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

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

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"

Links for the key filings (pro BPL and anti BPL) are here;
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/B...yperlinks.html

Good reply examples are below;
Notes
You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your
thoughts.
You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have
your support.

Andrew Leeds - response to UPLC
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514288 117

Lee McVey - response to Amperion
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 923

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539

Cortland Richmond - response to PowerWan
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 407

Lee McVey - response to UPLC
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 392

Cortland Richmond - response to Florida Light and Power
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 386

Arthur Guy - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 323

Good general comments
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 303

Ashley Lane - response to Ameren
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 129

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 007

Cortland Richmond - response to Southern Linc
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 932

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to National Academy of Science
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 161

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to Amateur Radio Research and
Development Corp.
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 102

Lawrence Macioski - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514083 272

Robert Read - response to ARRL
http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514082 900

"Mike Ro Farad" wrote in message news:i3AWa.19213$ff.18880@fed1read01...
Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.

Great advice Carl, also good advice for this news group --
Let's exhibit a quality image of Amateur Radio
10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-4?

Millie Am Pair for OM Mike Ro Farad



"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

"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
m...
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


Well, in the worst case scenario, APP is exactly right. We *will* have to
make adjustments. Here's my thought: this is going to happen time and time
again. Frequencies are prime real estate right now and will get even moreso
in the future. This is not going to go away.


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?"


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

Links for the key filings (pro BPL and anti BPL) are here;
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/B...yperlinks.html

Good reply examples are below;
Notes
You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your
thoughts.
You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have
your support.


Good idea. Make everyone think uniformly...yeah, that's the ticket! On the
other hand, those who have no idea what BPL may be about, what impacts it
has, etc., will be "following" something they have no idea about. Maybe BPL
is a bad thing for ham radio, but maybe it's a good thing for us as a whole.
Do I want to accommodate ham radio, or the rest of my fellow citizens and
what this may do for them? What alternatives would the commercial interests
have to BPL technology, and how much would that cost us?

Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably
now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority...LOL what a
concept.

Kim W5TIT


Andrew Leeds - response to UPLC

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514288 117

Lee McVey - response to Amperion

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 923

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539

Cortland Richmond - response to PowerWan

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 407

Lee McVey - response to UPLC

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 392

Cortland Richmond - response to Florida Light and Power

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 386

Arthur Guy - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 323

Good general comments

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 303

Ashley Lane - response to Ameren

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 129

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 007

Cortland Richmond - response to Southern Linc

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 932

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to National Academy of Science

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 161

Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to Amateur Radio Research and
Development Corp.

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514286 102

Lawrence Macioski - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514083 272

Robert Read - response to ARRL

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514082 900

"Mike Ro Farad" wrote in message
news:i3AWa.19213$ff.18880@fed1read01...
Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.

Great advice Carl, also good advice for this news group --
Let's exhibit a quality image of Amateur Radio
10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-67 10-4?

Millie Am Pair for OM Mike Ro Farad



"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



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

"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
m...

Good reply examples are below;
Notes
You can cut paste - key is the comments you submit represent your
thoughts.
You can also reply to support comments i.e. the ARRL comments have
your support.


I looked through the first several. Of those, this is the one I like the
best:


Nickolaus E. Leggett - response to NA Shortwave Association

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs...t=6514287 539


It leaves some things open for debate, as any will. But, out of this comes
my opinion that BPL is probably a risky idea due to the politics of
it--meaning that the power grid for the United States probably should not
become a transmission source for other companies (which would likely be a
step in the futu power companies "renting" their transmission lines for
BPL technology). Sounds like too much regulatory soup to me...

Kim W5TIT


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

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"Rob Kemp" wrote in message
om...
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."

Well, in the worst case scenario, APP is exactly right. We *will* have to
make adjustments. Here's my thought: this is going to happen time and time
again. Frequencies are prime real estate right now and will get even moreso
in the future. This is not going to go away.

Kim:

I think you're missing a basic point of radio regulation here.

The radio spectrum is a limited, shared resource, which is why we have
different services, licenses, etc. And of course there must be a balance
between the needs of various services, such as broadcasting vs. hams vs.
maritime users, etc.

But BPL isn't a *user* of the radio spectrum, just a *polluter*. And a basic
principle of regulation has been that polluters must not interfere with
licensed users. APP's comment turns that on its head, saying the licensed users
must not only accomodate the polluters, but that the burden of proof is on the
licensed users, not the polluters. HUH?

Imagine a river that is used for many purposes - transportation, recreation,
energy production, food production, etc. Different parts of the river are
reserved for different purposes and all benefit from the river. The different
users of the river all pay for licenses and support preservation and
intelligent use of the river.

Then along comes a company that wants to use the river as a dump for its
industrial waste, without paying any fees and without regard for other users of
the river, who are NOT allowed to dump anything into the river at all! The
company says they should be allowed to dump their waste into the river wherever
and whenever they want, and if the other river users don't like it, too bad.

On top of all this, other companies in the same business do not dump waste into
anybody's river. Instead, they invest heavily in new technology so that they
don't generate much waste in the first place, and also invest in treatment,
containment and disposal technology so that what little waste they do generate
is handled safelyt. Those other companies are in direct competiton with the new
company, but they don't get the exception the new company is asking for.

Some folks think BPL is only an HF problem, but the systems proposed go as high
as 80 MHz, which includes 6 meters. And if there are any harmonics produced,
watch out 2 meters and above.

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?

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

What is YOUR thinking on BPL, KIm?

On the
other hand, those who have no idea what BPL may be about, what impacts it
has, etc., will be "following" something they have no idea about. Maybe BPL
is a bad thing for ham radio, but maybe it's a good thing for us as a whole.

How could it be a good thing for us as a whole? Most of us have a choice of
dialup, DSL or cable. Do we really need another choice, particularly one that
pollutes the radio spectrum to a level much higher than the others?

Perhaps where you live DSL and cable are not available, or are expensive. :
Access BPL won't solve your problem, because it is basically a short-range
"last mile" technology, and the target markets are high density suburban areas,
not rural.

Do I want to accommodate ham radio, or the rest of my fellow citizens and
what this may do for them? What alternatives would the commercial interests
have to BPL technology, and how much would that cost us?

It's not just about ham radio, but about all users of the spectrum, and setting
a precedent. And if it's somehow OK to trash 2-80 MHz, why not 80-500 MHz?

Do the people supporting BPL care what they do to the radio spectrum?

Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably
now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority...LOL what a
concept.

"The majority" already have access to DSL, cable modems, dialup, and a wide
range of other systems. Will BPL be cheaper? More reliable? I don't see how.
Show me.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably
now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority.

No, I think you will be lambasted for not doing your homework and
understanding the issue.

"BPL" is an unlicensed service which proposes that it be allowed to
inject RF (radio signals) into the AC distribution grid. This RF will
extend across the MF/HF spectrum, and up into the lower VHF spectrum,
and the power lines will act not as a transmission line, but as an
antenna. The interference will potentially affect EVERY RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (not just hams) who use the affected spectrum.

In fact, BPL is a single unlicensed service which would presume to
pollute the spectrum used by the "majority" (your word, not mine) of all
long distance radio communications services.

Kim, you seem to be a person concerned with social issues. That's a
great quality. Go to your local library and research the term "tragedy
of the commons".

Good luck on this one now.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB



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

K0HB wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote

Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am probably
now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority.


No, I think you will be lambasted for not doing your homework and
understanding the issue.

"BPL" is an unlicensed service which proposes that it be allowed to
inject RF (radio signals) into the AC distribution grid. This RF will
extend across the MF/HF spectrum, and up into the lower VHF spectrum,
and the power lines will act not as a transmission line, but as an
antenna. The interference will potentially affect EVERY RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (not just hams) who use the affected spectrum.

That includes Homeland defense, defense, broadcasting, lots of people
besides hams.

In fact, BPL is a single unlicensed service which would presume to
pollute the spectrum used by the "majority" (your word, not mine) of all
long distance radio communications services.

BPL seems like one of those diminished performance systems that have
been foisted on the public more and more. If a person is tempted to
disagree, I'd ask how many of us would accept the performance on our
home telephones that we accept on cellular- "can you hear me now?"

People seem to forget that the power lines make a recieving antenna as
well as a transmitting antenna. My suspicion is that with the error
checking that will have to take place a lot on any BPL system, we will
be lucky to get to 56K modem speeds.

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

Thanks for your explanation, Jim.

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


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


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.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Maybe they'll ditch the whole thing...

Kim W5TIT


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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
K0HB wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote

Gosh, those are just a few questions people may encounter, and I am
probably
now going to be lambasted for thinking about the majority.


No, I think you will be lambasted for not doing your homework and
understanding the issue.

"BPL" is an unlicensed service which proposes that it be allowed to
inject RF (radio signals) into the AC distribution grid. This RF will
extend across the MF/HF spectrum, and up into the lower VHF spectrum,
and the power lines will act not as a transmission line, but as an
antenna. The interference will potentially affect EVERY RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (not just hams) who use the affected spectrum.

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


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

Why bother, Ham Radio as it was know is dead anyway.


"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