"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people
besides hams.


Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh?

Kim W5TIT

And that is the most naive statement about the workings of government that I
have ever seen.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people
besides hams.


Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh?

Kim W5TIT

And that is the most naive statement about the workings of government that
I
have ever seen.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


heh heh heh...all my comments on the BPL issue have been to rattle chains
and nothing else. But, I am even having a hard time doing that; couldn't
you tell I was getting desperate?

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Kim W5TIT" wrote


Aw, Hans...and just when the sand was drying from your britches...


Britches?????




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article , "Kim"
writes:

Thanks for your explanation, Jim.

You're welcome.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"

writes:

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

I guess you're making the assumption that everyone who is a ham would be
against this? Or, are you really being that generous where it's a
"everyone
should have their voice thing?"

Do you think BPL is a good thing, Kim?

Whether I think it's a good thing or not wasn't the point of my comments.

I know. That's why I asked the question.

The point was that I wonder if a "blanket invitation" for comments would
extend to those who may think it is a good idea.

The original poster wrote:

"Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP."

Looks pretty blanket to me.

Good idea. Make everyone think uniformly...yeah, that's the ticket!

What is YOUR thinking on BPL, KIm?

Well, I don't think I have a position on it, Jim. So, I would personally
refrain from commenting.

Well, there you have it.

I would not automatically think it was a bad idea
just because I am a ham radio operator, though.

Nor would I.

However, after looking at the engineering analyses of what it would mean to
hams and other licensed users of the radio spectrum, I think it is a very bad
idea.

My point with the comments
was that uniformity can sometimes be seen as ignorance--and the FCC is
probably in a position to determine if they are getting canned messages or
not.

Sure. Uniformity can also be seen as strength. If millions of people vote for
Candidate X next year, does that mean ignorance?

Lack of comments can be, and probably will be, interpreted as lack of concern.

It always a good idea, if one is participating in a mass effort to at
least come up with something truly original--even better to come up with
something that directly impacts them.

Exactly. But all that is for naught if no comments are filed.

It is also a good idea to mention relevant background information, such as
amateur and professional radio and engineering experience and education. Even
though we may think that an argument should be judged on its merits alone,
regardless of who authors it, FCC does look at that stuff.

And even if there is no BPL where I live, it will have an impact if I won't be
able to work hams in a BPL area.

btw, BPL will be just as vulnerable to disruption from physical damage as
cable, dialup or DSL because the wires are on the same poles or in the
same
trenches. In fact it will be more vulnerable because the lines are not
shielded.

Maybe they'll ditch the whole thing...

Hopefully. Japan did, after finding out how bad it really is. But I'm not
willing to trust in a "let George do it" attitude. My comments are already on
file, reply comments are in development.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Anyone care to take bets on how BPL performs to say cable modems? DSL?

- Mike KB3EIA -


I can GUARANTEE they wont make a connect anytime Im in my shack.

Dan/W4NTI

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment
period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003.

Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address
by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS
have until midnight at the end of the deadline day.

FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame"
the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's
comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare
are full of them ...).

Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us.

Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Well done Carl. Time to cut the usual RRAP crap and get series here,
screw the unending code test flames, we have a REAL policy problem
this time.

Do you think it is likely that the FCC will pay much if any attention
to the rather offhand electronically filed comments by individual
hams?

We asked for access to 60M. Looked like a done deal until the NTIA
jumped in late in the game and for all practical purposes NTIA pared
our access back considerably from what we expected. Reason: The events
of 9/11/01 caused a top-to-bottom review of all government comms
assets and the gummint itself decided to limit ham interference
potential on 60M for it's own "rediscovered" critical HF comms, etc.,
etc., you don't need the rest. So now we have a potential interference
source for those comms which makes any ham comms on 60M look like
peanuts in comparison, etc., etc. again. Where the hell is NTIA on
THIS one??!

Where are the HF aeronautical users? How 'bout all the emergency
services ops in the 30-50 Mhz range? BPL will not degrade their comms
because the FM they use "rejects noise"? Not hardly. How many
additional non-recreational HF users will be seriously affected by BPL
and where are their "comments"?

The Japanese goverment disallowed BPL because of the obvious threats
it poses to the HF/low vhf spectrum in Japan. How do hams, civilly,
strive to make sure the FCC becomes aware of (tongue in cheek) and
factors in that precedent? Are there any English language sources
available for copies of the Japanese telecomms authorities rationales
for rejecting BPL? Might be useful . .

I'm not a fatalist by nature but unfortunately I think this one is
100% out of our hands. But I think we still have to put up the good
fight.

w3rv

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:

The companies pushing BPL are clearly doing a massive snow job or they have no techincal copmetence,
and that isn't at all likely. They know what this stuff will cause, assuming they do have competent
people and aren't squelching them for the good of the "cause".

Gets down to who is snowing who. I doubt that the power companies have
much in the way of inhouse expertise in the field. It appears that
those who have the big interest in BPL are the firms who have the
expertise, such as it might be, and want to sell their wares to the
power companies. Might be that the power companies were the first
layer to get snowed and now they're at the same game with the FCC.
Looks to me like these outfits are small startups looking for a reason
to exist, none of 'em ring any bells as proven Internet heavyweights.

We don't know who, at what level of competence at FCC is listening
to whom, and *who will decide*, and *on what basis*.

Opaque as hell, so much for "open government". Particularly with the
current administration. But we already knew that.

If "the fix is in" the fight
obviously becomes much, much tougher, and may require court action after the
R&O, and if that's the way it plays out, it HAS to be contested.

Something is going on within the FCC, why did the OET extend the reply
comment period?? I think that's a pretty unusual maneuver. And it was
done by an FCC technical office. I doubt the FCC high-level no-clues
would have let that happen if a real fix was in. Something is up.

This simply won't fly in the real
world. I spent a career working with a statewide Public Safety
communications system that simply could not co-exist with BPL. I can't
imagine those people jsut sitting
on their hands and letting BPL become fact.

Isn't there some sort of national organization for emergency services
techs & engineers?

I haven't spent the hours and hours it would require due to the plodding dialup I use, to read
extensively in the posted comments at FCC website, but I sure wonder if any of the Pub Safety people
are paying attention. I know most of them would love to move up to some U/SHF trunked system but the $$$
involved is prohibitive today, and they WON'T be doing that any time soon, so they'd sure better fight
this off.

My knee-jerk reaction to this was "where are the heavy-hitters like
Motorola" who have a vested interest in lo-band VHF ops?" Silly me,
Motorola would love to have the lo-band trashed in order to move
*everybody" up the spectrum whether the taxpayers can afford it or
not.

Or do the pros already know BPL is going nowhere and can't be bothered
with getting into it??

This bull has more horns than I can count.

Time to ship Carl back to Washington to do something actually useful
this time.


Dick

w3rv

Rob Kemp wrote:

Quote from the American Public Power Association; "the burden should
be imposed on challengers to BPL to demonstrate interference in a
fact-based, empirical proof. Further, to the extent that interference
is demonstrated, there should be an attempt to accommodate BPL, even
if it means that existing communications providers may have to share
or transfer bandwidth."
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 496


BPL is not a system that needs to radiate RF signals to do its job, it
would be an
unintentional radiator. It's a system going point to point via wires,
not a system
that uses isolated boxes (radios) that communicate via RF "over the
air". Thus there
is no reason why we would need to share spectrum with BPL.

Critical everyone submits a reply comment ASAP.

To file, go here;
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
"Proceeding" field, enter "03-104"
"Document Type" select "Reply to comments"

Well then, if it's *that* bad, I'm sure it'll be defeated, eh?

Kim W5TIT


And that is the most naive statement about the workings of government that I
have ever seen.



Typical of Kim, I'm afraid



Kim was using sarcasm..... Wasn't that obvious? :-(

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


I haven't spent the hours and hours it would require due to the plodding
dialup I use, to read
extensively in the posted comments at FCC website, but I sure wonder if
any of the Pub Safety people
are paying attention. I know most of them would love to move up to some
U/SHF trunked system but the $$$
involved is prohibitive today, and they WON'T be doing that any time soon,
so they'd sure better fight
this off.

Dick


Dick,

Perhaps they are just sitting by waiting to be run off their present
allocations..In order to FORCE a move to the higher bands....eh?

Dan/W4NTI