League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BPL Rural Service Myth:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 05
on
February 2, 2007
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BPL Rural Service Myth:
The ARRL this week took FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin to task for telling the
US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that broadband
over power line (BPL) technology is the answer to broadband deployment in
rural areas. Martin and the other four FCC commissioners testified February
1 during a committee hearing, "Assessing the Communications Marketplace: A
View from the FCC." In his prepared remarks, the chairman described BPL as a
"potentially significant player due to power lines' ubiquitous reach,
allowing it to more easily provide broadband to rural areas." ARRL Chief
Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, criticized Martin for repeating
"specious BPL industry claims" that suggest BPL has anything to offer rural
dwellers.
"The assertion that BPL can 'more easily provide broadband to rural areas'
is one of the big lies about BPL," Sumner said. "It has been debunked time
and time again, and it is beyond comprehension to hear it parroted by the
federal government's senior telecommunications regulator at this late date."
Martin's remarks, Sumner added, "should demonstrate to the committee why
legislation is needed to force the FCC to use technical studies, rather than
outdated industry propaganda and wishful thinking, as the basis for making
BPL-related decisions."
Martin cited United Power Line Council (UPLC) "reports" that there are now
at least 38 trial BPL deployments plus 7 commercial trials, apparently
deriving his figures by counting the dots on a UPLC map, since updated. The
most recent edition, dated January 19, appears to indicate just 25 BPL
trials, but that list includes some systems that do not appear in the BPL
industry database. The map also shows 9 commercial deployments, including
one in Pennsylvania believed to have been shut down.
The FCC's "High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30,
2006" report -- the most recent available -- shows that the number of
high-speed "lines" grew by nearly 13.5 million in the first six months of
last year. Of that number, nearly 640 were listed as "power line and other,"
an increase of some 14 percent in that category but about half the overall
growth in high-speed services.
"These latest FCC figures underscore just how far out of touch the
Commission itself is with marketplace reality," Sumner remarked. "How much
longer will the Commission continue to tout BPL as a viable consumer
broadband option in the face of its own contrary data?"
In joint comments to the FCC in 2003 on the then-pending BPL rule making
proceeding, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) and the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) cited studies
indicating BPL would "not be a viable solution for most Americans in truly
rural areas any time soon."
"To date, no BPL system has been demonstrated to work, much less been
commercially deployed, on a long, sparsely populated rural electric power
line," the NRTC/NRECA comments said. "Even if BPL technology proves to be
reliable and does not cause unacceptable radio frequency interference in
rural deployment, the economics will likely be prohibitive for some time to
come. This is because signal repeaters or regenerators will be required at
intervals as small as one-fourth to three-fourths of a mile along lengthy
rural power lines" in addition to the numerous and necessary network access
points and backhaul lines.
More recently, the NRTC last fall cited studies by Chartwell Inc, a research
company specializing in electric power topics, that found only 5 percent of
utilities were moving ahead with BPL projects while 13 percent were planning
or "considering" them. On the other hand, two utilities with more than a
million customers between them reported discontinued existing BPL programs,
according to a Chartwell member newsletter.
The League has suggested that potential investors in rural broadband
delivery would be better off considering wireless LAN or satellite
technology as more promising possibilities.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 26, No. 05
February 2, 2007
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL the little engine that could not.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"More recently, the NRTC last fall cited studies by Chartwell Inc, a research company specializing in electric power topics, that found only 5 percent of utilities were moving ahead with BPL projects while 13 percent were planning or "considering" them. On the other hand, two utilities with more than a million customers between them reported discontinued existing BPL programs, according to a Chartwell member newsletter.
The League has suggested that potential investors in rural broadband delivery would be better off considering wireless LAN or satellite technology as more promising possibilities."
So, the ARRL is moving ahead in its promised pursuit of BPL conformance to the rules and regulations. This is a public showcase action allowing all hams and the general public to watch minute by minute as the ARRL takes on the FCC before Congress. All you naysayers and ARRL haters can quibble all you want, but you must still stand on the sidelines and watch the action, and you will watch the action looking for any chance to put down the ARRL, but that is all you will be doing, while the ARRL moves forward on behalf of all of us.
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am an ARRL member, and just to make it clear, I do not hate the League. I support the League.
However, when a small number of members takes a position that arrogantly fails to represent the majority wishes of the membership and Part 97 licensees, attacks an honest and hard working public servant, and does not represent the best interest of Part 97 licensees in this stance, I will publicly correct this renegage band as being improper in who they claim to represent.
You should notice that this attack--and it is an attack IMO-- says NOTHING about amateur radio or the alleged effects of Access BPL upon Part 97 licensees. Instead, its sole purpose is to allege bias against a public servant who merely mentions the possibilities inherent to a particular broadband technology--and to make statements with the intent of stopping that technology from being further implemented, and INVESTORS from doing the American enterpise (building the American future).
Again, Mr. Sumner, claiming to represent the ARRL and thus its membership in this stance,has the apparent intent of trying to attack a TECHNOLOGY--Access BPL--presumably to thwart its implementation in the United States. In other words,under the aegis--Mr. Sumner flaunts his Part 97 affiliation-- of the privileged but circumscribed role of a Part 97 licensee, and as an affiliate of the ARRL, Mr. Sumner has made a public statement that has no demonstrated tie-in to Part 97 nor the mission and wishes of the ARRL membership.
No mention of ham radio, from the public statement of the ARRL, a ham radio organization.
Such polarizing acts do not speak well for the present leadership of this non-profit (ARRL) IMO. It is incumbent upon said leadership to demonstrate that the wishes of the membership are clearly supportive in such actions, as well as such stances that clearly have not been shown to have effect on Part 97 as a public service. Note that when statements are made that don't even mention ham radio, it becomes difficult that they are done under the Articles and mission of said non-profit.
I want to apologize to Mr. Martin, on behalf of other ARRL members, for this unfortunate breach of public etiquette and with the hope that he understands that the actions and comments of a few individuals do not represent the 730,000+ US hams: with a mission for EC assistance; international good will, and forward looking radio and wireless technology skills.
It is not our business to attack, and try to stop, technologies. It is our business to make them work in the name of the public interest--when they can be used --in Part 97.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So, the ARRL is moving ahead in its promised pursuit of BPL conformance to the rules and regulations. This is a public showcase action allowing all hams and the general public to watch minute by minute as the ARRL takes on the FCC before Congress. All you naysayers and ARRL haters can quibble all you want, but you must still stand on the sidelines and watch the action, and you will watch the action looking for any chance to put down the ARRL, but that is all you will be doing, while the ARRL moves forward on behalf of all of us.
"
------------------------
If such nonsense continues, the public will change it's view of ham radio as a PUBLIC SERVICE to a PUBLIC NUISANCE--and we will see a major shift in allotted frequency assignments.
Is that what you want?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by VE6DRW on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It has been debunked time and time again, and it is beyond comprehension to hear it parroted by the federal government's senior telecommunications regulator at this late date."
It seems Mr. Sumner's rhetoric is increasing to attacks that border on the personal. I fail to see how this will help the league's cause in achieving a resolution to the BPL issue. I also wonder how this type of comment is going to play out as the League's lawsuit progresses - "what goes around comes around".
I am becoming increasing dissatisfied with the League's posture - to the point where I am reconsidering my membership renewal. For shame Mr. Sumner ...
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The ARRL this week took FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin to task for telling the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation .....that broadband over power line (BPL) technology is the answer to broadband deployment in rural areas."
".....the chairman described BPL as a "potentially significant player due to power lines' ubiquitous reach, allowing it to more easily provide broadband to rural areas."
"ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, criticized Martin for repeating "specious BPL industry claims" that suggest BPL has anything to offer rural dwellers."
Like all Americans, Dave Sumner is afforded rights under the first amendment and is free to criticize nominated government officials. But as Chip articulated very well, there is no mention of the Part 97 violations that prompted the ARRL's initial complaints. Instead, the ARRL's tactics have shifted to criticizing the FCC chairman on the merits of BPL as a broadband service, which in my opinion makes the ARRL look rather desperate.
The question for U.S. amateurs - and especially the ARRL membership which he directly serves: Is it wise to be criticizing the FCC Chairman on the merits a service which his boss, the President of the United States and the Congress has mandated as an essential public service - and at the same time, attempting to persuade that same Chairman to rule that BPL operators must lower emissions further to accommodate amateur HF mobile operation??
This "Bitter Honey" certainly isn't going to sweeten the Chairman's stance on amateur radio and it's concerns over BPL interference and may very well result in the opposite effect.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry, my post should have read:
"But as Chip articulated very well, the ARRL flaunts it's association with part 97 and there is no mention of the Part 15 violations that prompted the ARRL's initial complaints."
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Make no mistake about it: I feel strongly that Access BPL is obligated to stay within the bounds described by Part 15. I even see the point of view that the possibility of clashes with licensed Part 97 may arise--and need to be resolved as detailed in the Part 15 and Part 97 rules.
But this stuff is, IMO, using a national organization that caters to Part 97 licensees to attack a specific Part 15 technology.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is not about ham radio. IMO it is about USING HAM RADIO as an attempted sledgehammer to drive through a COMMERCIAL agenda that has NOTHING to do with Part 97.
If you don't see this by now, then ask why. It's not as if that opinion has not been clearly and publicly available to date...
We should ALL be affronted by this alleged ARRL response, which more accurately could be called a response by a very few ARRL members-- who hold power within the organization. Not the membership in any substantive form.
Shame!
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by W4IA on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A trend has been developing where Sumner has been crying and whining louder and aiming more personal attacks first at Chairman Powell and now Martin.
It is beginning to sound like what we hear daily from the news media attacking the current administration.
Even though the League pleaded political neutrality, one can only surmise that Sumner's own personal opinions might be coming to the front in his continued attacks on the FCC Chairman.
It now just LOOKS like pure hatred with no mention of Part 15 rule adherence.
Is this the right tactic with a pending lawsuit?
If the ARRL is going to be a lobbyist they should be lobbying Congress. After all, there is a different political party in charge(?) in Congress, and what better time for the ARRL to be heard.
I've been a ham for 52 years, and I have watched the ARRL's activities closely. Some efforts were good for the hobby, some were bad. Some did not appear to represent what the membership really wanted. But during this time the FCC gave the ARRL most of what they demanded.
I don't think taking cheap shots at the people who issue our licenses is either productive or effective.
I'm an ARRL member...for now.
|
| |
|
W1YW has no authority .
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What lunacy! Here we have W1YW attempting to speak on behalf of others:
"I want to apologize to Mr. Martin, on behalf of other ARRL members, for this unfortunate breach of public etiquette and with the hope that he understands that the actions and comments of a few individuals do not represent the 730,000+ US hams: with a mission for EC assistance; international good will, and forward looking radio and wireless technology skills."
If "other" members want to apologize, they must do it themselves. Note to W1YW - there are three things that every ham ought to be mature enough to do for themselves: Tie their own shoelaces, blow their own noses, and make their own apologies when needed. If there are others like you out there, let them come forward or elect to make you their spokesman.
Most of us like our founding fathers still are, by the Grace of God, free and independent.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by NN4RH on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I also am puzzled by this blanket condemnation of BPL just because it is BPL. Especially since the ARRL itself has recognized that not all BPL technologies negatively impact hams. It's only certain implementations of the technology that potentially cause interference, and the actual number of document interference cases is insignificant.
And in rural areas it is even less likely that anyone is going to experience interference, even if it's one of the "bad" types of BPL.
So who cares what the FCC chairman say about nonexistant BPL in rural areas that even if it existed the likelihood of an ham being interfered with is effectively zero, and even if there was interference to someone who lives out in the country there are already regulations in place to deal with that.
It's just activism for activism's sake. Ever since the current clique has taken over the executive branch of the ARRL we've been seeing more and more of this. Every ARRL news release any more sounds more like a political campaign ad than a amateur radio news release.
|
| |
|
RE: W1YW has no authority .
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If "other" members want to apologize, they must do it themselves.
Ray, it's understandable that members and non-members are upset with the ARRL. I'm not an ARRL member and represent myself and maybe others who feel there are better ways to approach this issue than the way the ARRL has chosen.
As part of the remaining 80% or 625,000 U.S. hams who don't have a "league sponsor", it is concerning that the 20 percentile minority is making what are, in my view, overtly rash decisions and statements which have the potential to negatively impact all amateurs.
It might be a different matter entirely if the ARRL made an effort to really represent amateur radio and poll the other 625,000 amateurs first before mounting this type of campaign.
They might also achieve what is very likely one of their highest goals: to make more members out of the 80% majority.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
A republic is not a kingdom. A forum is not a jury
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have seen too many posts that say that we should be oh so careful in how we approach "The Government." This is a republic and not a kingdom. We are not peasants who have to hold our hats in our hands when we address their excellencies.
WE DO NOT HAVE A NOBILITY. WE ARE A SELF GOVERNING PEOPLE.
Now as to BPL, the ARRL has not condemned BPL as such, and that can be known if you read what the ARRL has been doing and saying. eHam.net provides a forum where anyone, including those not well informed and those who otherwise would not attract an audience to their opinions, can post their unsupported and minority viewpoint ideas. These folk can feel good about themselves as they stand in the sidelines and cluck at the ARRL in regard to BPL, but in so doing they learn little about what is really going on, and they contribute nothing to ham radio one way or the other.
|
| |
|
Here is a bone to pick, if you want to pick at it.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The assertion that BPL can 'more easily provide broadband to rural areas' is one of the big lies about BPL," Sumner said. "It has been debunked time and time again, and it is beyond comprehension to hear it parroted by the federal government's senior telecommunications regulator at this late date."
Martin's remarks, Sumner added, "should demonstrate to the committee why legislation is needed to force the FCC to use technical studies, rather than outdated industry propaganda and wishful thinking, as the basis for making BPL-related decisions."
Doe anyone out there want to make some intelligent and knowledged-based criticisms about this? Here is you opportunity. Go at it.
|
| |
|
RE: Here is a bone to pick, if you want to pick at
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sumner's statement was right on target.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Martin's remarks, Sumner added, "should demonstrate to the committee why legislation is needed to force the FCC to use technical studies, rather than outdated industry propaganda and wishful thinking, as the basis for making BPL-related decisions."
Doe anyone out there want to make some intelligent and knowledged-based criticisms about this? Here is you opportunity. Go at it. "
-------------------------------
I would be happy to comment.
The data is valid and the complaints are either outdated or specious. And my congressman has better things to do than harass the FCC--a government agency that is high on the list of ones that is doing its job well.
Where is the EVIDENCE that this nonsensical response by a member of the ARRL has the support--even say 1% support-- of Part 97 licensees?
'Go at it' and show us.
|
| |
|
Nothing but Theatrical Attention Seeking
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW's intelligent and knowledged-based criticisms:
"
The data is valid and the complaints are either outdated or specious." - a simple assertion.
Followed by:
"
Where is the EVIDENCE that this nonsensical response by a member of the ARRL has the support--even say 1% support-- of Part 97 licensees?" - a feeble attempt to throw back the challenge to the wealth of ARRL documentation that he refuses to accept or to critique because he cannot.
W1YW:You go back to the original issue. Offer intelligent and knowledge based criticisms of Dave Sumner's comments or put your trumpet back in the case and latch it.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by KE3HO on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL will not bring high speed internet to rural communities *IF* by that you mean carry the internet signals over many long miles of high or medium voltage transmission lines. However, if enough people in a rural area were interested, an ISP might bring high speed internet via satellite or point-to-point wireless, and then distribute it to end users via BPL. Is that the best solution? That is a different question.
Is an ISP going to run 100 miles of fiber out to some rural town, or use satellite or point-to-point wireless to bring internet to the town, and then dig a trench to each subscriber's home to run a coax or fiber cable? No way. But if they could bring internet to the town via satellite or wireless, might they do that if they could distribute it to end users via BPL? Maybe.
So while BPL cannot BRING internet to a rural area over power lines, it COULD make it feasible for an ISP to come to the town and serve customers that it might otherwise not serve. Of course, once it brought internet to the town, something like wireless to the end users would probably be better and cheaper, but BPL could still be an option.
73 - Jim
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Bravo, - KE3HO - ! We are back on track with an intelligent comment.
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"To date, no BPL system has been demonstrated to work, much less been commercially deployed, on a long, sparsely populated rural electric power line," the NRTC/NRECA comments said. "Even if BPL technology proves to be reliable and does not cause unacceptable radio frequency interference in rural deployment, the economics will likely be prohibitive for some time to come. This is because signal repeaters or regenerators will be required at intervals as small as one-fourth to three-fourths of a mile along lengthy rural power lines" in addition to the numerous and necessary network access points and backhaul lines."
Just what I've been saying all along. Go visit some websites about broadband and BPL isn't even on the radar. Fiber and wireless are the technologies that the established ISPs are developing.
BPL has been *proven* to cause harmful interference. Ever seen the video?
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/18/8/BPL-and-HF-web.mpg
Even the NRTC came to the same conclusion just a couple of years ago. Of course, the FCC wasn't interested in those results because they don't advance the agenda. Anyone who claims the opposite (like certain hams in this very thread) must have their heads buried in the sand. I wonder if W1YW would still sing the same tune if BPL were deployed in Belmont, MA?
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Factually this problen with BPL is political. It is NOT technical.
BPL, as Summner says, will never serve rural America. It is too costly and require far too much upkeep for rural use. That claim is indeed one of the big lies of BPL.
When this mess first stated I was critical of the league for taking a technical approach. It was very clear Bush and the FCC were bought by people promoting BPL, and you can't change the purchase arrangement with a technical argument.
The ARRL needs to start throwing a few bucks at the politicians. That's the only way to win it. Right or wrong has little to do with modern America.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by QSYING on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can the FCC exceed its authority and or operate outside the law?
Irrespective of complaints, comments and opinions, a very valid concern is whether or not FCC, when it made a new Part 15 rule (15.611(c)(1)(iii)), exceeded its authority, failed to comply with the law, or both.
If it didn't do either, then fine.
If it did either or both, then the ends do not justify the means. Agencies simply cannot make rulings that exceed their authority or that do not comply with the law.
All the rest of this discussion is sometimes interesting and sometimes irritating, but largely irrelevant to the question of whether a federal regulatory agency has acted within its authority and within the law.
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0XMZ Quotes NTRC/NRECA:"To date, no BPL system has been demonstrated to work, much less been commercially deployed, on a long, sparsely populated rural electric power line," the NRTC/NRECA comments said. "Even if BPL technology proves to be reliable and does not cause unacceptable radio frequency interference in rural deployment, the economics will likely be prohibitive for some time to come. This is because signal repeaters or regenerators will be required at intervals as small as one-fourth to three-fourths of a mile along lengthy rural power lines" in addition to the numerous and necessary network access points and backhaul lines."
Let me call attention to the last few words. "numerous and necessary network access points and backhaul lines."
A somewhat simplistic comment as to *why* BPL will impede a utility's ability to reconfigure its distribution network to do things like restore power from another source following an outage or to make seasonal load transfers to more economically handle winter or summer peak loading on its distribution network. Yes, even in rural areas, since the revenue per mile of installed facilities is much less there than in urban areas.
In order to retain the flexibility to do just that, the "BPL chain" of repeaters will have to have alternate paths, back up each and every other possible means of line reconfiguration. That's a difficult, if not impossible thing to predict. And, at the same time, provide reasonably decent continuity of service.
For instance, there may be several "cross-ties" as they are called, effectively making several open-ended loop feeds. If the open points are changed, it will be quite difficult to switch downstream BPL customers to different "BPL chains."
And, as I've said before, things like switched shunt-connected capacitor banks will cause nothing but havoc to BPL signal levels. Especially since many such capacitors are switched frequently via time clocks or line voltage or Volt-Amperes-Reactive (VAR)-sensing devices.
Yup, the "with-it" utilities that still employ EEs in decision-making executive positions will likely have no part of this flawed technology. Flawed with respect to its impact on the operation and maintenance of power distribution systems. Of course, the ones with attorneys or accountants, like the Hon. Mr. Martin at the helm, will likely listen and maybe even take the bait. And, that's in addition to those who have, perhaps, taken some green to help their decision-making process.
73,
Lee
W6EM
PS. And, I'm not a fan of Dave Sumner, either. The West Central Florida ARRL Section Manager's theft of a call sign is but one example of late (and the League's treatment of the act.)
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What it comes down to is this:
HAM RADIO: PUBLIC SERVICE OR PUBLIC NUISANCE?
Relevant related questions:
1)What frequency allottments does ham radio really need to execute it's mission in the US?
2) If substantial portions of allottment are re-assigned, will it affect han radio in any measureable way?
3) Is there any evidence that ham radio continues to offer a tangible pool of those skilled in the radio art, or is it sucking on fumes from its AARP aged, pre-retirement/retired group?
4) Would the public be better served by re-allottment fo some ham frequencies?
5) Despite mountains of PR on ham radio's EC capability, is it really needed and where has it made a difference in the last 2 or 3 years?
6) What, exactly is ham radio's contemporary role in 'international good will'?
In other words, 'eye on ham radio'. That's where the activist led effort has taken this.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What it "comes down to" for some, apparently, in our midst is: I see great personal opportunity in the commercial redeployment of amateur radio's spectrum assets. Said another way: I just might be here to promote the end of amateur radio to fatten my wallet.
C'mon audience........
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Trumpter blaster changes his tune.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What it comes down to is this:
HAM RADIO: PUBLIC SERVICE OR PUBLIC NUISANCE? "
...In other words, 'eye on ham radio'. That's where the activist led effort has taken this. "
-Chip W1YW
Oh,now that some knowledge based and intelligent technical posts have been, now W1YW says, it comes down to this. Why didn't you come down to this before?
Now the real problem, according to W1YW has become ARRL's bad behavior turning ham radio into a public nusiance! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
I like all the other posts better. They say something.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would suggest a few readings on post-Hurricane activities to those who continue to question public service aspects and value of the amateur radio service to the public.
The FCC's Report on Katrina's aftermath would be a good one. Its a quick read, and, its "fair and balanced" :-). Repleat with things like fixed-asset failures, and even stories of a 'note in a bottle' being dropped from a hovering helicopter.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by KC0JEZ on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess my biggest question is why the heck is anyone even persuing BPL? How can it possibly be considered financially viable to any power company? Unless there's going to be some nice, big fat government subsidies for implementation.
Rural broadband? Anyone in the country can have it right NOW. I live in a small town. The nearest big town is still only 8,000 people. Here in my 600 person community, all we had was dialup. The cable tv outfit, when I asked about high speed internet on the cable system, told me "we really don't see much call for that". Then I discovered SATELLITE internet. Yup. Fella came out, put a small dish on my garage, hooked me up, and TAH DAH! I had high speed internet. It was not cost prohibitive, I didn't have to do a darn thing to get it working, and it worked flawlessly for two years. About all we had to do was clean the snow out of the dish once, after a blizzard. Downloading was fast, uploading was not, but still better than dialup. So, anyone rural, who wants faster internet can have it now. We even have one rural electric coop that offers the satellite internet service! The satellite service was down and upload thru the satellite (not like the older systems that only download thru the bird, and were still uploading on the phone line). Odd that so many rural folks will install dishes for TV, but either don't know about, or their providers try to hide, satellite internet.
Then, last year DSL came to our little town, so I switched to that, mainly because I wanted the faster upload speeds.
I see no need for BPL to even exist, except for motives outside of the need to simply provide rural broadband.
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It has been debunked time and time again, and it is beyond comprehension to hear it * parroted * by the federal government's senior telecommunications regulator at this late date."
I don't know about you, but if I were the head of a federal agency, I wouldn't appreciate the insinuation that the phrase "parroting" carries with it.
If BPL fails on it's technical merits as a broadband service, be it for city or rural purposes, then why all the fuss and name calling?
The answer is fairly obvious: the ARRL hasn't been getting it's way at all and it's become quite clear they are frustrated, having "hit the wall" with the Bush administration.
IMO, they need to do a better job picking and choosing their battles. Wasting manpower, spending large sums on legal costs and $250K a year on so called "spectrum defense" is wasteful. If they were a for-profit corporation, their senior board would demand that senior management spend capital funding on ways to increase MARKETSHARE, a.k.a MEMBERSHIP, and use their manpower to devise ways of making amateur radio a better service - one that the public considers they can't do without.
.....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's a handy list of questions that I have heard over the last year or so. Should give you a perspective on what some techno-savvy non-hams wonder about ham radio in 2007 (the 'Activist ham' era):
1)Ham radio is touting its participation in emergency efforts. But hasn't this been fixed by local state and federal jurisdictions? Why do you need hams? Do hams have some magic ability to transport themselves where needed? If so, doesn't that mean that the people so affected can get in and out too? Is every ham qualified to paricipate in EC? If no, then why not? What percent of hams DO participate? What kind of guarantee does ham radio EC give on accuracy, especially when people's lives depend on it?
2) Can't you do the same thing with FRS and WiFi?
3) What is the difference, in terms of meeting the needs of the public, between ham and CB? Ham and FRS? Ham and Wifi? Ham and cell phone? What makes 'ham' better and why?
4)Hams have more frequencies than any other group outside of the military--yes? Why do hams need all those frequency allotments? Are there allotments they have that they almost never use?
5)Why are ham operators attacking BPL as a technology and a business activity? What's that got to do with ham radio? Aren't hams employed in that industry? What other technologies is ham radio attacking and why?
6) What new technologies have hams developed in the last few years? Do hams use the internet? Do they use wifi? FRS? CB? If so, then why do they need 'ham'?
7) I read somewhere that a majority of hams get their license and then never even operate. How active is the license base? How many haven't been active for 2 or more years?
8) Hams see themselves as hobbyist, like model train collectors, for example. I thought they were licensed as a public service, not a hobby? Why do they need a license to do a hobby--or conversely, why should they be granted a license to BE a hobbyist?
Hope this helps.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by QSYING on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW:
<<Here's a handy list of questions that I have heard over the last year or so. Should give you a perspective on what some techno-savvy non-hams wonder about ham radio in 2007 (the 'Activist ham' era)...>>
I am neither whelmed nor overwhelmed hearing what techo-savvy non-hams wonder about ham radio. If they wish, they can actually educate themselves about such issues. If not, that is fine too.
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Public services must function in the public interest.
Ham radio is a public service.
The educated movers and shakers--who also work for the public in various ways--have these questions among others. Some have more; some have less. But many didn't even think about ham radio 3 years ago. So we appear to have, in some cases, got their attention.
Ask yourself if that is a good thing.
If ham radio cannot defend these questions then it cannot defend itself. And you will see a lesser ham radio.
Actions have consequences. My opinion is that the action of a ham group that claims vast representation and attacks a technology has opened the door widely for a re-assessment of the role of ham radio in this techno-public society.
It's of no consequence to me if you ignore these comments, or belittle them.
No downside to me.
You should thank me for giving you a salient perspective.
You're welcome in advance.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey Chip, just who's side are you on, anyway? Every time this issue is brought up, you seem to advocate against ham radio. It seems to me that if everyone were to listen to you, we may as well just get out of the way and let BPL take over HF altogether. Is that what you're saying? I sometimes wonder if you work for one of those BPL outfits.
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can you define the sides?
Then I can tell you which one I am on.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pro-BPL or anti-BPL? I would have no problem with BPL if it didn't cause harmful interference. However, the evidence has shown that it does and you feel that either:
1. it does not cause interferece so we're just complaining about nothing
or
2. it does cause interference but that doesn't matter since we're just hams and if BPL can serve the public then we should just forget about using the bands below 30 MHz and get out of the way.
|
| |
|
Basking in the sun of attention.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When all is said and done, there is no persuading the lunatic fringe or the attention seekers. Oh, they will offer all sorts of specious arguments as to why the sensible, ARRL supporting majority is wrong, and only they see the reality. They do it for their own jollies.
It is heartening to see the sound logical, practical and technical postings on this BPL issue here, even the sincere attempts of those who do not see the BPL issue quite right, but when the same loose bolts take the opportunity to post again and again with their eccentric offerings, then their message is clear. What most of us seek here is to exchange information, not to provide therapy.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Chip, just who's side are you on, anyway? Every time this issue is brought up, you seem to advocate against ham radio. It seems to me that if everyone were to listen to you, we may as well just get out of the way and let BPL take over HF altogether. Is that what you're saying? I sometimes wonder if you work for one of those BPL outfits. >>>
An Internet search for "Fractenna" and/or "N1IR", or a search of old rec.radio.amateur.antenna postings will answer your question.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by NN4RH on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[quote]I would have no problem with BPL if it didn't cause harmful interference. However, the evidence has shown that it does ... [/quote
Do the research. The truth will surprise you.
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well!
So according to M0XMZ, the issue cleanly breaks down into 'Pro-BPL' and 'Anti-BPL'....and he wants to know whose side I am on.
I am BPL-agnostic. I am disinterested and really don't care. And not one penny of my substantial net worth is in 'Pro-BPL' or 'Anti-BPL' areas.
I take the side of rationality on this matter. Not the childish oversimplification of being 'pro' or 'anti'.
Thank you.
|
| |
|
RE: Basking in the sun of attention.
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA said:"........but when the same loose bolts take the opportunity to post again and again with their eccentric offerings, then their message is clear."
Yes. When all else fails, they attempt to shift us to pontificating our navels. Anything for a distraction.
"What most of us seek here is to exchange information, not to provide therapy."
True. Applying the proper torque to tighten loose bolts is, at times, frustrating. But, of course, necessary. Actually, I like going a little further where that's possible, and stripping their threads a bit.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What the heck, let's really get "childish". Are you "Pro" or "anti" Chip?
==============
OK, enought levity. Let me take a stab at Chip's questions.
1)Ham radio is touting its participation in emergency efforts. But hasn't this been fixed by local state and federal jurisdictions? Why do you need hams? Do hams have some magic ability to transport themselves where needed? If so, doesn't that mean that the people so affected can get in and out too? Is every ham qualified to paricipate in EC? If no, then why not? What percent of hams DO participate? What kind of guarantee does ham radio EC give on accuracy, especially when people's lives depend on it?
To bastardizes a phrase from the graduate, "I have one word for you Son, 'Infrastructure' ". Independence from infrastructure. No. Don't know. No. No interest or lack of training. What kind of guarantees do local, state and federal jurisdictions give?
2) Can't you do the same thing with FRS and WiFi?
Not really and Infrastructure.
3) What is the difference, in terms of meeting the needs of the public, between ham and CB? Ham and FRS? Ham and Wifi? Ham and cell phone? What makes 'ham' better and why?
Capabilities. See previous. Infrastructure. Independence from infrastructture.
4)Hams have more frequencies than any other group outside of the military--yes? Why do hams need all those frequency allotments? Are there allotments they have that they almost never use?
Yes Don't know. Yes.
5)Why are ham operators attacking BPL as a technology and a business activity? What's that got to do with ham radio? Aren't hams employed in that industry? What other technologies is ham radio attacking and why?
Because it is a spectrum polluter. See previous. Yes. I say let's start attacking the (fill in the name of the entity) right now!
6) What new technologies have hams developed in the last few years? Do hams use the internet? Do they use wifi? FRS? CB? If so, then why do they need 'ham'?
Hams tend to be creative utilizers of technology. Yes. Yes. Don't know. Because it is versatile and delicious meat, wait, you meant Ham Radio?
7) I read somewhere that a majority of hams get their license and then never even operate. How active is the license base? How many haven't been active for 2 or more years?
That is a great question with not much chance of being answerable. See previous.
8) Hams see themselves as hobbyist, like model train collectors, for example. I thought they were licensed as a public service, not a hobby? Why do they need a license to do a hobby--or conversely, why should they be granted a license to BE a hobbyist?
Yes. Ask the FCC.
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The 'independence from infrastructure' is an interesting point--but I don't know exactly what you mean. Do you mean that we have our own independent infractstructure (repeaters)? If so, is that really independent or subject to the same issues that might compromise the infracstructures we presumably fill in for? (Such as being knocked out in a calamitous act of god.)
Not being sarcastic here...I think it's important and you should roll with it.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What the heck, let's really get "childish". Are you "Pro" or "anti" Chip?
------------------------
I am definitely pro-Chip. The best way to help others is to work to accomplish, succeed, and then share.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by KD2KU on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From dimmer switches to LCD projection TV sets... it is a given fact that many Part 15 devices interfere with Part 97 devices. (How most of these got past Part 15 is beyond me.) It is a matter of how much interference and BPL has come upon the scene as the WORST.
For BPL proponents to claim it is the answer to rural broadband is preposterous. In order to have a viable business one must have a lot of clients... and rural clients are few and far between- so that claim is utterly false.
This is just another snake oil salesman scheme and the only people who will make anything from it are those who fleece investors.
(I am a little surprised they haven’t dug up Tesla for his DNA and try to clone him and revive power to the home without wires.)
It is for these reasons people have begun to wonder what really motivated the FCC to push BPL. It certainly was not based on any technical grounds.
Fiber-to-the-home is the ultimate answer for broadband. That I knew as far back as 1985 when working in fiber optics at Corning Inc. Here it is 22 years later and it is finally being implemented. It was a no-brainer back then and still is.
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So...you are saying that you work in, or have worked in, the industry on a competing technology. Ergo you have the wherewithal to attack a competing scheme?
Ah yes! Ham radio in its finest hour!
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
...so should we use ham radio as a voice to target specific technologies which may be competing with 'ones of choice' that certain hams feel need to be pushed in place?
IOW, don't let the marketplace drive the solution--use dirty tactics--under the name of Part 97-- to submarine a competing approach?
MY! That's QUITE a breakthrough for the onderful world of ham radio!
Of course, the fact that there are HAMS EMPLOYED by the BPL industry would thus appear immaterial...
Sorry guys, I can't support you in this approach.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: W1YW Basking in the sun of attention.
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW said:"The 'independence from infrastructure' is an interesting point--but I don't know exactly what you mean. Do you mean that we have our own independent infractstructure (repeaters)? If so, is that really independent or subject to the same issues that might compromise the infracstructures we presumably fill in for? (Such as being knocked out in a calamitous act of god.)
Not being sarcastic here...I think it's important and you should roll with it."
I would imagine the gentleman simply implied (that) the ability of the amateur to operate on numerous frequencies, in a variety of simplex modes at relatively high power levels, would be independent of ALL pre-event infrastructure. Except, perhaps, the amateur's automobile or portable generator or solar-panel energy source. Assuming, of course, the amateur was outside the affected area and travels to the location. One does need to include the assumption that amateurs within the affected area may be injured or their facilities damaged just as would be public infrastructure and thus, unavailable.
Somehow, I don't think it requires an astro-physicist to figure that out. Duhhhh.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: W1YW Basking in the sun of attention.
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FCC says that BPL is a:
"potentially significant player due to power lines' ubiquitous reach, allowing it to more easily provide broadband to rural areas."
"ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, criticized Martin for repeating "specious BPL industry claims" that suggest BPL has anything to offer rural dwellers"
Here we go again. arrl says that BPL can't and won't work. I guess they don't know about the thousands of people getting their internet service over BPL.
NEWSFLAS FOR arrl: BPL works!
Denial of the obvious is neither helpful nor productive and makes arrl look foolish. It costs ham radio credibillity with FCC. We do not care if Sumner wants to look foolish, but its simply NOT helpful.
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know what an 'astro-physicist' is (certainy I am not one), and I agree that is certainly dumb.
Unfortunately it neither pertains to, nor answers, my question.
|
| |
|
Old Familiars
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE is a single agenda ham. He will take every opportunity to try to put down the ARRL. He never posts any positive comment about the ARRL. Thus we have yet another, "We do not care if Sumner wants to look foolish, but its simply NOT helpful." W9WHE is a boycott of one against the ARRL, apparently yesterday, today, and probably until his final post.
W1YW posts a multitude of unpopular opinions, but provokes responses for whatever reasons. His posts are his mirror, so to speak. There are times when he does liven up the discussion, but the image in the mirror is so strong that he seems to be beyond convincing.
Let me admit that without the two of them it could get dull at times. When they don't post for time, I actually miss them.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by W6AH on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote: "4)Hams have more frequencies than any other group outside of the military--yes? Why do hams need all those frequency allotments? Are there allotments they have that they almost never use?"
Nothing could be further from the truth. Amateur radio Allocations are so small when compared to other services as to be considered negligible. Want proof ? Cut and paste this into your browser : http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
As to amateur allotments that are unused I don't think there would be much in the way of resistance to BPL if it were to utilize unused amateur allocations like those in the Microwave spectrum. As it will be implemented in it's current form BPL will render totally useless HF Allocations that are highly utilized by Amateur Radio.
So why are you spreading this type of misinformation Chip ?
Why do you support the ARRL with your dues and proclaim membership in the organization when they take a position diametrically opposed to yours on a subject that you feel so strongly about ? Or maybe I'm wrong and you're just pulling everyones leg on the matter ?
The questions about your motivations I find highly valid.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The 'independence from infrastructure' is an interesting point--but I don't know exactly what you mean. Do you mean that we have our own independent infractstructure (repeaters)? If so, is that really independent or subject to the same issues that might compromise the infracstructures we presumably fill in for? (Such as being knocked out in a calamitous act of god.)
Not being sarcastic here...I think it's important and you should roll with it.
===============
800MHz, trunked system - key facility goes down - no comms base-to-base, base-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-vehicle.
Amateur repeater goes down - messages can be relayed, via simplex, base-to-base, base-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-vehicle.
--------
Katrina level devastation - Landline phones are down - cell phones are down or systems are overloaded - public service systems are down or overloaded - satellite phone systems are overloaded - Internet access is non-existent or unreliable.
WELL PREPARED, TRAINED and EQUIPPED Amateurs go on emergency power - functioning repeaters are utilized - simplex comms are used - NVIS HF handles local/state traffic - HF traffic nets function regionally and nationally. If portable repeaters are available they are put into operation.
--------
What is happening in my neck of the woods:
Our county ARES group has a dedicated repeater, with emergency power, on a commercial tower, away from our EOC. We will be setting up a backup repeater on an existing tower at our EOC site with emergency power.
All of our shelters will have backup batteries and, in the near future, emergency generators.
The three county EOCs in the Low Country have access to an extensive linked repeater system and can communicate with each other on simplex. Our state EOC is available on a linked repeater system or via HF. We have several emergency communication vehicle/trailer setups with Amateur radio capabilities available in the area.
A group of Hams are beginning work on an ATV repeater in our county. We also have a Ham who is developing ATV capability in large scale RC aircraft.
All of our ARES members will be trained on public service equipment operation and procedures with the goal of utilizing us for backup and relief operators.
We will do what we do best and, will be ready to help when and where needed.
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by KD2KU on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by W1YW -
"So...you are saying that you work in, or have worked in, the industry on a competing technology. Ergo you have the wherewithal to attack a competing scheme?"
That remark means you believe BPL is a competing scheme to fiber to the home.
Please tell us why... !
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Because it is identified as such by technology analysts.
!
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We will do what we do best and, will be ready to help when and where needed.
Dennis KG4RUL
----------------------------------
Dennis,
That's a well thought out and executed approach, that deserves kudos from the entire amateur radio service and the public at large.
Congrats!
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: W1YW Basking in the sun of attention.
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-II wrote:
"Here we go again. arrl says that BPL can't and won't work. I guess they don't know about the thousands of people getting their internet service over BPL."
The vast majority of those folks are in Manasass, VA and Cincinatti, OH, hardly rural areas. How many rural subscribers receive their broadband by BPL? The one test I know about conducted in a rural area was done by the Southern Maryland Rural Electric Cooperative. After only a short period they deterimined BPL was not a cost effective method to bring broadband to their customers and abandoned the trial. Where has BPL been shown to be a success at delivering broadband to rural customers?
|
| |
|
League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuating BP
|
|
|
by NT4XT on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I for one applaud the tact taken by Mr. Sumner.
Yes, ham radio is never mentioned in the article, bravo.
I think it important that ham radio was not mentioned; that Sumner speaks in behalf of the ARRL, which is in theory anyway supposed to be representing ham radio, is enough.
I cringe every time I read about the positives of BPL, but then the only r e p o r t e d group opposing or casting doubt on the BPL in it's present, generally deployed state are ham radio operators. That looks bad, too.
There are obviously many very credible technical studies and real world studies that have shown many BPL deployments to be careless, even reckless, with regard to RF spectrum pollution. Perhaps some, that were not noundertaken by the ARRL, but other technically well grounded organizations and individuals.
But when high level officials of governing bodies such as the FCC, start to frame anything, and seem to, for only the sake of political constituency, in hopes of generating money and investors, either never mentions or seems to be unaware of the detrimental effects of any proposal, I think it is dangerous, and just plain wrong.
I'm fairly neutral with regard to how I feel about the ARRL, personally.
But thus far, the ARRL carries the most weight and political clout, with regard to protecting our HF spectrum. The ARRL has a staff, and technical people who can be and have been deployed, to monitor and record, and then report, examples of BPL that either are successful in n o t polluting key spectrum, or not successful, thus polluting key spectrum often in terrible and extreme ways.
I think it is important for this issue to be dealt via political means (selective/effective deployment of money), yes, while it is as important for the League to let the technical facts speak for themselves. It is KEY, that the League use this whole BPL issue as an o p p o r t u n i t y , to become even m o r e c r e d i b l e , when it comes to technical analysis based upon sound engineering practice.
Played correctly, with painstakingly accurate logging/record keeping, historical data, studies/conclusions of the entire unfolding of this BPL business, will be a big plus for the ARRL.
However, the League's response must be carefully considered, and, a l w a y s be based on sound technical data, and flawless methodology.
The BPL Pro/Con debate must be based upon science as well as market trends- if BPL is not all that supporters tout it to be, what are the viable alternatives? Are any of those alternatives currently being deployed? Are there other methods as effective in terms of bandwidth, reliability, and cost that might be also considered?
And so, again, I applaud David Sumner's calculated response.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by K4RAF on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I applaud David Sumner's calculated response."
I sure don't... Makes me want to hide...
He is not being the best Good Will Embassador on behalf of Part 97 licensees.
Would you agree that his name calling tantrums at public officials is not the best "calculated response" when in a "leadership role"?
Grow up Sumner... This is not 3rd grade...
|
| |
|
Not his function.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF says: "He is not being the best Good Will Embassador on behalf of Part 97 licensees."
Dave Sumner is not supposed to be a Good Will Ambassador. How far do you think the ARRL would get if all they could muster was a "good will ambassador"?
WE ARE AMERICAN CITIZIENS! We do not not have to bow before government servants as if we were a bunch of peasants or wimps!
There is no reason to be needlessly aggressive, but certainly there is a reason to call a spade a spade and speak out when matters require it. Dave Sumner deserves more respect than Kevin Martin, because Mr. Sumner speaks the truth. Martin was parroting the BPL folks.
|
| |
|
RE: Not his function.
|
|
|
by K4JF on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good for ARRL. This is MUCH more important than the code debates. Thanks to the guys in Newington for standing up for their membership.
|
| |
|
RE: Not his function.
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA: Amen, brother-at-arms!!
As citizens, we have the right to stand up when government apparatchiks act inappropriately, as did Mr. Martin, Esq. So far out, frankly, that he must have sounded like a "counsel for UPLC."
We should expect more from an agency expected to base its analysis, decisions and its derivative testimony before a governing body upon sound, objective technical basis. Its own technical basis. Not something clipped from an industry representative's "road map." Shame on the FCC and specifically, Mr. Martin, for such a flawed, biased presentation.
Frankly, Martin's testimony is a big win for the League in its upcoming Court fight. Why? It demonstrates lacking FCC objectivity and prejudicial posture. Along with the prior Chairman Powell's now famous "Manassass Approval"speech of three days before the Commission ruling on BPL, well, let's just say that it should produce quite an interesting Court of Appeal Record.
Now, for our lurkers in the wings who hope and pray that other unlicensed noise generators like RFID will be afforded the same "government cheerleading," think again...... And, we know who you are and what you're up to.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: Sumner's errors
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on February 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NT4XT writes:
"I or one applaud the tact taken by Mr. Sumner"
Which one?
1) The tact of PERSONALLY INSULTING FCC commissioners as incompetent?
2) The tact of ailenating & antogonizing the regulators that nearly free reign over our licenses?
3) the tact of failing to attract 70 some percent of licensed hams?
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA's cher-leading
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on February 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA (arrl cheerleader) writes:
"Dave Sumner is not supposed to be a Good Will Ambassador. How far do you think the ARRL would get if all they could muster was a "good will ambassador"?
B.S.
Most people understand that you can get further with a carrot then a stick. Appearantly, AI2IA has never seen an arrl move that was anything less then brilliant. In his "view", arrl can do no wrong. My friend, most hams think arrl lacks meaningful influence, despite all of your cheerleading!
www.eham.net/surverys/720
On the topic of BPL, FCC has all but ignored all of arrl's "demands". arrl has sued and FCC continues to ignore arrl. Fact is that arrl WOULD get MUCH further and have MORE influence, if it spent LESS time personally insulting FCC commissioners and MORE time trying to build a meaningful, influential, cooperative realtionship.
Take a step back. Get some perspective. If arrl was HALF as smart and one QUARTER as effective as you suggest:
a) BPL would be dead;
b) we would not have lost a segment to 220 Mhz; and c) the antenna and spectrum bills would allready be law.
HOWEVER, your magnificent, all-knowing, infallable and omnipotent arrl, by and large, lacks meaningful Federal influence. Time for a little perspective, don't you think?
|
| |
|
RE: Not his function.
|
|
|
by K4RAF on February 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"WE ARE AMERICAN CITIZIENS! We do not not have to bow before government servants as if we were a bunch of peasants or wimps!"
OK there wimpy, pull the same stunt in front of a judge of your choice & see what happens...
As a "Citizien", have contempt for the powerful all you want but you WILL likely suffer from some consequences. They will more than likely be negative, some severe.
I am sorry you don't know how to behave as a "citizien" but supposed "leaders" should excercise just a bit more tact, reserve & respect for those who truly hold "our cards" in their hands.
|
| |
|
RE: Not his function.
|
|
|
by K4RAF on February 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Now, for our lurkers in the wings who hope and pray that other unlicensed noise generators like RFID will be afforded the same "government cheerleading," think again...... And, we know who you are and what you're up to."
RFID generally runs on 902-928MHz & above. There is a DHS system right inside our UHF band, yet your sacred, all-knowing ARRL/NAAR did not even bother to raise a fuss. I won't cite the specific band for obvious reasons. If you think RFID is a potential problem, just wait till UWB. Most of you don't even know what it stands for. Then there is "smart dust", which is not for the dumber than dirt to understand.
I don't know who "we" are but you "all" haven't a clue about what is going on around you, let alone the future of wireless... That is clearly evident with the cheerleading splits & pom-poms.
Sumner's continued idiocy, with clear intent to distribute, is sealing ALL our fates as marginalized & quite dim. I mean ALL licensees, not just unfortunate ARRL/NAAR "members"... Something you "membership" cheerleaders always forget...
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
|
| |
|
RE: Not his function.
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RAF RIFF's:"I don't know who "we" are but you "all" haven't a clue about what is going on around you, let alone the future of wireless... That is clearly evident with the cheerleading splits & pom-poms."
Well, if the shoe fits. If you're one of those whose financial or career paths depend upon the success of unlicensed technology that overlays amateur spectrum, well, you know who you are.
As to UWB, well, some of us know about it. It will affect ALL spectrum users within its bandwidth and supposedly is not notchable. I'm not too concerned. If it can be kept above 1GHz, well, I really don't care too much. UWB in its beginnings was a real threat to the total spectrum. Now, who's UWB are you concerned about: Time Domain System's or the guy McEwen who used to work at Lawrence Livermore?
"Sumner's continued idiocy, with clear intent to distribute, is sealing ALL our fates as marginalized & quite dim. I mean ALL licensees, not just unfortunate ARRL/NAAR "members"... Something you "membership" cheerleaders always forget."
Sumner's batting average isn't too good overall. But, he's in the ballpark on this one. He's not sealing our "fates". If anybody is, we are. By sitting back and being complacent rag chewers and repeater kerchunkers while there's a screaming need for ham activism. CC&Rs. BPL. RFID and all the other unlicensed spectrum use and restrictions on responsible operation. And, responsible operation doesn't include a 90 foot tower and stacked monobanders on a postage-stamp-sized residential lot either.
As to the BPL issue, would NAB have signed on supporting the ARRL suit if their wasn't some concern as to what BPL could do to low VHF TV?
As to UWB, would the FCC have solved the potential problem by requiring UWB operation at microwave and above? I think so. Unless, of course, you are interested in giga-Hertz weak signal work.....
|
| |
|
RE: Not his function.
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on February 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Quote, "I am BPL-agnostic. I am disinterested and really don't care. And not one penny of my substantial net worth is in 'Pro-BPL' or 'Anti-BPL' areas." That's a howler. I don’t think you are BPL-agnostic, your actions say otherwise.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL and global warming
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on February 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If arrl really wanted to kill BPL, it would simply claim that BPL causes global warming!
Afterall, Al Gore has said it, so it MUST be true!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL and global warming
|
|
|
by W6EM on February 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHEEEE-II said:"If arrl really wanted to kill BPL, it would simply claim that BPL causes global warming!"
Actually, Honorable Jonathan, it may contribute to an acceleration of global warming.
To the extent that shunt capacitors are not used to correct power factor (and thereby, distribution systems suffer an increase distribution line losses). Losses have to be generated, obviously, so, it takes incrementally more fuel to the extent losses are increased to avoid attenuation or disconnection of the BPL signal.
Funny, when people poke at issues, there's usually an element of truth in the tea leaves.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL and global warming
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on February 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is NO QUESTION that ham radio contributes to global warming. Ham radios connect to the grid. To provide power, fossil fuel (excepting the small % of nuke power) must be burned.
THUS, HAM RADIO CAUSES TO GLOBAL WARMING.
Now, taking a play out of AL Gore and the WX channel's playbook:
NOW that I have declaired that a consensus exists, the issue is no longer debatable. Anyone that disagrees with mewill have their license yanked and be fired. If you dare to fund research that disagrees, Congress will threaten you.
Note:
a) the head WX mistress at the WX channel called for de-certification of all those that disagree on cause of global warming;
b)the head climatologist for the State of Oregon lost his job because he also dared to disagree;
c) Pelosi and Reid threatened heads of oil companies because they dared to fund research that disagrees.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL and global warming
|
|
|
by K4JF on February 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"To provide power, fossil fuel (excepting the small % of nuke power) must be burned."
Nope. You're forgetting that a significant percentage is hydroelectric also. We're fortunate here that most of ours is nuclear. But out on the left coast they get a lot from wind generators, as well. Europe gets some from tidal power - why don't we use that, too?
|
| |
|
RE: League Criticizes FCC Chairman for Perpetuatin
|
|
|
by N6HPX on February 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Its too bad they couldnt have worried more about the BPL instead of the code as the BPL was more of a problem. Some day we will get it together
|
| |
|
GLOBAL WARMING HOAX SOLVED
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on February 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember:
The solution to Al Gore's global warming hoax is NUCLEAR POWER!
Its cheap, plentyful, renewable, and does not release green house gases.
Just another so-called "insurmountable" problem solved by BIG business!
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Last Chance to Save Our H.F. Bands:
After The Dust Settles What's Left?
World's Broadcasters Join Anti-BPL Chorus:
Manassas Virginia BPL Update:
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
Other News Articles
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
Indonesia To Launch Orari Satellite Next Year:
Radio Enthusiasts Help Red Cross During Games:
|
