In article ,
says...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic wrote:

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.


The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

You are just the kind of sheep that big business loves. BPL as it stands
is a BAD idea. The interference potential isn't just to amateur radio
but a host of other services.

Amateur radio is a hobby, yes -- but it is a hobby that also provides
training for services to the public. E.g., search and rescue operations
(e.g., much of the shuttle debris was in areas with no cell-phone or
regular two-way radio service), emergency communications when major
power outages occur, etc., etc.

Alan AB2OS


On 03/10/04 08:35 pm Barry OGrady put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

Amateur radio is a hobby, yes -- but it is a hobby that also provides
training for services to the public. E.g., search and rescue operations
(e.g., much of the shuttle debris was in areas with no cell-phone or
regular two-way radio service), emergency communications when major
power outages occur, etc., etc.

Alan AB2OS


On 03/10/04 08:35 pm Barry OGrady put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic
wrote:

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.


The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few
amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that
unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.


Well, guess you are not a US Radio Amateur, or you would
know that Amateur Radio is not a hobby, but is a service.

If you ARE a ham and live in the US, please go read Part 97 again.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic
wrote:

Tony P. wrote:

We really need to fight this and make them do the right thing. And it's
a bit like un-ringing the bell. There are a whole lot of transceivers
out there that put out anywhere from 50W to 200W right out of the box.
And a whole lot more amps that kick up to the 1.5KW range. Granted, the
FCC knows who and where every ham in the U.S. happens to be, but they
don't know exactly what gear you've got do they? I mean I'm an extra
without an HF rig right now.

And when you think about it, a properly placed 5W transmitter will do
stuttering wonders for BPL.

BPL needs to be killed and pronto.


The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...


73 ... WA7AA

What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few
amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that
unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.


Well, guess you are not a US Radio Amateur, or you would
know that Amateur Radio is not a hobby, but is a service.

If you ARE a ham and live in the US, please go read Part 97 again.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?

That my friends is a very important question. How much do they value
our knowledge and volunteer emergency services?


Tony P. wrote:

The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...

73 ... WA7AA

--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?

That my friends is a very important question. How much do they value
our knowledge and volunteer emergency services?


Tony P. wrote:

The FCC tune has already changed. Read the article at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/03/09/1/?nc=1

Notice the FCC statement "...Powell responded to the question by saying
the FCC would not let BPL interfere with critical services."

Now the protection appears to have migrated to "critical" services only,
and the burden of proof is thus shifted to amateur radio to show how our
service is "critical" and worthy of protection against the
best-thing-since-sliced-bread BPL.

And they are about to lock up a goddamn housewife while these vultures
roam unimpeded...

73 ... WA7AA

--

Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly

Pappy wrote:

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?
...

Hmmm...how much campaign money does the ARRL give???...

Pappy wrote:

Your most important words whe "Critical Services", does the FCC
consider amateur radio such a service?
...

Hmmm...how much campaign money does the ARRL give???...

Regardless of your ignorance, it is the amateurs that are pointing out the
potential problems of BPL. If nothing else, this speaks volumes about the
need for reasonable tests for potential amateurs (not something that you can
walk into a test and walk away with an 'extra' class license). The code/no
code arguement, in my opinion, is moot; what is more to the point is what
these amateurs can and *do* contribute, regardless of the rants of many
folks who may be envious of the frequencies available to amateurs.

I worked in EMC compliance. We had a problem with interference from
powerlines. Yes, it is possible to reduce the problem. Whilst it won't
qualify as a test to pass a particular piece of hardware, it is *great* for
determining sources of RFI. Someone has a problem with RF interference to
home equipment (not necessarily amateur). How do you solve it? I've helped
in both cases. Some folks have minds so closed that they can't see the
forest for the trees (or vice-versa).

I remember finishing my active duty with the U.S. Navy. I suspect it was
verteran's day as there had been a parade and I was in a bar later on. A
few guys in Navy uniforms had a problem. I overheard the conversation.
Their transmitter had low output and couldn't tune. I went over to them and
asked to see the transmitter. Sure enough, a bad cap in the tank circuit.
We repaired it on the spot (dang if I didn't get hornswaggled into joining
the reserves LOL).

When folks like you ask "did you repair that pothole in interstate 90
between ....", you are missing the point. It is the knowlege and theory
that can enable hams to assist in many situations. Although I had engaged
in emergency communications on Guam Island (and it was many years ago) and
an SOS on 500 KHz at sea (also many years ago), you assume that I am
obsolete. I would suggest that bad capacitors still happen and the folks
with some technical background still can help. Although that situation with
the U.S. Naval Reserve was many years ago, I've also repaired much more
modern transceivers in the past decade. I am also quite capable of reducing
interference between devices today. You dwell on the past; the technically
astute needn't.

BTW, BPL is *not* going to serve the "underserved". I won't explain it.
You take the time and effort (*if* you have the perseverence - which I
doubt - and research it).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:46:09 GMT, Zoran Brlecic
wrote:


What needs to be weighed up is the cost/benefit ratio.
If BPL can benefit a huge number of people while inconveniencing a few
amateurs
then it is justified. Remember that amateur radio is a hobby that
unjustifiably occupies
valuable radio spectrum.

--


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.615 / Virus Database: 394 - Release Date: 3/8/04