Quote from the American Public Power Association; "the burden should
be imposed on challengers to BPL to demonstrate interference in a
fact-based, empirical proof. Further, to the extent that interference
is demonstrated, there should be an attempt to accommodate BPL, even
if it means that existing communications providers may have to share
or transfer bandwidth."
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 496

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

To file, go here;
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
"Proceeding" field, enter "03-104"
"Document Type" select "Reply to comments"

Links for the key filings (pro BPL and anti BPL) are here;
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/B...yperlinks.html

Good reply examples are below;
Notes
You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your
thoughts.
You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have
your support.

Andrew Leeds - response to UPLC
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514288 117

Lee McVey - response to Amperion
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 923

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539

Cortland Richmond - response to PowerWan
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 407

Lee McVey - response to UPLC
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 392

Cortland Richmond - response to Florida Light and Power
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 386

Arthur Guy - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 323

Good general comments
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 303

Ashley Lane - response to Ameren
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 129

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 007

Cortland Richmond - response to Southern Linc
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 932

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to National Academy of Science
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 161

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to Amateur Radio Research and
Development Corp.
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 102

Lawrence Macioski - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514083 272

Robert Read - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514082 900

The deadline for Reply Comments was extended to Aug. 20th
by an Order issued by Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's OET
yesterday ...

So folks still have a bit of time to prepare and file reply comments.

Carl - wk3c

"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
om...
Quote from the American Public Power Association; "the burden should
be imposed on challengers to BPL to demonstrate interference in a
fact-based, empirical proof. Further, to the extent that interference
is demonstrated, there should be an attempt to accommodate BPL, even
if it means that existing communications providers may have to share
or transfer bandwidth."

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 496

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

To file, go here;
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
"Proceeding" field, enter "03-104"
"Document Type" select "Reply to comments"

Links for the key filings (pro BPL and anti BPL) are here;
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/B...yperlinks.html

Good reply examples are below;
Notes
You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your
thoughts.
You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have
your support.

Andrew Leeds - response to UPLC

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514288 117

Lee McVey - response to Amperion

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 923

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539

Cortland Richmond - response to PowerWan

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 407

Lee McVey - response to UPLC

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 392

Cortland Richmond - response to Florida Light and Power

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 386

Arthur Guy - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 323

Good general comments

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 303

Ashley Lane - response to Ameren

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 129

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 007

Cortland Richmond - response to Southern Linc

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 932

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to National Academy of Science

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 161

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to Amateur Radio Research and
Development Corp.

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 102

Lawrence Macioski - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514083 272

Robert Read - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514082 900

Actually only the morse operators will have half a
chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They
need the least amount of signal to be able to
communicate. I am primarily a phone operator. I
need to get my comments in. Off to do that now.
--
73 es cul

wb3fup
a Salty Bear

"Keith" wrote
in message ...
On 1 Aug 2003 21:50:25 -0700,
(Rob Kemp) wrote:

Critical everyone submits a reply comment
ASAP.

You might as well as **** into a hurricane
force wind. BPL will happen and ham
radio will go the way of the dinosaurs. America
can't let a few thousand morse
code fanatics stop modern technology for
millions of consumers. If there were 2
or 3 million active ham radio operators then
that might make a difference, but
for decades the ARRL has done everything to keep
people out of the HF bands by
forcing the stupid morse code requirements down
the throats of the average
consumer that has no interest in morse code.
The morse code fanatics among ham radio
operators dug their own grave and have
no on else to blame. BPL is progress for
America, ham radio is the old
technology.


--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave
and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/
..it does not require a majority to prevail, but
rather an
irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in
people's
minds. --Samuel Adams

WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote:
Actually only the morse operators will have half a
chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They
need the least amount of signal to be able to
communicate.

Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear
the CW ID signals.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

But will the BPL give the Pactor something else to
grab hold of? I do not know - just asking. My
radio station goes into a briefcase and the
computer does not have a sound card, or would be
able to figure out what to do with it if it had
one. It is a R/S TRS 80 Model 100. It can handle
packet, I don't know about other digital modes.
Into the brief case goes: FT817, Paddles, R/S DSP
unit (I know it ain't great, but it helps),
MFJ259, Small Tuner, Crappie Dipole, Super Antenna
MD-1, R/S Computer, KAM 3, Solar Panel, Coleman
Jump Battery. Have Station will travel.

--
73 es cul

wb3fup
a Salty Bear

"W5DXP" wrote in message
...
WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote:
Actually only the morse operators will have
half a
chance of operating if the BPL goes through.
They
need the least amount of signal to be able to
communicate.

Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't
even hear
the CW ID signals.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored
Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup
Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different
Servers! =-----

Note on Message below.
BPL is old Tech, I was playing with it 25 years ago.
Ham Radio is not a technology its a service.

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 1 Aug 2003 21:50:25 -0700, (Rob Kemp) wrote:

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

You might as well as **** into a hurricane force wind. BPL will happen
and ham
radio will go the way of the dinosaurs. America can't let a few thousand
morse
code fanatics stop modern technology for millions of consumers. If there
were 2
or 3 million active ham radio operators then that might make a difference,
but
for decades the ARRL has done everything to keep people out of the HF
bands by
forcing the stupid morse code requirements down the throats of the average
consumer that has no interest in morse code.
The morse code fanatics among ham radio operators dug their own grave and
have
no on else to blame. BPL is progress for America, ham radio is the old
technology.


--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/
..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people's
minds. --Samuel Adams


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 12/08/2003

W5DXP wrote in message ...
WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote:
Actually only the morse operators will have half a
chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They
need the least amount of signal to be able to
communicate.

Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear
the CW ID signals.

Cecil,
The most important aspect of all this is, if it is accepted
what would be the new emmission standards in Industry?
I can imagine a lot of users of RF driers will be happy
with the minimising of restrictions as well as other
manufacturers and users of such equipment.
Medical costs will also rise since equipment
used will now have to face new challenges.
The FCC got into hot water very quickly with their last
actions with Congress which also raised the ire of many others.
I doubt that they would be willing to follow the path of money
on this one because the cost related to required determinations
thru out Industry will fall on their own department.
They must also realise that numbers DO count with Congress since
looking after the Countries interests is NOT the first priority,
personal re-election is ahead of EVERY thing.
Haven't seen any statistics yet as to why Japan threw out the idea
or the timing of the same proposal in the U.K./EEC.
If the ARRL is so desparate for money maybe a short term membership
scheme would be in order, say $2 for a years subsciption to QST
without the last 2/3 s of the publication being offered!
Regards
Art

(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message om...
W5DXP wrote in message ...
WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote:
Actually only the morse operators will have half a
chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They
need the least amount of signal to be able to
communicate.

Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear
the CW ID signals.

Cecil,
The most important aspect of all this is, if it is accepted
what would be the new emmission standards in Industry?
I can imagine a lot of users of RF driers will be happy
with the minimising of restrictions as well as other
manufacturers and users of such equipment.
Medical costs will also rise since equipment
used will now have to face new challenges.
The FCC got into hot water very quickly with their last
actions with Congress which also raised the ire of many others.
I doubt that they would be willing to follow the path of money
on this one because the cost related to required determinations
thru out Industry will fall on their own department.
They must also realise that numbers DO count with Congress since
looking after the Countries interests is NOT the first priority,
personal re-election is ahead of EVERY thing.
Haven't seen any statistics yet as to why Japan threw out the idea

Try this: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/pl...erence_Studies


or the timing of the same proposal in the U.K./EEC.
If the ARRL is so desparate for money maybe a short term membership
scheme would be in order, say $2 for a years subsciption to QST
without the last 2/3 s of the publication being offered!
Regards
Art

w3rv

For all of you that don't think the interferance is going to be "not so
bad" even in CW, should come to Dayton, Ohio or any other city that still
runs electric trolly lines and listen to the S-9 +40 signal that the 400
hertz trolly lines produce, and you can here it on a mobile reciever up to
2000 feet from the lines, especially when a trolly is in the area and
moving. It cost money to fight the big money in DC, the power companies
have an almost unlimited purse into which we the consumers have to keep
pouring cash. They can hire the most costly lobbiest groups around for
their cause. I run CW, PSK, RTTY and SSB here and it will really wipe out
any and all signals on all bands, especially in wet and foggy weather, you
guys better think again about simply bashing the ARRL about wanting money
to fight this, or just sell your rigs now and buy stock in the power
companies that will be polluting the RF spectrum from DC to Daylight with
a bunch of noise that sounds like a geiger counter gone nuts in an uranium
deposit. If the power companies get their way HF amateur radio will cease
to exist as we know it. As I said, come to Dayton for the Hamvention next
year and I will challenge you to do any HF work any were near an elelctric
trolly line. Or just drive near any high tension power line and listen to
the S-9 + noise levels from them, and with no broad spectrum data streams
on them yet. The power companies have the FCC chair in their pockets guys
and the power companies won't lift a finger now to clean up their act.
What do you think they will tell you when BPL wipes out you Ham radio and
other RF spectrums. You guessed it, they will tell you to go away and
shut up as the FCC says that they have the right to do it.......

Fred KE8TQ
XYL Lorraine KC8HWV





On 13 Aug 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:
(Art Unwin KB9MZ) wrote in message om...
W5DXP wrote in message ...
WB3FUP (Mike Hall) wrote:
Actually only the morse operators will have half a
chance of operating if the BPL goes through. They
need the least amount of signal to be able to
communicate.

Actually, PACTOR II gets through when I can't even hear
the CW ID signals.

Cecil,
The most important aspect of all this is, if it is accepted
what would be the new emmission standards in Industry?
I can imagine a lot of users of RF driers will be happy
with the minimising of restrictions as well as other
manufacturers and users of such equipment.
Medical costs will also rise since equipment
used will now have to face new challenges.
The FCC got into hot water very quickly with their last
actions with Congress which also raised the ire of many others.
I doubt that they would be willing to follow the path of money
on this one because the cost related to required determinations
thru out Industry will fall on their own department.
They must also realise that numbers DO count with Congress since
looking after the Countries interests is NOT the first priority,
personal re-election is ahead of EVERY thing.
Haven't seen any statistics yet as to why Japan threw out the idea

Try this: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/pl...erence_Studies


or the timing of the same proposal in the U.K./EEC.
If the ARRL is so desparate for money maybe a short term membership
scheme would be in order, say $2 for a years subsciption to QST
without the last 2/3 s of the publication being offered!
Regards
Art

w3rv


--

Fred wrote in message
...
For all of you that don't think the interferance is going to be "not so
bad" even in CW, should come to Dayton, Ohio or any other city that still
runs electric trolly lines and listen to the S-9 +40 signal that the 400
hertz trolly lines produce, and you can here it on a mobile reciever up to
2000 feet from the lines, especially when a trolly is in the area and
moving. It cost money to fight the big money in DC, the power companies
have an almost unlimited purse into which we the consumers have to keep
pouring cash. They can hire the most costly lobbiest groups around for

400 Hz, really??