Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/22/2004 9:19 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/20/2004 7:27 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Len, in your best judgement, would you think that Steve could avail
himself to the services of the USGPO and USPS, learn the truth, then
post a retraction of his statement above?

There's nothing to retract, Brain.

But there is. You stated that what Len doesn't know about Part 97
could fill libraries.

That is patently false. If Len knew nothing at all about Part 97 it
could not fill more than a single copy of Part 97, which is quite
small. Avail yourself to the USGPO or the ARRL Bookstore if you dare.

You exaggerate.

You bully.

You twist people's words and you edit their statements to fit your
rude and obnoxious rantings.

Back under your slimy rock.

As I said...I forgot myself...ONLY you and Lennie can speak
exponentially...

Forgive me!

As for "bullying", I am sorry that you find it "painful" that I insist on
getting some sort of "proof" from you for YOUR many exaggerations. Like how
the "unlicensed" radio services play a "major role" in "emergency comms"...

Still waiting on THAT one...I've given up on any "proof" about your
Somalia claims.

Steve, K4YZ

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...


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.

Hello, Jim

Well, let's find out how well BPL works with 100 to 200 watts (don't need a
KW +) into a dipole in an urban environment. It will be *their* problem.
The sword cuts both ways

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 3/24/04

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...

Still waiting on THAT one...I've given up on any "proof" about your
Somalia claims.

Steve, K4YZ

Still waiting on your Seven Hostile Actions.

Whatta blowhard.

N2EY wrote:

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.

Sure, they were by investors told to build something that could get
digital information over
power cables. The fact that it will radiate was not an issue for them.
But a big
issue for us.


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

Bullshjt, they're just brearucrats who are lawyers and not engineers.
They probably
figure that they can sue whatever out of existance to solve problems....

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

N2EY wrote:

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.

Sure, they were by investors told to build something that could get
digital information over
power cables. The fact that it will radiate was not an issue for them.
But a big
issue for us.

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

Bullshjt, they're just brearucrats who are lawyers and not engineers.
They probably
figure that they can sue whatever out of existance to solve problems....

The FCC also created the six-tiered amateur license structure
prior to R&O 99-412 and established 13 and 20 WPM morse
code rates. :-)

ARRL didn't do a thing, did they? :-)

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!

Subject: When Was CB Created?
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 6:14 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Still waiting on THAT one...I've given up on any "proof" about your
Somalia claims.

Steve, K4YZ

Still waiting on your Seven Hostile Actions.

Whatta blowhard.

I already stated that I won't give it here. It's not pertient to the
forum.

You, on the other hand, have made statements of fact in this forum about
topics relative to the forum, yet refuse to corroborate.

You've even had the cajones to deny you've made statements even when
provided with the verbatim quotes. Now that's REALLY stupid, but it's status
quo for you.

Now...WHAT "major role" do the unlicensed services provide in "emergency
comms"...?!?!

Or are you the liar I have asserted that you are?

Steve, K4YZ

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?