|
BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 25 June 18, 2004 [The ARRL has weighed in on behalf of Iowa amateur and ARRL member Jim Spencer, W0SR, of Cedar Rapids, who has suffered severe broadband over power line (BPL) interference for more than two months. A formal complaint to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon calls on the Commission not only to order Alliant Energy's BPL field trial system to shut down but to fine the utility $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC Part 15 rules. Alleging "ongoing harmful and willful interference to one or more licensed radio stations," the ARRL asked Solomon to intervene "on an emergency basis." ] http://www.uplc.utc.org/index.v3page?p=44489 http://www.uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0...der/33324/UPLC %20Comments%205_3_2004.pdf Power companies are in full denial! (Just saying it doesn't make it true.) If you believe what's being said by UPLC, I have some great land to sell you in Florida, and a wonderful bridge investment in New York. (When did the BPL interference spectrum drop to 1.7 MHz ??) ak - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE UPLC STORY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUMMARY The UPLC generally supports the FCC's initiative to develop rules that will support the deployment of broadband over power line systems that will help achieve President Bush's goal of universal affordable broadband access by 2007.1 The President supports the development of technical standards for BPL towards that goal.2 Utilities and technology providers are poised to meet this ambitious goal and the UPLC appreciates the strong support of the FCC in its BPL proceedings. The UPLC believes that the definition of Access BPL is potentially over-inclusive and should be slightly revised. The UPLC supports the proposal to retain the existing emission limits at the present time, recognizing that the FCC is proceeding cautiously, even though it has found that the interference potential from BPL is low. Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems ET Docket No. 03-104 ET Docket No. 04-37 Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Lines Systems COMMENTS OF THE UNITED POWER LINE COUNCIL Pursuant to Section 1.415 of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") Rules, the United Power Line Council ("UPLC") hereby submits its comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the above referenced proceeding.3 The UPLC supports the proposal to retain the existing emission limits at this time, and suggests only slight changes to the operational limits proposed for Access BPL systems, as well as the proposed definition of Access BPL. Finally, the UPLC supports the proposed measurement guidelines, which will produce consistent and repeatable results that demonstrate compliance with the Part 15 rules. The UPLC heartily thanks the FCC for its support in developing these rules, which strike a very conservative and pragmatic. .. . . . The UPLC is dismayed by the misinformation accepted as gospel by opponents of Access BPL systems. Despite apocalyptic predictions that "BPL is a Pandora's box of unprecedented proportions", the UPLC agrees with the FCC that Access BPL devices will not cause the power lines to "act as countless miles of transmission lines all radiating RF energy along their full length."6 These opponents have produced no scientific evidence to show otherwise, and all the measurements in the field contradict their abstract calculations. The industry continues to test and to address these concerns with licensees in areas where systems have been deployed, but there needs to be a rule of reason when it comes to allegations of BPL interference, and the UPLC applauds the FCC for making that message clear in this proceeding. Definition of Access BPL The proposed definition of Access BPL systems should be narrowly tailored to apply only to systems used to provide broadband access to the customer premises. As such, the UPLC recommends this slightly revised version of the FCC's language in the NPRM: Access Broadband over power line (Access BPL): A carrier current system that transmits high frequency (1.7 MHz) radio frequency energy by conduction over electric power lines owned, operated, or controlled by an electric service provider for the purpose of delivering broadband data services. The electric power lines may be aerial or underground, but do not include power lines within the customer premises or in riser conduit within buildings. Access BPL does not include power line carrier systems, as defined in Section 15.113 of the Commission's rules. .. . . . |
King Zulu wrote:
The ARRL Letter Vol. 23, No. 25 June 18, 2004 [The ARRL has weighed in on behalf of Iowa amateur and ARRL member Jim Spencer, W0SR, of Cedar Rapids, who has suffered severe broadband over power line (BPL) interference for more than two months. A formal complaint to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon calls on the Commission not only to order Alliant Energy's BPL field trial system to shut down but to fine the utility $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC Part 15 rules. Alleging "ongoing harmful and willful interference to one or more licensed radio stations," the ARRL asked Solomon to intervene "on an emergency basis." ] Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? |
In article , JJ
writes: Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? No. 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 |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , JJ writes: Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? No. 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! http://k0bkl.org/bpl.htm John Anderson K0BKL |
N2EY wrote: In article , JJ writes: Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? No. I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies. So many times in history, Ideology has chosen to ignore everything but that ideology's belief. That is one of the reasons that idealogs hate science. As absurd as it may seem, the BPL push is part of current ideology. As such, as long as the current ideology is in place, BPL WILL HAPPEN! Once it comes up against science and laws of nature, as well as the marketplace, it will quite simply fail. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , JJ writes: Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? No. I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies. So many times in history, Ideology has chosen to ignore everything but that ideology's belief. That is one of the reasons that idealogs hate science. Yep. They also choose to ignore the past, which is why they also hate history. You see this in their cries of "Luddite" and "we're in a new era now" and "stop living in the past". As absurd as it may seem, the BPL push is part of current ideology. Part of *some people's* current ideology. And it may be more of a question of expediency than ideology. The recent boom-dot-bust mess hit a lot of folks hard. While the economy slowly recovers and unemployment drops, a lot of good (read "manufacturing jobs with decent pay and benefits") jobs are being replaced by "service economy" jobs (read "do you want fries with that?"). With the election only months away, the incumbents want to be seen as doing and supporting things that will result in more "good" jobs and start another technoboom. The reality won't hit for at least a year, at which time it can be blamed on the "liberals" and the "antenna huggers" and such. As such, as long as the current ideology is in place, BPL WILL HAPPEN! It's already in service at a few sites. The direct result of people wanting "less regulation" and "get the government off our backs". Once it comes up against science and laws of nature, as well as the marketplace, it will quite simply fail. I hope so. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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? A guy who sat side-by-side with this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?! Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?! George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral conviction and honesty. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a travesty and would send the wrong message to the World. This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided electing another. Steve, K4YZ |
Yes,
We got rid of Nixon. Now we need to dump Bush. Best regards 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 |
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 ;) Seriously, however, it is going to be interesting when BPL lines are found adjacent to an active amateurs' property. BPL *will* be affected by rf. Fire up your gallons. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , JJ writes: Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? No. I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies. So many times in history, Ideology has chosen to ignore everything but that ideology's belief. That is one of the reasons that idealogs hate science. As absurd as it may seem, the BPL push is part of current ideology. As such, as long as the current ideology is in place, BPL WILL HAPPEN! Once it comes up against science and laws of nature, as well as the marketplace, it will quite simply fail. Sad to say, BPL (and PLC) already happened. Three areas now and a fourth coming on-line soon in the USA. According to NTIA and that wonderful Michael Gallagher (Asst. something or other there) praising the snit out of BPL, BPL offers some wonderful things ahead - 1. Powerline noise will actually DROP as a result of installing BPL since untilies must fix that in order for BPL to get data through! 2. Existing BPL systems 'merely' raise the HF noise floor the small amount of 10 db. Not a problem says them in Phase 2 study. 3. President Bush (the younger) says "the country needs BPL" and the party faithfull followers reprise that throwaway mantra. Ergo, if da Prez say 'we' need it, then 'we' need it. End msg. "Idealogues?" Nah. "Take-the-lobbyist-handout-monies-and-run- logues." Don't worry about any HF receiver sensitivity values in the future. Won't matter. Noise floor will have moved up 10 db and a Noise Factor of 20+ in a front end will do the job in that hash. --- 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 , (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? A guy who sat side-by-side with this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?! When did John Kerry sit side-by-side with Hanoi Jane? And if such proximity disqualifies someone, how about Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with, and warmly greeting, Saddam Hussein? How about the blind eye the Reagan Administration turned to SH's chemical warfare against the Kurds? Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?! Hanoi Jane's treasonous actions (not just words) are well documented (see www.snopes.com). What actions of John Kerry do you refer to? He's a decorated veteran who served in Vietnam, then came back to the USA and opposed that war. Was he wrong to follow his conscience in doing so? Is anyone who speaks out against a war - any war - automatically wrong? Consider this, Steve: During WW2, FDR (a Democrat) ran for reelection in 1944, in the middle of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen - or hopefully ever will see. Yet the Republicans nominated someone to run against him. Was that giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!" Or how about when Richard Nixon (a Republican) ran for reelection in 1972, during the very war Mr. Kerry fought in. Mr. Nixon had won in 1968, in part on a platform that involved a "secret plan to end the war" - which was still going on 4 years later. The Democrats nominated George McGovern to run against him. Were either the 1968 or1972 campaigns giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!" George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral conviction and honesty. How do you know? He told us that SH had weapons of mass destruction. He told us that there were solid links between the 9-11 terrorism organizations and SH's regime. Yet up to now *no* credible evidence has been provided to back up those claims - in fact, just the opposite has surfaced. This doesn't mean Mr. Bush is dishonest. He may have just been mistaken or misled. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a travesty and would send the wrong message to the World. What message do you wish to send? That the USA will back its leaders no matter what? That the supply of oil is so important that we will look the other way while our suppliers do almost anything? This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided electing another. There's no shortage of those - on either side of the aisle. I'm not saying Mr. K is any better or worse than Mr. B. What I *am* saying is that blind acceptance of any leader's pronouncements leads to trouble. And that condemning someone because of who they allegedly sat next to 30 years ago would lead to a lot of people being condemned... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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) is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder than Bush. After all the government should decide what is best for everyone and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Economic reality be damned as far as the liberals are concerned. At least the "rich corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking money into it. After all they want to stay rich. To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to believe this combination will happen. The investment is too large. Those who are willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to DSL or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but it is the price that people generally put ahead of speed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "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) is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder than Bush. After all the government should decide what is best for everyone and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Economic reality be damned as far as the liberals are concerned. At least the "rich corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking money into it. After all they want to stay rich. To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to believe this combination will happen. The investment is too large. Those who are willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to DSL or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but it is the price that people generally put ahead of speed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, My guess is that the investment costs will be reflected in power bills that we *have* to pay. Of course, large corporations will get breaks on these rates. Many utilities now charge an "access" fee so they can charge "lower" rates. This means that while my bill states a bit over 8 cents per kilowatt hour, I actually pay close to 13 cents per kilowatt hour. Meanwhile, folks in Fairport and Spencerport pay something like 3.5 or 4 cents per kilowatt hour. All of this welfare to the wealthy (make 50 grand a year and you may well pay higher taxes than someone making a million a year - they aren't paying Social Insecurity, plus you have "unearned" income, capital gains ...) is slowly bringing this country down. I am frankly tired of folks blaming "liberals", which, loosely defined is not agreeing with everything the Repooblican party says is gospel. It appears one cannot even be moderate without being called a card-carrying liberal. The last time *everyone* followed a leader without question led up to WWII. Watch who pays for the infrastructure of BPL. Oh, the operating costs will be paid by the BPL users (assuming it succeeds), but stand by for who will pay the initial costs. Best regards 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 , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "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) Whoa, hold it right there! Show us where Algore actually claimed to have "invented the internet". What he *did* claim, and rightfully so, is to have had a role in enacting the legislation that made it possible. The record shows that to be a valid claim. is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder than Bush. OTOH, the "liberals" (a term never well defined) are big on environmental protection, resource conservation and pollution reduction. Since BPL pollutes the RF spectrum (a limited natural resource), it makes sense they would be *against* BPL. After all the government should decide what is best for everyone and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Isn't a major role of government that of protecting the minority? Economic reality be damned as far as the liberals are concerned. Really? What's the economic reality of BPL? At least the "rich corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking money into it. After all they want to stay rich. Is that how the oil industry works? Or the auto industry? To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to believe this combination will happen. Me too. It also needs to be compatible. Take your DSL system anywhere in the US, and the hardware still works. That's not true of BPL. The investment is too large. Those who are willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to DSL or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but it is the price that people generally put ahead of speed. All true. In addition, the areas served by those nonspectrumpolluting technologies keeps growing and growing. Here in Radnor, PA, we can get dialup, DSL and/or cable service - not to mention satellite. Then there's the whole issue of wireless access. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54, "John Anderson"
writes: http://k0bkl.org/bpl.htm John Anderson K0BKL I will take a look... Interesting thing about that name "John Anderson" - reminded me of the 3rd party candidate who helped defeat Carter in 1980. One of the biggest reasons we got 8 years of Bill Clinton is that Ross Perot divided the anti-Clinton voters. And he did the the same trick twice! Then in 2000, the shoe was on the other foot. Ralph Nader, the latter-day Harold Stassen, divided the anti-Bush voters enough so that Algore didn't win. (Exit polls of Nader voters showed that if Nader had dropped out of the race, about half of his support would have gone to Gore, a quarter to Bush and the rest would have either stayed home or voted for other 3rd party candidates.) The difference was enough that close states like Florida would have not been close at all. Gore would have won decisively. So we have the amazing irony that the author of "Unsafe At Any Speed" and lifelong critic of Big Business was the key factor in putting a Texas oilman in the White House. And he may do the same trick again. 73 de Jim, N2EY So we had the |
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 6/20/2004 1:57 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: I'm not saying Mr. K is any better or worse than Mr. B. What I *am* saying is that blind acceptance of any leader's pronouncements leads to trouble. And that condemning someone because of who they allegedly sat next to 30 years ago would lead to a lot of people being condemned... Kerry is a chronic apologist. He will do nothing when this country is attacked but wring his hands, say "Oh, we're sorry, did something we do/say offend you?...P L E A S E forgive us" Having been in the apologist-era Armed Forces of the late 70's, it is my freverent hope that we DON'T allow ourselve to regress to that stage, which is exactly what I fear will happen with this candidate. Carter tried to castrate the Armed Forces in the 70's. Bill Clinton didn't try to castrate them...he just made it possible for other guys to play with them....Oh yeah...he let a bunch of ragheads drag some of our guys through the streets of Mogandishu and them rewarded them by doing exactly what they wanted us to do. Kerry? He IS bad news and he'll continue to be bad news. He's already angry that the Republicans have done exactly what they said they'd do, and it's an embarrassment to Democrats. Clinton and his bunch tried to make the economy look good with smoke and mirrors, and as soon as he was no longer in office and able to hold the mirrors up, the true nature of his economics became apparent. Bush Jr, just like his dad and President Reagan before him, have publically stated that economic recovery, if it is to remain viable, is a slow and steady process. They were right. Kerry will be more of the same "Tax 'Em To The Bone Then Flash Them With Great Entitlement Programs Made With Thier Own Money". We don't need Kerry. John Edwards had a chance...he just didn't bark as loud as Kerry. Too bad. Steve, K4YZ |
"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. |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "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) is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder than Bush. After all the government should decide what is best for everyone and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Economic reality be damned as far as the liberals are concerned. At least the "rich corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking money into it. After all they want to stay rich. To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I find it hard to believe this combination will happen. The investment is too large. Those who are willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to DSL or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but it is the price that people generally put ahead of speed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, My guess is that the investment costs will be reflected in power bills that we *have* to pay. Of course, large corporations will get breaks on these rates. Many utilities now charge an "access" fee so they can charge "lower" rates. This means that while my bill states a bit over 8 cents per kilowatt hour, I actually pay close to 13 cents per kilowatt hour. Meanwhile, folks in Fairport and Spencerport pay something like 3.5 or 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Well keep in mind that the utility companies will have to go before the state's public utilities commision and get their approval to raise electric rates to pay for internet. This could be a hard sell. All of this welfare to the wealthy (make 50 grand a year and you may well pay higher taxes than someone making a million a year - they aren't paying Social Insecurity, plus you have "unearned" income, capital gains ...) is slowly bringing this country down. I am frankly tired of folks blaming "liberals", which, loosely defined is not agreeing with everything the Repooblican party says is gospel. It appears one cannot even be moderate without being called a card-carrying liberal. The last time *everyone* followed a leader without question led up to WWII. That's OK. I'm just as tired of folks blaming "conservatives" for the world's ills. It cuts both ways. Both groups have had good ideas and bad ideas. Watch who pays for the infrastructure of BPL. Oh, the operating costs will be paid by the BPL users (assuming it succeeds), but stand by for who will pay the initial costs. Again they will have to have the approval of the state's public utility commission and this could be difficult in some states. Just as people are unwilling to step up to the cost of cable modems, etc for high speed access, they will be just as irate or even more irate at proposals to increase electric rates. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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!" 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. It doesn't matter who wins a majority in the General Election. BPL has started to deploy. Once it is IN, it becomes legacy. Once the initial costs are taken care of, it is in the regular profit time and the installers will fight tooth and nail to keep it. The worm could turn. With a legacy-status "utility" the BPLers could gain leverage to actually STOP or cut down on all those nasty interfering HF emitters...like amateur radio transmitters. Unknown, but it is a spectre hovering in the background. Look at the troubles some hams have in getting noisy electric power lines fixed. Electric power distribution is very "legacy" by now and the electric utility companies move slowly (if at all) on repairs. Seriously, however, it is going to be interesting when BPL lines are found adjacent to an active amateurs' property. BPL *will* be affected by rf. Fire up your gallons. Seriously, that's not a good idea. Hams are conditioned now to be legal. Deliberate interference is illegal. It is much easier to pull the tickets of a few hams doing deliberate interference than it is to remove or reduce a legal deliberate interference source in the form of BPL with government-accepted regulations. 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. |
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
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? A guy who sat side-by-side with this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?! Did he? Heard that that photo was fake. And it's not like he was touring Hanoi with her. For all we know, Jane might have been a CIA spy. Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?! Vietnam was a stupid war. Now if we had a goal and a strategy that made any sense, maybe we could have achieved something... George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral conviction and honesty. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a travesty and would send the wrong message to the World. Problem is that he's trying to skip over that "separation of church and state" thing. This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided electing another. But the economy wasn't in the toilet. I didn't care if Bill got a BJ or not. But he should have owned up to it in that court of law. "Okay, I did it. You happy now? Don't we have more important things to spend time on?" After a month it would have blown over... Why does GW still claim that Saddam aided Al Queda? Or is it that Saddam didn't tell the USA ambassador in Bagdad (or elsewhere) that "Al Queda is planning an attack on you guys and I kicked them out of my palace"? Not telling the cops about someone hatching a crime conspiracy is illegal. |
"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. Clinton was not removed from office. What Clinton did was terrible to his wife and daughter, but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it do? Are you so naive as to think that this huge deficit Bush is running won't hurt us? 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 as good jobs disappear and are replaced by near minimum-wage jobs, I wouldn't bet); it is that the federal government has tapped the funds and issued IOUs to social security. They don't want to pay back money to the folks that need it the most. Rob from the poor and give to the rich. 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. 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. 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. Where are all of the whiners that complain about welfare? Oh, I forgot; that doesn't apply to *corporate* welfare. Compassionate conservative *IS* an oxymoron. I don't need any more idiots in Washington running *huge* deficits to benefit the rich. 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 |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... Well keep in mind that the utility companies will have to go before the state's public utilities commision and get their approval to raise electric rates to pay for internet. This could be a hard sell. That's OK. I'm just as tired of folks blaming "conservatives" for the world's ills. It cuts both ways. Both groups have had good ideas and bad ideas. Again they will have to have the approval of the state's public utility commission and this could be difficult in some states. Just as people are unwilling to step up to the cost of cable modems, etc for high speed access, they will be just as irate or even more irate at proposals to increase electric rates. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Hello, Dee I will absolutely agree with you that the sword cuts both ways. I am so *darn* tired of someone saying something and everyone jumping up and down and clapping their hands, whether BPL or weapons of mass destruction. Some argue that it is just the old hams that are fighting BPL. My problem is that just because the power company says it isn't interfering with anyone doesn't make that gospel. 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 |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , JJ writes: Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? No. I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies. So many times in history, Ideology has chosen to ignore everything but that ideology's belief. That is one of the reasons that idealogs hate science. Yep. They also choose to ignore the past, which is why they also hate history. You see this in their cries of "Luddite" and "we're in a new era now" and "stop living in the past". As absurd as it may seem, the BPL push is part of current ideology. Part of *some people's* current ideology. And it may be more of a question of expediency than ideology. The recent boom-dot-bust mess hit a lot of folks hard. While the economy slowly recovers and unemployment drops, a lot of good (read "manufacturing jobs with decent pay and benefits") jobs are being replaced by "service economy" jobs (read "do you want fries with that?"). C'mon, Jim! Burger flippin' is going to be moved from "service" to "manufacturing" With the election only months away, the incumbents want to be seen as doing and supporting things that will result in more "good" jobs and start another technoboom. The reality won't hit for at least a year, at which time it can be blamed on the "liberals" and the "antenna huggers" and such. Repeat after me: All problems are the fault of Liberals... All problems are the fault of Liberals.... All problems are the fault of Liberals... It's great. As long as you can blame everything on the dreaded liberal, you are absolved of any blame yourself. I personally know perhaps 1500 people. Maybe only 5 or 6 are actual Liberals. And no one that thinks like they do has been running the show in a long time. How did they get such power to make all the problems in the world? As such, as long as the current ideology is in place, BPL WILL HAPPEN! It's already in service at a few sites. The direct result of people wanting "less regulation" and "get the government off our backs". Actually, it's just a different group making the regulations. The golden rule, as it were. Once it comes up against science and laws of nature, as well as the marketplace, it will quite simply fail. I hope so. Hey, just to insert something good into this depressing topic, Mike Melville has been tapped to pilot Burt Rutan's SpaceshipOne tomorrow at 0630 PDT. If successful and he reaches suborbital flight, this will be just about as cool an event as I've seen in years. CNN is covering the event. Dunno why Fox isn't. Seems like private spaceflight would be right up their alley. Maybe Burt is a Leeberal? ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
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. is a right so Kerry could be expected to push BPL even harder than Bush. After all the government should decide what is best for everyone and amateurs are too small a minority to watch out for. Economic reality be damned as far as the liberals are concerned. Are liberals anyone that disagrees with the present administration? People bandy that word about with such abandon that I'd like to examine it. I like the idea that the government that governs least governs best. I like the ability to have and express my own opinion. I like the ability to get rich if I desire (or at least attempt to) I believe that all people should know that they are expected to be contributing members of society, and if they plan on being lazy and don't want to work for a living, as far as I am concerned, they can exist off what private charity gives them or else they are welcome to crawl off in a hole somewhere. I like the idea that no one gets special consideration, (such as farm subsidies) for simply doing their jobs. And I don't think any government should be allowed to spend $.01 more than it takes in, except for extraordinary circumstances, such as all out war. That would seem to make me a conservative. But that doesn't seem to be the way things are going, does it? NeoCons are actually Liberals in disguise. Different details, but the same results. I apologize if I get a little testy on the subject, but I think that Conservatives are straying as far from their original principles as the Liberals strayed from theirs. The results will eventually be the same. At least the "rich corporations" will, if BPL is not economical, kill it instead of sinking money into it. After all they want to stay rich. Thank heavens! To really make any inroads in the market, BPL will need to be as cheap as dialup and as fast and reliable as cable modem. I doubt that will ever happen. It starts more expensive and slower than cable, and if it gets more popular, it will probably get slower. I find it hard to believe this combination will happen. Agreed! The investment is too large. Yeah, that is the strange part. The companies are going to have to run fiber *almost* to the house! This means that the people that are signing up are just that close to fiber performance! Why on earth they wouldn't just run it the whole way is beyond me. Those who are willing to pay the price for high speed access have already switched to DSL or cable, etc. Even they are fighting to get people to leave dialup but it is the price that people generally put ahead of speed. Depends. I used to have a dedicated phone line, and Compuserve for ISP. I switched to Cable modem, got rid of the second phone line, and after 1 year, I made back all the money I paid for the cable modem, and am now paying about $15.00 less per month (fiscally conservative 'lil ol' me) than I was before. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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? It doesn't matter who wins a majority in the General Election. BPL has started to deploy. Once it is IN, it becomes legacy. Once the initial costs are taken care of, it is in the regular profit time and the installers will fight tooth and nail to keep it. The worm could turn. With a legacy-status "utility" the BPLers could gain leverage to actually STOP or cut down on all those nasty interfering HF emitters...like amateur radio transmitters. Unknown, but it is a spectre hovering in the background. Look at the troubles some hams have in getting noisy electric power lines fixed. Electric power distribution is very "legacy" by now and the electric utility companies move slowly (if at all) on repairs. Seriously, however, it is going to be interesting when BPL lines are found adjacent to an active amateurs' property. BPL *will* be affected by rf. Fire up your gallons. Seriously, that's not a good idea. Hams are conditioned now to be legal. Deliberate interference is illegal. It is much easier to pull the tickets of a few hams doing deliberate interference than it is to remove or reduce a legal deliberate interference source in the form of BPL with government-accepted regulations. 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! 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. 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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/20/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Clinton was not removed from office. What Clinton did was terrible to his wife and daughter, but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it do? He lied...repeatedly, under oath, looking Hillary and US directly in the eyes. That America kept looking the other way was the second biggest travesty. Oh well... Are you so naive as to think that this huge deficit Bush is running won't hurt us? 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 as good jobs disappear and are replaced by near minimum-wage jobs, I wouldn't bet); it is that the federal government has tapped the funds and issued IOUs to social security. They don't want to pay back money to the folks that need it the most. Rob from the poor and give to the rich. Too bad folks didn't spend some more time reading Steve Forbes' plan for restructuring the tax system in this country. Compassionate conservative *IS* an oxymoron. I don't need any more idiots in Washington running *huge* deficits to benefit the rich. Why is it that we Americans always brag how anyone with the right motivation and determination can become a millionaire, yet when they do it, we take gleeful delight in doing/saying what we can to bring them down? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: Robert Casey Date: 6/20/2004 8:37 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote: And replace him with who? John Kerry? A guy who sat side-by-side with this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?! Did he? Heard that that photo was fake. And it's not like he was touring Hanoi with her. For all we know, Jane might have been a CIA spy. Uh huh. Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?! Vietnam was a stupid war. Now if we had a goal and a strategy that made any sense, maybe we could have achieved something... The war wasn't stupid. Our conduct of it was. You can't take the battle to the enemy, reach a certain goal, then recede and expect to win. Where would we have been if we just pushed the German's back to the Rhine, or if we didn't George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral conviction and honesty. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a travesty and would send the wrong message to the World. Problem is that he's trying to skip over that "separation of church and state" thing. Hardly, Robert. He's a man of strong moral conviction and I believe him to be honest in his desire to see a moral reawakening in this country. While I think that organized religion in it's own right is a scam, the basic tenents of Christan belief are what built this nation and made it strong. The ironic thing is that the basic tenents of ALL major religions profess the same thing, yet all are at each others throats over who's more right or more devout. But no nation can exist for any length of time without some basis of faith and basic moral convictions. We have already watered down each and every tenent of basic civility until only the force of law exists. And once we have removed the "roadblocks" of some basic moral standards, what's left? This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided electing another. But the economy wasn't in the toilet. I didn't care if Bill got a BJ or not. But he should have owned up to it in that court of law. "Okay, I did it. You happy now? Don't we have more important things to spend time on?" After a month it would have blown over... The economy was held together by a ton of taxes, Robert. Reagonomics started us on the road to financial solvency. Clintonomics taxed the be-jeebers out of us. Why does GW still claim that Saddam aided Al Queda? Or is it that Saddam didn't tell the USA ambassador in Bagdad (or elsewhere) that "Al Queda is planning an attack on you guys and I kicked them out of my palace"? Not telling the cops about someone hatching a crime conspiracy is illegal. I agree. That's what happens when you don't have an intelligence network you can trust in place and have to depend on third party sources. Thanks, Jimmy Carter. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
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. Please don't tell me you are so naive that you think that the wealthy always pay a higher percentage in taxes. Fortunately, one overhaul in social security plugged one big hole. Social security used to be based on the highest three earning years in the last 10. I knew one businessman that paid himself quite poorly, taking most of the money as unearned income (thus exempt from social security). Fact is, I know a businesswoman doing the same thing. What happens is they start paying themselves handsomely the last few years (and paying those payroll taxes too). As a result, they pay over 20 or 30 years half what others pay and collect at 100% social security. Unfortunately for both of these folks, they changed social security so it is based on the 30 highest earning years, so now they get a lot less. But that loophole existed for years. Why is it that these "compassionate" conservatives can stand by and watch school districts with 30 plus students in a classroom whilst a suburban school has only 20 per class and every 8th grader receives a *laptop computer* and honestly believe that everything is just fine? How did New York state, in calculating aid to school districts, manage to count every student in NYC as 0.7 student? You are gullible at best. I'm not mad at you, just upset at priorities in this country. Remember too that the whole world is watching this country to see if our actions anywhere correspond to what we are saying. If I were a European nation, I'd not only be a bit skeptical, I'd be nervous too. 73, 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 , (Chief
of Stuff of the U.S. military) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: Robert Casey Date: 6/20/2004 8:37 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote: And replace him with who? John Kerry? A guy who sat side-by-side with this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?! Did he? Heard that that photo was fake. And it's not like he was touring Hanoi with her. For all we know, Jane might have been a CIA spy. Uh huh. Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?! Vietnam was a stupid war. Now if we had a goal and a strategy that made any sense, maybe we could have achieved something... The war wasn't stupid. Our conduct of it was. You can't take the battle to the enemy, reach a certain goal, then recede and expect to win. Must have been the site of nursie's "hostile actions." Where would we have been if we just pushed the German's back to the Rhine, or if we didn't Didn't the USMC do good in Yurp? George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral conviction and honesty. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a travesty and would send the wrong message to the World. Problem is that he's trying to skip over that "separation of church and state" thing. Hardly, Robert. He's a man of strong moral conviction and I believe him to be honest in his desire to see a moral reawakening in this country. While I think that organized religion in it's own right is a scam, the basic tenents of Christan belief are what built this nation and made it strong. "tenents?" "Christan?" :-) White power rules! Strength! Combat! Kill! Destroy! The ironic thing is that the basic tenents of ALL major religions profess the same thing, yet all are at each others throats over who's more right or more devout. Everbody gotta be "Christan!" But no nation can exist for any length of time without some basis of faith and basic moral convictions. Right...and therefore, amateur radio gotta have code test. :-) We have already watered down each and every tenent of basic civility until only the force of law exists. And once we have removed the "roadblocks" of some basic moral standards, what's left? Aren't the "tenents" paying rent or something? This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided electing another. But the economy wasn't in the toilet. I didn't care if Bill got a BJ or not. But he should have owned up to it in that court of law. "Okay, I did it. You happy now? Don't we have more important things to spend time on?" After a month it would have blown over... The economy was held together by a ton of taxes, Robert. Reagonomics started us on the road to financial solvency. Clintonomics taxed the be-jeebers out of us. Riiiiight. :-) Whatever it is Democrats are the Antichrist! Why does GW still claim that Saddam aided Al Queda? Or is it that Saddam didn't tell the USA ambassador in Bagdad (or elsewhere) that "Al Queda is planning an attack on you guys and I kicked them out of my palace"? Not telling the cops about someone hatching a crime conspiracy is illegal. I agree. That's what happens when you don't have an intelligence network you can trust in place and have to depend on third party sources. Thanks, Jimmy Carter. Democrats are the Antichrist! I just luvvvv these informed diss and cuss sessions about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY matters done in a "meaningful discourse" manner. :-) Well, best to let the Chief of Stuff go back to his Stuff duties and everyone else MIGHT get back to Access BPL. Maybe. Temper fry... LHA / WMD |
In article , (U.S.
Military Chief of Stuff and former President) writes: Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/20/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Clinton was not removed from office. What Clinton did was terrible to his wife and daughter, but what damage to the country (other than a major distraction) did it do? He lied...repeatedly, under oath, looking Hillary and US directly in the eyes. That America kept looking the other way was the second biggest travesty. Oh well... Nursie think Democrats be the Antichrist. Nursie also think: All Democrats LIE, cheat, steal, and smell bad under arms. Are you so naive as to think that this huge deficit Bush is running won't hurt us? 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 as good jobs disappear and are replaced by near minimum-wage jobs, I wouldn't bet); it is that the federal government has tapped the funds and issued IOUs to social security. They don't want to pay back money to the folks that need it the most. Rob from the poor and give to the rich. Too bad folks didn't spend some more time reading Steve Forbes' plan for restructuring the tax system in this country. Riiiiiight. Compassionate conservative *IS* an oxymoron. I don't need any more idiots in Washington running *huge* deficits to benefit the rich. Why is it that we Americans always brag how anyone with the right motivation and determination can become a millionaire, yet when they do it, we take gleeful delight in doing/saying what we can to bring them down? Cuz all nursie wanna do is FIGHT! [got no money...not enuf] Well...there goes any hope for "meaningful discussion" on how BROADBAND OVER POWER LINES is going to hurt/help U.S. amateur radio. Tune in next day for another brilliant thoughful reason for the decline and fall of the world as nursie knows it... Temper fry... LHA / WMD |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com