RadioBanter - View Single Post

March 25th 04, 06:00 PM

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any
urban radio environment.

Generally agreed by whom?

ARRL, FEMA, NTIA, the remaining amateur radio publications, just for
starters. :-)

But not the Wall Street Journal, or the chief engineer of the FCC, or
the Commissioners....;-) ;-)

The BPL developers don't agree. And they're professionals.

Capitalists first.

Aren't you also a capitalist, Len? Or are you something else?

They want their slice of the "broadband" pie.

They want the money. That's the essential definition of "professional"
- getting paid.

Why are you trolling like you WANT Access BPL?

I don't want Access BPL. I'm simply trying to figure out how to fight
it. You don't seem to have any answers besides "comment to the FCC". I
already knew that.

Did you change professions into the Access BPL arena?

Nope, I'm still an *amateur* in the field of HF radio communications.
And I don;t have anyhting to do with BPL "professionally".

The FCC doesn't agree. They're professionals too, and regulators of
all "civilian" radio and wire communications in the USA.

Incorrect.

They're not professionals? They don't get paid for what they do? I
think you are mistaken.

See the Communications Act of 1934 and the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 as to exactly what the FCC can regulate.

Irrelevant to the BPL situation. FCC could prevent BPL from going
forward if they wanted to.

Unless an Access BPL system goes across state borders, about
all that the FCC can regulate is the incidental RF radiation from
the system. Incidental RF radiation is a main subject in Part 15,
Title 47 C.F.R. Part 15 doesn't deal in "communications" systems
and NPRM 04-29 is only about revisions to Part 15.

Again, irrelevant. And probably incorrect. The noise from BPL systems
will clearly cross state lines.

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural
locations which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide
service not available from other technologies?

"Suburbia" is a part of the urban environment.

No, it isn't.

Try not to hurt yourself playing little trolling word games.

Not me - you're the one who does that. I'm simply truying to figure out
how to defeat BPL. You're avoiding the central issue: How can
*amateurs* prevail when *professionals* are pushing BPL?

Feel free to list all the rural areas in the United States along
with all the inhabitants thereof.

You first, Len. My amateurish work would not meet your professional
standards. ;-)

That's only about 3% of the population, should not take you too long
in here. :-)

If you know the answer, why do you ask the question? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Where are the existing Access BPL test sites now?

Look them up on the ARRL website.

Are those in "rural areas?" [no, they are not out there]

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access
BPL will be a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have
not agreed with the calculations and first hand-observations of
others?

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would
think that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed
experience would know the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

Oh no, not me. I leave that to professionals like you, Len. Wasting
other people's time is something you are realy, really good at.

You are rejecting the ARRL Laboratory findings on Access BPL test
sites.

Not me. I've read them, accepted them, met and talked with people who
put them together. I've commented to FCC on the issue and will do so
again

It's the FCC, BPL companies, and similar *professionals* who reject
them. Even *you* questioned them at first.

You are rejecting several commenters on 03-104 who have,
independently shown calculations based on their own thinking.

Not me. I find all of those calculations and observations to be
convincing. FCC apparently doesn't. A good number of your fellow
"professionls" don't, either.

You are rejecting the feelings of - literally - thousands of other
U.S. radio amateurs who think that Access BPL is going to be BAD for
their residential and mobile amateur radio operations.

"Feelings"?

You've got it backwards, Len. You're wrong again!

Why do you want to sit back and welcome BPL?

I don't. I've been working against it since before you even thought it
was a problem.

Don't you want to "work" the HF ham bands from 80 meters and up?

I already do. You don't.

I guess not.

All you want to do is sit in here and troll for newsgroup word
fights.

Not me, Len. That's what you do.

It's clear you don't know how to convince those "professionals" any
more than anyone else. You don't have any new or different arguments or
evidence. You just want to lecture and criticize.

Now you'll probably respond with a lot of diversions into irrelevant
minutiae, name-calling, inaccurate information, insults, shouting,
excessive emoticons, your resume from a half-century ago and the rest
of your usual, "professional" bag of tricks, in a vain attempt to get
me to reply in kind. Wrong again, Len!

Maybe we could come up with a certificate for operating from BPL test
sites, with endorsements for 500W, 1kW and 1.5kW?