************************************************** **
AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO NPRM ON BPL
INTERFERENCE ISSUES

Amateur radio enthusiasts are submitting copious comments that are
flooding the docket for the FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking on
broadband-over-powerline technologies. The comments are coming
well in advance of a May 3 due date.

"From what I've seen, BPL will wipe out the [high frequency] and
some [very high frequency] bands," said one typical filing. "It's been
rejected in other places and should not be allowed in the United
States.
In an emergency, government and communities are loosely held
together by using these bands with emergency communications. Don't
let Big Money outweigh the good of our country."

Sources say the FCC has been respectful of amateur radio concerns but
also has recognized that they may not reflect real problems. "The FCC
has determined that the end-of-the-world interference scenarios put
forward by some in the amateur community are unrealistic," said
Mitchell Lazarus, a lawyer who represents BPL service provider
Current Technologies. "The NPRM is a good beginning of the process
of finding a fair balance between the needs of broadband users and
users of the radio spectrum."

Last month when the FCC approved the NPRM, Commissioner
Jonathan S. Adelstein said, "While we must be mindful of harmful
interference, we cannot let unsupported claims stand in the way of
such an innovation as BPL systems."

The FCC approved the NPRM on Feb. 12 and released it 11 days later,
but it was not published in the Federal Register until today, starting
a 45-day clock for comments. Reply comments are due 30 days later. -
Howard Buskirk,


http://www.tr.com/online/trd/2004/td031704/index.htm

In article , Steve Stone
writes:

Subject: AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO
NPRM ON BPL
From: Steve Stone
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:33:23 GMT

************************************************* ***
AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO NPRM ON BPL
INTERFERENCE ISSUES

Amateur radio enthusiasts are submitting copious comments that are
flooding the docket for the FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking on
broadband-over-powerline technologies. The comments are coming
well in advance of a May 3 due date.

"Submitting copious comments?!?!?"

As of the close of offices on 17 March 2004, there were exactly 25,
that's TWENTY-FIVE comments on Et Docket 04-37. There are
exactly 5 on ET Docket 04-29.

THIRTY comments (a few are doubles in each docket) is "copious?"


If you want "copiousness" then go to ET Docket 03-104 where there
were 5,731 comments filed as of close of 17 Mar 04.

The only problem is that NOI 03-104 has ended.

If you look carefully down a few hundred on the ECFS page for 03-104
you will see that ALL the documents filed between 6 Feb 04 and
20 Feb 04 are "Sunshine"...the staff can't look at them to use for
decision-making. Noticeable RED letters on those Sunshine notes.


The FCC approved the NPRM on Feb. 12 and released it 11 days later,
but it was not published in the Federal Register until today, starting
a 45-day clock for comments. Reply comments are due 30 days later. -
Howard Buskirk,

Okay when is the "today" in the second line?

If you MUST quote someone playing reporter, please try to get the
proper dates in there. You posted this on 18 Mar 04 as indicated on
the header. [it's still 17 Mar 04 here on the west coast as I write this
and has been circulating in the Internet posted on 17 Mar 04 in the
USA - USA is on 7 time zones, none of which are UTC] The FCC
stated RELEASE date of 04-29 was 23 Feb 04. What is the date
you are claiming for publishing in the Federal Register?

I count 46 days left until 3 May 04 from today, 17 March 04 (Saint
Patrick's Day). "45 days" would mean you have posted in
ADVANCE of a news break. Not a good thing in journalism circles
and won't look good on your reporter's resume...not even if you get
supernatural advance copies of a newspaper.

But, "45 days" isn't the end of comments. There's 60 [SIXTY] days
from publishing in the Federal Register for Replies to Comments.

Not everyone reads the Federal Register at breakfast. Some don't
even read petitions carefully.

Okay, there's still ALL of April to file comments on NPRM 04-29.
Your name hasn't come up on the FCC's ECFS yet you are
here trying to "scoop" someone?

If you want a "news scoop," investigate some dates. Look at the
first document in the ECFS under docket 04-37...that's NPRM
04-29 and indicated as posted 23 Feb 04. However...the next
document is a preliminary statement by the National Antenna
Consortium and Amhearst Alliance and it is dated 19 Feb 04 (the
document itself bears that date)! Which is what there?

The next two comments have posting dates of 24 Feb 04.

Find out why NPRM 04-29 is under docket 04-37 instead of the
other docket in the ECFS, 04-29. If there is a docket 04-29,
why is the NPRM posted under docket 04-37?

Why isn't the "Sunshine" notice continued on about 500 comments
under docket 03-104 from 21 Feb 04 to today? That NOI should
be toast...but the FCC hasn't removed 03-104 from the "hot button"
listing on the FCC Consumer Complaints page.

If you can't consider a compound error situation at the FCC, then
wonder why the mixup in dockets and that 03-104 is still there
receiving comments when they won't be seen by staff? Can you
smell something strange going on in DC (besides the usual)
like diverting citizens' attention to post in what amounts to a
digital trash bucket?

LHA / WMD

If you look at my original post it includs the source website of the information.

Please go to that website and look up the exact dates (if posted)

Thanks,

Steve
N2UBP

For those who lost my original post:

http://www.tr.com/online/trd/2004/td....htm#TopOfPage

The original post was copied from a Yahoo group.

This is the source data.
-------

Table of Contents
AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO NPRM ON BPL IN=
TERFERENCE ISSUES

Amateur radio enthusiasts are submitting copious comments that are flooding=
the docket for the=20
FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking on broadband-over-powerline technologie=
s. The comments are=20
coming well in advance of a May 3 due date.

"From what I've seen, BPL will wipe out the [high frequency] and some [very=
high frequency]=20
bands," said one typical filing. "It's been rejected in other places and sh=
ould not be allowed=20
in the United States. In an emergency, government and communities are loose=
ly held together by=20
using these bands with emergency communications. Don't let Big Money outwei=
gh the good of our=20
country."

Sources say the FCC has been respectful of amateur radio concerns but also =
has recognized that=20
they may not reflect real problems. "The FCC has determined that the end-of=
-the-world=20
interference scenarios put forward by some in the amateur community are unr=
ealistic," said=20
Mitchell Lazarus, a lawyer who represents BPL service provider Current Tech=
nologies. "The NPRM=20
is a good beginning of the process of finding a fair balance between the ne=
eds of broadband=20
users and users of the radio spectrum."

Last month when the FCC approved the NPRM, Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelste=
in said, "While we=20
must be mindful of harmful interference, we cannot let unsupported claims s=
tand in the way of=20
such an innovation as BPL systems."

The FCC approved the NPRM on Feb. 12 and released it 11 days later, but it =
was not published=20
in the Federal Register until today, starting a 45-day clock for comments. =
Reply comments are=20
due 30 days later. - Howard Buskirk,

TR Daily, March 17, 2004

Copyright =A9 2004, Telecommunications Reports International, Inc.

=20
=09

In article , Steve Stone
writes:

For those who lost my original post:

http://www.tr.com/online/trd/2004/td....htm#TopOfPage

The original post was copied from a Yahoo group.

That is from Aspen Publishers who have nice, expensive, and (in this
case) questionable accuracy. They have very expensive tele-
communications law reports and text books. The above link is
from their Telecommunications Reports section.

The last paragraph of the Reports item mentioned is incorrect. There
is a 30-day from FR publishing for COMMENTS; there is a 45-day
from FR publishing for REPLIES TO COMMENTS.

ALL of the Comments and Replies to Comments on a docket are
indicated on the FCC ECFS. That's free. No one has to pay
thousands of dollars to subscribe to some publisher's "reports" to
get information.

As of Noon EST on 18 Mar 04, there were still only 24 Comments
on Docket 04-37, the first Comment filed on 19 Feb 04. There are
still only 5 Comments on Docket 04-29. Hardly any "flood" of
input from "enthusiasts coming out swinging" on anything. The
Public Notice about the Access BPL NPRM has been in public
view since 12 Feb 04, a bit over a month ago.

Can you find a Yahoo or any other place that explains the use of
TWO docket numbers for the SAME NPRM?

LHA / WMD

Here is another clip for you from a newspaper:



Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Cinergy plugs in as Web provider
Power lines set to carry Internet to outlet near you

By Mike Boyer
The Cincinnati Enquirer

A unit of Cinergy Corp. today will become the nation's first electric utility to offer high-
speed Internet service to customers via its power lines, turning every electrical outlet in
homes or offices into a Web connection.

The technology, which will be offered first in Hyde Park and Mount Lookout, holds the promise
of adding competition and cutting prices for broadband services while making such service
available (particularly in remote and rural areas) without costly investments in cables.

The Federal Communications Commission has been pushing the technology to bolster competition -
and thus spur more Americans, who are less likely than Japanese or South Korean consumers, to
have broadband access. FCC Chairman Michael Powell has said the technology like the kind
Cinergy will use "could simply blow the doors off the provision of broadband."

Cinergy Broadband teamed with Current Communications Group, a Germantown, Md., technology
company to test the service - known as broadband over power lines or BPL - in about 100 homes
in Hyde Park in the last year.

"Our pilot has been very successful, with more than 75 percent saying they would be willing to
subscribe to the service" said William Grealis, Cinergy executive vice president and president
of Cinergy Broadband.

Cinergy and Current have formed a 50-50 joint venture to roll out the service here under the
Current Communications name.

Current joins Cincinnati Bell's Zoomtown digital subscriber service and Time Warner Cable's
Road Runner service in marketing high-speed Internet in Cincinnati.

Cinergy thinks that BPL has a couple of advantages over competitors. It doesn't require a
cable or phone line, and can be operated from anyplace where there's an electric wall outlet.
Upload and download speeds are the same, unlike DSL and cable modem service - whose upload
speeds are slower than download speeds.

"We believe we have better speeds at competitive prices," Grealis said.

Cinergy and Current plan to offer several levels of service starting at 1 megabit a second at
$29.95 a month. Road Runner locally costs $44.95 a month for download speeds of up to 3
megabits; Cincinnati Bell's Zoomtown costs $41.95 a month for the same speed. They both offer
signup discounts.

Cinergy's service will be marketed initially to about 16,000 homes in the Hyde Park-Mount
Lookout area.

In what he described as a "measured rollout," Grealis said the partners plan to make the
service available to about 55,000 homes in a dozen communities in Hamilton County this year,
including Wyoming, Delhi Township, Terrace Park and Norwood. Early next year, it will expand
into Northern Kentucky.

The joint venture also plans to begin offering voice over the Internet telephone service to
customers next fall. Prices for that service haven't been set.

Cinergy and privately held Current are forming another joint venture to market the technology
to municipally owned power companies nationally. Grealis said that's a potential market of 24
million homes.

Cinergy is also investing $10 million in Current Communications, as part of a new round of
venture funding of more than $70 million, along with Current's other investors Liberty
Associated Partners and EnerTech Capital LP. Cinergy Broadband is part of the utility's
nonregulated business and isn't funded by electric or gas rates.

"I think there will be a stampede toward (broadband over power lines) in 2005," said Alan
Shark, president of the Power Line Communications Association, an industry trade group in
Arlington, Va.

Growing popularity of high-speed Internet service for game playing and downloading music,
coupled with refinements in the technology itself, are building momentum for commercial
deployment, he said.

One of the problems with broadband over power lines in the past has been a lack of industry
standards and competing technologies, he said.

About a dozen utilities and technology companies have been experimenting with broadband for
several years.

Shark said the only commercial deployment of BPL now is in Manassas, Va., where the
municipality has teamed with a New York investment firm to market the capability to about
15,000 homes.

Although broadband over power lines has been discussed for years, technical limitations have
slowed its development, but that might be about to change.

The FCC recently announced it plans to begin developing rules for the technology and has
signaled that its views BPL as a third "pipeline" to deliver high-speed Internet service,
along with cable modems and digital telephone lines.

After evaluating various BPL technologies for several years, Grealis said Current's system "is
one that works, and we think it's the only one that works,"

Tim Barhorst, an information technology consultant in Hyde Park who has been using the
technology for a year, said he's been impressed.

"I find it's very convenient," he said, noting that he can set up his computer anywhere
there's an electric outlet.

He said the speeds are better than his Zoomtown service and comparable to Road Runner.

Alex Pardo of Cinergy said the Internet traffic travels on a separate band wave from the
electric current, so there's no interference.

He said the utility has found no problem with radio wave interference, a concern raised by
many amateur radio operators.

---

E-mail

Copyright 1995-2004. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper.
Use of this site signifies agreement to terms of service updated 12/19/2002.

Subject: AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO
NPRM ON BPL
From: Steve Stone
Date: 3/19/2004 7:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Here is another clip for you from a newspaper:



Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Cinergy plugs in as Web provider
Power lines set to carry Internet to outlet near you

By Mike Boyer
The Cincinnati Enquirer

A unit of Cinergy Corp. today will become the nation's first electric utility
to offer high-
speed Internet service to customers via its power lines, turning every
electrical outlet in
homes or offices into a Web connection.

Uh oh......

I wonder how long it will take some idiot to read that and then try to
plug thier line feed to the AC directly...?!?! =)

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO
NPRM ON BPL
From: Steve Stone
Date: 3/19/2004 7:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Here is another clip for you from a newspaper:



Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Cinergy plugs in as Web provider
Power lines set to carry Internet to outlet near you

By Mike Boyer
The Cincinnati Enquirer

A unit of Cinergy Corp. today will become the nation's first electric utility
to offer high-
speed Internet service to customers via its power lines, turning every
electrical outlet in
homes or offices into a Web connection.

Uh oh......

I wonder how long it will take some idiot to read that and then try to
plug thier line feed to the AC directly...?!?! =)

73

Steve, K4YZ

What idiot would even think such a thing?

Subject: AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO
NPRM ON BPL
From: (William)
Date: 3/19/2004 6:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I wonder how long it will take some idiot to read that and then try to
plug thier line feed to the AC directly...?!?! =)

What idiot would even think such a thing?

Good question. Probably the same kind of idiot that makes wierd
assertions like " You just can't accept that unlicensed radio services have a
MAJOR ROLE in emergency comms" and then won't back it up with some sort of
validation, even after being asked that question directly several days in a
row.

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO
NPRM ON BPL
From: (William)
Date: 3/19/2004 6:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I wonder how long it will take some idiot to read that and then try to
plug thier line feed to the AC directly...?!?! =)

What idiot would even think such a thing?

Good question.

Probably your kind.

Probably the same kind of idiot that makes wierd
assertions like " You just can't accept that unlicensed radio services have a
MAJOR ROLE in emergency comms" and then won't back it up with some sort of
validation, even after being asked that question directly several days in a
row.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, here's your validation.

"Thanks for coming clean and acknowledging that cellular telephones
have played a huge role in emergency response communications."

Steve, if you are going to paraphrase, state so. We will expect it to
be inaccurate due to the very nature of your brain squirming like a
toad.

If you are going to quote, do so very accurately.

But if you are going to change what I said, then claim I said it, you
would be guilty of lying.

How plead thee?

bb