He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this
forum (rightly so)
that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a
weapon.

He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this
forum (rightly so)
that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a
weapon.

My dear friend,

This is not the case.

I work with hams and have hams on my board. And, of course, I am a ham. There
is no 'weapon'.

The issue is the following:

Does ham radio accept the wireless /telecom revolution, or does it live in the
past?

Dual use of spectrum with the proper guidelines and thoughtful restrictions is
the way to go, so that millions of folks can share in this evolving radio
landscape. BPL will be only one of many adopted technologies in this mix.

What's happened is that a very few vocal hams have gone totally ballistic and
used any and all tactics possible to try to kill a new technology called BPL.

My point is that those of us who dissent (relative to those such as yourself)
on this matter , and in fact we have a logical, rational, and objective view,
should have our opportunity to voice our opinion as well.

The few radical hams who have tried to represent radio amateurs in the United
States as a whole, do not,in fact, represent that body.

The FCC must represent the people of the United States, and more specifically
in this case, the WHOLE radio amateur service.

They watch out and do what's best for the SERVICE--not a few very vocal hams.

I think the latest modifications to Part 15 are a brilliant roadmap to allowing
new technologies to be a viable dual user of spectrum with licensed services.
That includes the BPL use of the HF spectrum.

I'm also very enthusiastic about the other technologies that have been
discussed here, including, among others, Wi-Max.

Obviously there will be some markets where BPL does well, and others where it
won't.

But for a few vocal hams to try to kill a new technology only focuses the
spotlight back on us, as, in fact, it has this past Summer and Spring (for
example, the front page Wall Street Journal article). And that focus makes us
look antiquated and silly to the outside world.

I don't feel (and am not) antiquated and silly. Are you?

Hams need to move ahead--not just anecdotally-- with new modes and
technologies. There is HUGE resistance to that, and the world has and is
passing us by.

I think this is very sad, and I cannot condone that.

So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels.

With Best wishes,

Chip N1IR

So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels.

With Best wishes,

Chip N1IR



Oh, not this sh1t again! Go away troller!!!

BUm

(Fractenna) wrote in message

I work with hams and have hams on my board. And, of course, I am a ham. There
is no 'weapon'.

Too bad...I'm a ham, and I have a shotgun within arms reach...I sleep
better at night knowing that...

The issue is the following:

Does ham radio accept the wireless /telecom revolution, or does it live in the
past?

I'd rather live in the past, than live with digital spew across the hf
spectrum.

Dual use of spectrum with the proper guidelines and thoughtful restrictions is
the way to go, so that millions of folks can share in this evolving radio
landscape. BPL will be only one of many adopted technologies in this mix.

Dual use....Right....

What's happened is that a very few vocal hams have gone totally ballistic and
used any and all tactics possible to try to kill a new technology called BPL.


Good for them....

My point is that those of us who dissent (relative to those such as yourself)
on this matter , and in fact we have a logical, rational, and objective view,
should have our opportunity to voice our opinion as well.

I've read that about three times, and it still doesn't really make any
sense...


The few radical hams who have tried to represent radio amateurs in the United
States as a whole, do not,in fact, represent that body.

The ARRL is composed of only radical, ballistic, troublemakers? Damn,
maybe I should apply for a membership after all....

The FCC must represent the people of the United States, and more specifically
in this case, the WHOLE radio amateur service.

They screwed the pooch on this issue, if they have the WHOLE radio
amateur service in mind...Not to mention, others live there also..."HF
spectrum"

They watch out and do what's best for the SERVICE--not a few very vocal hams.

Bullcrap....They do whatever the big money dictates...And maybe who
can bend over the farthest....Whoever ramrodded this BPL crap through,
probably needs a jar of vasoline...

I think the latest modifications to Part 15 are a brilliant roadmap to allowing
new technologies to be a viable dual user of spectrum with licensed services.

I've got news for you. Dual use of the HF spectrum, with the exception
of SS, will never work. I think the new modifications are a primetime
cluster#$%@ of ignorance.

That includes the BPL use of the HF spectrum.

That means BPL most likely taking over the HF spectrum...It will
become so trashed with digital spew, no one else would want to use it.



Obviously there will be some markets where BPL does well, and others where it
won't.

But for a few vocal hams to try to kill a new technology only focuses the
spotlight back on us, as, in fact, it has this past Summer and Spring (for
example, the front page Wall Street Journal article). And that focus makes us
look antiquated and silly to the outside world.


Again, pure crap. I read the letter from one of the powerline
empiretts...
She made herself look silly to the outside world, due to all the
blatant misconceptions she had about hams...IE: most still use tube
gear, most are inbred CB wannabees, etc...You should read the letter I
sent her. I gave her a complete front end alignment free of charge. So
did about 15,000 other hams I think. Some, who were VERY up to date on
BPL technology. Hams are not against new technology. Hams are against
it sharing the same frequencies as an existing technology. There is no
good reason for it. AT ALL!

I don't feel (and am not) antiquated and silly. Are you?

You may not be antiquated, but you are without a doubt, one of the
silliest *******s I've ever come across on usenet. You can take that
any way you want...
I'm sure many will back me up on this conclusion.

Hams need to move ahead--not just anecdotally-- with new modes and
technologies. There is HUGE resistance to that, and the world has and is
passing us by.

Pure and simple horsecrap...BPL is *NOT* an amateur radio related
endeavour.
We do NOT need non amateur radio endeavours, and the resulting digital
spew, in *OUR* amateur bands.

I think this is very sad, and I cannot condone that.

Another day, another $2.31... Next...

So this is how one very informed radio amateur feels.

That statement is open to further debate....MK

Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions
posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of
his answers.

-SSB

jj wrote:

He and his fractal antenna crap have been ridiculed so much on this
forum (rightly so)
that he feels compelled to use the BPL issue against fellow hams as a
weapon.

You know what the trouble is with us amateurs is ?

We are stuck in the analogue age... We should all be using digital
communications by now..

Wasn't there a time when amateurs were ahead of commercial design?

Now all we do is complain when the commercial world brings out new
technology that
causes a problem with our old technology.

Look at the big picture people... We are still using analogue
communications..
Blimey , even my home phone is digital. My CD player is digital, my TV is
digital.

That's my 2 pence worth ( about 4 cents... )

Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions
posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of
his answers.

-SSB

Chris,

It is important that you express care when making statements that are false.

It's quite OK with me if you take a strong tone or attitude. It's not in your
best interest, however, to posit things in a false light for the sake of taking
things over the top against me as an individual.

You seem to have concerns about fractal antennas, which I have been forthcoming
about and dead honest.

I have no continued interest in 'defending' fractal antennas in this forum, for
the simple reason that the technology and the science are proven, accepted, and
well beyond this point.

You asked me about a specific design, and I provided you the info.

I also provided you info on how it was tested, but you chose not to accept that
info.

That's all there is, Chris.

Now, be the nice guy you are and don't seek to be a defamer or propagandist.

As for BPL, it would be wonderful if all the (few) uppity hams upset with BPL
could target an individual to accomplish their goal. The reality is that the
battle is lost, for the simple reason that there is no battle, and attacking me
only, apparently makes ham radio look bad in general; IMO.

I am not the only one who feels, or notices, how backward we are as a group of
communicators from a applied use of technology viewpoint. We need to understand
that HF communications needs to be advanced by hams AS hams, and not revered
in the same mold from 1967.

BPL will now be decided in the marketplace, not the histrionic hyperbole of a
few hams. Accept it.

I hope you will agree with me that this was always the case, but a few
emboldened amateurs failed to grasp that reality.

Have a pleasant day.

73,
Chip N1IR

I made no false statements.

You did, indeed, provide the "data", but you never answered when I
asked you for contact information for the range that performed the
tests, or a website not owned or run by your "company" which can
verify the figures you gave.

I can type out db gains off the cuff, too..

The fact is you didn't respond to that question.

You also didn't respond to the question about who had so much
information on me. You got the callsign right. You have internet
access. You know where to go to look up a HAM's email address, if they
have one. You apparently refuse to understand why someone wouldn't put
their real email address on usenet. And finally, you apparently refuse
to take the steps necessary to accurately and completely answer
questions posed to you, without evasion of any sort.

So where's the lie?

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

Don't forget, he's STILL not giving straight answers to the questions
posed to him, nor providing independent sources for verification of
his answers.

-SSB


Chris,

It is important that you express care when making statements that are false.

It's quite OK with me if you take a strong tone or attitude. It's not in your
best interest, however, to posit things in a false light for the sake of taking
things over the top against me as an individual.

You seem to have concerns about fractal antennas, which I have been forthcoming
about and dead honest.

I have no continued interest in 'defending' fractal antennas in this forum, for
the simple reason that the technology and the science are proven, accepted, and
well beyond this point.

You asked me about a specific design, and I provided you the info.

I also provided you info on how it was tested, but you chose not to accept that
info.

That's all there is, Chris.

Now, be the nice guy you are and don't seek to be a defamer or propagandist.

As for BPL, it would be wonderful if all the (few) uppity hams upset with BPL
could target an individual to accomplish their goal. The reality is that the
battle is lost, for the simple reason that there is no battle, and attacking me
only, apparently makes ham radio look bad in general; IMO.

I am not the only one who feels, or notices, how backward we are as a group of
communicators from a applied use of technology viewpoint. We need to understand
that HF communications needs to be advanced by hams AS hams, and not revered
in the same mold from 1967.

BPL will now be decided in the marketplace, not the histrionic hyperbole of a
few hams. Accept it.

I hope you will agree with me that this was always the case, but a few
emboldened amateurs failed to grasp that reality.

Have a pleasant day.

73,
Chip N1IR

I made no false statements.

Yes sir, you did.

73,
Chip N1IR

Back that statement up, with evidence.

You've made the accusation, now prove it. Innocent until proven
guilty, and all that.

If (and when) you can't. I'll accept your apology.

-SSB

Fractenna wrote:

I made no false statements.


Yes sir, you did.

73,
Chip N1IR