If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi


If you can't think of any thing to type or wish to make this as painless
as possible, you can cut-n-paste the comment I typed below.

/******************************/

In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be
implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the
shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect
international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will be
destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be reduced to
users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas. Emergency
communications will be hindered to levels directly responsible for the
loss of life.

There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will never be
able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass distribution of video
much less the up-and-coming HDTV.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:02:46 -0700, Bill Turner wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:33:52 GMT, yea right wrote:

If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby.

__________________________________________________ _______

Sorry, can't right now, the sky is falling.

If this were anybody but a ham, I would not have responded.

The FCC allowable interference at 30M (~100tf) for the HF band including
6M, is 10uv or ~S9 on your radio. This has been documented in the beta
test areas. Fema and the CoastGuard consider this catastrophic to their
operations and have told the FCC this will cost lives. Yet the FCC, under
pressure from the whitehouse are continuing forward with BPL to provide
another avenue of income for the energy manufactures. The ARRL has
petitioned and won approval to allow more time for public comment.

If the FCC allows BPL and it turns out to wreck your ability to receive
weak signals, you will have no recourse. None what-so-ever! Please
reconsider as this will be our only chance whether the sky is falling or
not.

No matter what we loose, Michael Powell, Bush and big money will see to it.
Sounds like a way of forcing us on this system .......dont want us to using
rooftop TV antennas, radios, CB's model airplanes ect.

-Rev


"yea right" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:02:46 -0700, Bill Turner wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 20:33:52 GMT, yea right wrote:

If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby.

__________________________________________________ _______

Sorry, can't right now, the sky is falling.

If this were anybody but a ham, I would not have responded.

The FCC allowable interference at 30M (~100tf) for the HF band including
6M, is 10uv or ~S9 on your radio. This has been documented in the beta
test areas. Fema and the CoastGuard consider this catastrophic to their
operations and have told the FCC this will cost lives. Yet the FCC, under
pressure from the whitehouse are continuing forward with BPL to provide
another avenue of income for the energy manufactures. The ARRL has
petitioned and won approval to allow more time for public comment.

If the FCC allows BPL and it turns out to wreck your ability to receive
weak signals, you will have no recourse. None what-so-ever! Please
reconsider as this will be our only chance whether the sky is falling or
not.

The public as well as most politicians are stupid when it comes to this
stuff. and doesn't have a voice in it anyway
If you honestly believe the FCC will sacrifice lives in order to have
BPL
Yes, its all about greed and money.
The suits are believing bogus studies done in selected Carolina towns where
power lines were underground, no ham population.

BTW, most Coast Guard ships (around here anyway, NYC) are so scuttled and
run down they dont even have HF capability. They get relayed info from a
fixed station inland

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 01:17:00 GMT, yea right wrote:

Fema and the CoastGuard consider this catastrophic to their
operations and have told the FCC this will cost lives.

__________________________________________________ _______

If you honestly believe the FCC will sacrifice lives in order to have
BPL, you are way beyond help. The public outcry would be horrendous.

Incidentally, are you a ham? Yea Right sounds like that "other"
service. :-)

--
Bill, W6WRT
QSLs via LoTW

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:54:21 -0700, "Gary B"
wrote:

Sorry to say, the public doesn't give a #$@!& about what lives MAY be
lost
if HF is somehow compromised, and they CERTAINLY don't care about a
"hobby"
(no matter how important it is to amateurs).

__________________________________________________ _______

In other words, "I'd KILL for high-speed internet!"

I give up.

--


BPL is pie in the sky. Period. It's not going to be a workable system. It
may well start out as broadband, but by the time any real number of
customers come online, it will have dropped well below dialup speeds for
most users. Even ADSL and Cable do this after a while, especially during
peak hours.. and BPL will not have near the bandwidth available that either
of those do.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 06:15:54 -0700, Bill Turner wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:27:39 +0900, "Brenda Ann Dyer"
wrote:
peak hours.. and BPL will not have near the bandwidth available that
either of those do.

__________________________________________________ _______

I agree. I think the real answer is wireless of some kind, probably WiMax
or a similar protocol. Faster, cheaper, better. The best of all worlds.

If you have not already, please file a comment with the FCC. It only takes
a few minutes. We have until June 22nd

Brief instructions at www.vambo.org/a

In rec.radio.swap yea right wrote:

If you have not already, please file a comment with the FCC. It only takes
a few minutes. We have until June 22nd

Brief instructions at www.vambo.org/a

Brief -- and wrong. 03-104 is last year's proceeding. The correct
proceeding is 04-37. 03-104 has been closed for A Long Time.

Also, present rules do allow BPL to be deployed. BPL under present
rules interferes with HF communications, as I stated in my filing in the
current proceeding. The FCC seeks now to promulgate BPL-specific rules.
That is the intent of the current proceeding.
--
To design the perfect anti-Unix, write an operating system that thinks
it knows what you're doing better than you do. And then adds injury to
insult by getting it wrong.
- esr