BPL NPRM
 

The docket number for the FCC's NPRM on BPL is 04-37. That is
in the FCC's Notices as of 21 Feb 04 even though the Notice is
dated 12 Feb 04.

As of a quarter to 1 PM, PST, on 21 Feb 04, the first - and only -
document on 04-37 is from the NAC, National Antenna Consortium.

For those who wish to view the Comments on 04-37 directly, the
web address for the ECFS is:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

Type in 04-37 in the upper left form block and press the Enter key to
retrieve the Comments...if any more are forthcoming. Note: The FCC
has NOT YET posted the NPRM text on the ECFS, a procedure
followed in the past with other dockets. It is not on the Office of
Engineering and Technology page although the OET usually takes
care of changes in Part 15..

Strangely absent is any Comments from the ARRL which some say
is the lone ranger in "fighting BPL." [apparently not enough sliver
bullets in Newington's holster although they've had a week or more
opportunity to reply] The general goals of "Broadband" as stated by
the FCC is dated 3/13/03 or very nearly a year past.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Strangely absent is any Comments from the ARRL which some say
is the lone ranger in "fighting BPL." [apparently not enough sliver
bullets in Newington's holster although they've had a week or more
opportunity to reply] The general goals of "Broadband" as stated by
the FCC is dated 3/13/03 or very nearly a year past.

Well, Your Scumminess, you started out on a good foot, posting the
information about the NPRM, but then you HAD to take a snide swipe at
"someone" with the "Lone Ranger" crap.

The Public Notice of the FCC on the new NPRM, docket 04-37, was
dated 12 February 2004. That was ten days ago.

The ONLY entry on the ECFS for 04-37 is dated 19 February 2004
and it is NOT from the ARRL.

FCC 03-104 is an NOI, a Notice Of Inquiry, not a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. 03-104 had 5,199 documents on public record as of
21 February 2004.

Who is the "who" that you refer to as allegedly saying the ARRL
is the ONLY entity "fighting BPL"...?!?!

You have 5,199 documents to check on the "who" and you will find
several organizations and many individuals NOT allied with ARRL
on 03-104.

Just another LennieLie as far as I can see since even the ARRL's
own website site has cited other organizations who have come out
AGAINST the BPL proposition.

Newsflash, stasi gunnery nurse: The ARRL does NOT regulate or
do much of anything else on wired data services in the USA. The
FCC gets involved only insofar as radiation of RF.

There was NO, repeat NO "proposition" on BPL. 03-104 was an
NOI, not an NPRM.

Docket 04-37 will concern itself with Part 15, Title 47 C.F.R. and
will not take away any precious spectral playground allocations to
amateurs on HF.

The ARRL has NOT yet published any text of NPRM 04-37. Neither
has the FCC as of 22 February 2004.

The ARRL has NOT yet published any sort of technical description
of any proposed BPL systems.

The FCC has put on public record several documents from the UK
and Europe on "PLC," the similar data transmission systems being
tried out there. You are free to search the FCC website or the entire
Internet to get information, including journals and trade publications
of the electronics industry for any detailed technical specifications
on PLC or BPL. [you will not find much even if you know how to
search...doubtful since you are content with being spoon-fed
information from your the beloved ARRL]

Without any technical information on proposed power levels or
exact spectral energy content thereof, everyone has been running off
at the keyboard in a surprising show of ignorant technical bigotry,
assuming the USA BPL will be like some high-powered narrowband
RF signal parked directly on amateur HF bands. You've put your
entire "electronics expertise" into a Belief System that the ARRL will
do all the work in "analyzing BPL" for you. That allows you the free
time to run around flapping your chicken wings and calling all the
non-believers (in the ARRL) for [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted].

If you look in Google you WILL find the other "whos" that I mentioned
in here, in public postings. [in addition to both short- and long-term
memory loss and inability to focus, you show symptoms of
intellectual presbyopia, a hardening of the mental eyeball]


Just wondering, Your Putziness...WHO is the WHO to whom you
refer...?!?!

Right now the "WHO" would be the World Health Organization,
specifically the mental health part. You are seriously lacking any
social skills in interacting with other humans, demonstrated by the
constant use of [expletive deleted] and [expletive deleted] in public
postings not to your liking.

Now take your medications and continue to study "Electricity for
Dummies" to start you on the road to a continuing interest in amateur
radio theory. With hard work and study, you can become a leader in
the amateur community from your dedication and perserverance to the
service.

At ease. Dismissed.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Strangely absent is any Comments from the ARRL which some say
is the lone ranger in "fighting BPL." [apparently not enough sliver
bullets in Newington's holster although they've had a week or more
opportunity to reply] The general goals of "Broadband" as stated by
the FCC is dated 3/13/03 or very nearly a year past.

Well, Your Scumminess, you started out on a good foot, posting the
information about the NPRM, but then you HAD to take a snide swipe at
"someone" with the "Lone Ranger" crap.

The Public Notice of the FCC on the new NPRM, docket 04-37, was
dated 12 February 2004. That was ten days ago.

The ONLY entry on the ECFS for 04-37 is dated 19 February 2004
and it is NOT from the ARRL.

FCC 03-104 is an NOI, a Notice Of Inquiry, not a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. 03-104 had 5,199 documents on public record as of
21 February 2004.

Who is the "who" that you refer to as allegedly saying the ARRL
is the ONLY entity "fighting BPL"...?!?!

You have 5,199 documents to check on the "who" and you will find
several organizations and many individuals NOT allied with ARRL
on 03-104.

Just another LennieLie as far as I can see since even the ARRL's
own website site has cited other organizations who have come out
AGAINST the BPL proposition.

Newsflash, stasi gunnery nurse: The ARRL does NOT regulate or
do much of anything else on wired data services in the USA. The
FCC gets involved only insofar as radiation of RF.

There was NO, repeat NO "proposition" on BPL. 03-104 was an
NOI, not an NPRM.

Docket 04-37 will concern itself with Part 15, Title 47 C.F.R. and
will not take away any precious spectral playground allocations to
amateurs on HF.

The ARRL has NOT yet published any text of NPRM 04-37. Neither
has the FCC as of 22 February 2004.

The ARRL has NOT yet published any sort of technical description
of any proposed BPL systems.

The FCC has put on public record several documents from the UK
and Europe on "PLC," the similar data transmission systems being
tried out there. You are free to search the FCC website or the entire
Internet to get information, including journals and trade publications
of the electronics industry for any detailed technical specifications
on PLC or BPL. [you will not find much even if you know how to
search...doubtful since you are content with being spoon-fed
information from your the beloved ARRL]

Without any technical information on proposed power levels or
exact spectral energy content thereof, everyone has been running off
at the keyboard in a surprising show of ignorant technical bigotry,
assuming the USA BPL will be like some high-powered narrowband
RF signal parked directly on amateur HF bands. You've put your
entire "electronics expertise" into a Belief System that the ARRL will
do all the work in "analyzing BPL" for you. That allows you the free
time to run around flapping your chicken wings and calling all the
non-believers (in the ARRL) for [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted].

If you look in Google you WILL find the other "whos" that I mentioned
in here, in public postings. [in addition to both short- and long-term
memory loss and inability to focus, you show symptoms of
intellectual presbyopia, a hardening of the mental eyeball]


Just wondering, Your Putziness...WHO is the WHO to whom you
refer...?!?!

Right now the "WHO" would be the World Health Organization,
specifically the mental health part. You are seriously lacking any
social skills in interacting with other humans, demonstrated by the
constant use of [expletive deleted] and [expletive deleted] in public
postings not to your liking.

Now take your medications and continue to study "Electricity for
Dummies" to start you on the road to a continuing interest in amateur
radio theory. With hard work and study, you can become a leader in
the amateur community from your dedication and perserverance to the
service.

At ease. Dismissed.

LHA / WMD

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:



You have alleged that the ARRL is positioning itself as the only
entity that is against this, and the FACTS are that there are numerous
other entities against it, and the ARRL itself has acknowledged the
position of those other entities.

Lennyboy is in denial, the Office of Homeland Security and FEMA are just
two of many other entities that are in the fight against BPL.
Lennyboy can't stand it because all us hams have a license that
authorizes us to transmit on certain frequencies and he can't pass the test.