Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:04 EDT, Mike Coslo
wrote: While it does indeed interfere with our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far, however. If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same "money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws radar systems. My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 11, 3:21 pm, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote: In fact, the future of the hobby is now in OUR hands, and unless we start working together and stop sniping at each other over minor things like the modes we use, we're going to fade away without anyone noticing. AMEN! Hams are members of a group comprising about one quarter of one per cent of the U.S. population. We have strong common interests as a result of that shared minority status. Let's focus on those common interests, rather than on minor differences in our mode preferences or whether we say "name" or "handle" or "first personal". These petty arguments remind me of sail-boaters and power-boaters arguing among themselves about which technology is "most efficient", or "gets through rough water", or whatever, while in the meantime a commercial interest is petitioning to drain the water out of the lake and converting the whole stinking place to an industrial park. Friends, our "lake" of spectrum is in danger of being drained away -- spend your energy and intellect trying to solve that problem which MEANS SOMETHING to everyone of us, instead of arguing over the merits/ demerits of Morse testing, or whether "hi hi" on voice is acceptable. Without spectrum, there is no Amateur Radio. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- The dust will not settle in our time. And when it does some great roaring machine will come and whirl it all skyhigh again. |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same "money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws radar systems. Fortunately, the legal situations which exist with regard to those two situations are rather different. w/r/t the PAVE PAWS radar systems in the 420 - 450 MHz frequency band, the government radar system is the primary user of this frequency spectrum, and has been for years. Amateur operators are secondary users of these frequencies, and are (and have been) explicitly required to limit use of these frequencies so that amateur use does not interfere with the primary users (radar). All that has happened recently, is that the government users have actually asserted that amateur use _is_ interfering with radar, and that amateur users must eliminate the interference as is required by the FCC rules. In short, the Air Force has the law on their side. We can hope that the ARRL's work to come up with a selective interference-mitigation program will succeed... but if the Air Force gets snicky and insists on a total shutdown of 70 cm ham repeaters near the PAVE PAWS sites, they can make it stick. The situation with BPL is different, as least as far as the law reads today... BPL operators have *no* licensed right to radiate in the amateur bands, while amateur users are either primary or secondary users of these bands. The ARRL is making a pretty good case that the FCC is ignoring both the law (national, and perhaps even international law and treaty obligations), and their own regulations, in allowing BPL operators to behave as they are. My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. Agreed. The BPL providers have made big noise about how BPL will open up broadband access to rural customers who are not now served by any broadband providers. It would be amusing to see what would happen if the FCC were to offer these providers the right to continue operating BPL systems with current emission levels... but *only* on the condition that the providers would agree to fund a build-out of their system to cover 90% or more of rural customers. Imagine the howls of "Oh, we can't afford that!" -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote:
My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. I share that opinion, Phil, as do most others in the telecomm industry that I associate with. For all the hoopla generated from POTUS right on down into the ranks of FCC, the stark fact is that real-live users (notice I didn't say 'paying customers') of BPL number under 10,000 nationwide, and most of those 'users' are participants in 'trials' and 'feasibility studies'. After a half-decade of promotion, BPL has been unable to gain economic traction in the form of 'production' installations in real customer bases. In five years BPL with be nothing more than a footnote in some telecom technical journals as a dead-end technological curiosity which never made a dime. Last time I checked there were less than 8,000 paid and 'demonstration' subscribers, and the number was dwindling. Meanwhile every second issue of QST contains another confrontational "It seems to us" K1ZZ jeremiad about BPL, we see ARRL President W5ZN sending huffy letters to the FCC Chairman, ARRL has challenged the Commission in Federal court, and now a ham in Congress is pushing for a Bill to have a Congressional "study" of the matter.. All this over an issue that is already dying a quiet death-by-apathy on the part of the commercial telecommunications community. I've spent two successful careers in professional telecommunications, and maintain strong personal and professional ties in the industry. Up until about 5 years ago Amateur Radio enjoyed a very positive reputation among the "pros", but today we are mostly viewed as obstructionist old coots without a clue, and it's getting worse. This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother", and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately calculated to raise our "bother quotient". We should expect no support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a hastening of that event. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- {{{{* http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .com,
KOHB wrote: [...] This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother", and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately calculated to raise our "bother quotient". We should expect no support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a hastening of that event. I am not certain of that. Sometimes, government agencies are not able to give voice to certain positions because of political pressures from elected officials and their temporary appointees. The 'work-around' is to get some pliant non-governmental organization to give voice to those controversial positions. It is a sort of 'good cop/bad cop' routine. The ARRL has been the FCC's lapdog for so many decades that it is tough to imagine that they have suddenly grown a backbone. |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 19, 12:50 am, Klystron wrote:
The ARRL has been the FCC's lapdog for so many decades that it is tough to imagine that they have suddenly grown a backbone. This issue (BPL) will collapse from a case of market apathy. ARRL is squandering good will and good money on an issue that the "pros" in telecommunications have already written off as a non-starter. We should have saved our "silver bullets" to fight a real threat. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phil Kane wrote in
: On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:04 EDT, Mike Coslo wrote: While it does indeed interfere with our service, we can inadvertantly shut it down just by transmitting legally. I wonder how the customers will feel about losing their access for large chunks of time. I really don't think it will ever get that far, however. If that were to happen, the BPL providers would exercise the same "money talks and big money talks loudly" leverage as they have done to get BPL approved, and thereby get the FCC to shut the Amateur Radio services down in those areas, much as the Air Force (my pre-FCC employer) is clobbering 3/4 meter band operation with their Pave Paws radar systems. I think the two situations are a little different, depending on who is the primary and secondary users of a particular frequency. I wonder if they will ban The users of 11 meters too? 5 watts is enough to disrupt BPL. I don't think that the money will talk loudly enough as the sunspot cycle picks up again. Could be wrong about that tho' And even if so, It is just poor technology, and has so many levels of possible failure. My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. We agree on that, for sure. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
K?HB wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:59:36 EDT:
On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote: My personal opinion is that BPL will self-destruct on economic grounds if we amateurs can just hold out long enough. snip In five years BPL with be nothing more than a footnote in some telecom technical journals as a dead-end technological curiosity which never made a dime. Last time I checked there were less than 8,000 paid and 'demonstration' subscribers, and the number was dwindling. The June 2007 issue of the IEEE Spectrum has a Special Report which is over-titled "By 2008 More Than Half Of The World's Population Will Live In Urban Areas." Note "world's population," not just the USA. That further reduces some (mythical?) need to bring the Internet- structure to rural users, the popular rationale for BPL...as touted by the FCC Commissioners of the recent regime. Meanwhile most of those "isolated" rural users are doing just fine with their POTS. Here in southern six-land there is intense competition among the cable TV providers to offer high-speed Internet connectivity (768 KBPS on the cheapest plan) using the already-installed cable TV "wires." Much of the Greater Los Angeles area and adjoining foothill communities are already so "wired." We don't need subcarriers on AC primary power lines to carry even low-speed Internet. Meanwhile every second issue of QST contains another confrontational "It seems to us" K1ZZ jeremiad about BPL, we see ARRL President W5ZN sending huffy letters to the FCC Chairman, ARRL has challenged the Commission in Federal court, and now a ham in Congress is pushing for a Bill to have a Congressional "study" of the matter.. All this over an issue that is already dying a quiet death-by-apathy on the part of the commercial telecommunications community. Ah, but BPL very definitely remains a clear and present danger to HF radio users. SOMEONE has to carry the banner of Forces Against BPL. We can't ask the apathetic to do it...they have, well, too much apathy to do it. However, the forces that be at Newington are feeling the mortality symptoms of their organization. They feel they must DO SOMETHING now that they no longer have the clout with the FCC they've always assumed was theirs. They may not have received an onslaught of New Members as a result of the revolutionary effect of 06-178. They seem worried, thus all the more reason to SAY something to prove they still "have what it takes to lead their membership." But, I agree with you that they've gone over-the-top in their response. Sincerely, Len AF6AY |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 17, 12:50 pm, wrote:
Yup. Why FCC considers them different bands, even though they are right next to each other, is a mystery. The high end of the band is at 75-meters, the low end at 85-meters (give or take). On average, I guess it's 80 meters. I'm just glad they don't make us call the MF/HF bands: 166.666666666666667-meters, 85.714285714285714-meters, 42.857142857142857-meters, 29.702970297029703-meters, 21.428571428571429-meters, 16.603940668585344-meters, 14.285714285714286-meters, 12.053033346725593-meters, and 10.714285714285714-meters. Beep beep, de Hans, K0HB |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
K?HB wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:59:36 EDT:
On Jun 18, 3:56 am, Phil Kane wrote: I've spent two successful careers in professional telecommunications, and maintain strong personal and professional ties in the industry. Up until about 5 years ago Amateur Radio enjoyed a very positive reputation among the "pros", but today we are mostly viewed as obstructionist old coots without a clue, and it's getting worse. Well, I've only had one career in radio-electronics counting my particular military service. "Successful?" For me? Well, I want for nothing having finished it. As a mostly-licensed-NOT-in-amateur- radio for all of that time, I would make your "5 years" into 20 or 25 years. The pro telecommunications and radio-electronics industries were established and grown by NON-amateurs from the get-go, despite all the legendary hoopla from old-timer-hams. This is absolutely the wrong time to be making enemies of the agency which controls our service. Kid yourselves not, our Amateur Radio service exists only so long as FCC considers us "worth the bother", and the recent behavior of ARRL seems, in my opinion, deliberately calculated to raise our "bother quotient". The ARRL (I am a voting member) rather blew it big-time with their "Regulation By Bandwidth" proposal. Both their original petition and subsequent retraction of that looked to my non-legal eyes as written by undergrad law students. Real attorneys would have fun with such things and would have to really work to try to find out what those documents were trying to say or convey. One of the signs of the Newington group feeling their own mortality is the "Diamond Terrace" proposal and "membership (for extra money)." [call it the mausoleum syndrome] I have nothing against a building reconstruction or spiffying-up a place of work. But buying a brick for cash just to have some quasi-immortality by members? Okay, if they need cash inflow so much, then the League ought to cater towards those three-fourths of all US ham licensees who are NOT members. We should expect no support from the pros when FCC decides they've had enough of us; in fact we should expect them to cheer from the sidelines as we are sent off the field of play. Recent news out of Newington portends to me a hastening of that event. I don't share your gloom and doom there. I say US amateur radio will NOT suffer any near-future demise. The FCC full well recognizes that amateur radio IS a hobby (even if they don't say so outright). The FCC also recognizes that other RF emitters are also for hobby activities; see the 100 channels allocated for model radio control use at 72+ MHz, well after the first HF CB creation. Hobbyists are ALSO citizens and the federal government is obliged to listen to them as well as the evil big-money capitalists (who are also citizens). If there be danger, then it is to future allocations of and about amateur radio. WARC-79 gave international hams new bands in HF. But, that was 28 years ago. What have the US hams gotten lately? A few individual channels at "60m?" Those 60m channels was originally a League proposal for a whole band, not a few channels. Newington has always been oriented to HF. That's not where the future of radio is...the future is above 30 MHz where most of the rest of the radio world has gone and expanded. If the ARRL wants to concentrate on spectrum territory where their core membership operates at and using old tried-and-true modes, fine, but I see that as just catering to a minority of a minority. I see it as just plain IGNORING the majority of licensees. That ain't leadership. Sincerely, Len, AF6AY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I want more (Nominations for Civility Awards) | Policy | |||
I want more (Nominations for Civility Awards) | CB | |||
Nominations so far for Civility Awards | Policy | |||
Nominations so far for Civility Awards | CB | |||
civility please? | Shortwave |