Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.

===================================

Radio enthusiasts are not their enemy. At most they may become an
insignificant nuisance to the capitalist system.

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

Myopic views and a redefined issue to suit self serving logic solves
nothing. To this point it should be obvious that solutions are not
being solicited - as the administration and lobbyists see it, there is
no problem.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker

The standard industrial-political complex branding of targets of
interest.

Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

I'm not sure where you come up with the assertion that the number of hams
affected is "in the hundreds."

Such challenges are typically deflected by those entitled to revenue
enhancements (more properly known as the Wall Street Welfare State).

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date.
"The press" feeds on controversy and frequently distorts things - at best in
the interest of making the story more "sensational, at the worst because
they have taken sides and have their own agenda to promote rather than
objectively and dispassionately reporting the facts.

I'm not sure which is worse, this contrivance of the "press" as a foil
(more static than signal); or the disconnect with the FCC's puppet
activities in the broader scope of aggregating media into fewer and
fewer hands. If the quote above is a complaint outside of this former
thread's narrow special interest, it should be obvious that this "new"
problem has been cultivated by the administration's puppet master
activity. With the balkanization of grievances, no one is worrying
about the greater systemic poisoning.

The stale right wing gasp of the threat of liberal media is out dated
and has been a wheeze for nearly two decades. They have been using
this eviscerated rag doll as a punching bag for so long, that all of
the stuffing has been scattered to the winds and it is simply a
tattered scrap of cloth whipping in the wind. Perhaps the right
whiners are complaining of rug burn as their limp wrists get caught up
in the shreds.

I've been following this silly notion of petitioning the FCC for
redress in just one particular - BPL - when the problem is obvious on
the face of it: complete indifference from the outset due to the
larger scope issues. Why do they have to listen anyway? How would
you know if they did? We have just one advantage over the Reds who
allowed their comrades to offer protest - we save money by not sending
them to the Gulags. The discount for ignoring these "comments"
outweighs the construction costs alone. [However, now that we are
embarked on no-bid contracts (that same Welfare State again), then
that may soon re-vitalize industries that the right wing has mined
from the communist economic model.]

The entire mandate of the Communication Act of 1932 has been set out
on the curb for pick-up and if it doesn't impact a QSO, I doubt if
there would be any ruffled feathers here.

Such provincialism is self castration. Looking out for
your(our)self(selves) and the Devil take the rest is a myopic attitude
guaranteed to eliminate future generations.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The
wires carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?

Myopic views and a redefined issue to suit self serving logic solves
nothing. To this point it should be obvious that solutions are not
being solicited - as the administration and lobbyists see it, there is
no problem.

FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker

The standard industrial-political complex branding of targets of
interest.

Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

I'm not sure where you come up with the assertion that the number of hams
affected is "in the hundreds."

Such challenges are typically deflected by those entitled to revenue
enhancements (more properly known as the Wall Street Welfare State).

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date.
"The press" feeds on controversy and frequently distorts things - at best in
the interest of making the story more "sensational, at the worst because
they have taken sides and have their own agenda to promote rather than
objectively and dispassionately reporting the facts.

I'm not sure which is worse, this contrivance of the "press" as a foil
(more static than signal); or the disconnect with the FCC's puppet
activities in the broader scope of aggregating media into fewer and
fewer hands. If the quote above is a complaint outside of this former
thread's narrow special interest, it should be obvious that this "new"
problem has been cultivated by the administration's puppet master
activity. With the balkanization of grievances, no one is worrying
about the greater systemic poisoning.

The stale right wing gasp of the threat of liberal media is out dated
and has been a wheeze for nearly two decades. They have been using
this eviscerated rag doll as a punching bag for so long, that all of
the stuffing has been scattered to the winds and it is simply a
tattered scrap of cloth whipping in the wind. Perhaps the right
whiners are complaining of rug burn as their limp wrists get caught up
in the shreds.

I've been following this silly notion of petitioning the FCC for
redress in just one particular - BPL - when the problem is obvious on
the face of it: complete indifference from the outset due to the
larger scope issues. Why do they have to listen anyway? How would
you know if they did? We have just one advantage over the Reds who
allowed their comrades to offer protest - we save money by not sending
them to the Gulags. The discount for ignoring these "comments"
outweighs the construction costs alone. [However, now that we are
embarked on no-bid contracts (that same Welfare State again), then
that may soon re-vitalize industries that the right wing has mined
from the communist economic model.]

The entire mandate of the Communication Act of 1932 has been set out
on the curb for pick-up and if it doesn't impact a QSO, I doubt if
there would be any ruffled feathers here.

Such provincialism is self castration. Looking out for
your(our)self(selves) and the Devil take the rest is a myopic attitude
guaranteed to eliminate future generations.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Chip, As much as I respect your knowledge there are BPL issues that are
simple to understand and problems that have not been resolved.

Fractenna wrote:

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don[sic] not connect to it.



FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?


SNIP: Well Chip, since the pole is only 20 feet from the ham shack ...
What can I expect if it deploys here in suburban Concord NH?

30 uV/meter [AKA ~ S9] at 7 meters from the pole is pretty significant
when my station is 7 to 10 meters meters from the pole.

Cedar Rapids ... see below.


It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.


FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.

SNIP: Well Chip, since 30 uV/meter at 10 meters puts me [at 7 to 10
meters from the pole] in the fairly close field what will my noise
levels be?


Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

SNIP: There is NO BASIS for that assumption!! BPL has not been tested in
an densely Amateur Radio populated community. I live in a small town of
slightly more than 4500 people and we have eight [8] hams in town. There
is approximately one [1] amateur operator for every 420 citizens of the
USA. [700,000 hams/300 million citizens]. Where is the BPL data to
support that assumption?

For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection
restrictions is in the tens of thousands.

SNIP: Red Herring ... non sequitor. But, they can still operate with
'stealth antennas' and a quiet environment.



You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.



FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.



SNIP: The ARRL has entered the case of W0SR because mitigation has not
worked after more than 2 months of effort in the case of Jim Spencer,
W0SR, in Cedar Rapids Iowa, reference your statement above. Jim is in a
BPL test area and has been off the air for two months while the supplier
has tried unsuccessfully to mitigate the noise.
Reference http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/15/2/

Boeing, a highly reputable Aerospace and Civil Aviation Corporation has
made the following comment:

"Boeing told the FCC that Commission-proposed interference mitigation
techniques "are INADEQUATE [emphasis added] to protect safety of life
aeronautical HF communications services." The aircraft manufacturer
urged the FCC to "carefully investigate these issues" before adopting
rules to authorize BPL networks in spectrum used by aeronautical HF
radio services."
[Ref: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/24/1/?nc=1

Is that clear enough??



SNIP: The original request was for a simple and clear statement of the
issue. I offer that I made a simple [elementary school level] level of
issue statement. Make the principle point so that it is understood [As a
former teacher you recognize that a little hyperbole is an acceptable
part of the teaching tool]. Once the principle is understood then
advancing the discussion to a higher more mature level of understanding
is possible.


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working with
the power companies to fix the problem.

SNIP: In the absence of data to the contrary, I refuse to believe that
there is a non vocal majority who are advocating BPL. [The antithesis to
your hypothesis].

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

Once again, STILL ??, the press is/maybe wrong!!

I understand that on 22 June 2004 President Bush made the following
comments in a speech to the Department of Commerce.

" ... We need to get broadband to more Americans and so, therefore, I
want to talk about two other ways to get broadband to the consumer. We
need to use our power lines better. They go everywhere. It seems to make
sense, doesn't it, if what you're looking for is avenues into the home.
Well, electricity goes into the home. And so one great opportunity is to
spread broadband throughout America via our power lines.

And one of the problems we've got here is that the Commerce Department
has had to develop technical standards that will make sure that our
broadband can go across power lines without unnecessary interference. So
it's a technological problem. It's a technological issue. It turns out
that sometimes the competition of broadband and electricity just doesn't
go too good across one line. And so -- if I could put it in simple
vernacular. And so, therefore, the Commerce Department is helping to
sort through these issues so that broadband access will be available
through -- by our power companies..."
[Ref: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040624-7.html

So, the executive branch has made up it's mind. I wonder if there is
credible and competent technical dissent in the Department of Commerce?

Chip, I am still waiting for public disclosure on successful mitigation
techniques. My suspicion is that when Hams complain at a later date the
argument will be dismissed as 'you had you chance and didn't make your
case'. Capital Investment wins...

Successful mitigation for the Amateur Radio market requires suppressing
8 portions of the HF spectrum for a total of 4.25 MHz [Ham and MARS] or
15% of the available spectrum. Other licensed services will also require
some level of mitigation. Where is the data that supports a successful
mitigation technology? How much suppression is required and under what
conditions ... -40 dB, -50 dB, etc. What is the capital investment for
suppression? Is the Rate of Return equitable for our investors? What are
the HF susceptibilities to 1.5 KW PEP within those 8 HF segments? Are
additional suppression techniques required for susceptibility? Will
susceptibility issues be local or distributed? What about the capital
investment and rate of return on this issue?

If BPL is proposed in my area I will be at all meetings raising the
mitigation technical and business issues.

Chip, As much as I respect your knowledge there are BPL issues that are
simple to understand and problems that have not been resolved.

Fractenna wrote:

BPL comes into your house at the power company service box. Even if you
don[sic] not connect to it.



FACT: The Cedar Rapids deployment has a WLAN link from the pole. The wires
carry the 2-80 MHz. How does that go from 2-80 MHz --into-- the house?


SNIP: Well Chip, since the pole is only 20 feet from the ham shack ...
What can I expect if it deploys here in suburban Concord NH?

30 uV/meter [AKA ~ S9] at 7 meters from the pole is pretty significant
when my station is 7 to 10 meters meters from the pole.

Cedar Rapids ... see below.


It creates S9++ signals from 2 to 80 MHz.


FACT: Sure, if you drive your 1972 Nova with 'HAM ON BOARD' sticker (for
example) under the power line, this is a consistently true statement.

SNIP: Well Chip, since 30 uV/meter at 10 meters puts me [at 7 to 10
meters from the pole] in the fairly close field what will my noise
levels be?


Otherwise, there are some, few, circumstances in which an unacceptabel (pun
and sic intended) level of 'hash' will arise in that passband to the annoyance
of some hams. Based on assumption, the number of hams affected nation wide is
in the hundreds.

SNIP: There is NO BASIS for that assumption!! BPL has not been tested in
an densely Amateur Radio populated community. I live in a small town of
slightly more than 4500 people and we have eight [8] hams in town. There
is approximately one [1] amateur operator for every 420 citizens of the
USA. [700,000 hams/300 million citizens]. Where is the BPL data to
support that assumption?

For comparison, the number of hams affected by tower erection
restrictions is in the tens of thousands.

SNIP: Red Herring ... non sequitor. But, they can still operate with
'stealth antennas' and a quiet environment.



You can't hear anything on your new 10,000 dollar ICOM 7800 or any other
radio except 'Data Hash'.



FACT: Sure, if very nearby and unfiltered, this could be a problem. However,
the FCC rules require filtering for RFI mitigation in such circumstances.



SNIP: The ARRL has entered the case of W0SR because mitigation has not
worked after more than 2 months of effort in the case of Jim Spencer,
W0SR, in Cedar Rapids Iowa, reference your statement above. Jim is in a
BPL test area and has been off the air for two months while the supplier
has tried unsuccessfully to mitigate the noise.
Reference http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/15/2/

Boeing, a highly reputable Aerospace and Civil Aviation Corporation has
made the following comment:

"Boeing told the FCC that Commission-proposed interference mitigation
techniques "are INADEQUATE [emphasis added] to protect safety of life
aeronautical HF communications services." The aircraft manufacturer
urged the FCC to "carefully investigate these issues" before adopting
rules to authorize BPL networks in spectrum used by aeronautical HF
radio services."
[Ref: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/24/1/?nc=1

Is that clear enough??



SNIP: The original request was for a simple and clear statement of the
issue. I offer that I made a simple [elementary school level] level of
issue statement. Make the principle point so that it is understood [As a
former teacher you recognize that a little hyperbole is an acceptable
part of the teaching tool]. Once the principle is understood then
advancing the discussion to a higher more mature level of understanding
is possible.


FACT: A vocal minority of hams want to 'kill BPL'. As opposed to working with
the power companies to fix the problem.

SNIP: In the absence of data to the contrary, I refuse to believe that
there is a non vocal majority who are advocating BPL. [The antithesis to
your hypothesis].

FACT: The press has used this exchange, in many circumstances, to view us with
the jaundiced eye of being anti-technology and very out of date. Why is it that
they just don't see it as reason to 'kill BPL'?

Once again, STILL ??, the press is/maybe wrong!!

I understand that on 22 June 2004 President Bush made the following
comments in a speech to the Department of Commerce.

" ... We need to get broadband to more Americans and so, therefore, I
want to talk about two other ways to get broadband to the consumer. We
need to use our power lines better. They go everywhere. It seems to make
sense, doesn't it, if what you're looking for is avenues into the home.
Well, electricity goes into the home. And so one great opportunity is to
spread broadband throughout America via our power lines.

And one of the problems we've got here is that the Commerce Department
has had to develop technical standards that will make sure that our
broadband can go across power lines without unnecessary interference. So
it's a technological problem. It's a technological issue. It turns out
that sometimes the competition of broadband and electricity just doesn't
go too good across one line. And so -- if I could put it in simple
vernacular. And so, therefore, the Commerce Department is helping to
sort through these issues so that broadband access will be available
through -- by our power companies..."
[Ref: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040624-7.html

So, the executive branch has made up it's mind. I wonder if there is
credible and competent technical dissent in the Department of Commerce?

Chip, I am still waiting for public disclosure on successful mitigation
techniques. My suspicion is that when Hams complain at a later date the
argument will be dismissed as 'you had you chance and didn't make your
case'. Capital Investment wins...

Successful mitigation for the Amateur Radio market requires suppressing
8 portions of the HF spectrum for a total of 4.25 MHz [Ham and MARS] or
15% of the available spectrum. Other licensed services will also require
some level of mitigation. Where is the data that supports a successful
mitigation technology? How much suppression is required and under what
conditions ... -40 dB, -50 dB, etc. What is the capital investment for
suppression? Is the Rate of Return equitable for our investors? What are
the HF susceptibilities to 1.5 KW PEP within those 8 HF segments? Are
additional suppression techniques required for susceptibility? Will
susceptibility issues be local or distributed? What about the capital
investment and rate of return on this issue?

If BPL is proposed in my area I will be at all meetings raising the
mitigation technical and business issues.

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


....and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


....and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Hey! Do that for me...with trepidation.

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

"william ewald" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jun 2004 01:10:02 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

yea right said:

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


...and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Who is Fractenna?

Total posts by Fractenna, 6560 in rec.radio.antenna, containing the
following keywords or phrases, arranged by times used :

fractal antenna, 1140
Phil, 769
patent, 304
Fractal Antenna Systems (or FAS), 289
legal, 221
abuse, 171
copyright, 168
Fractal Antenna Reflector, 148
libel, 137
attack, 126
bogus, 125
fraud, 118
lies, 112
malicious. 112
harassment, 110
illegal, 92
lawsuit, 86
hate, 83
credibility, 75
Patent pending, 75
sue, 71
This thread is closed, 69
public notice, 65
lawyer, 63
warning, 63
My attorney, 62
Your attorney, 62
defamation, 58
defend, 58
threat, 58
fraudulent, 56
abusive, 50
counsel, 50
litigation, 48
threatening, 47
liar, 41
harassing, 39
patent Infringement, 38
destroy. 37
distortion, 31
criminal, 28
obsession, 27
Wakefield killer, 23
damages, 22
malign, 16
hatred, 15
pirating, 14
antisemitic, 13
www.n1IR.com, 13
death threat, 10
retraction, 9
offenders, 3
legal counsel, 2

Hey! Do that for me...with trepidation.

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

"william ewald" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jun 2004 01:10:02 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

yea right said:

Chip, don't be so easly fooled! The BPL industry only has one goal in
mind, to make money. Radio enthusiast are their enemy.


...and you are...

?

73,
Chip N1IR

Who is Fractenna?

Total posts by Fractenna, 6560 in rec.radio.antenna, containing the
following keywords or phrases, arranged by times used :

fractal antenna, 1140
Phil, 769
patent, 304
Fractal Antenna Systems (or FAS), 289
legal, 221
abuse, 171
copyright, 168
Fractal Antenna Reflector, 148
libel, 137
attack, 126
bogus, 125
fraud, 118
lies, 112
malicious. 112
harassment, 110
illegal, 92
lawsuit, 86
hate, 83
credibility, 75
Patent pending, 75
sue, 71
This thread is closed, 69
public notice, 65
lawyer, 63
warning, 63
My attorney, 62
Your attorney, 62
defamation, 58
defend, 58
threat, 58
fraudulent, 56
abusive, 50
counsel, 50
litigation, 48
threatening, 47
liar, 41
harassing, 39
patent Infringement, 38
destroy. 37
distortion, 31
criminal, 28
obsession, 27
Wakefield killer, 23
damages, 22
malign, 16
hatred, 15
pirating, 14
antisemitic, 13
www.n1IR.com, 13
death threat, 10
retraction, 9
offenders, 3
legal counsel, 2