The way to stop BPL
 

Heres the solution to the BPL problem, it makes you wonder why someone hasnt
done it yet.
First stop messing with FCC, these Clowns have all ready made up there minds.
Look at the Present Dumbing Down, which as been brought to us VIA the FCC
Morrons. So believe me they could care less about Hams. And stop waisting your
time sending in your comments to the FCC. If anybody in there right mind thinks
they care about 1800 comments you kidding yourself.
The solution is Simple, go to there Bosses, I dont mean anybody in the FCC I
mean the FCCs Bosses. Tell them how you plan on Voting the next time out if
this passes. Be sure and bring up Homeland Security in your comments. This is
the only thing that will stop this. If you dont think so, remember the Head Man
at the FCC recently got his hands slapped and told he would change another
screw up he recently made.

"WA8ULX" wrote:
Heres the solution to the BPL problem, it makes you
wonder why someone hasn't done it yet.
First stop messing with FCC, these Clowns have all
ready made up there minds. Look at the Present
Dumbing Down, which as been brought to us VIA the
FCC Morrons. So believe me they could care less
about Hams. And stop waisting your time sending in
your comments to the FCC. If anybody in there right
mind thinks they care about 1800 comments you
kidding yourself. The solution is Simple, go to there
Bosses, I dont mean anybody in the FCC I mean the
FCCs Bosses. Tell them how you plan on Voting the
next time out if this passes. Be sure and bring up
Homeland Security in your comments. This is the
only thing that will stop this. (snip)


It hasn't been done because it won't work, Bruce. First of all, we're (ham
operators) only a speck on the political spectrum. Even if we all voted
exactly the same (not very likely), we don't have enough numbers to effect
elections in any significant way. On the national level, our numbers are
about equal to the voting block of a single mid-sized city (in a country
with hundreds of cities). On the local level, the hams in a single state are
rarely enough to change an election there. Finally, we don't contribute any
great amount of money to elections. In other words, taken all together, we
don't have any political muscle to throw around.

As for the 1800 comments, have you read those comments? Most are opinions
without solid facts. In other words, they lack substance. Only a very small
number have anything firm to support the anti-BPL position. Compare that to
the technical materials and studies provided by BPL supporters. I warned
about this problem weeks ago. We're not giving the FCC enough to hang it's
hat on to oppose BPL. If we want them to oppose BPL, we have to give them a
solid reason to do so (a reason they can demonstrate to others).

As for homeland security, we're not doing a whole lot when it comes to
homeland security. If you talk about that, are you prepared to explain what
we're doing and who we're doing it for? What government agency do we work
for while participating in homeland security activities? Who in the
government is in charge of our homeland security operations? What are we
specifically doing for homeland security?

As much as I'm opposed to BPL, I don't see how we can stop it at this
point. We should have started our efforts two or three years ago. We should
now have solid, preferably long term, studies to back up our claims. We
should have technical materials showing the real impact on specific
frequencies and on specific radio services. I'm afraid it's too late to
start all of this now.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WELL said Dwight.

If you look at the core error in WA8ULX's reasoning, as
you have pointed out, you'll see the core reason they
are losing the testing debate as well. It's really sad, the one
I agree with and the other I do not- that is to say, on the
one argument I am on the opposite side of the fence than
they but on the other we share sentiments... however,
as you pointed out, they refuse to change tactics and
keep with a warplan that is little more than just a static
in the ear of the FCC.

I myself came into the BPL story too late as well..
And when you consider the mega bucks i'm sure the
exploiters of the BPL are going to be willing to shell
out in terms of legal fights & retained lawyers,
political contributions *ahem*, etc., I think we
were are on the losing downhill end of it now. As you
said, things may have been different a long time ago
if a more factual, logical approach had been taken. The
same way they are losing the testing debate.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

big clip

You know very well, or you should, that the ARRL send it a very
comprehensive report on that subject. Both the initial comments and the
latest round.

The ARRL is the best, and only, organization that can do a thing to help
us
against BPL at this time. Its all we have. And I think they are doing a
fine job.

The FCC is staffed with a bunch of pro business lawyers. THAT IS THE
PROBLEM. They don't have a clue of what they are doing.

If you want to change the thinking at the FCC. Then writting your
congressman is the ONLY way to do it. Since the congress controls their
purse strings.

The only other alternative would be to take it to court. Make use of the
green peace bunch to sue for the destruction of a natural resource, the
HF
spectrum. etc.. Any port in a storm.

Dan/W4NTI




I agree that the ARRl is doing a decent job on this issue.

My fears regarding BPL go along these lines:

1) Business wants it. This means that the Republicans, in general, are for
it. It certainly means the FCC Powers-That-Be are for it.

2) Providing broadband access to as many as possible, as cheaply as
possible, is an issue that appels to Liberals. This means, in genral, that
the Democrats are for it.

3) The ARRL has a fairly small percentage (what is it, about 33%?) of
registered U.S. hams as members. This reduces its effectiveness.

4) I doubt that many politicians see BPL as a make-or-break issue for their
ham constiuants. That is, how many hams would vote for (or against) someone
based on votes relating to BPL? How much money (soft and hard dollars) would
increase (decrease) solely based on votes on BPL? If my assumption is true,
then the ham community's voice is further reduced in effectiveness.

5) The power companies have done a fine job of defining the issue in a way
beneficial to themselves: Which is more important: Cheap, widespread access
to broadband or a hobby playground for hams? To tell the truth, if that
were the issue, I would support BPL.

6) The ham community's voice, weak enough already, is further reduced by
fights over secondary issues. As is: BPL is good because it will serve the
No-Coders right. I don't think the power companies could say it better.

To win this issue, we need to try to redefine the issue. We need to be
saying:

Cheap Broadband for everyone is EXTREMELY important and we will do nothing
to stop it. Here is how to best achieve this......

BPL, in addition to interfering with long time and important users of the HF
spectrum, suffers from the following technical problems which makes it
ineffective as a broadband solution ....

Paul AB0SI

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
It hasn't been done because it won't work,

Well good then lets just consider it a done deal and forget about it.

As far as In concerned I dont care, I think its a just reward for all the
New
NO-CODE HF users.

Sour Grapes.

Sour Grapes.

Sour Grapes, they didnt work for it, and this is what they get.

Dick Carroll mentioned that some AM broadcast stations were virtually
obliterated in Allentown, Pa. In that case, everyone noticing interference
on broadcast band (AM) stations should complain to the stations involved.
Believe me, commercial broadcasting (especially since the FCC allowed a few
powerful groups to buy up most of the broadcast stations) has much deeper
pockets than amateurs and would likely not hesitate even a moment to bring
lawyers and Congress into the mess. Don't complain as a ham operator,
however; complain that you can't hear some particular programs from the
station due to all of this "interference". Let 'em figure it out :)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
Heres the solution to the BPL problem, it makes you wonder why someone
hasnt
done it yet.
First stop messing with FCC, these Clowns have all ready made up there
minds.
Look at the Present Dumbing Down, which as been brought to us VIA the FCC
Morrons. So believe me they could care less about Hams. And stop waisting
your
time sending in your comments to the FCC. If anybody in there right mind
thinks
they care about 1800 comments you kidding yourself.
The solution is Simple, go to there Bosses, I dont mean anybody in the
FCC I
mean the FCCs Bosses. Tell them how you plan on Voting the next time out
if
this passes. Be sure and bring up Homeland Security in your comments. This
is
the only thing that will stop this. If you dont think so, remember the
Head Man
at the FCC recently got his hands slapped and told he would change another
screw up he recently made.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/03

Ah-HA!

"I had to do it, so should YOU!"

It's too easy.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--
"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
Sour Grapes.

Sour Grapes, they didnt work for it, and this is what they get.

Ah-HA!

"I had to do it, so should YOU!"

It's too easy.

Clint
KB5ZHT

No I dont think its to easy, I think they should give them away in Ceral Boxes

"Bert Craig" wrote:

I hope the FCC shows more respect for the
*opinions* of this particular "constituency."


As I explained in my first paragraph, we simply don't have the numbers.
Therefore, we're not going to be able to go around screaming we're a
constituency with the hopes that alone will convince the FCC to support us.
We're going to have to provide cold hard facts and I've seen little of that
in the opinions I've read.


ARES, and they're usually coordinated with
local OEM.


Sorry, I haven't found a thing ARES is doing related to homeland security.
If you're aware of anything, please let me know so I cite that when talking
to others.


Do nothing and nothing will certainly result.


I'm not saying do nothing. Instead, I'm saying what we're doing is
probably not going to be enough.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/