellites services such as DirectWay. Thanks you for considering my petition. Charlie, KS1C |
Yes! In great hast please!
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 07:54:24 +0000, Mike Terry wrote: Excellent - can I copy this to other groups etc? Mike "yea right" wrote in message ... If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your |
You will loose the ability to listen to nothing but the strongest of
stations. The FCC acceptable limit is to allow interference up to 30M (100ft) from power lines. You house is wired with power lines. All you need to know about BPL is on the www.arrl.org website http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/02/12/5/?nc=1 Thank You for asking! On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:30:28 -0700, maria wrote: As a SW listener, how will this affect what I can hear and locate? Can someone send me the basics as to what this FCC action is? Does it only affect certain mhz? My email address is above. I get a lot of terrible spam, so please make sure you include the subject title or one I will recognize as I frequently just have to select all and delete. Thanks. maria Charlie wrote: Here's the text I entered - feel free to cut / paste / modify, etc. Dear Commissioners, I wish to express my opposition to Broadband Over Power Line (BPL). My opposition is based on the interference to the Amateur Radio service and to those listening to shortwave radio. The Amateur Radio service was a valuable service on 9/11, providing communications backup and helping survivors contact loved ones. Given the current terrorist threat we now face, I believe that it is unreasonable to hamper this valuable - and free - resource with a known source of interference. Further, it is simply unnecessary. While I'm sure that the power companies are looking for a new profit center, that is insufficient reason to allow them to run roughshod over others who don't have the enormous budgets for political lobbyists. There are other alternatives available for broadband that don't interfere with other services, including cable, DSL and satellites services such as DirectWay. Thanks you for considering my petition. Charlie, KS1C |
Here's my letter, for what its worth:
I am writing to ask you not to allow the implementation of BPL (Broadband over Power Lines) in our nation's communities. I rely on shortwave radio as a source of entertainment, world news and cultural information. I listen to low & high-power broadcasts from the world over. Reliable reception is already a challenge due to the interference caused by the deplorable state of our nation's power lines. I have had to send several complaints to my local power company due to electrical power pole arcing that interferes with my shortwave radio. Adding broadband data to these already unreliable power lines would render a bad situation worse. In my experience, power companies have little regard for complaints regarding radio interference, and are slow to respond, if at all. I consider it irresponsible to entrust BPL technology to power companies that already have an indifferent, monopolistic attitude towards customer service. Power companies are also overwhelmed with maintaining the poor repair state of their equipment. With the addition of BPL, how will power companies manage to stay within the radio interference regulations set forth by the FCC? I beleive BPL would be an unreliable system of delivery, and an unneeded duplication of existing data services. It would interfere with all shortwave radio services, including commercial, utility, aircraft, rescue, and amateur radio services. Its effect on higher frequency services due to harmonic interference remains to be seen. In all, I think BPL is a unrequired, unpredictable technology and I urge you to prevent BPL from polluting our nation's radio spectrum. |
maria wrote in message ...
As a SW listener, how will this affect what I can hear and locate? Can someone send me the basics as to what this FCC action is? Does it only affect certain mhz? My email address is above. I get a lot of terrible spam, so please make sure you include the subject title or one I will recognize as I frequently just have to select all and delete. Thanks. Potentially BPL can destroy both SWLing and HF ham radio. For detailed info dial into http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/ maria Brian w3rv Charlie wrote: Here's the text I entered - feel free to cut / paste / modify, etc. Dear Commissioners, I wish to express my opposition to Broadband Over Power Line (BPL). My opposition is based on the interference to the Amateur Radio service and to those listening to shortwave radio. The Amateur Radio service was a valuable service on 9/11, providing communications backup and helping survivors contact loved ones. Given the current terrorist threat we now face, I believe that it is unreasonable to hamper this valuable - and free - resource with a known source of interference. Further, it is simply unnecessary. While I'm sure that the power companies are looking for a new profit center, that is insufficient reason to allow them to run roughshod over others who don't have the enormous budgets for political lobbyists. There are other alternatives available for broadband that don't interfere with other services, including cable, DSL and satellites services such as DirectWay. Thanks you for considering my petition. Charlie, KS1C |
yea right wrote:
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 I don't know if this has been mentioned before or not. There is another problem other than interference. It's an IMPORTANT and perhaps fatal drawback. If a line or two goes down, not only do you lose power, but also the means to communicate. Emergency messages will NOT get through to anyone connected via this setup. They will STILL need regular broadcast signals via radio or television. In the worst case scenario, you'd lose email, phone, radio AND tv all at once. With converging technologies, this is altogether too likely. Will the government carry the burden of responsibilty should someone be killed or hurt because of this 'broadband initiative'? I do not have a United States address, so I can not send this suggestion myself. Please distribute this concern also. I hope it will be noticed by the communications commitee. mike II rec.radio.shortwave |
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 "yea right" wrote in message ... 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 |
"AK" wrote in message news:EJoxc.15855$HG.2917@attbi_s53... 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 Yes AK your right on target. Theres a link on my websight were you can go and sign a petition to help stop BPL. -- 73 and good DXing. Brian ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A lot of radios and 100' of rusty wire! Zumbrota, Southern MN Brian's Radio Universe http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/ |
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 .. . 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 |
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 Unfortunately the folks at the FCC that are pushing BPL have zero comprehension of radio transmission or reception, in fact have zero comprehension of anything technical. They are a bunch of lawyers who only comprehend money. Chairman Powell wouldn't know a transistor from a doorknob, I doubt he can turn on a tv without help. He will probably leave the FCC after BPL gets rolling for some cushy outrageous paying position at some BPL intenty as his reward for helping to push this debacle down everyone's throats. |
"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 |
Bob Miller wrote:
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. The FCC commissioners have fixed terms. They can't be replaced until their terms are up. Powell's term expires on June 30, 2007. However there's talk that he will resign before the end of his term to take a higher position in Washington. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Hi,
Almost all the fcc commissioners, Mr. Powell included, have legal backgrounds, experience writing legislation for communciations industry (lobbyists ??) special interests and working for members in congress. Three of the comm. have received degrees from universities in north carolina. You are correct, it is about the money. They tried this back in the late 1970's here in ny, they wanted to eliminate the meter readers to save money but that did not work out. Don't know why they want to use the hf regions, why not 10 gig ? Plus, dsl just dropped the price here another $ 5.00 per month to be less expensive the the cable co. road runner net. I don't have a tech degree or work in rf but the harmonics over miles of cable and the expense of these repeaters and or filters seems too expensive to turn a profit in rural areas that bpl was pushing for. BTW, one city in MD has parted ways with their bpl partner and is looking for another one, after spending lots of money to wire up their city. alex 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 "yea right" wrote in message ... 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 |
FCC Comm. have terms,
half are dem and other half are rep. Powell will be there for a while. He has connections. Bob Miller wrote: 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 .. . 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. 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 Why do you think Kerry thinks any different than Bush on BPL? Bush has already gone on record as being "pro-choice" on BPL. Has Kerry staked out the opposite side of the issue? Which politician, of either party, is against BPL? Which FCC commissioner, of either party, is against BPL? Frank Dresser |
"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 |
Alex wrote:
FCC Comm. have terms, half are dem and other half are rep. Which Commissioner do we split in half?grin There are five Commissioners. No more than three may be members of the same party. http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html Unfortunately I wouldn't count on a Democratic Presidency stopping BPL. Firstly, they're just as susceptible to campaign contributions as Republicans. Secondly, the GOP Congress has a record of overturning FCC decisions if they offend enough lobbyists. (witness the anti-LPFM legislation - which was enacted despite a Democratic President who opposed it) Democratic Congresses in my lifetime never had a record of trying anything that blatant. Doesn't mean they haven't learned from the GOP since then. -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
"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! |
"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 |
"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 |
In article ,
-=jd=- wrote: You lost me there - if a public safety radio org (or anyone else for that matter) files a formal complaint with the FCC, does the FCC bill the complainant for any subsequent investigation and/or enforcement expenses? The FCC's likely to look to the complaining, and responding, parties to present evidence and research and expert testimony about the issue, I believe. The big communications companies can afford to throw large amounts of money at their side of the issue, churning up large amounts of paperwork, studies, and so forth. In order to hope to win the case, the public-safety organization would have to try to refute these studies and reports-from-experts with their own. I suspect it'd run into a lot of money. -- 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! |
"AK" wrote in message news:_RIxc.24979$Sw.12360@attbi_s51... "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. Well, as scurrilous libel goes, that's a step up from toxic waste dumper, but you've missed the mark again. I was making a democracy arguement. The voters who want high speed access vastly outnumber the voters who are radio hobbyists. If BPL can actually deliver on it's big promises, radio hobbyists will have slim clout in Washington. Being a radio hobbyist isn't a God given right, or a natural right, or even a constitutional right. But I think there's more to the democratic free choice arguement. What if BPL is really a goofy idea which won't work? What's the gain for any politician to block a popular, yet doomed approach? His opponent will grab the the glittering promises that the BPL folk are making, and use those promises to take votes from the "anti-BPL choice" candidate. Don't think the voters really know the difference. I see two possible scenerios: 1) BPL works as promised. It delivers high speed internet access to millions of users at a competitive price. Since cable, DSL, microwave and sattelite providers also have to compete with the BPL providers, every user of high speed access benefits from BPL. Thousands of radio hobbyists lose. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans choose the thousands of hobbyists over the millions of internet users. 2) BPL flops. It can't provide adequate bandwidth for more than a small number of users. The small number of users can't make up the costs of the system and BPL goes the way of the personal jet pack. Politicians who might have opposed "system choice" before it proved itself unworkable come out smelling like a rose. 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 Hmmm. Do you think radio amateurs have enough friends in Washington to get anything like that? Or maybe, if amateur radio interferes with a BPL system which benefits millions, the FCC will restrict amateur radio to protect BPL? But, if you're convinced BPL is workable and won't flop, let me suggest you join the dark side and invest in BPL. Dump your entire networth into BPL. Borrow more and toss that in too! Rewards go to those the bold who see the truth, while timid fellows such as myself stand on the sidelines. Thanks to your clear foresight, you'll soon be able to buy all the accouterments of capitalism. Buy a diamond handle cane. Buy that Top Hat you've always wanted. Buy a hand-made Isotta-Fraschini touring car with leopard skin upholstery and gold plated hardware. Don't forget to buy a chauffeur!! You'll forget about SW in no time! http://www.prospectstreet.com/portfolio_listing.htm Oh wait. Manassas dumped Prospect Street. Seems like they could only get 200 workable BPL connections in 6 months. Nevermind. Frank Dresser |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "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. I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that indicates BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service unless it is subsidized. Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to make it up? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Alex" wrote in message ... FCC Comm. have terms, half are dem and other half are rep. Powell will be there for a while. He has connections. HERE IS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK OF FCC CHAIRMAN POWELL AND HIS ALLEGED " CONNECTIONS "........ he http://www.misternicehands.com/ (after URL loads CLICK anywhere on it....) |
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:28:42 -0400, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that indicates BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service unless it is subsidized. Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to make it up? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Actually, they have a better idea than increasing electricity rates. The highly effusive BPL story that ran in Time Magazine recently said BPL will bundle internet access with telephone service and video-on-demand. We hams got a hell of a fight on our hands. bob k5qwg |
"Bob Miller" wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:28:42 -0400, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that indicates BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service unless it is subsidized. Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to make it up? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Actually, they have a better idea than increasing electricity rates. The highly effusive BPL story that ran in Time Magazine recently said BPL will bundle internet access with telephone service and video-on-demand. We hams got a hell of a fight on our hands. Video on demand??? They gotta be outta their pea-pickin' minds.. Where they gonna get the sort of bandwidth they need to provide all those services? It's not like they're going to have ADSL type bandwidths available to every home (and the more homes they connect, the less bandwidth they will have available for each).. and I have problems at times with Video on Demand with my ADSL line (supposedly 10 Mbit, but I rarely acheive download speeds greater than about 400Kbit). |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Hmmm. Do you think radio amateurs have enough friends in Washington to get anything like that? Nope. Or maybe, if amateur radio interferes with a BPL system which benefits millions, the FCC will restrict amateur radio to protect BPL? I doubt the "benefits millions" bit, but will the FCC restrict amateur radio if it interferes with big-business political contributors' operations ? Of course it will. ak |
"AK" wrote in message news:QdQxc.26209$Sw.14324@attbi_s51... [snip] I doubt the "benefits millions" bit, but will the FCC restrict amateur radio if it interferes with big-business political contributors' operations ? Of course it will. ak OK -- I'll go through it. If BPL works as promised, it will benefit millions. The BPL folk promise high speed internet access at under $30.00 a month. Every other high speed access provider will have to compete with that price. More than that, BPL promises continual power line monitoring and millions of dollars for local governments. That's what BPL promises. If BPL can come through on these promises, BPL will benefit millions. Can BPL come through on their promises? I sure don't think so. Most people with a technical background don't think so. There's a hundred reasons to think that BPL won't be able to fulfill it's promises. But how can it be PROVEN that BPL will fail? By talk? By computer simulations? I'm sure my opinion doesn't cut it. The ONLY way to prove that BPL cannot fulfill it's glittering promises is to -- let it fail. BPL is being allowed. That hardly means that BPL will wipe out the SW bands. Approval was the easy part. All it took was promises. But now, it's put up or shut time for BPL. So far, BPL's reality check doesn't seem to be going very well. Please name the politician who would stand in the way of the BPL promises. If they did block the BPL promises, then they would hear from the thickheaded knee-jerks would be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the FCC was in the pockets of the fat cats who want to keep access prices high. I hope I've made my point clearly. Frank Dresser |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that indicates BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service unless it is subsidized. Yeah, that gets to the heart of an important issue. Will BPL somehow be profitable? The quality of the reporting on BPL is, more often than not, poor: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P81685.asp That guy doesn't seem to have a clue about the technical problems that the BPL system has to overcome. I suppose he figures that since the FCC doesn't seem much worried about cranky old hams, then BPL is on easy street. I'd think the financial press would have wised up after the dotcom blowout. I did see a technically literate investment write up on BPL last year. That guy thought BPL was a loser. The ARRL is doing a great job making themselves available to reporters. The better stories devote a significant part to the ARRL point of view. Still, the stories often come down to BPL vs ARRL. Here's a pretty good antiBPL site: http://gobpl.com/ An interesting page from that site: http://gobpl.com/sharkbites.html Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to make it up? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Please, don't give the welfare party and the corparate subsidy party any ideas!! Frank Dresser |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... [snip] The quality of the reporting on BPL is, more often than not, poor: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P81685.asp That guy doesn't seem to have a clue about the technical problems that the BPL system has to overcome. I suppose he figures that since the FCC doesn't seem much worried about cranky old hams, then BPL is on easy street. I'd think the financial press would have wised up after the dotcom blowout. Nor does he have a clue about how people choose to spend their money. For example he mentions that there is good market potential since 80% of the internet users are still on dial up. He seems to think that they will switch to BPL. But let's look at why they are on dial up. It is cost. Dial up is still the cheapest access and it will be cheaper than the projected cost for BPL. Unless they can get much closer to dial up in price, most will NOT switch. There's a dial up service around here that is only about $10 per month. Even the most expensive dial up in this area tops out at $20 per month. BPL won't be able to snag a major share of the dial users no matter what anyone would like to believe assuming their projected costs are accurate. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On 10 Jun 2004 15:04:57 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: The difference being, Broadband and Broadbandd related "stuff" is selling quite well which correlates at some reasonable level into a demand for broadband. I'm not sure what the market figures are for shortwave, but I would guess it's much lower. Even if you were able to get *all* active SWL's in the U.S. to write (twice) to the FCC in opposition to BPL, how many protest letters do you think that would amount to in comparison to the broadband market's demand for broadband? Does anyone in here have any insight into marketing demographics for SWL's? I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-) Bob k5qwg Of course, the presumption I'm making is that there is a measurable demand for broadband in those remote locales where it is not already affordably available via other providers (cable, phone, etc.). -=jd=- |
Clair J. Robinson wrote:
Bob Miller wrote: I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-) Bob k5qwg Don't forget that those right-wing preachers and all other US short-wave broadcasters are licensed to broadcast to foreign locations only. I guess those 800 numbers are for use in the Caribbean and Canada. Sure, that has to be the case. 73, CJ K0CJ You mean if I pick up their broadcast here in the US then that makes them illegal? |
Bob Miller wrote:
I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-) Bob k5qwg Don't forget that those right-wing preachers and all other US short-wave broadcasters are licensed to broadcast to foreign locations only. I guess those 800 numbers are for use in the Caribbean and Canada. Sure, that has to be the case. 73, CJ K0CJ |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com