N2EY wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

If someone like him moved next
door to me, I'd give serious thought to planting a "For Sale" sign on my
lawn--or maybe I'd just paint my house lavender and put in a yard full
of pink plastic flamingos.

Did you ever see the John Waters film by that name?

No. Then again, I was away for a long time.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

The first allocations were in the 460 MHz range, and were known as
Class A and Class B cb. (One class was voice and the other
radio-control). The more-popular ~27 MHz cb (Class C and Class D) were
authorized by FCC in 1958. FRS and GMRS are really the lineal
descendants of 1946-era cb.

I would have thought our resident expert on all things radio would have
known that.

You don't think Lennie was going to let somehting like "details"
or "facts" get in the way of his chance to let loose yet another
anti-Amateur barrage, do ya...?!?!

(...and pretty much puts a hole in his "hams don't know anything
about radio outside of ham bands" rants...)

There's a profile floating around that you might find handy, Dave...

Oh, don't worry. Your summary of Len's likely actions will pop up from
time to time as long as he acts as he does. The humorous part of
dealing with Leonard is that he just can't see is that he is guilty of
those things of which he accuses others. If someone like him moved next
door to me, I'd give serious thought to planting a "For Sale" sign on my
lawn--or maybe I'd just paint my house lavender and put in a yard full
of pink plastic flamingos.

Better idea: Paint HIS house lavender and put the flamingoes in
HIS yard...especially when he takes one of his vaunted "road trips"
with Mrs Lennie...Don't forget the metallized fountain ball and the
"carriage boy with lantern" figurine..


73

Steve, K4YZ

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:
CB was created 46 years ago and hams of today are still crying
and whining and P&Ming about the FCC "stealing away 'their' band"
even though they may not have been born when CB was.

They are? Would it be too much trouble for you to name one or two of
'em?

Actually, Dave, the citizens' radio service was created by FCC in 1946
and the first licenses issued in 1947. See:

http://hamgallery.com/Tribute/W8PAL/

The first allocations were in the 460 MHz range,

462 Mhz to be more precise I do believe.

and were known as
Class A and Class B cb. (One class was voice and the other
radio-control).

Yessir. Maybe 1950 or so and I was prowling Arch around Tenth and one
of those radio row junk shops had it's usual pile lined up on the
sidewalk. In addition to the half ton of WW2 surplus goodies there
were several clean new-looking boxes which, in retrospect, were along
the lines of the Gonset Communicators and/or Benton Harbor Lunchboxes.
Nice looking pieces, mics included, had short whips atop the boxes.
Looked like complete two-way radios to me and were marked $5 each,
same $$ as all the ARC-5 boxes. I asked the guy what they were. His
exact words are long lost of course but the gist of it was that they
were for a new kind of two-way radio band everybody could use without
having to take any FCC tests at all. "WHAT??". Unthinkable! "What
frequencies do they run on?" "UHF crap, 400 Mhz or something. Don't
work worth a damn for more than a few blocks away, don't bother kid."
I didn't.


The more-popular ~27 MHz cb (Class C and Class D) were
authorized by FCC in 1958. FRS and GMRS are really the lineal
descendants of 1946-era cb.

You seem to be whining and crying about amateur radio licensing issues
even though you weren't born when amateur radio was.

There's a profile floating around that you might find handy, Dave...

73 de Jim, N2EY

b.

Citizen Band was created when they started issueing licenses without a CW
requirement.

In article ,
says...


Citizen Band was created when they started issueing licenses without a CW
requirement.

From someone who entered via no-code and advanced to extra within a year
I take issue with that.

Perhaps the no-code license was the best thing that happened to amateur
radio. It removed an obstacle I wasn't ready to face at the time but
after a couple months I got my 5WPM code. And then a couple months later
my 13WPM and then the 20WMP.

What ticks me off is the watered down code requirement that we have now.
But in essence, we're all appliance operators now anyhow. It doesn't
really matter. And I think the days of amateur radio are numbered what
with BPL and such.

Tony P. wrote in message ...
In article ,
says...

Citizen Band was created when they started issueing licenses without a CW
requirement.

From someone who entered via no-code and advanced to extra within a year
I take issue with that.

He's just a troll, Tony.

Perhaps the no-code license was the best thing that happened to amateur
radio. It removed an obstacle I wasn't ready to face at the time but
after a couple months I got my 5WPM code. And then a couple months later
my 13WPM and then the 20WMP.

Was it really that hard to learn?

What ticks me off is the watered down code requirement that we have now.

It's the logical result. Gradually reduce the requirements.

But in essence, we're all appliance operators now anyhow.

Not me!

It doesn't really matter.

I think it does.

And I think the days of amateur radio are numbered what
with BPL and such.

I hope not. But even if deployed, BPL may not survive for other
reasons. Ever hear of the Iridium system?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any urban
radio environment.

Generally agreed by whom?

The BPL developers don't agree. And they're professionals.

The FCC doesn't agree. They're professionals too, and regulators of all
"civilian" radio and wire communications in the USA.

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural locations
which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide service not
available from other technologies?

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access BPL will be
a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have not agreed with the
calculations and first hand-observations of others?

Sure, a lot of us will file comments. Maybe they'll do some good. But just
because you were finally convinced of the BPL threat, don;t be surprised if the
"professionals" don't agree.

In article , PAMNO
(BPL is Good For You!) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any urban
radio environment.

Generally agreed by whom?

ARRL, FEMA, NTIA, the remaining amateur radio publications, just
for starters. :-)

The BPL developers don't agree. And they're professionals.

Capitalists first. They want their slice of the "broadband" pie.

Why are you trolling like you WANT Access BPL?

Did you change professions into the Access BPL arena?

The FCC doesn't agree. They're professionals too, and regulators of all
"civilian" radio and wire communications in the USA.

Incorrect. See the Communications Act of 1934 and the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 as to exactly what the FCC can
regulate.

Unless an Access BPL system goes across state borders, about
all that the FCC can regulate is the incidental RF radiation from
the system. Incidental RF radiation is a main subject in Part 15,
Title 47 C.F.R. Part 15 doesn't deal in "communications" systems
and NPRM 04-29 is only about revisions to Part 15.

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural locations
which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide service not
available from other technologies?

"Suburbia" is a part of the urban environment.

Try not to hurt yourself playing little trolling word games.

Feel free to list all the rural areas in the United States along with all
the inhabitants thereof. That's only about 3% of the population, should
not take you too long in here. :-)

Where are the existing Access BPL test sites now? Are those in
"rural areas?" [no, they are not out there]

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access BPL will
be
a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have not agreed with the
calculations and first hand-observations of others?

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here. In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

You are rejecting the ARRL Laboratory findings on Access BPL test
sites. You are rejecting several commenters on 03-104 who have,
independently shown calculations based on their own thinking.
You are rejecting the feelings of - literally - thousands of other U.S.
radio amateurs who think that Access BPL is going to be BAD for
their residential and mobile amateur radio operations.

Why do you want to sit back and welcome BPL?

Don't you want to "work" the HF ham bands from 80 meters and
up?

I guess not.

All you want to do is sit in here and troll for newsgroup word fights.

Not nice dedication to your "amateur community."

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any urban
radio environment.

Generally agreed by whom?

ARRL, FEMA, NTIA, the remaining amateur radio publications, just
for starters. :-)

But not the Wall Street Journal, or the chief engineer of the FCC, or the
Commissioners....;-) ;-)

The BPL developers don't agree. And they're professionals.

Capitalists first.

Aren't you also a capitalist, Len? Or are you something else?

They want their slice of the "broadband" pie.

They want the money. That's the essential definition of "professional" -
getting paid.

Why are you trolling like you WANT Access BPL?

I don't want Access BPL. I'm simply trying to figure out how to fight it. You
don't seem to have any answers besides "comment to the FCC". I already knew
that.

Did you change professions into the Access BPL arena?

Nope, I'm still an *amateur* in the field of HF radio communications. And I
don;t have anyhting to do with BPL "professionally".

The FCC doesn't agree. They're professionals too, and regulators of all
"civilian" radio and wire communications in the USA.

Incorrect.

They're not professionals? They don't get paid for what they do? I think you
are mistaken.

See the Communications Act of 1934 and the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 as to exactly what the FCC can
regulate.

Irrelevant to the BPL situation. FCC could prevent BPL from going forward if
they wanted to.

Unless an Access BPL system goes across state borders, about
all that the FCC can regulate is the incidental RF radiation from
the system. Incidental RF radiation is a main subject in Part 15,
Title 47 C.F.R. Part 15 doesn't deal in "communications" systems
and NPRM 04-29 is only about revisions to Part 15.

Again, irrelevant. And probably incorrect. The noise from BPL systems will
clearly cross state lines.

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural locations
which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide service not
available from other technologies?

"Suburbia" is a part of the urban environment.

No, it isn't.

Try not to hurt yourself playing little trolling word games.

Not me - you're the one who does that. I'm simply truying to figure out how to
defeat BPL. You're avoiding the central issue: How can *amateurs* prevail when
*professionals* are pushing BPL?

Feel free to list all the rural areas in the United States along with all
the inhabitants thereof.

You first, Len. My amateurish work would not meet your professional standards.
;-)

That's only about 3% of the population, should
not take you too long in here. :-)

If you know the answer, why do you ask the question? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Where are the existing Access BPL test sites now?

Look them up on the ARRL website.

Are those in "rural areas?" [no, they are not out there]

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access BPL will
be
a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have not agreed with
the calculations and first hand-observations of others?

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would think
that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed experience would know
the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

Oh no, not me. I leave that to professionals like you, Len. Wasting other
people's time is something you are realy, really good at.

You are rejecting the ARRL Laboratory findings on Access BPL test
sites.

Not me. I've read them, accepted them, met and talked with people who put them
together. I've commented to FCC on the issue and will do so again

It's the FCC, BPL companies, and similar *professionals* who reject them. Even
*you* questioned them at first.

You are rejecting several commenters on 03-104 who have,
independently shown calculations based on their own thinking.

Not me. I find all of those calculations and observations to be convincing. FCC
apparently doesn't. A good number of your fellow "professionls" don't, either.

You are rejecting the feelings of - literally - thousands of other U.S.
radio amateurs who think that Access BPL is going to be BAD for
their residential and mobile amateur radio operations.

"Feelings"?

You've got it backwards, Len. You're wrong again!

Why do you want to sit back and welcome BPL?

I don't. I've been working against it since before you even thought it was a
problem.

Don't you want to "work" the HF ham bands from 80 meters and
up?

I already do. You don't.

I guess not.

All you want to do is sit in here and troll for newsgroup word fights.

Not me, Len. That's what you do.

It's clear you don't know how to convince those "professionals" any more than
anyone else. You don't have any new or different arguments or evidence. You
just want to lecture and criticize.

Now you'll probably respond with a lot of diversions into irrelevant minutiae,
name-calling, inaccurate information, insults, shouting, excessive emoticons,
your resume from a half-century ago and the rest of your usual, "professional"
bag of tricks, in a vain attempt to get me to reply in kind. Wrong again, Len!

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

It's generally agreed that Access BPL will be a bad thing in any
urban radio environment.

Generally agreed by whom?

ARRL, FEMA, NTIA, the remaining amateur radio publications, just for
starters. :-)

But not the Wall Street Journal, or the chief engineer of the FCC, or
the Commissioners....;-) ;-)

The BPL developers don't agree. And they're professionals.

Capitalists first.

Aren't you also a capitalist, Len? Or are you something else?

They want their slice of the "broadband" pie.

They want the money. That's the essential definition of "professional"
- getting paid.

Why are you trolling like you WANT Access BPL?

I don't want Access BPL. I'm simply trying to figure out how to fight
it. You don't seem to have any answers besides "comment to the FCC". I
already knew that.

Did you change professions into the Access BPL arena?

Nope, I'm still an *amateur* in the field of HF radio communications.
And I don;t have anyhting to do with BPL "professionally".

The FCC doesn't agree. They're professionals too, and regulators of
all "civilian" radio and wire communications in the USA.

Incorrect.

They're not professionals? They don't get paid for what they do? I
think you are mistaken.

See the Communications Act of 1934 and the Tele-
communications Act of 1996 as to exactly what the FCC can regulate.

Irrelevant to the BPL situation. FCC could prevent BPL from going
forward if they wanted to.

Unless an Access BPL system goes across state borders, about
all that the FCC can regulate is the incidental RF radiation from
the system. Incidental RF radiation is a main subject in Part 15,
Title 47 C.F.R. Part 15 doesn't deal in "communications" systems
and NPRM 04-29 is only about revisions to Part 15.

Again, irrelevant. And probably incorrect. The noise from BPL systems
will clearly cross state lines.

And why just an "urban environment"? What about suburbia? Or rural
locations which will supposedly be the places where BPL will provide
service not available from other technologies?

"Suburbia" is a part of the urban environment.

No, it isn't.

Try not to hurt yourself playing little trolling word games.

Not me - you're the one who does that. I'm simply truying to figure out
how to defeat BPL. You're avoiding the central issue: How can
*amateurs* prevail when *professionals* are pushing BPL?

Feel free to list all the rural areas in the United States along
with all the inhabitants thereof.

You first, Len. My amateurish work would not meet your professional
standards. ;-)

That's only about 3% of the population, should not take you too long
in here. :-)

If you know the answer, why do you ask the question? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Where are the existing Access BPL test sites now?

Look them up on the ARRL website.

Are those in "rural areas?" [no, they are not out there]

How will you or anyone else convince these *professionals* "Access
BPL will be a bad thing in any urban radio environment" when they have
not agreed with the calculations and first hand-observations of
others?

You seem heck-bent on starting some more internecine warfare in
here.

I'm simply asking a question. You are avoiding that question. One would
think that a "radio electronics professional" with your claimed
experience would know the answer, but I guess you don't.

In that case you are wasting everyone's time. :-)

Oh no, not me. I leave that to professionals like you, Len. Wasting
other people's time is something you are realy, really good at.

You are rejecting the ARRL Laboratory findings on Access BPL test
sites.

Not me. I've read them, accepted them, met and talked with people who
put them together. I've commented to FCC on the issue and will do so
again

It's the FCC, BPL companies, and similar *professionals* who reject
them. Even *you* questioned them at first.

You are rejecting several commenters on 03-104 who have,
independently shown calculations based on their own thinking.

Not me. I find all of those calculations and observations to be
convincing. FCC apparently doesn't. A good number of your fellow
"professionls" don't, either.

You are rejecting the feelings of - literally - thousands of other
U.S. radio amateurs who think that Access BPL is going to be BAD for
their residential and mobile amateur radio operations.

"Feelings"?

You've got it backwards, Len. You're wrong again!

Why do you want to sit back and welcome BPL?

I don't. I've been working against it since before you even thought it
was a problem.

Don't you want to "work" the HF ham bands from 80 meters and up?

I already do. You don't.

I guess not.

All you want to do is sit in here and troll for newsgroup word
fights.

Not me, Len. That's what you do.

It's clear you don't know how to convince those "professionals" any
more than anyone else. You don't have any new or different arguments or
evidence. You just want to lecture and criticize.

Now you'll probably respond with a lot of diversions into irrelevant
minutiae, name-calling, inaccurate information, insults, shouting,
excessive emoticons, your resume from a half-century ago and the rest
of your usual, "professional" bag of tricks, in a vain attempt to get
me to reply in kind. Wrong again, Len!





Maybe we could come up with a certificate for operating from BPL test
sites, with endorsements for 500W, 1kW and 1.5kW?