"Alex" wrote in message
...
FCC Comm. have terms,
half are dem and other half are rep.

Powell will be there for a while.
He has connections.

HERE IS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK OF
FCC CHAIRMAN POWELL AND HIS
ALLEGED " CONNECTIONS "........

he http://www.misternicehands.com/

(after URL loads CLICK anywhere on it....)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:28:42 -0400, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:




I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that indicates
BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service unless
it is subsidized. Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to make
it up?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actually, they have a better idea than increasing electricity rates.
The highly effusive BPL story that ran in Time Magazine recently said
BPL will bundle internet access with telephone service and
video-on-demand.

We hams got a hell of a fight on our hands.

bob
k5qwg

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:28:42 -0400, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:




I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that
indicates
BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service
unless
it is subsidized. Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to
make
it up?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actually, they have a better idea than increasing electricity rates.
The highly effusive BPL story that ran in Time Magazine recently said
BPL will bundle internet access with telephone service and
video-on-demand.

We hams got a hell of a fight on our hands.


Video on demand??? They gotta be outta their pea-pickin' minds.. Where they
gonna get the sort of bandwidth they need to provide all those services?
It's not like they're going to have ADSL type bandwidths available to every
home (and the more homes they connect, the less bandwidth they will have
available for each).. and I have problems at times with Video on Demand with
my ADSL line (supposedly 10 Mbit, but I rarely acheive download speeds
greater than about 400Kbit).

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Hmmm. Do you think radio amateurs have enough friends in Washington
to get anything like that?

Nope.

Or maybe, if amateur radio interferes with a BPL system which
benefits millions, the FCC will restrict amateur radio to protect BPL?

I doubt the "benefits millions" bit, but will the FCC restrict amateur radio
if it interferes with big-business political contributors' operations ? Of
course it will.

ak

"AK" wrote in message
news:QdQxc.26209$Sw.14324@attbi_s51...

[snip]


I doubt the "benefits millions" bit, but will the FCC restrict amateur
radio
if it interferes with big-business political contributors' operations ? Of
course it will.

ak



OK -- I'll go through it.

If BPL works as promised, it will benefit millions. The BPL folk promise
high speed internet access at under $30.00 a month. Every other high speed
access provider will have to compete with that price. More than that, BPL
promises continual power line monitoring and millions of dollars for local
governments. That's what BPL promises. If BPL can come through on these
promises, BPL will benefit millions.

Can BPL come through on their promises? I sure don't think so. Most people
with a technical background don't think so. There's a hundred reasons to
think that BPL won't be able to fulfill it's promises.

But how can it be PROVEN that BPL will fail? By talk? By computer
simulations? I'm sure my opinion doesn't cut it. The ONLY way to prove
that BPL cannot fulfill it's glittering promises is to -- let it fail.

BPL is being allowed. That hardly means that BPL will wipe out the SW
bands. Approval was the easy part. All it took was promises.

But now, it's put up or shut time for BPL. So far, BPL's reality check
doesn't seem to be going very well.

Please name the politician who would stand in the way of the BPL promises.
If they did block the BPL promises, then they would hear from the
thickheaded knee-jerks would be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the FCC was in the
pockets of the fat cats who want to keep access prices high.

I hope I've made my point clearly.

Frank Dresser

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...


I saw an analysis somewhere on the web (didn't mark the URL) that
indicates
BPL will not be cheaper the dial-up or various other types of service
unless
it is subsidized.

Yeah, that gets to the heart of an important issue. Will BPL somehow be
profitable?

The quality of the reporting on BPL is, more often than not, poor:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P81685.asp

That guy doesn't seem to have a clue about the technical problems that the
BPL system has to overcome. I suppose he figures that since the FCC doesn't
seem much worried about cranky old hams, then BPL is on easy street. I'd
think the financial press would have wised up after the dotcom blowout.

I did see a technically literate investment write up on BPL last year. That
guy thought BPL was a loser.

The ARRL is doing a great job making themselves available to reporters. The
better stories devote a significant part to the ARRL point of view. Still,
the stories often come down to BPL vs ARRL.

Here's a pretty good antiBPL site:

http://gobpl.com/

An interesting page from that site:

http://gobpl.com/sharkbites.html


Perhaps they plan to increase the electric rates to make
it up?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Please, don't give the welfare party and the corparate subsidy party any
ideas!!

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
[snip]

The quality of the reporting on BPL is, more often than not, poor:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P81685.asp

That guy doesn't seem to have a clue about the technical problems that the
BPL system has to overcome. I suppose he figures that since the FCC
doesn't
seem much worried about cranky old hams, then BPL is on easy street. I'd
think the financial press would have wised up after the dotcom blowout.


Nor does he have a clue about how people choose to spend their money. For
example he mentions that there is good market potential since 80% of the
internet users are still on dial up. He seems to think that they will
switch to BPL. But let's look at why they are on dial up. It is cost.
Dial up is still the cheapest access and it will be cheaper than the
projected cost for BPL. Unless they can get much closer to dial up in
price, most will NOT switch. There's a dial up service around here that is
only about $10 per month. Even the most expensive dial up in this area tops
out at $20 per month. BPL won't be able to snag a major share of the dial
users no matter what anyone would like to believe assuming their projected
costs are accurate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 10 Jun 2004 15:04:57 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



The difference being, Broadband and Broadbandd related "stuff" is selling
quite well which correlates at some reasonable level into a demand for
broadband. I'm not sure what the market figures are for shortwave, but I
would guess it's much lower. Even if you were able to get *all* active
SWL's in the U.S. to write (twice) to the FCC in opposition to BPL, how
many protest letters do you think that would amount to in comparison to
the broadband market's demand for broadband? Does anyone in here have any
insight into marketing demographics for SWL's?

I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the
shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their
broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-)

Bob
k5qwg



Of course, the presumption I'm making is that there is a measurable demand
for broadband in those remote locales where it is not already affordably
available via other providers (cable, phone, etc.).

-=jd=-

Clair J. Robinson wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the
shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their
broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-)

Bob
k5qwg



Don't forget that those right-wing preachers and all other US short-wave
broadcasters are licensed to broadcast to foreign locations only. I
guess those 800 numbers are for use in the Caribbean and Canada. Sure,
that has to be the case.

73, CJ K0CJ

You mean if I pick up their broadcast here in the US then that makes
them illegal?

Bob Miller wrote:

I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the
shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their
broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-)

Bob
k5qwg


Don't forget that those right-wing preachers and all other US short-wave
broadcasters are licensed to broadcast to foreign locations only. I
guess those 800 numbers are for use in the Caribbean and Canada. Sure,
that has to be the case.

73, CJ K0CJ