RadioBanter - View Single Post - BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth

June 24th 04, 01:16 PM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

The Iowa case will set a precedent.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing.

Maybe. Or maybe not - many technologies that were highly touted never made a
dime and faded away. How many billions were lost on the Iridium system?

The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

President Bush and Commissioner Powell say it's not a problem. NTIA says BPL
can reduce line noise. A lot of "professionals" say we amateurs don't know what
we're talking about. Folks like ARRL have produced voluminuous documentation
and measurements of what BPL interference is like, yet that has not been
convincing to FCC.

How does anyone argue against that?

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

You mean his father who presented evidence before the UN that turned out not to
be very accurate? He didn't want to, but his boss insisted. Same thing is going
on with BPL. Shrub wants *anything* that looks good in the techno-world. And
he's goit highly paid *professionals* telling him BPL and HF radio can coexist
peacefully.

So what else can be done? Thousands of hams and others saying "BPL is bad"
hasn't stopped it. FCC doesn't have to go with the majority, or even interpret
its own rules the same way all the time.

devil's advocate mode = ON

Besides, Len, who really uses HF radio much anymore? The important military
stuff all goes by satellite, right? You don't see the Pentagon making trouble
about BPL. Ships use GMDRSS and EPIRB and satellites and such. SWBC is being
replaced by satellites and netcasting. All that's really left on HF are hams,
cbs, freebanders and some backup systems. HF is unreliable at best and useless
at worst. It's slow, error prone and inadequate for things like streaming video
and broadband connectivity. The few services still using it are "living in the
past", aren't they?

Besides, why are *you* upset, Len? You're not a ham.