|
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release
Go and read this BPL related press release:
http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others
may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others
may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
"Jeff Maass" wrote in message
... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading the media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about amateurs! My reply to her is copied below. Cheers Martin, VK2UMJ ---------------------- Dear Ms Patterson Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA does not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media release as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as such, I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted. Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer" that has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what equipment we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is a concept that is lost on people such as yourself. The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your comment in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research will tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0 MHz to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence. Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and apologise to the international amateur radio community for your misguided and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will see your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched garbage that it is. Yours most disrespectfully Martin Howells Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ |
"Jeff Maass" wrote in message
... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading the media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about amateurs! My reply to her is copied below. Cheers Martin, VK2UMJ ---------------------- Dear Ms Patterson Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA does not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media release as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as such, I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted. Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer" that has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what equipment we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is a concept that is lost on people such as yourself. The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your comment in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research will tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0 MHz to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence. Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and apologise to the international amateur radio community for your misguided and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will see your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched garbage that it is. Yours most disrespectfully Martin Howells Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ |
"Greg Knapp" wrote in message ... Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Translation: Ignore those without a large financial stake and listen to those who would do anything for a buck. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. The statement about amateurs didn't strike me as stating what kind of equipment would be effected, it seemed more an attempt to show amateur radio operators as a group of ignorant, backwards idividuals. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
"Greg Knapp" wrote in message ... Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Translation: Ignore those without a large financial stake and listen to those who would do anything for a buck. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. The statement about amateurs didn't strike me as stating what kind of equipment would be effected, it seemed more an attempt to show amateur radio operators as a group of ignorant, backwards idividuals. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
Hello,
It would be easier just to say what the problem was, without going into great detail, then I wouldn't have to skip past your message. I can't be bothered having to read a long document. You should be able to state the problem in a few lines. "Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
Hello,
It would be easier just to say what the problem was, without going into great detail, then I wouldn't have to skip past your message. I can't be bothered having to read a long document. You should be able to state the problem in a few lines. "Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
Hello,
No one on here seems capable of saying exactly what the problem is. I don't want to read long boring rambling emails! Just say what's wrong in a few lines in your own words without pointing towards websites. "Marty" wrote in message ... "Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND Being a non-US amateur this really doesn't concern me, but after reading the media release I couldn't resist having may say on her comments about amateurs! My reply to her is copied below. Cheers Martin, VK2UMJ ---------------------- Dear Ms Patterson Whilst I am not a US citizen and so the current issue of BPL in the USA does not concern me, I am what you incorrectly referred to in your media release as a"armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and as such, I feel an apology from you to all amateurs, worldwide, is warranted. Firstly, it is obvious that you are merely an "armchair media officer" that has absolutely no idea or concept of what amateur radio is, what equipment we use, and what knowledge we have. Your comments are defamatory to the entire hobby, worldwide, and are proof that the UPLC hav absolutely no interests other than their own profit margin. It seems that 'truth' is a concept that is lost on people such as yourself. The level of your own technical inadequacy is further proven by your comment in the release: "Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).". Elementary school level research will tell you that the High Frequency (HF) band actually only covers from 3.0 MHz to 30 MHz, so again your own "armchair media officers that still use kindergarten research material" have shown their level of incompetence. Whilst I do not believe you are mature enough to admit your errors and apologise to the international amateur radio community for your misguided and inaccurate stereotyping, I can only hope that those in power will see your media release for the inaccurate, defamatory and poorly reasearched garbage that it is. Yours most disrespectfully Martin Howells Australian Amateur Station VK2UMJ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com