In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

It would seem prudent to have the ARRL petition the FCC to raise amateur
power limits to partially recover that lost 10 dB. I think perhaps a 10 kw
limit would be close enough. It might also make BPL communications a bit
dicey too ;)

Har! :-) :-) :-)

I was totally flabbergasted at reading the Phase 2 report. They
boldly went where no technical person dared to go in saying
"BPL will 'improve' the electric power line noise problems!"

Ideology trumps science! Yes, that was a shocking thing to read.

As of the end of the business day on Friday, 18 June 2004, the
Comment numbers in the FCC ECFS were -

docket 04-37 (NPRM) 1,399
docket 03-104 (NOI) 6,076

There's lots of more-than-one-page real technical problem
presentations there showing that Access BPL is full of snit
than there are for the BPL proponents. I don't think that will
matter much.

The writing seemed clear on the wall last year. BPL *will*
be started. The business folks are geared up for profits.
The President has made both BPL and Broadband a goal.
The good little Republican syncophants are synchronized
to The Word from on high.

BPL = Ban Pretentious Liberals?

Heh. No. It doesn't matter which political power is "in power"
in DC on Access BPL. It evolved from the initial trial in
Norway a decade ago and presents a "business ideology"
(of making money) and all that capitalism stuff.

Somehow, through whatever means, the BPL advocates in the
USA convinced the FCC that it was the greatest thing since
sliced bread to fit the "broadband super highway." It just
happened that the FCC has Republican-oriented commissioners
and the Acting Chief of the NTIA is sucking up to Bush's
speech statement in rather blatant politicalization.


Hoo, we are getting close to that strange discussion we had last year
with the fellow saying that if we know that it interferes, and we
transmit, we are purposely interfereing. That's enough to give a person
a headache!

Not quite. Amateurs have to understand that they are small-time
players in this particular game. All the rah-rah and we-are-the-
greatest internal pep-talking doesn't help the image presented to
the lawmakers. It boils down to a very few individuals trying to
"get even" for incidental interference by deliberate interference
with a communications service. That service is much bigger, in
both employees and affected customers than a few hams in any
particular locality. It would be a lopsided legal fight, despite all
the whoopdedo of "helping" by the League. If Access BPL spreads
to many more communities, the League would run out of legal and
moral resources to help.

Deliberate interference isn't necessary. Ordinary operating should
be sufficient to disrupt Access BPL in any one location. Hams
would just need to transmit more and on different HF bands...not
spending more of their free time on the Internet and then writing
that "they are very active on the bands" when they were not.

But if a person is in a neighborhood with Access BPL, they won't need
to use that linear. Seems 100 watts will do just fine. I don't know the
frequency context of BPL/Amateur transmitter interference, but my guess
is that if you hear it on the band you are transmitting on, you'll do it
interference harm if you fire up.

Perhaps. Technical details of Access BPL systems have yet to
be released to the electronics industry. While that may be logical
to assume, it isn't proof positive.

All in all, though, the FCC has NO POWER to proactively stop
Access BPL now. At best all it can do is set the incidental
RF radiation levels and then enforce those. Or, wait about 30
years or so until BPL is truly legacy service and then, like
land telephony, start drafting more stringent regulations. In 30
years from now, few of us will be in a position to do much.



I left that in on purpose. Just to emphasize that the FCC CANNOT
stop Access BPL right now. But, what can be done, is to demand
TESTING of any installed systems. LOTS of it to correspond with
a wide-area installation (a logical demand).

The FCC has NO power to stop BPL directly. It's not in the rules.
[that's why docket 04-37 is concerned with an NPRM] But, by
demanding appropriate TESTING with emphasis on PASSING all
tests, THAT can make it economically infeasible.

Testing takes valuable manhours. BPL systems will be at many,
many places in one community, therefore MUCH testing is needed
for compliance. Not only does that affect the installation budget,
but it takes TIME to complete. Businesses offering broadband
services want to start making money as soon as possible (also
logical) but lots of testing and test time would delay that.

That's a realistic way of looking at the problem and a possible
way to make BPL economically difficult to sustain. However,
remember that once BPL is in-place, it will quickly become a
legacy service and damn difficult to remove.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article ,

(Steve

Robeson K4CAP) writes:


Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for

truth

From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will
work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?


Very simple reason why not. According to liberals, cheap internet access
(remember it was Gore who "invented the internet" according to his own
statements)

Produce those statements Dee. Show me that quote!

Or do you just repeat what you are told?

In case you want something other than NeoCon Propaganda What he said
was that:

"during my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet".

Gore was instrumental along with other Congressmen and perhaps women in

paving the way for the internet as we know it today. Within the context
of the interview, the message was clear enough. Unfortunately, *some*
members of the (liberal?) press chose to not only take it out of
context, but deliberately misquoted him.

Suggesting Gore saying that he "invented the internet" is very, very
inaccurate.

The Internet went PUBLIC in 1991...under the Clinton-Gore
administration.

The Internet ALREADY EXISTED and was running. Some
may have been, as I was, already on USENET...which grew
out of ARPANET that existed in the 1970s.

Gore was instrumental in getting GOVERNMENT involved
in the Internet, starting the ball rolling so to speak. Every
U.S. government agency, nearly every U.S. community
government now has a website. The military picked up on
that and most large units have websites and promotes
both training and information exchanges through the web.

The electronics industry and academia as well as the
U.S. government were the creators of ARPANET through
the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). With
more and more use, plus evolved increases in rate of
information exchange, that net split with USENET linking
industry and universities. Communications technologies
kept improving, advancing and by late 1990 there were
many who felt that this "new" Internet should be within
everyone's reach. That wasn't a political decision. It was
that of "idealogues" strangely enough. They had seen
the predecessor, BBSs, grow in the decade prior.

As of 2003, a mere dozen years after public opening of
the 'net, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that one in five
U.S. homes had some form of Internet access. That IS
explosive growth. It keeps on growing. The Internet is
now "legacy."

Politics had little to do with it. Technology was the spark.
Ideology and practicality and convenience did the trick
from then on.

This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.

The supreme court appointed the current lying, deceiving creep, despite the
fact we did not elect him.

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for
truth
From: "Jim Hampton"
Date: 6/21/2004 11:30 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Steve,

I have no problem with someone being rich; I have a problem when I pay a
higher percentage of my pay to taxes than they do.


Just because some people are able to abuse the system, this doesn't mean
everyone can succeed in doing so. There are some corrupt individuals at
every level of society. It wasn't so many years ago when welfare fraud was
making the news on a regular basis.

If you will check the IRS data, you will find that people in the top 5% of
income provide over 50% of the income tax revenue collected by the
government. The top 1% pay over 1/3 of the income taxes collected. The
bottom 50% of the people pay less than 4% of the total tax revenues
collected.

This is hardly letting the rich not pay. The ones who slip through the
cracks or find ways to avoid paying are not representative. Unfortunately,
they are news so we only hear the bad stuff.

But who generates the economic base, Jim?

You and I? I don't know you beyond this forum, of course, and you
very
well may be a business owner for all I know. But very, VERY few of those
"rich" are what we would call "idle rich". They got that way because of
businesses they ran, which means people they employed, products they sold
or
services they delivered.

Please don't tell me you are so naive that you think that the wealthy
always
pay a higher percentage in taxes.


There's always people who find ways around the system that does not mean
they all do. To single out the rich smack based on a few frauds smacks of
class envy just as much as denigrating the poor because some of committed
welfare fraud smacks of prejudice.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Hello, Len

Guess I get my dander up too at times. Certainly it is wrong to paint "all"
Republicans or "all" Democrates or "all" of any one group with a wide brush.
Not good at all. Besides, I've gotten led off-topic - not good at all.

I have figured it out, Len. The problem is we are dropping the Morse
requirements. Dang, now my washing machine is going to over-suds again ;)

However, BPL should help the situation. If BPL is going to reduce power
line noise (according to power companies), it should reduce my washer
over-sudsing since it runs from the mains. LOL.

Have a good one!


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/04

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

Guess I get my dander up too at times. Certainly it is wrong to paint "all"
Republicans or "all" Democrates or "all" of any one group with a wide brush.
Not good at all. Besides, I've gotten led off-topic - not good at all.

Some folks with opposite and contrary personal agendas WILL
do that! :-)

I have figured it out, Len. The problem is we are dropping the Morse
requirements. Dang, now my washing machine is going to over-suds again ;)

Har!

However, BPL should help the situation. If BPL is going to reduce power
line noise (according to power companies), it should reduce my washer
over-sudsing since it runs from the mains. LOL.

There ya go! :-)

But, speaking seriously on BPL. A Cedar Rapids ham group got
motivated and really organized for a measurement of a small
BPL trial installation in Cedar Rapids, IA. [the city may be a
familiar one as Collins Radio is located there]

Darn good Comment under docket 03-47 under 21 June 2004 in
the FCC ECFS. First part is long at about 1.3 MB, being the
certified by PE test report, second part is shorter, the text
comment itself.

I will give that Cedar Rapids group a large hand of applause for
their effort. Complete and to the point.

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Yes,

We got rid of Nixon. Now we need to dump Bush.

Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Nixon resigned.

We impeached Clinton because he didn't have the decency to resign.

Nixon resigned after his friends on Capitol Hill told him they couldn't
muster enough votes to avoid throwing him out of office. End of story.

No, not the end of the story. But there would be no point in
discussing it with a closed-minded person such as yourself.

Clinton was not removed from office.

Then what was the purpose of impeaching him? He thwarted the efforts
of honest people by not having the decency to leave.

What Clinton did was terrible to his
wife and daughter,
I really don't want to know what he did to his wife and daughter. The
details of what he did to Monica was bad enough.

but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it do?

Our government and our monetary system is a confidence game. When our
leaders go south, our confidence goes south, and our economy goes
south.

Are you so naive as to think that this huge deficit
Bush is running won't hurt us?

Are you so naive as to think that we haven't seen huge defecits
before, even when they were for unnecessary social spending?

Already some want to reduce social security
more. It isn't that social security is broke (and it appears to be in a bit
better shape than they thought,

But, assuming that you are a Social Security recipient, you just got a
prescription drug benefit.

but as good jobs disappear and are replaced
by near minimum-wage jobs, I wouldn't bet);

Yes, swapping out our manufacturing jobs for service jobs is the wrong
path.

it is that the federal
government has tapped the funds and issued IOUs to social security. They
don't want to pay back money

They'll just print more. Remember the "confidence game?"

to the folks that need it the most. Rob from
the poor and give to the rich.

I'm beginning to think that I'll never be able to retire and spend my
Golden Years learning fast code like I have wanted to. Instead I'll
be working to support people who no longer work or never did work.

Go figure; make $1,000,000 on the stock market and you only pay $150,000 in
tax (15%). Now, go get a $60,000 a year job and see what you pay in taxes.
Don't forget that over 7.5% social security tax you pay (and my pension is
reduced slightly due to my employer's social security contribution.
Retirement based on income above the tax base results in higher percentage
payment.) when you figure your tax load.

I have been pondering the concept of "individual" and that of
"corporation."

I'm told that a corporation has the rights of an individual.

A corporation has inputs and outputs. When the outputs excede the
inputs, it is called profit. The profit is taxed.

An individual has inputs and outputs. All inputs are taxed.

Well, we finally got our high-speed ferry here in Rochester. Like all other
high-profile projects (the new soccer stadium, the baseball stadium), the
owners paid *far* less than they were originally supposed to. The taxpayers
picked up the tab.

The Church of Sweat. Sports are a religion. Seperation of Church and
State.

Now we pay for security here, but Canada won't pay over
there. Net result, before the first outing, prices were raised on vehicles
and occupants as the ferry operator had to pay for security in Canada. Now,
yesterday, we found out that for some reason the ferry folks got to take
over most of the paved parking in a *public* park close to the ferry. I
wonder why, since they raised the cost per vehicle. A *public* park, but in
those spaces, they charge you $5.00 per day to park.

I used to pay for parking in St. Louis. I can't deduct parking as
part of my costs to earn my income.

Where are all of the whiners that complain about welfare? Oh, I forgot;
that doesn't apply to *corporate* welfare.

It does.

Compassionate conservative *IS* an oxymoron. I don't need any more idiots
in Washington running *huge* deficits to benefit the rich.

Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor or marine. I'm tired of
it.

Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/04

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: (William)
Date: 6/22/2004 6:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Yes,

We got rid of Nixon. Now we need to dump Bush.

Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Nixon resigned.

We impeached Clinton because he didn't have the decency to resign.

Nixon resigned after his friends on Capitol Hill told him they couldn't
muster enough votes to avoid throwing him out of office. End of story.

No, not the end of the story. But there would be no point in
discussing it with a closed-minded person such as yourself.

Brain-to-English Translation: "Uh oh...I'm getting backed into yet
another corner...Better make an excuse and bug-out while I am still ahead"

Clinton was not removed from office.

Then what was the purpose of impeaching him? He thwarted the efforts
of honest people by not having the decency to leave.

Yep.

What Clinton did was terrible to his
wife and daughter,
I really don't want to know what he did to his wife and daughter. The
details of what he did to Monica was bad enough.

but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it do?

Our government and our monetary system is a confidence game. When our
leaders go south, our confidence goes south, and our economy goes
south.

Oh CRAP!....Brian and I are in complete agreement with something!

THIS is SCARY!

Are you so naive as to think that this huge deficit
Bush is running won't hurt us?

Are you so naive as to think that we haven't seen huge defecits
before, even when they were for unnecessary social spending?

THAT'S TWICE! I am getting a cold shivver!

Already some want to reduce social security
more. It isn't that social security is broke (and it appears to be in a
bit
better shape than they thought,

But, assuming that you are a Social Security recipient, you just got a
prescription drug benefit.

but as good jobs disappear and are replaced
by near minimum-wage jobs, I wouldn't bet);

Yes, swapping out our manufacturing jobs for service jobs is the wrong
path.

It's a DIFFERENT path. We can do both, it's just the transition that's
worrisome. We demand "change" but get paranoid and run scared when someone
actually does it!

I'm beginning to think that I'll never be able to retire and spend my
Golden Years learning fast code like I have wanted to. Instead I'll
be working to support people who no longer work or never did work.

No one "learn(s)" "fast code"...One ACHIEVES it through practice and use.
You either know the Morse Code or you don't.

Otherwise I share some of the same concerns...Good thing to have other
money in the bank, but I wonder what scam will arise in order to get their
hands on THAT!

Compassionate conservative *IS* an oxymoron. I don't need any more idiots
in Washington running *huge* deficits to benefit the rich.

Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor or marine. I'm tired of
it.

And you expect WHAT to be different if a Demoncrat is elected?

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Hello, Len

Guess I get my dander up too at times. Certainly it is wrong to paint
"all"
Republicans or "all" Democrates or "all" of any one group with a wide
brush.
Not good at all. Besides, I've gotten led off-topic - not good at all.

I have figured it out, Len. The problem is we are dropping the Morse
requirements. Dang, now my washing machine is going to over-suds again ;)

However, BPL should help the situation. If BPL is going to reduce power
line noise (according to power companies), it should reduce my washer
over-sudsing since it runs from the mains. LOL.

It's not that BPL will reduce power line noise but rather that the companies
must reduce the noise to get BPL to work!!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"William" wrote in message
m...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

What Clinton did was terrible to his
wife and daughter,
I really don't want to know what he did to his wife and daughter. The
details of what he did to Monica was bad enough.

but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it
do?

Our government and our monetary system is a confidence game. When our
leaders go south, our confidence goes south, and our economy goes
south.


What bothered me is that since Clinton lied about something so unimportant,
what might he do to cover up something that was much more important.

At the time, I had several German friends and they were totally baffled
about why he bothered to lie. To some extent, this probably hurt his
standing with foreign leaders though my memory tells me that as a whole
Europe loved Clinton.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE