It Seems To Me...
from
Jim Haynie, W5JBP
on
August 4, 2003
View comments about this article!
It Seems to Me...
I usually do not post to various news groups but this is going to be an exception. There is another thread going that asks the question: "Is nothing better?" I appreciate the comments from all. Especially from those who support the League and help with its mission.
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ writes an editorial each month in QST entitled "It seems to us." It is his observations of various subjects that affect amateur radio. This post is mine and mine alone. It does not represent the opinions of the board of directors other officers, or the headquarters staff.
Opinions on any subject can be varied and diverse. How one forms opinions however, tends to add to the legimiatcy of the statement. As president of the ARRL, a large and varied amount of information crosses my desk everyday. It comes from our Washington staff, our Legal Counsel, the field organization, and many other departments at headquarters in Newington. As of the past month, our laboratory has been working overtime in preparing our filing on BPL (broadband over power lines) and now is in the gathering of actual data from several sites.
There are two issues presently that will have a profound effect on amateur radio. One is the decision on whether Morse code should be a requirement to obtain high frequency privileges.
The other is the possible implementation of broad band over power lines (BPL) using frequencies from 1.7 MHz to 80 MHz.
Of the two issues, I have drawn the following conclusions: Whether Morse code is part of the licensing program or not, amateur radio will survive. (Some will disagree, but that is fine)
If BPL is implemented through out the country, the first issue is moot. Our models show that the noise levels on our HF bands will increase 35 to 37 dB. Put another way, it would be about 10 over S-9. The other problem is, when you get on the air and disrupt a dozen or so of your neighbors from surfing the net, you will be blamed. Even though hams are licensed and part 15 devices are not, you and I will still bare the public relations nightmare that will ensue.
So, what are we doing? We have not ignored the petition by NCVEC and the others. In my opinion, it is a Band-Aid approach to a shotgun wound. Part 97 needs a complete overhaul. Not in just bits and pieces but a look from top to bottom. That will be my suggestion.
As to BPL. Months ago, we started working on the technical data and now the field data. The League has five engineers that staff our laboratory. Several have been working full time and our legal counsel has put in many hours working on the filing that we have submitted. We now must direct ourselves to the reply comments, which are now due on August 20. You have seen our fund raising campaign. Those engineers and staff deserve to get paid. They are not volunteers like the board of directors and the officers. Expenses that are incurred need to be covered. Travel both by engineers and trips to Washington are part of getting things done. When you compare our budget to that of the power industry, the story of David and Goliath comes to mind. We simply cannot afford to pay this just from the dues.
Last, again let me say, that the above is my opinion and not that of staff or the board of directors of the ARRL.
73
Jim Haynie, W5JBP
President, ARRL
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for posting, Jim. I am on my way to the ARRL
site to see if I can find a place to deposit my
opinion, and voice my concerns.
73 - Tim
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K1VV on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Isn't this a matter of national security? Since Home Land Security has joined with the Amateur Radio Community in the matters of emergency disaster communications in case of a terrorist attack, why can't Home Land Security bring pressure on the FCC? What are the priorities here ?? That everyone in the United States gets access to the world wide web or we have a working national emergency amateur radio system in case of loss of all commercial means ..Cell phones ..etc ? Too late for that if BPL is installed.
Has the FCC forgotten what happened in New York City on 9/11 ?? The Amateur Radio Operators provided the ONLY means of emergency and health and welfare communications. All of these hundreds of thousands of dollars of grant money being spend on Emergency Commmunications Training by the ARRL will be wasted if it is impossible to communicate.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AA4PB on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the good info, Jim - and for the good job ARRL is doing. While I as an individual, can (and did) post my opinions and comments to the FCC on the BPL issue, I am not able to back it up with tests and engineering details. For that, I (like most) have to rely on the ARRL. Thanks again.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N8CPA on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for posting, Jim. I've seen at least one other officer on other sites. The League has my confidence. That's why I'm a member. Thanks for being there.
Steve N8CPA
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What a pathetic excuse!!!! For this guy to post comments like everone else which he has already done, is not good enough. He posts his comment concerning the other article by posting his own article. The big shot president of the failing arrl thinks he rates his own article just to post his opinion. Mr. Big Shot Grandstander go back to your pay site and wallow in your self delusions of greatness. What is really pathetic is that you have to make your opinions known on this site since non of the users of this site would waste much of their time at yours. Does that tell you anything???
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA8KJP: In my line of work, you're the type we generally refer to as a big shot from a safe distance. Tell me, on what do you base your huge presumtion that persons on this site spend no time on the ARRL site? I suppose you determined that via your incredible psychic insight. My psychic insight tells me you have a big mouth with nothing to back it up.
Mr.Haynie, I for one appreciate your efforts. Thank you for taking the time to address us personally. By doing so, that says you're one of us. As for the obvious loudmouths in the Amateur community, I hope that their ignorance will not deter you from your efforts. Were it not for the ARRL lobby, Amateur Radio would have virtually no voice. It's sad to think that persons like WA8KJP have certain priviledges, due to the efforts of someone like yourself.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
great article as well. As I see it, if the BPL battle is lost, what difference will it make
if 'No-Codes' have access to HF ?!? "Sorry, I can't hear you. I've got an S9 noise
level here." If BPL becomes reality, who will buy the used HF equipment Hams
can no longer use ?!? We'll proabably see increased activity on 2m and above
as well.
George ...
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N0FPE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some folks just want to start fights and flame wars. Thanks Jim for you insight and personal comments on the CW and BPL issues. I have been a on again/off again ARRL member over the years and always come back. Keep up the good work and never let the few nasties get to you.
73 Dan/NØFPE
P.S. I use the ARRL website 2-3 times a week. I check the enforcement page! Maybe we will see some of the nasties there soon!!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC0NYK on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems to me that Jim Haynie has a call sign just like the rest of us and therefore has a right to his opinion. I have been a member of ARRL for many years and while I DO NOT agree with all of thier ideas, DO endorse the BPL problem. As for the dropping of the cw requirement; great....let those who can't pass the morse test use the phone frequencies; they wouldn't use the cw bands even if they passed the requirement.
It seems to me that it is past time for us to quit bitching about someone who serves without pay rendering an opinion on a chat board and start becoming involved with those things which will really effect our hobby in the future. The BPL problem is one of those....until the FCC gets it's act together and realizes that this is just the really rich guys picking up more bucks, we are going to have to be vocal in ways which count. Everyone in America who wants it can find access to the internet now...why do they need to run it on the neutral of the power lines?
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am glad there are sheep in this world. The world needs sheep. Sheep are good, useless, but good. The pathetic group known as the arrl will continually be challenged to produce evidence of accomplishment. All they talk about is what they are trying to do. They don't want to talk about their contant failure to produce any meaningful results. Now, all the arrl faithful can get on your knees and bow to Newington.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by M0AFJ on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A good article, as a member of ARRL and RSGB may I say that this problem is not just in the US of A, We have been aware of the growing threat of PLT for some time now. How about a combined voice?, its a world wide problem.
Reading some of the replies on eHam it seems to be forgotten that there is a world outside of the US!.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K2CAD on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
yeah KJP what nerve to post his comment here like everyone else. What does he think he a US citizen, or a licensed radio operator.... Oh wait I guess he is both. So exactly why should he not post here. Oh maybe it is because as president of the ARRL he represents thousands of other hams also. No that seems even more of a reason to post, even though he did say that they are his words and not those of the league. Oh wait he thinks he is a big shot, that must be the reason he shouldn't post. Well lets see he was elected president by a majority of the 170,000+ members. Thats about 87000 votes. Thats more than I think I could ever get, so I guess he is a big shot.
Now lets look at your comments. They seem to be a direct attack on the person and more likely the organization he represents, than any real substance. What gives you the right to dictate who should post and who should not.
The bottom line is this. The only thing politicians understand is votes. They do not care about my vote or yours but when you start adding up 170,000+ votes then they start to listen. Like it or not. Agree with them or not the ARRL is necessary and the only thing standing between us and total RF domination by major corporations.
Thank you Mr. Haynie for commenting here. It is nice to hear from league representitives in other forums.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KW9R on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thanks Jim! I understand that the ARRL is doing the best job it can regards BPL. I agree with your first comment regarding CW. I am a CW "lover"; it's my primary mode. Though I really believe that anyone that finds themselves tapping their feet to the rhythm of a populare song is capable of learning CW, the reality is that very possibly the majority favor dropping the requirement. The hobby....the amateur service will survive. BPL is another issue, and I believe the FCC is eager to pander to monied interests rather than take an informed technical stance on that subject. Given the Amateur Service's long record in public service, it seems clear that BPL should be abondoned and the technical industry with the power industry should seek a "better way" to garner higher profits. But greed is what it is and greed seems a driving force in our current society. I wish you success in your battle to open the FCC's eyes, and failing that, Congress's eyes. The League is our best tool to educate our government, reminding them of what our service is all about!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by PUTTNU2SLEEP on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once again people! Is not the common bond for the masses radio communication. I think we lose sight when we try to
look down on our own. Amatuer radio is just that, a bunch of amatuers. When we try to look down on those who want to be where your at i.e. extra... it discourages and
they lose interest. Who wants to belong to the elitest club that discourages instead of incourages. If there were more elmers instead of hermits people would not be crying for taking away a test portion. How are we to understand the beloved code if no one reaches out and shows the supposed beloved art form. It's like this people. The amatuer community will be it's own demise. Bickering over C.W. and the next thing you know while our backs our turned big business just acquired another peice of spectrum. C.W. or not, who cares. We need to reenforce the core values of our hobby. Lets keep what and who we have before it all dies out with the old timers.
Oh and I am sure that some no life loser that has to compensate for being a nobody but just another faceless person in the masses, will comment on me not using a call sign fo this post.... Well to you I say ... BOO! Ya little pencil neck geek!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K8DXX on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Jim and thanks, ARRL. We appreciate your vigilance and action taken with respect to BPL and the numerous other threats to amateur radio over the years. My memory goes back to the days when TVI threatened our existence. ARRL was there, working with manufacturers, government and clubs to create a situation where all services and businesses could coexist peacefully. That effort took a lot of paid and volunteer effort. The results were positive such as, elimination of TV IF frequencies at 21 MHz, minimum out-of-bad signal immunity for manufacturers and regs stating that cable systems must in fact, remain as closed systems. Reading both inside and outside League publications indicates that the same went on for BCI cases in the 20s and 30s. I use the ARRL web site several times a week. The weekly ARRL Letter and propagation reports are highly useful. QST has really changed for the better in the last 10 years. I have been a life member since 1974. What a great investment!
As to 'KJP... until you can cite specific errors or omissions made by the ARRL and demonstrate how you have or will address said problems... just QRT. Particularly with respect to BPL, the time for irrational outbursts has been cancelled!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quit yer bitchin' and pony up with the moolah or you ain't gonna have no HF no mo'.
P
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W8CAR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, I have been a life memeber of ARRL since 1977 and in all that time I have never seen a larger threat to amateur radio than BPL. Many people like to bash the league yet they have no idea how to proceed to implement any form of change or a challenge to the threats to amateur radio. I gladly contibuted to the effort against BPL and feel that the league has the track record and resources to best represent the whole of amateur radio. As for all the nay sayers and whinners-you're the guys I ignore when I'm on the bands-you just don't get it.
73 Dan
W8CAR
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The following suggestions are offered in the spirit of defeating BPL:
1: Hams can contact their utility companies with a nice hand written letter
and state why they're against BPL. They can also withhold 10% from the
montlhy payment and pay it next month. I'm sure CEO's/CFO's will react
rather quickly to spikes in their monthly/quarterly profit projection reports.
2: SWL'ers (and their organizations) can contact their favorite stations
indicating that BPL could make it impossible for them to listen to their
broadcasts.
3: Hams, wether you support the ARRL 100%, somewhere in between, or
don't support the ARRL (for whatever reasons), it's still a good idea to
help financially to defeat BPL.
4: Hams (and the ARRL) can also contact the major Amateur Radio manufactures
and their distributors about the BPL threat to their HF radio business.
George ...
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N2XE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the post Jim,
I agree on BPL and CW. On CW in particular, yes, the hobby will survive without it but it won't be Ham Radio.
CW is the essence of Amateur Radio, without it, the hobby is just a bunch of fat, old men sitting in their basement in a grease stained tee shirt and boxer shorts, sending porn over SSTV and intentionally jamming QSOs when someone says something they don't like--kind of like it is today without the refuge of the CW sub-bands.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YUR says:
"They can also withhold 10% from the montlhy payment and pay it next month. I'm sure CEO's/CFO's will react rather quickly to spikes in their monthly/quarterly profit projection reports"
Yup...they sure will react....by TURNING YOUR SERVICE OFF AND CHARGING YOU LATE & RE-CONNECTION FEES!
Just stick to writing and calling, IF you like your AC.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N6TGK on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA8KJP is just one of those Advanced licensees that's still pissed about the rules change that lowered the CW requirement to 5 wpm. He simply refuses to see the bigger picture and the issue at hand. Types like him will eventually disappear.
WA8KJP can debate the CW issue all he wants, and that's fine. As Mr. Haynie said, if the requirement is dropped amateur radio will survive. The real issue here is BPL and WA8KJP is too ignorant to see that. So Richard, why don't you go back to CW sub-bands and when BPL makes it impossible for you to even do CW, I don't want to see you here bitching about it.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K0RFD on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the post, Jim. I'm an ARRL member and not inclined to be an ARRL "basher". I appreciate the work that ARRL has done already on BPL and other issues, but now let me offer the ARRL just a little constructive criticism about how to get the word out a little more effectively.
The lead article on the ARRL website for the past few days has been about how much money ARRL has raised in response to the BPL threat. Now this is a good thing, because the ARRL can't do what it does without money, but does it send the right message?
Further down in this article, if you click to read the whole thing, you find out much more. You discover that W1RFI, a man for whom we all have an enormous amount of respect, has been crisscrossing the country visiting sites and collecting data where BPL is being tested. But if you read the summary, which is the first thing people see (and the ONLY thing they see if they don't click the "Full Story" link) it's about money. Who's gonna see the information about what Ed is doing if the "money" slant in the summary turns them off and they don't click for the full story?
Don't you think you might get the Ham community more spun up about BPL if you posted Ed's preliminary data as soon as it is collected? Hams are technical people, those who aren't YET spun up about BPL might be more inclined to act if they could see numbers, charts, graphs, and hear audio files of BPL-induced QRM. Not from Japan which is "out of sight, out of mind", but from right here in the US. And these data need to be easy to find, not buried. The ARRL's PLC page contains a lot of valuable information, but man is it ever tough to wade thru. And who is going to find a page about "PLC" if what they are looking for is "BPL"?
It's all about staying "on message" -- and keeping the message simple enough that people understand it.
BPL is all about harmful interference that will make HF unusable. That's the message. Making your lead story all about money simply fuels the misgivings of the more cynical members of the Ham community. Please keep the ARRL "on message", Jim.
OK, that's enough constructive criticism. Please keep up the good work. We couldn't do it without the ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
n6tgk, you are stupid. You are just like the arrl. Just plain stupid. I have been trying to remove the cw requirement for 20 years, that's how ignorant you are.
I still would like to hear all of the significant accomplishments of the arrl over the last 50 years. Still not hearing anything. All of you new people should be asking the same, but you are sheep.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AJ5TT on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
The exception to post to this news group is a good gesture on your behalf. I for one am an ARRL member. While accused of being a sheep, I can not think of any better way to spend my dollar to support amateur radio. I hope the one man shows are able to support efforts to protect amateur radio. I have made contributions to the ARRL to fight BPL. I do not have the time or resources to produce a study on BPL, document technical and field data, present my findings to the FCC and or Congress. Personally, I think my contribution to fight BPL is a bargain. I know the BPL issue does not look good but the ARRL will be my voice to continue the fight.
73,
John – AJ5TT
If you are not an ARRL member, you still can support the efforts to fight BPL.
https://www.arrl.org/forms/development/donations/basic/index.html#form
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC7MM on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
I really appreciate the work that you and other people at the ARRL are doing for the amateur radio community. You have my full support. Please keep up the good work!
Dale KC7MM
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD5ING on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr. Haynie,
Thanks for your article and the update on the ARRL activities regarding this threat to The Amateur Radio Service.
A few days ago I submitted an article to eham.net concerning the BPL threat as well as (hopefully) easy to follow instructions on how to post an opinion at the FCC website concerning this issue.
The address for the article is http://www.eham.net/articles/6130
Thank you for your efforts!
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
Public Information Officer
Nacogdoches Amateur Radio Club
http://www.andersoft.com/narc
PS - By the way, I read arrl.org, eham.net and qrz.com several times a week for the nay-sayers out there.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N9WQ on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was just wondering if anyone new what would happen to the LARGE number of computers that would be on line in the bpl situation and all of a sudden BAM!!! A JIGAWATT of electricity from mother nature hits the powerline ... what happens to the bpl system then?????and all the poor souls that were on line..... and also how in the world are they gonna get rid of all those leaking/rf genorating transformers/insulators and the like that seems to me would hamper the abillity to send information...I also think that if whoever is spear leading this attack against the MONEY MONGRALS and BPL should give the ham community the real nity grity(technical info) on this issue so that we as
amateurs can take all the resources that we amateurs can muster up. lets face it we as a body in this country have got to have one of the most technical/electrical knowledge bases that there are!! and I beleve that we can come up with the data to show that not only do we need to exsist but we will exsist.
Dave N9WQ
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AE6Y on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Thanks for taking the time to post here. I'm 100% behind the ARRL, and very much appreciate the seriousness and dedication with which ARRL officers at all levels fight for ham radio and for the rights of individual amateurs. There will always be hams who disagree, but the ARRL has established a high level of credibility in Washington, and your efforts are greatly appreciated. You are our only real voice on national issues, so keep up the good work.
73, Andy, AE6Y
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim;
Thanks for the comments. I also believe we do not have the funding to duke it out with the bigger interests here. Wondering if a better approach might be through the back door.
Historically, the FCC has always sided with the amateur service when dealing with interference from/to other part 15 devices. Especially if the amateur made the first step in problem resolution, was cooperative, and had good record keeping. I also suspect that the FCC field people find these cases a real pain in the butt, time consuming, and no one really wins. Has
anyone talked to the FCC field officers and informed them about what this might do to their work load?
Thank you.
Dave
WA0ZZG....
|
| |
|
BPL/PLC looking for a chance to revive in Japan
|
|
|
by JJ1BDX on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Recently Japanese government resubmitted a plan to extensively field-test BPL/PLC again in their so-called e-Japan project. I filed a public comment against that to STOP researching further on BPL/PLC possibilities, but that's not enough. I second the decision that ARRL decided to perform a technical research on the BPL/PLC issue.
I will renew my membership of ARRL on September.
73 de Joe JJ1BDX/3 es K1BDX
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4ODX on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a nice surprize to this AM to see a post from Mr. Haynie on eham! Jim Haynie has hit the nail on the head, the important issue here is BPL ( and spectrum poptection) not this Code/nocode nonsense.
I am a MARS/SHARES member, these programs are on the cutting edge of State, National and World wide emergecy HF communications. Jim, I think that the three MARS Chiefs and the Director of Shares would have a common interest in stopping BPL (just my opinon) The MARS program is a major instrument of back up communications for many Federal enitities. We are in the business of sending and receiving MARS GRAMS and Phone Patch operations for deployed military units too. As for SHARES this program is part of the NCS and supports many types of communications enitities via HF. While I can not speak for Shares or the MARS program I think that their support would be a benefit to the opposision of the BPL proposal.
So Mr. Haynie I for one applaud your intrepidity for posting your comments on this site. As for the ARRL, I am glad we have it looking after our (ham radios) best interest. Let me also say that I do not agree with everything the ARRL does but they do a great job of representing the majority of the ham community.
Bill/KG4ODX
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KY6R on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm a proud ARRL Life Member. NO ONE else works so hard to protect amateur radio privileges as they do. And they have the guts to go up against the almighty corporations who would be very happy to see amateur go the way of the horse and carriage, and the government who is beholden to corporate interests.
I just sent my check to support the ARRL BPL fight. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA8H on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Jim Haynie, W5JBP President, ARRL. Thank you for your support. Also thank you ARRl members for supporting the BPL fund. I filed my comments with the FCC, and sent a donation to the ARRL. This is a time we all need to put aside our greivences and stick to gether. We have more to lose than petty aguments. 73 Glenn WA8H
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since no one will give me any accomplishments of the arrl, I'll give you some total failures of the arrl.
1950's - tv invented, tvi problems, the arrl fought the problem and lost to this day. Even though a part 97 licensee has the right to transmit, if interference becomes an issue to any other device, quiet hours will be assigned if transmissions are not stopped. This was the first example of a federal licensee's license effectively being recinded. The arrl could not get the fcc to enforce its own rules for which device must accept interference. This policy is still operating today. The arrl still can't get the fcc to enforce its own rules after 50 years. Where are you arrl?
1970's - condo restrictions and associations. The arrl totally lost this fight. Every restriction is really a transmit restriction. Condo and association rules usually say, "no antennas", they do not say no ugly antennas, or noticeable antennas, its NO ANTENNA.
What is really happening is that associations don't want interference problems and they stop transmitters by outlawing antennas. They are taking your federal priveledges you have from your license and are recinding them. The arrl has totally failed to get the fcc to enforce the priveledges they give it's licensee's. Where's the arrl?
This condo problem doesn't stop on condo or association property. A ham I know lost a fight in circuit court for using his rig in his car on a public road off condo property. The judge ruled that the rules pertained to him personally not just on the use of condo property. Since he was in close proximity of the property and since there was the possible negative effects of having an antenna, there was a violation of condo rules. He now has a $1500 lean on his property (and paid $4k legal fees) until he pays the fine. Where's the arrl?
1990's - local statutes are made outlawing radios in cars. Now you can't go mobile in about 25 states without getting into a criminal (misdemeanor) situation where you may spend $3k for attorny fees plus fines and have a criminal record. Local ordanances are now effectively recinding your license to even have a radio in your car to use your priveledges. Is the arrl anywhere around this problem?
Do all you stupid morons who think the arrl is doing a great job for you realize that ham radio is slowing being outlawed and you don't even notice it? Your BPL problem will become irrelevent when you can't have a radio or antenna. Like every other issue, the arrl will loose this one too.
In ten years, there will be no ham radio. The opponents of ham radio are outsmarting you, the arrl, and the fcc itself. Ham radio is slowly being outlawed.
Keep sending your money to the arrl. Even the totally inept and incompetant need to eat.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KI4BCL on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good article. I haven't been back into the community that long - but I know a threat when I see one.
Folks - WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY TAKE OWNERSHIP OF OUR BANDS AND BE HEARD REGARDING THIS BPL AND SPECTRUM PROTECTION.
Get $$ going to ARRL. I think they are our only lobby in town - and am quite pleased with their service.
Every little bit helps. It costs nothing to send emails to your Senators and Representatives. It does cost alittle to call the switchboard of your Senator/Congressman - but if you can - please do it.
Deep pockets don't always win fights... sometimes raising the right amount of noise will get results - especially if your cause is good. And this one is.
Respectfully submitted folks,
Ken Hunter
KI4BCL
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To W5JBP: I'm not sure if standing here on E-ham and letting yourself get shot at is bravery or insanity. Whatever it is, I respect it and am sending (another) donation to the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund.
To WA8KJP: You're funny. I bet you're even better on stage. Are you going on tour soon?
|
| |
|
ARRL much appreciated!
|
|
|
by W8KQE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thank you for your post Mr. Haynie! As a longtime Amateur Radio operator/enthusiast, I was there when the ARRL 'fought' on our behalf when it came to various issues over the years, as outlined in previous posts. Your organization is first-rate in this regard, and you have always had, and will always have, my full respect and support ideologically and financially. I will be sending the ARRL a check pronto in it's quest to fight the 'powers that be' in regards to this BPL issue, as no other large scale effort is being made to point out this incompatibility in Washington! The stark reality and truth of the matter is that if we all don't do our part, albeit small it may be, one day we may find that major encroachments (like BPL) have 'won the day', and out bands will be well on their way to becoming obsolete! It's either take action now, or sit by idly and wish you did!!! Kudos to you Mr. Haynie!!!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K0BG on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To: Mr. Sherosky, WA8KJP
I don't believe I have ever seen a post from you that was anything but derogatory, demeaning, ill-informed, and lacking insight. What ever it was or is which caused your bitterness is moot. Your improverished vainity is not. Do us all a favor. Go away and stay away.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K2GW on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim:
I've been impressed with your hands on leadership of ARRL since I saw you actively helping with ARRL membership recruiting and sales at Dayton a few years ago. You weren't sitting back and just being important. You were pitching in to do the work. This post is just another example of it.
Thanks once again to you and the league for leading this effort. I've seen an e-mail report describing Ed Hare's findings of the noise levels in the BPL test area of Emmaus, Pennsylvania. It's scary.
You're right. If BPL becomes adopted as is, there won't be any HF Amateur Radio or Shortwave Listening in this country. Every ham has got to be mobilized in this fight.
73
Gary, K2GW
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4ODX on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Were all of you anti everything posters dropped on your heads by your elmers?
73's Bill KG4ODX
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WB5OAU on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr Haynie,
While I appreciate the seriousness of BPL and the technical threat it poses to us all, there seems to be a certain barely disguised glee in your editorial.
The international decision to not require CW for HF privledges has painted the ARRL into a corner. While numerous polls amongst hams (members and non ARRL members) have repeatedly shown that hams WANT CW retained as a requirement, the ARRL's stance has been lukewarm at best. In fact, one of the statements that has come out of the League, is that given the international decision on CW, the League would have to poll its membership to decide on a course.
My question to you is, how many polls are needed? Until the ARRL gets an answer that matches its own? When is the ARRL going to represent it's users and take a strong, visible stance to support the minimal CW requirements we now have, and that its members clearly want retained?
Your dismissal of the CW issue as being unimportant in the light of the BPL issue seems thinly disguised to allow you to shirk the responsibility entrusted in the ARRL as the paid representatives of the ham community.
When are you going to lead the organization to start acting like it?
Technical issues (BPL) aren't the biggest threat to ham radio... social issues (retaining significant standards that differentiate the Amateur Serivce
from CB and GMRS) are. We'll die from within, before we do so from the outside.
The fact that the ARRL did NOT take a strong stance in defending CW might indicate that although Ham Radio might well survive its passing, the ARRL won't.
Don't hide behind BPL in order to avoid facing your responsibility to represent the clearly expressed mandate given to you by your paid membership.
John K5MO
Clayton NC
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KY6R on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder if Mr. Tom Ridge and his people will go to bat for amateur radio as a national resource in this BPL fight. Especially since the huge deficit dictates that his department will need skilled volunteers now more than ever.
This will be the test that tells me if Mr. Ridges organization is real and meaningful or just feel-good hype.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On the BPL question..... I have not seen much mention of the interference potential of over the air broadcast TV channels 2 through 6 or the potential for leakage into the AM broadcast band or lower FM broadcast band. There are still a number of 49 MHz devices out there (phones, monitors, security sensors etc.) that would be affected as well. Where are the broadcast interests on this? Where are the public safety interests?
Yes, digital TV may be on the horizon but with Chairman Powell leaving the Commission and the still very high costs estimates of conversion, it might be possible that the full changeover date will be pushed back. As cable and sat subscription costs go up, more people are going back to the antenna on the roof to pick up the over the air signals.
I lived with a 35-40dB increase in the noise floor for a about 7 weeks due to power line problems that created noise that you would not believe. It even got into the cable system and caused terrible "sparklies" on the over the air channels. The only ham signals I heard needed to be 15-20 over S9 in order to copy. Noise blankers were ineffective. I can only imagine what BPL interference must be like.
On the ARRL forming a position on the code question and licensing requirements......
As others have mentioned, BPL is the most serious external potential threat to the ARS, however, the code/no code debate seems to be the most serious internal threat. I suspect that the ARRL is in a lose/lose situation no matter what policy they put forth.
Presently, 53% of the total licensed base consists of Novice, Technicians, and Tech+ licensees. 38% (or 71% of the above mentioned 53%) are Technician licensees. Does the ARRL have the same percentage of membership in these classes that is reflected in the licensing numbers?
I do not know how the membership percentages break down by license class (can not find the info) but I suspect (my opinion only) that it might be top heavy with General, Advanced and Extra class membership.
If this is close to accurate, the ARRL will be under fire from those who will charge that the league is catering to the "elite" classes if it moves to petition the FCC to keep the code testing requirement for HF privileges. On the other hand, If the ARRL membership is top heavy with General and up licensees, they could stand to lose some of that membership if they do not do everything in their power to keep the code testing requirement.
On other forums there are posts indicating that there is a huge (97%) attrition rate among Technician class licensees who are not renewing their licenses. This is based on data from the FCC database from the time the first no code techs received licenses until the to expiration of the grace period. There is about 6 months of data. If this is accurate, it could and should be a factor in the ARRL's thought process.
I give a lot of credit to Jim for posting here!
73
George
K3UD
ARRL member for 32 out of 39 years as a ham.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only way amateur radio is going to keep the bands is if people are allowed to use them, a lot of people. Wake up. Computer users are gaining frequencies for their wireless networks and broadband over power lines will happen without the computer users forming their version of the ARRL. The ARRL is too consumed with weeding people out with the code as a filter while PC users are gaining priviledges without lifting a finger or writing a check. Anybody notice you don't have to pass an exam to switch from a dial up to broadband Internet connection? Computer users, that I know may not have an ARRL but they have great numbers and they vote. That's what the politicians really pay attention to. They promise they'll listen to the lobby groups but don't promise much more.
The USA should be the leader in amateur radio but it looks like we'll be the last in dropping the code requirement. I am an ARRL member though as I believe in some of the things they do for schools and I like a lot of their books but the code requirement just to weed people out is a big mistake in my opinion.
Thanks for putting us last in the world Jim.
Dave
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K4IQT on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr. Haynie, thank you for your article, and for representing the only large organized effort to block BPL. It behooves all of us who value amateur radio to support you and to do all we can as individuals to win this fight. That includes support of the ARRL, as well as individual proper and formal communications with the FCC, our power companies, and our legislators.
WA8KJP, regardless of your opinion the ARRL and a hell of a lot of caring hams are working hard to preserve YOUR privilege to communicate via HF radio. It would best serve the entire community if you would make some positive effort to support the defeat of BPL rather than ranting about the ARRL. All of our eggs are not in one basket here, and it appears that your eggs are primarily out of the baskets and being thrown at everyone who gives a hoot about ham radio.
You have the right to say what you will, but you also "have the right to remain silent". If you can't be civil, then try being quiet.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5JBP on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My question to you is, how many polls are needed? Until the ARRL gets an answer that matches its own? When is the ARRL going to represent it's users and take a strong, visible stance to support the minimal CW requirements we now have, and that its members clearly want retained?
=============
John, ARRL policy is made by the 15 members of the board. At the July meeting there was discussion about S25.5 and it was agreed that the directors would invite input from the membership. They are doing that now. If the members (as you say) "clearly want it retained" I am sure the board members will vote that way. As it is a democratic process, I have no way to look into their minds. I do not have a vote, only an opinion. As I said at the first of this thread, the entire part 97 needs an overhaul. My opinion here: I think we only need three classes of licenses. Beginner, General and Extra.
I think this is enough for now on this subject.
73 for now.
Jim, W5JBP
|
| |
|
Part 97 Overhaul - YES
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Jim, for your comments on this forum. I agree with you about the need to overhaul Part 97. We need a New Plan for the 21st Century Amateur Radio Service.
It is time to take a look at the bigger picture, especially now that morse testing is going away for HF. We need to focus on the future...
1. Change the FCC sub-band rules to expand HF space for the most popular and crowded mode: voice (and soon---digital voice).
2. The sentiment in the amateur community is well known: even after morse testing is eliminated for HF, we want to preserve CW use somehow. So we should encourage the mode and skills by eliminating the huge Extra-only HF CW bands and allowing all licensees to operate in the CW bands.
3. Use communications engineering techniques and analysis to study present and future trends in spectrum and mode use. Apply the results of this to help ARRL become more pro-active and less reactive to the needs and protection of the Amateur Radio Service.
Again, thank you for your service to the ham community, Jim.
Bonnie KQ6XA
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WB5OAU on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once again, Mr Haynie, the ARRL has conducted NUMEROUS polls in the past on this specific issue. The answer has always been a strong affirmation to keep the code requirement.
So...why yet ANOTHER poll on the same topic?
John K5MO
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thousands of radio operators with newly gained HF priviledges when the code requirement gets dropped spending thousands of dollars on new radio equipment vs. a limited minority of a dying breed that makes a CW transiever out of a coke can for less than $5 and gets their QST and CQ magazines second hand. Which one is more positive for the future of amateur radio?
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Part 97 Overhaul - YES
|
|
|
by N6TGK on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA8KJP, in regards to your post of all the "negative" stuff the ARRL has done, why don't you look at the organizations they were fighting? Money talks and the people and organizations the ARRL is/are up against have far deeper pockets than the ARRL.
It's obvious you were beaten or mis-treated as a child and are now a bitter, bitter man. Maybe if you spent the time you spend bashing the ARRL and focused your energy on making amateur radio better, you might be a happier person. If you don't like the ARRL... that's your perogative. But don't start telling the rest of us we're stupid because we believe in it. As it stands right now, there are far more people who believe in the efforts of the ARRL. So far you're the only one really bashing it. I'd say that makes the point on who's really stupid... in case you can't make the connection... that would be you.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KENNETH on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Isn't the answer simple? If the ARRL would have eliminated the code requirement years ago
we would have an army of hams today (and their dues) to fight BPL. I am un-licensed and
I represent the millions of people (and millions of dollars) the ARRL has kept out of the hobby because of their support for the code requirement.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AA6E on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks to Jim Haynie for posting. It takes some courage for a "public figure" to put himself in front of a squirrelly bunch of hams. Personally, I'd like to see more ARRL officers and staff having a "presence" on newsgroups like this. The lack of an interactive "talk back" or discussion feature on the ARRL web site is kind of glaring, but eHam is a fair substitute.
On BPL and CW -- There is a connection I have not seen yet. If the BPL worst-case happens, CW may be the only mode that works! Narrowband (CW, WSJT, etc.) technologies will still be able to cut through the broadband QRN.
73's all,
Martin, AA6E
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KR1ST on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<QUOTE>
My opinion here: I think we only need three classes of licenses. Beginner, General and Extra.
</QUOTE>
As an Advanced Class Licensee, you'd like to be grandfathered into which license class? ;-)
73,
--Alex KR1ST
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N5KA on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim
You probably would not say it, but I will.
If we want to know whether the ARRL is any "good" just compare it and it's performance with most other "ham" organizations world-wide. There is, most of the time, very little comparison.
I, for one, have belonged to 2 other big ham radio associations, and what they did or do for the hobby fades into insignificance with what Jim Haynie and the ARRL board do.
My financial and moral support goes to ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5USB on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Forget about Tom Ridge, he has already "helped" us by axeing the amateur radio community in times of "national emergency" (which by the way, thanks to the Patriot Act II, everything that is short of a localised drought is considered an "emergency"). When something bigtime happens, which Mr. Ashcroft has repeatedly warned us of, then you will be breaking the law if you choose to transmit, on any band. Get used to it, this is the new Freedom in America. :(
Art Granda
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It seems to me" that BPL may well fail operationally even if allowed. Interference is, as Jim points out, two ways. If users of Part 15 devices find they are unusable due to received interference from hams, their own enragement may force change.
Let's see...how many of us can put up high-powered unattended beacons...?
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1VV has the right idea. Get Federal Agencies on board and prove that BPL will seriously degrage our emergency communications on HF.
As for the unprovoked personal attacks on Jim and the ARRL, something my father said years ago; "It's best to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt."
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WR8Y on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The 'ole 'WIK guy is on target again.
I was just thinking - what WILL hams do in response to ANY noise? They will buy an AMP. What will BPL be like with my yagi at 40 feet, on 20 CW, pointed in the direction of the line with 1500 watts drive?
Hmmm, 27 years as a ham. Never had an amp. Maybe I'm gonna need one.
mark
WR8Y
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N4KIT on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quoting WB5OAU: "While numerous polls amongst hams (members and non ARRL members) have repeatedly shown that hams WANT CW retained as a requirement, the ARRL's stance has been lukewarm at best. In fact, one of the statements that has come out of the League, is that given the international decision on CW, the League would have to poll its membership to decide on a course."
In doing just a little research (and I will go home tonight and look up the numbers from the ARRL Survey conducted for WRC-99, I found two items. One a poll right here on E-ham asking "Do you support the retension of the CW test requirement?". 66% responded No while 34% said Yes. Conversely, the ARRL Survey showed a majority (sorry, don't have the numbers) supported retension of the requirement. This is data from late 1996, but I would suggest that depending on the context and how the question is asked, there is NOT a clear answer, one way or the other.
Has the climate changed? Sure it has. It is now some 7 years later, Morse is now no longer mandated in any service but the Amateur Service, and we now have a decision from the ITU to remove the requirement from the International Treaty. I don't think the support for retention in the Amateur community is as clear as you might think.
Does that mean CW is not useful, or fun to use, or won't be used? No. I think Jim (actually, the BOD, Jim does'nt have a vote) is right to want to guage support one way or the other, today, in 2003. I do hope ARRL does this quickly, perhaps via a Web Survey and QST or a mailing (again, quickly).
BPL, I do believe is the thing we all need to pay close attention to. As Jim is right to point out, it won't matter whether I choose to operate CW, phone, PSK31 or any other mode, if my noise floor is S9 +10dB!
Thanks for your work on our behalf, Jim and keep up the good work. I too, would like to see Ed Hare's field test results on the front page of ARRLWeb as soon as possible.
73
Chris N4KIT
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K9NYO on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's amazing how every post on every site evolves into a CW vs. no-CW argument. It's surprising we ever get anything done.
BPL is a very big threat. So unless you plan on saddling up your own horse, riding to Washington and trying to get an audience with all of the lawmakers that the ARRL already has talked to, you should donate your money or help to the ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD6NXI on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Actually Radioshack(My personal archenemy) donated thousands of frs radios during the new york emergency. Supposedly that helped. I don't know how successful it really was.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm confused. Jim's request for donations refers to a noise level of 35-37 db or about 10db over S-9. At 6 db per "S" unit, isn't that just 6 "S" units?? (36db divided by 6 db/S unit)?
According to Yaesu, my radio is calibrated to 6 db per "S" unit. What type of radio is the ARRL using? Also, where is the DATA? Might a nobody ham like me be permitted to see this data?
Jim, if you are going to ask me for money (and you are) is there some reason that a mere mortal like me can't see the data...even if its preliminary????
Finally, W1RFI has suggested that because of all the other high-speed providers, BPL is not needed and won't make money. If that is true, why is BPL a threat and why ask for donations?
I'm confused and hope you can straighten me out.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N1OL on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Thank you for taking the time to update us on the BPL situation. My view is that the ARRL has done an excellent job of addressing the issues.
In essence, we have two weeks to make and prove our case, my view is that we as a community must put all the other divisive issues on hold until August 20th. If we don’t win on the BPL issue all of the other issues will be irrelevant. In particular, I would ask/plead the code/no code protagonists to focus on BPL with the same intensity for the next two weeks.
Ed provided some good feedback on QRZ as to what actions would be helpful. Additional “calls to action” to the amateur community would (in my opinion) be useful.
Hams have been active in taking our message to other forums, in particular the Broadband Reports message boards that are widely read, details are here;
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,30941~root=news,30941~parent=news,30941~days=2000
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,30460~root=news,30460~parent=news,30460~
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,30352~root=news,30352~parent=news,30352~
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,29506~root=news,29506~parent=news,29506~
Key is to get the message out to everyone (not just the Ham community) that BPL is a gross polluter and position it as a failed legacy technology.
73s
David
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N7XB on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fellow hams:
For little more than $0.10 per day, you can help a desperate amateur in time of need. Yes, for only $39.00 you can give WA8KJP his worst nightmare . . . a membership in the ARRL.
Think of it. Every month he receives QST and blows a gasket over how worthless the magazine is (and you know he would read it before tossing it in a rage). His email will flow with daily bulletins regarding contests, news events, solar indices, and a host of other topics he has no use for. And a year from now, he receives the ultimate insult: A RENEWAL NOTICE.
73 de N7XB
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NY7Q on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, THAT, I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF WA8KJP ANYWHERE IN HAM RADIO. WHAT HAS HE DONE TO SERVE HAM RADIO OR BETTER IT. ON THE OTHER HAND, MY HAYNIE IS SERVING, AND YOU CAN BET ALL HAM RADIO HAS LEFT TO DEFEND IT IS: A R R L. I MIGHT CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT YOU MR WA8KJP IF YOU CAN SHOW ME WHERE YOU HAVE DONE ANY GOOD TO HAM RADIO. OF COURSE, AS YOU THINK, WHO GIVES A RAT'S _SS WHAT I THINK!! AND OF COURSE, "I" THINK YOU ARE KINDA IGNORANT. 73
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
to n7xb,
That was really funny. In fact if I had a membership, the arrl would get 5,000 automated emails a day telling them they were idiots. With a membership, I should be able to get away with spamming them.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by G3SEA on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The CW debate is NOTHING compared to the looming BPL problem :(
It's possible that the only alternative for hams will be to ride those very same power lines using the often derided EchoLink ! :)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W7DAH on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In response to Jim Haynie, W5JBP:
I'm a member. I plan to remain a member into the future. I appreciate the ARRL efforts and your own, including your posting to eHam.net. I will do some letter writing, faxing, phoning, and donate as able. I hope that you are able to remain focused despite the intentional interference of a minority of small minded types (reads: WA8KJP). An excerpt from an old saying goes something like this: "...; and listen to others, even the dull & ignorant; they too have their story.
In response to *DICK*, WA8KJP:
Gee DICK-WA8KJP, let me get what you were trying to say right here ... the ARRL failed to prevent the invention of television in the '50(s), huh? And they have failed miserably in every decade except the '80s since then according to you, huh? What happened, did you actually get-some in the eighties? Your writing sure leads one to think that just maybe you suffer from *Hematitus*. You know what Hematitus is right? I mean ya must, coz you obviously know everything else. No? Well, lemme tell ya: It's a disease that effects the nerve that runs from the eyeball to the rectum and it causes ya to suffer a crappie outlook on life; and it seems you have a fatal dose, dude! ;-)
Any Tom, *DICK* or Harry can go on, and on pointing out problems while never offering up any real solutions of his own, DICK. It just sounds ignorant when they do. So instead DICK, why not ask-not what your league may not have done, but instead, ask what the heck YOU have done better yourself, DICK. That is, besides WHINE and BLUBBER like a little girl. Hmmm? How come YOU didn't singlehandly stop the advent of TV back in the 50s if you know how to get things done so much better than the ARRL? You wouldn't happen to live in a Montana cabin and hand build your own ordinance now would ya, TED, oops, I meant *DICK*, of course? You know, where the men are men, and the SHEEP are nervous.
DICK, DICK, DICK I see, while typing out this note, that now you are making vague threats of a spamming response. That'll be popular. That'll endear ya to one and all. Ya sound frustrated dude. Frustrated that you are a minority of ONE so far. There's an easy solution ya know ... if ya can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.
73 & 88,
Don - W7DAH in Orygun
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K4DFE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's another example of Jim Haynie's and ARRL's failure to protect Ham Sprectrum:
New HF RFID Tag Limits Should Not Affect Amateurs (Aug 4, 2003) -- Little or no impact to the Amateur Service is expected at the low end of 20 meters in the wake of an FCC decision to raise the power limit for radio frequency identification (RFID) tags that operate in the vicinity of 13.5 MHz. The FCC agreed in a Second Report and Order (SR&O) and Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) in ET Docket 95-19 released July 17 to allow 3.5 times the previous harmonic field strength in the range of 13.710 to 14.010 MHz.
Full Story
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w7dah,
How did you ever get a license? You sound like you are 3 years old, if that.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N1OL on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please post on BPL and what we should do.
Don’t feed the trolls – it only encourages them!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by THEWISEONE on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
here we go again, The man makes a statement and look out every soc-path for miles around comes out like a pack of wild dogs that found a piece of meat in the garbage. First off checking the filed comments on the BPL page I only see a small number of you big mouths have gotten off your fat arse's and done anything other than bitch. Second I too am seeing what looks to be a attempt for the ARRL to skirt the CW issue by hiding it behind the BPL issue. Third now come the no-coders standing on the soapbox proclaiming how great it will be if oh my if only the code for HF is dropped how much more money we can pour into the system by purchasing new gear.... BULL!!!!. The Arrl Has done much positive for ham radio over the years things that most of you lazy louths could not do on your own so don't shoot the man down the BPL issue is real. 10-4 good buddy did I get my point across???. The BS spin stops HERE!!!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K9WLF on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To all of you who encourage WA8KJP, shame on you. The more you comment about him or to him, the more you encourage him. DO NOT GIVE HIM ANY RECOGNITION. If you ignore him completely and fully, he will go away. As long as anyone responds in any way, he will not go away. If we all ignore him, he will go somewhere else. If they ignore him, he will, yet again, go somewhere else. Soon, if everyone ignores him, he will have no where to go and get recognition. He is nothing more than a child, jumping up and down, screaming, "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!" So, WA8KGP, flame me if you wish, but you are sound and fury, signifying nothing and I am supremely indifferent to anything you say. To all others, I will continue to work to keep code requirements, at least for Extra, and support the ARRL against BPL. Mr Haynie, you and the ARRL may not always be right and you may not always make the best decisions, but you are out there making the decisions and doing your best to keep our spectrum, and for that, you deserve my support. Thank you.
73, Tom, K9WLF/4
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Anybody remember the 220 mhz band. The arrl did a fine job there too!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W7DAH on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DICK-WA8KJP wrote:
RE: It Seems To Me... Reply
by WA8KJP on August 4, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Anybody remember the 220 mhz band. The arrl did a fine job there too!
W7DAH replies: What did YOU do DICK?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K1MKF on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is the FCC going to do when BPL is approved and every contest weekend internet service is destroyed and every on the air emergency is disrupted by s9 +10db noise?
I say the ARRL should submit their objection and sit back. You don't need everyone's money to buy influence in DC. If the FCC makes the wrong decision they will have egg on their face. US hams can just crank up the 1.5KW and disable BPL. The world radio community will not allow HF amateur radio to die.
This tactic was used before, by the NRA. Scream the sky is falling, increase membership then ask for donations. If all the ARRL was asking for was letters of support I would certainly understand.
MarkF
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K1MKF on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is the FCC going to do when BPL is approved and every contest weekend internet service is destroyed and every on the air emergency is disrupted by s9 +10db noise?
I say the ARRL should submit their objection and sit back. You don't need everyone's money to buy influence in DC. If the FCC makes the wrong decision they will have egg on their face. US hams can just crank up the 1.5KW and disable BPL. The world radio community will not allow HF amateur radio to die.
This tactic was used before, by the NRA. Scream the sky is falling, increase membership then ask for donations. If all the ARRL was asking for was letters of support I would certainly understand.
MarkF
|
| |
|
The ARRL Works
|
|
|
by KD5ING on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here are a few examples of the ARRL protecting radio spectrum and the interests of The Amateur Radio Service. This is just from the last two months. I say we are getting our moneys worth and then some!
If I am given a choice between the ARRL that can fight and win some of the battles and doing nothing that is guaranteed to lose ALL of the battles, I put my money on the ARRL!
Keep up the great work Jim!
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
Public Information Officer
Nacogdoches Amateur Radio Club
http://www.andersoft.com/narc
-----------
For the first time in 14 years, hams enjoyed the opening of a new amateur HF allocation on July 3: five 50 W, sideband channels just above 5 MHz. The League, which originally asked the FCC for a 150 kHz band near 5 MHz, urged all amateurs to operate with care and courtesy in the new-to-hams channels.
In response to an FCC Notice of Inquiry (ET-03-65), the ARRL has told the FCC that improved interference standards for consumer electronic devices are vital issues as the Commission considers the interference immunity performance of receivers.
Additional cosponsors have signed aboard the Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2003, an ARRL initiative. Now on its third try on Capitol Hill, the measure would require the FCC to provide "equivalent replacement spectrum" to Amateur Radio if the FCC reallocates primary or reduces any secondary amateur allocations.
California Gov Gray Davis signed an Amateur Radio antenna bill July 14 that incorporates the essence of the limited federal preemption known as PRB-1 into California law. League member Mike Mitchell, W6RW, monitored the bill each step of the way through the legislature. ARRL staffer Dean Straw, N6BV, and Pacific Director Bob Vallio, W6RGG, testified on behalf of the bill during public hearings.
ARRL RFI Engineer Mike Gruber, W1MG, helped 68 members with technical and RFI problems in July. He also wrote three letters to utility companies concerning interference issues and aided the FCC Amateur Enforcement Bureau with data for three cases.
The new ARRL Instructor's Manual Supplement, edited by Jan Carman, K5MA, is now available. The 32-page booklet provides lesson plans, student assignments and review questions that are compatible with the new Technician exam. Designed for use with the new fifth edition of the popular Now You're Talking! study guide, the supplement is free for downloading in PDF format from the ARRL Web site.
ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist John Hennessee, N1KB, assisted amateurs with local zoning problems in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, New Hampshire and New York, and assisted a ham with covenant restrictions in Arizona, Massachusetts, Texas, California and Colorado.
ARRL Field and Regulatory Correspondent Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG, received reports of continuous dits sent on 20 meters, later traced to a station in Kansas. Skolaut collected information of intruders on 20, 15 and 10 meters, and intentional interference of a Missouri repeater. He noted that a superb direction finding effort in the East Bay Section led to locating an oscillating television antenna amplifier causing interference. He also discussed monitoring issues with the FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Service Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth.
ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, testified before a congressional subcommittee June 11 in Washington, DC, on behalf of the Spectrum Protection Act of 2003, HR 713.
At the during the ARRL 2003 National Convention June 21, Haynie signed an official Statement of Affiliation with Citizen Corps, an initiative of the US Department of Homeland Security.
ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist John Hennessee, N1KB, answered a number of questions on the 60-meter channels. He assisted amateurs with a local zoning problem in Ohio and Oklahoma, and assisted a ham with a covenant restriction in Indiana.
ARRL Field and Regulatory Correspondent Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG, received more information regarding possible illegal 2-meter operations in the New Jersey/New York area, in Missouri and also in California, where unlicensed hang glider pilots have been heard. Skolaut has collected reports of intruders on 30, 10 and 2 meters.
In California, Amateur Radio antenna legislation modeled on PRB-1 passed both the Senate and Assembly unanimously. Mike Mitchell, W6RW, has been spearheading the Amateur Radio community's effort to promote the bill and ARRL Pacific Division Director Bob Vallio, W6RGG, spoke at an Assembly hearing on AB 1228.
ARRL RFI Engineer Mike Gruber, W1MG, helped 122 members with technical and RFI problems in May. He also wrote one letter to a utility company concerning an interference issue.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W7DAH on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N1OL wrote:
by N1OL on August 4, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Please post on BPL and what we should do.
Don’t feed the trolls – it only encourages them!
W7DAH replies: not as much fun as poking sticks at the animals.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N9AVY on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, thanks for your article and personal comments. Since ARRL is the only representation we have we should all support the League.
Should BPL actually happen, I wonder if the FCC has considered the possibility what would happen to them if 100,000 hams filed interference complaints on a daily basis via snail mail ? Let's see... if they all mailed letters every day (incl. Sundays) that would be something like 36.5 million letters. That might get some attention and take up time and space.
Down with BPL !
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5PVR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's about time we start thinking how to operate if BPL is not defeated. I for one will amplify the qrn to gain level control, then invert it 180 degrees and mix it with the signal on the receiving antenna. Looks like it could be phased out as the phase of the qrn will be constant at a given location. Come on, enough comments, let's get to work.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KR4WM on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To the fellow who mentioned deducting 10% from your monthly electric bill- I have this on good information: overpay your bill by 1 cent a month for six months. Then underpay your bill by 1 cent a month for six months. I've heard it drives their accountants crazy!
Mr Haynie, don't you worry about the naysayers. I have complete confidence that the ARRL will come out victorious in the BPL argument. If they don't, I suppose the BPL users will have a big problem with RFI on their hands, at least in my neighborhood!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you want protection from BPL you need a lot of people using the bands and you can't have that when you have set up exlusions to chase thousands of people away from the hobby. There are more registered voters out there who will demand BPL if it will bring down costs and make services cheaper than a few grumpy old men complaining in Washington and you know what? They don't need their version of ARRL because they are a huge majority to be reckoned with.
The IARU and most nations are moving ahead by dropping the code requirement. As I mentioned before the USA should be the nation that stays ahead but thanks to the ARRL we will be the last behind the rest of the world.
BTW - I just sent a nice check to AMSAT as they have resources that the majority of hams can use without exclusions.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N6AJR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This article is posted under the NEWS section but I think it fits here too, co I copy and pasted .. Here Ya GO!!.....................
Here is my thoughts, (an excerpt for a letter I sent to the VE thread, and else where!), first a bit of backround. I got my first licence as a tech (now a tech plus) by taking a 5 wpm test and a 20 and a 50 question test and came out a tech (at that time a plain ole "2 meter tech" as we were called). I never had a novice ticket. I took the test at the FCC office in San Francisco on a bright and crisp morning Saturday 17 april 1978.
I played radio for a couple years and then kind of drifted away, family, job ...you all know.... any how, in Feb of 2001 I stopped in at Ham Radio Outlet in Oakland and ended up buying a vx5r, as a tech I could use it. (I had renewed my ticket every 10 years.)
After playing with it for a couple of days I decided to go for general and started working on code. I eventually got a book and found out I could be grandfathered in as a general, as I met the current equirements. I went to a local VE session on Friday, and $10 later I was a general.
Exactly 1 week and 1 day later I passed my extra at a different VE session.
It was always the code holding me back. Something about not being able to learn languages .. I had trouble with latin in school and spanish in college. I spent 8 years in the air force in electronic counter measures repair, so the radio part was easy, I couldn't pass the darn *&%$#@ code.
A couple weeks after that I passed my VE questionaire and became a VE.
Now, here is my thought. I figure they (FCC) will do away with code eventually. I think the testing as it is is pretty good, it could be harder, it could be easier, but it is OK for now. It think we need to foster the Idea that code is just another mode, which it is, and that code is cool!!!!.
I think we need to push the idea that "real hams" enjoy the code and " real hams " make the effort to learn. Think about it, take for example the LEO satalites. I got into them because a couple of local hams were talking about them and how easy it was to set up, and fun to work calif to fla. on 2 meter/440 mhz and a rubber duck. I got excited and tried it.
Now lets do the same with code. Lets quit whining about whether it is required or not, lets make it a secret hand shake, a badge of honor, you will not be Required to learn Code, BUT real hams know CW. Get the idea?
I think this will be the best way and it will work. Remember that SSB is limited to the top end of the bands but CW can work on any frequency that you have passed the requirements for. Folks on CW don't have to stay "there" they have the whole band.
I don't know Ladies and Gents, but this just might catch on.
73 and good dx tom N6AJR (an extra light with an option to join the Quarter Century club HI hi) di dit
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by TOMAHAWK1 on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If BPL passes, I will do all I can to disrupt as many internet connections around me as I can by keying up with modulated carriers. I'd make sure to do it between 7 and 11 PM, which is prime time online. Its about all my radio (I mean doorstop) would be good for. Maybe we can even band together with the CB crowd to destroy internet connections around us.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA1RKA on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is one issue,where I as a non ARRL member find supporting their Frequency Defense Fund of Importance.
I will be sending a donation to that fund.
Why some may ask?
My answer is simple,this is one fight where defending the amateur radio spectrum will not only benefit us but all other users of the hf and vhf bands that could be potentialy affected.
One example that I have been using recently is a lot of overseas air traffic control is still being done on hf.I think we both know what could happen if that communication gets disrupted by interference.
Another example is the VHF air traffic channels. It doesnt take a genius to figure out what will happen if a second or third harmonic also shows up from BPL. I for one dont want to wake up some morning and find a 777 in my backyard. If the potential interferenc should reach into the low UHF spectrum than a lot of the military air traffic channels will be affected.
Guess that would be the time to look for a B-52 as well as the 777.
A third exampel here in Maine a lot of our public service communications are in the vhf low and vhf high spectrum. Its not practical for a lot of it to be moved to UHF,because of the distances and terrain involved.If the interference levels reach 160 mhz then police,fire,ambulance and business type communications will suffer.
I think its time we all woke up to the fact that this issue isnt about whether you are an Arrl Member or Non-Member,code vs no code. To me its more an issue of protecting the public safety.
My grandmother used to say "If you choose to fight something,chose carefully the one you fight".
In my 39 years of being licensed this is the first issue where the ramifications of its implementation are worse than its supposed benefits.
73
John
wa1rka
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I got this scanner frequency list online. Here is an example of what would be interfered with on VHF in addition to ham radio:
VHF/UHF Scanner Bands & Search RangesVHF/UHF Scanner Bands & Search Ranges With
Modes & Search Steps
30-50 low band NFM land mobile communications
33.42-33.98@.020 fire/emergency
37.02-37.42@.020 police
39.02-39.98@.020 police
42.02-42.94@.020 state police
44.62-46.58@.020 police/state police/fire/ambulance
50-54 6 meter ham NFM amateur radio with some repeaters
50.00-54.00 52.525 main simplex
54-72 television WFM TV channels 2-4
59.75 Ch 2 audio
65.75 Ch 3 audio
71.75 Ch 4 audio
72-76 paging/links NFM paging
76-88 television WFM TV channels 5-6
81.75 Ch 5 audio
87.75 Ch 6 audio
88-108 FM broadcast WFM broadcast radio
88.1-107.9@.200 in odd steps
108-137 aircraft band AM aviation communications
108-118@.100 beacons
118-137@.025 communications
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If the NTIA was so worried about interference that the FCC only gave us five channels on 60M, what do they and the military think BPL will do to THEIR communications? And vice versa?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< It's about time we start thinking how to operate if BPL is not defeated. I for one will amplify the qrn to gain level control, then invert it 180 degrees and mix it with the signal on the receiving antenna. Looks like it could be phased out as the phase of the qrn will be constant at a given location. Come on, enough comments, let's get to work. >
That technique works well for a single, point source of noise. However, the overhead power lines are not a point source, and thus will not be possible to null out. And if more than one neighbor has a BPL signal "on the air" you will not be able to get them both out of phase.
Even a single neighbor might be hard to null and the nature of the radiation from house wiring changes every time a load, such as a light switch, is changed.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KB6TRR on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Thank you for your timely update regarding the status of BPL. I too have filed my comment with the FCC but it is only an organization like the ARRL that can comment with sufficient technical background material to possibly make a difference. My check is in the mail in supporting the ARRL in defense of maintaining the integrity of our frequencies.
However, we as the amateur community are only a small portion of those using the HF frequencies, what are some of the other users doing to combat this threat? While we may curse some of the broadcast stations that "interfere" on some of our bands, those stations have a huge economic interest in maintaining legibility of the HF spectrum. This does not even take into account some of the critical uses of those frequencies such as air traffic control and the millitary. Is the ARRL looking into teaming up with some of the other HF users to present a more uniform and louder voice? If it's just us HAMS against the moneyed interest who currently have the loudest voice with our FCC, I'm afraid that we will lose.
I as an individual have very little chance of forming "partnerships" with these other users of HF spectrum. It takes an organization like the League to initiate that kind of force. If the ARRL has not already done so, I hope that it starts now before it is too late.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<I'm confused. Jim's request for donations refers to a noise level of 35-37 db or about 10db over S-9. At 6 db per "S" unit, isn't that just 6 "S" units?? (36db divided by 6 db/S unit)?>
That was a typo. The calculations I have done based on Part-15 limits are S9+15 dB for 3.5 MHz to a dipole and about S9+10 dB on 14 MHz with a Yagi, if the antennas are placed in a field at the permitted FCC limit of 30 uV/m.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA1RKA on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a follow up to my previous posting. I just plain forgot to add it.
Has anyone figured out yet what the BPL signal would do to existing appliances in your home.Would they be putting filters on the input to your meter or what.
We all have experienced what can happen to home entertainment devices when our hf signals get picked up on the house wiring.
John
wa1rka
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K7PIG on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Jim.
Being on a fixed income all I can do is renew my membership and I did that last month, July for an addition 3 years. A few dollars toward a cause to defend amateur radio is worth each penny.
I placed 2 comments on the FCC site regarding BPL.
Only from what I have read, the noise generated from it will just overwhelm HF and VHF and for what, extremely greedy business, the American Greenback.
Do the best you can in Washington and my one penny just might pay for a Government Tax.
Best to you all at ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Here's another example of Jim Haynie's and ARRL's failure to protect Ham Sprectrum:
New HF RFID Tag Limits Should Not Affect Amateurs (Aug 4, 2003) -- Little or no impact to the Amateur Service is expected at the low end of 20 meters in the wake of an FCC decision to raise the power limit for radio frequency identification (RFID) tags that operate in the vicinity of 13.5 MHz. The FCC agreed in a Second Report and Order (SR&O) and Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) in ET Docket 95-19 released July 17 to allow 3.5 times the previous harmonic field strength in the range of 13.710 to 14.010 MHz. >
Spectrum doesn't need any protection in this case. We cannot go to the FCC with a knee-jerk reaction to everything they propose to do. In practice, any system that is able to meet the unchanged limits at 14.0101 MHz will be only a fraction of a dB higher than that at 14.000. Had we fought this one with the FCC, amateur radio would have looked pretty foolish.
ARRL made exactly the right choice, IMHO. Of course, I can say that because my recommendation was to focus our efforts in areas where there really WAS a threat to ham radio operating.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5HTW on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with Jim on one count for sure (perhaps on others as well) and that is Part 97 needs to be torn down and rebuilt to face the reality of today's ham radio. It is antiquated in many ways, but the one that stands out most in my mind is the part about "a pool of experienced electronics experts."
Whom do we think we are kidding? First, we are amateurs (look the word up in the dictionary.) While at one time we had to understand what is going on inside our radios, and be able to fix, align and/or adjust it, that is no longer the case. We buy a radio and we go on the air. If it goes bad, we send it out to be repaired by a professional (not amateur) technician. Someone who does it for a living, in other words, most often as an employee of a company that does that, such as Icom or Kenwood.
We are expert at plugging in a microphone. We are fairly adept at connecting a sound card. Some of us can put up a dipole. That is the extent of our expertise.
So is that a complaint? No, it is an observation. We do not 'need' to know electronics, and for the most part, we don't. The so-called "expert" class of amateur license is often held today by people who can't use an ohmmeter. The 'expert' is the beginner, brand new, with pretty near zero experience (the root of the word, by the way) and total inability to pass along any technical information in the form of Elmering.
There was a time following World War II, when CW was the primary method of military communications. We as hams knew that method, and we were following standard procedures using standardized prosigns. In voice operation, again, we knew and used standard procedures. What that meant was we could indeed be called up (drafted) into the military and sent to the field with minimal training, meaning in short order. We could put a tube type transmitter on the air in the jungle, and we could keep it on the air with a few spare parts and a soldering iron.
That is no longer necessary. The military trains its people in specialized field; operating a computer, operating a keyboard, fixing a transmitter. But the Jack-of-all-trades days are long, long gone. They don't need us, and more than that, they don't want us.
Homeland Security? I think Homeland Security could just as well align itself with REACT. It would have a similar capability, of short range communication, by equally-trained operators. Yes, equally trained.
We think because we hold a sheet of paper in our paws that says FCC, we have received a degree in electronics, and we have high level technical skills. We think we are "The Gift" to the world. This needs addressing in Part 97, for it isn't true. Not only do we not have any special skills, even if we did, they aren't needed in that defined capacity.
We don't need classes of licenses, either. That is especially true in light of the fact the expert is not an expert at all but often a near-beginner. All the classes of ham licenses do is cause dissention. The last remnants of Incentive Licensing should disappear, and a one size fits all be installed. For the truly technical whose hobby is to rebuild and operate ancient tube type gear (for example) yes, there could be an endorsement, similar to the Commercial endorsements. But the general, average ham, needs no technical skills today. All he needs to know is how to stay within the band limits, avoid interference, and not curse on the air. That's all.
Sorry. But technology has outdated the old ham radio. It isn't anyone's fault, and I do not fault Restructuring of 1999. In fact, that was probably a step in acknowledging ham radio has changed, and will continue to change dramatically.
Sure there are a lot of people who think they are great electronics and/or operating experts who will disagree with me. But the facts are there; the vast majority of hams today are appliance operators, and the hobby is surviving with that concept. Yes, there have always been appliance operators, but they were perhaps one or two percent of licensed hams. Today they are more like, probably, 60-80 percent. That is the face of the hobby. The radios are too complicated, too small, too digitized. We need to recognize that in the Part 97 rules.
As someone said:
I agree on BPL and CW. On CW in particular, yes, the hobby will survive without it but it won't be Ham Radio.
CW is the essence of Amateur Radio, without it, the hobby is just a bunch of fat, old men sitting in their basement in a grease stained tee shirt and boxer shorts, sending porn over SSTV and intentionally jamming QSOs when someone says something they don't like--kind of like it is today without the refuge of the CW sub-bands.
unquote.
Ham radio already is not what many of us knew in the good old days. But THESE are the good old days for the new ham or the recent ham, and he, too, shall see changes that may make it both unrecognizable and undesirable. Perhaps not; the future is hard to predict.
But we do need to rewrite Part 97. Much of it has already been de facto rewritten, regarding things like the ordering of a pizza on the repeater, the cell phone spouse contacts on 2 meters, and the acceptance of profanity on the bands as being the norm.
We need to go further. Make it reflect Today's Ham Radio.
But it must also reflect Tomorrow's Ham Radio.
73
ed
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NA6Z on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Ed W1RFI,
Has anyone done link margin calculations with legal limit amps and yagis on towers at both ends? Would those assumptions be enough to overcome BPL?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It appears the arrl staff has invaded eHam. What's up? They don't like their site???
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W8JI on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<Thousands of radio operators with newly gained HF priviledges when the code requirement gets dropped spending thousands of dollars on new radio equipment vs. a limited minority of a dying breed that makes a CW transiever out of a coke can for less than $5 and gets their QST and CQ magazines second hand. Which one is more positive for the future of amateur radio?
73
Dave>>>
I agree. Long term it's the guys building things and learning that make the most long-term difference. Even if it's learning to be a good operator and something about how a radio works.
The fellows just spending money, assuming they don't advance technical skills or the state of the art in any way, might as well be buying computers, video games, CB radios, or even Hookers (for their car exhaust). The money is still just turning around for toys.
Good point.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, it was apparent that there was going to be a lot of response to this posting because of the position of the author and because of the two subjects raised.
CW will still be important to amateur radio if it is removed as a requirement as long as the CW bands are maintained. It is still a very important mode of communications especially on weak signal VHF work.
BPL is a major threat. I think that we need some valid scientific data of the effects of BPL on all amateur radio frequencies as well as the public service and business bands! Collect this data and present it to the FCC and I think that will be a most important step to preventing this threat.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< I agree with Jim on one count for sure (perhaps on others as well) and that is Part 97 needs to be torn down and rebuilt to face the reality of today's ham radio. It is antiquated in many ways, but the one that stands out most in my mind is the part about "a pool of experienced electronics experts."
Whom do we think we are kidding?>
There are some absolutely brilliant people in amateur radio, and I learn from them every day. If you look through the BPL filings to the FCC, one stands out technically above the rest -- the one done by amateur radio. There is more to come. Not every amateur is a "pool of experienced experts," but collectively, amongst our ranks, you find just that. That expertise is primarily practical, but it is real nonetheless.
Let me give you an example from my own work. A couple of years ago, I was invited to Phoenix, AZ for a convention. I knew that there was a VDSL system installed in Phoenix, so I wanted to take a look at its interference potential. I brought the Lab's TS-440 and a mobile whip and decided to do some driving around.
One of my low friends in high places hooked me up with a local in the VDSL industy. He wasn't a ham, but willing to help. I showed him the equipment, he was somewhat impressed, and we started testing. He marveled that this was the first time anyone had done any such testing, and how cool he thought it was. I chuckled, and said, "Oh, you mean the high-tech thing of putting a radio in a car and driving around?" We laughed together.
We drove on a bit, and a horrible buzz came out of the speaker as we drove under power lines. "VDSL?" he asked? Nope, and I explained how lines can make RF noise. A while later, we heard a lot of birdies and whistles as we drove past a shopping plaze. VDSL? Nope. It was spurious emissions from the computers and cash registers in the building. A while later, near a large apartment building, more buzzes. A quick tune 15.75 kHz up the band showed another buzz. VDSL? No, it was harmonics from all the horizontal oscillators in the TV sets.
Suddenly, it dawned on me. He was an experienced engineer, but could not have done these tests because it took an engineer with practical experience in all these noises to know what it was. Without an active ham in the car, there is no way the VDSL community could have reached the correct conclusion -- that the VDSL system installed in Phoenix with underground wiring did not pose a major interference threat to amateur radio.
Don't discount the value of amateur radio. I look at some of the technical reflector and I am in awe of what I see. I look at the work I have seen ARRL do that has helped industry or the FCC. Ask Bob Cleveland at FCC OET how much help amateur radio offered the FCC when they were developing the RF exposure regulations.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>It appears the arrl staff has invaded eHam. What's up? They don't like their site???
ARRL doesn't have a discussion board. Jim and I both enjoy the discussions. Me more than him, it might appear. On the AMWINDOW.ORG site, they have proclaimed me an Old Buzzard indeed! :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
S-unit = 6dB is a misconception
|
|
|
by N2MG on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<I'm confused. Jim's request for donations refers to a noise level of 35-37 db or about 10db over S-9. At 6 db per "S" unit, isn't that just 6 "S" units?? (36db divided by 6 db/S unit)?>
S-unit = 6dB is a misconception! Tell me where it is written?
Most radios' S-meters are more like 1dB-2dB per S-unit down low and maybe 3dB-4dB/S-unit near S5 and maybe 6dB near S9.
Try checking yours with a calibrated attenuator sometime...
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N2MG on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's perfectly understandable why the ARRL has no discussion boards. With all the cranks that "live" to harrass would have a, ahem, Field Day.
Mike N2MG
webmaster
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K0NEB on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
My hat is off to ARRL for its stance and work on BPL. As a practical matter, its implementation is fraught with problems at best, not the least of which are the high cost of retrofitting transformers, insulators, etc. to provide a "path" if you want to call it that. With technologies such as DSL, Cable Modem and wireless, the cost per end user remains low as cable modem simply rides on existing lines with little extra work done save for the insertion of bidirectional amplifiers/couplers. Daily, DSL improves range with newer technologies. I have seen DSL implemented in rural Nebraska over distances of 6-7 miles or more from hubs. The power utility here in Lincoln is selling what it has in data network capacity to provide high speed competitive connections via FIBER, which is buried along with the power lines in many congested areas by the utility for line monitoring/control, etc.. Their extra capacity (dark fiber) is what they sell here, not any kind of BPL. The rates for broadband connections in many areas are so competitive between DSL and Cable providers that it is financially impractical for most power utilities to even try to implement this. Most power companies are already financially strapped and a huge investment in broadband might be met with resistance by regulators or stockholders. But, I agree that the ARRL is using its resources wisely to be sure this ill-concieved technology never gains a foothold. We hams can feel a bit more at ease knowing that not only ARRL is on our behalf, but the economy and practical engineering as well. Our future joy resides in that thin strand of glass we call fiber, as once it reaches our doorstep, technologies such as DSL and cable modem and BPL will be like 8-track tapes and PONG games..relegated to the sands of time and memory in short order both by being outdated before it is implemented, but also for its own technical frailties and high cost of implementation. And glass doesn't pick up "CQ CONTEST"!! I am surprised that I have not heard from NAB or other broadcast organizations about the potential for interference to their outlets as well. If it is S9+20, my guess is it has spurs outide the bandwidth that would affect their signals as well.
As to CW, I can say that I took my Extra CW test when it was 20 WPM and I wouldn't miss the loss of the requirement at all. I have heard it said that the code test is somewhat akin to requiring testing a driver's license applicant in the use of a manual transmission. You can buy a stick shift if you want, just like we can work CW or not. As Bob Dylan said "the times, they are a changin'...". Jim, I know the ARRL will be INUNDATED with correspondence on both sides should the League take a stance regarding the NCVEC or other petitions to immediately implement a dropping of Morse testing. Know this..the future awaits us..amateur tradition has always included CW..but in my opinion, it doesn't have to require it. I teach kit building and many kits include very simple CW rigs. Those that want to do it will learn it and use it..those that don't will find other aspects of our hobby and service to enjoy. I hope to see you Jim at Huntsville or Peoria hamfests.
73, Joe KØNEB (ARRL Life member since 1976)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9DZ on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To quote KENNETH:
"Isn't the answer simple? If the ARRL would have eliminated the code requirement years ago
we would have an army of hams today (and their dues) to fight BPL."
Until recently, the code requirement for HF amateur operation was INTERNATIONAL in nature. The FCC requirement was in line with the rest of the world.
Unless this BPL thing is defeated you probably won't have to worry about a code test as you won't be able to use the HF bands anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K8LQ on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To: ED W1RFI
Ed,
you state in the ARRL article that the threat is primarily 2-80 mhz and that the interference from BPL is "devastating". Please tell me what you see for typical noise over ambient from 540khz to 1700khz and 88-108mhz.
Any concerns here in your analysis thus far? Some data would be appreciated, my boss is on the board of the NAB.
thanx
Brian K8LQ
|
| |
|
Quick Question
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I filed comments several weeks ago with the FCC on the BPL issue. Is it acceptable or appropriate to file additional comments in response to other filings that have occurred since then ? Or will there be a response period sometime after the intial comment filing window ? I'd like to respond to some of the comments by the utility companies.
Thanks
P.S. Jim, it is commendable that you posted in this forum. I don't always agree with the ARRL, but I'm a life member and ham radio wouldn't be what it is today without the League.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K7VO on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA8KJP blames the ARRL for all the worlds problems in the past related to ham radio. That his information is inaccurate and his laying of guilt totally unfair is besides the point. Completely.
OK, lets, for the sake of argument say the WA8KJP is absolutely correct about the past failures of the ARRL. They happen to be spot on about BPL, and who else can organize the ham community and represent it in Washington competently on this issue? If the ARRL is at all successful in stopping or reducing the damage BPL would do it outweighs all that has gone before.
WA8KJP, you are very, very good at throwing stones. The thing is, you live in the same glass house as the rest of us. Unless you can show some other effective way of fighting BPL you prove yourself to be a moron and a troll.
Oh, by all means, go on posting. Please. The more you rail against the ARRL the more people will support it.
If we stick together and unite behind the ARRL we have at least some chance to stopping BPL from destroying ham radio below 144MHz.
To Jim Haynie: Thank you for taking the time to get the proverbial trenches, answer posts on another related thread, and to talk to the hams here on eHam directly. Win or lose, both you and Ed Hare have done a wonderful job of showing how the ARRL responds not only to a threat to our bands, but also to the ham community, ARRL members and non-members alike. I see my membership dollars are well spent, and not just on a good magazine.
73,
Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by VE3WMB on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unfortunately there are those among us who seem to
have forgotten that the privledges that we enjoy as hams
are just that ...privledges and not a God-given right.
BPL is a major threat to our hobby and if we survive this one
there will be another one tomorrow and the tomorrow after that. That in itself is a good enough reason to support your national Amateur Radio organization. Those of us who do, do it because we believe that this hobby is worth keeping.
Thank you Jim for sharing your thoughts with us.
Michael VE3WMB (ARRL & RAC member)
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W3DCG on August 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Makes you wonder if perhaps some movers and shakers in the League might actually read some of these threads.
Sure would be a kick if some of it made it to Dubbya's desk, even.
HOMELAND SECURITY... what a super place to start and a compelling angle. Excellent idea. Absolutely valid.
Code/No Code?
Looking the Beast (BPL) in the eyes, it doesn't matter.
Would be nice if some arm of the League might pull-strings for an immediate, limited no code HF license, keeping a vestigial remnant of it for Extra only. If only because it is the highest attainable Amateur license.
Hopefully, No Code HF's potential flood of HF voice signals and crowding will be realized, and result in the Advancement of the State of the Art (narrower spectrum digital voice, maybe?)- if current band plans remain intact. As well, more money for the industries that support ham radio.
Give a mouse a cookie... the milk would we- sizable chunks of current CW/digital space? Hopefully, by the time the demand for milk arises, BPL will be comfortably shrouded in the mists of Avalon, and Amateur radio will continue. Otherwise she may well drift into the realms of myth and legend.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KJ9A on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well....I'll just load up and point the beam to the power lines...Sorry...I fight fire with fire...
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by OBSERVER on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for keeping us up to date on this matter. Although BPL appears to be a threat, I doubt the FCC would go ahead with full implimentation 1.7 - 80 MHz.
WA8KJP - We are poor little Hams who have lost our way, Baa, Baa, Baa.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4PZZ on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm just trying to get some kinks worked out that I've noticed in the thread (and wow, is this one long).
"On the other hand, If the ARRL membership is top heavy with General and up licensees, they could stand to lose some of that membership if they do not do everything in their power to keep the code testing requirement."
K3UD
K3UD -- license class does not reflect one's stance on the code versus no-code situation.
"The sentiment in the amateur community is well known: even after morse testing is eliminated for HF, we want to preserve CW use somehow. So we should encourage the mode and skills by eliminating the huge Extra-only HF CW bands and allowing all licensees to operate in the CW bands."
KQ6XA
KQ6XA -- what incentive would there be to upgrade, then? Same privileges for all on HF?
ARRL would have eliminated the code requirement years ago we would have an army of hams today (and their dues) to fight BPL. I am un-licensed and I represent the millions of people (and millions of dollars) the RRL has kept out of the hobby because of their support for the code requirement.
Kenneth
Ken -- The ARRL has had nothing to do with the code requirement. International treaty has (I believe that has already been said, however). Also, the Technician license allows many modes of operation on many bands, and this is where new innovations are taking place everyday. HF is well known territory. Microwaves are the so-called "new frontier". Further, if you have a valid interest in amateur radio, it would be wise to comment against BPL anyway.
Well, I've put off commenting on BPL over and over and over again. Tonight, I take some action. To Jim, I applaud commenting on a public forum, and opening yourself up to varied comments such as the ones seen above (and I'm sure the ones that will follow below).
Fred
KG4PZZ
(an ARRL member, too. They ain't perfect, but they're doing a very good job anyway.)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K2WR on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's probably a good time for a brief break from the endless debate, which I will provide via an unabashedly off-topic post on the history of television (I have chosen to specialize in off-topic posts all over the Internet.) If this seriously bothers anyone, please let me know where to send the Ex-Lax.
It was stated above, and apparently blindly accepted here, that television was invented in the 1950's. I suppose if you're 30 and your personal recollections begin with the Mary Tyler Moore show, you might believe that, but, in fact, television was invented in the 20's and 30's. There is no general consensus on the identity of any single inventor, but it is clear that major contributions to different component technologies were made by Philo Farnsworth, Vladimir Zworykin, and (in the U.K.) John Logie Baird.
The first broadcast television transmission (i.e. intended for reception by the public, as opposed to technical tests) in the United States was of the opening of the 1939 World's Fair in New York City. (A limited, although regular, schedule of broadcasts had begun in the U.K. almost 3 years earlier.) If World War II had not intervened, regular broadcasts would surely have been common in the U.S. within a year or two after 1939, but this did not actually happen until 1946. Most major cities had at least one or two TV stations on the air prior to 1950.
What did happen in the 50's was the introduction of color television. The compatible NTSC system still in use today (in the U.S.) was approved by the FCC in 1951, after having previously approved (and then rescinded, after unrelentless lobbying by RCA) a non-compatible system promoted by CBS. Occasional color broadcasts of special events such as the Rose Bowl Parade were made by NBC starting in the mid-50's, but no network broadcast its prime time schedule exclusively in color until NBC did so in 1964, followed in a year or two by ABC and CBS.
(Note: the above is intended as a diversion from far more important matters such as whether W5JBP will get to spend more time with FCC Commissioners if he wears a more expensive suit. Personally, I'm willing to give it a try, and intend to increase my Diamond Club contribution accordingly. However, if anyone wishes to debate the history of television, we really should initiate a new thread.)
Rich K2WR
(ham & ARRL member since 1966!)
|
| |
|
No wait, bpl=code!
|
|
|
by KA1EZE on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If our spectrum get's all jammed up with bpl noise, the only way we'll get through is with.... cw!
Wow, who knew these two topics were so intertwined.
Anyway, I think arrl is a bit overreacting to this. I certainly think if we got this big time interference coming out, all the hf for commercial and gov would scream.
Perhaps the arrl should poke those agencies that haven't commented yet? Leverage others with an interest.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K9KJM on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have watched the ARRL for many years, And have
never before seen a better attempt by any League
official to contact and get opinions from the
ham radio population, Than these posts by Jim,
W5JBP.
In the past, League "officials" sat up in the Ivory
tower and for the most part ignored letters from the
average ham.
W5JBP's attempts to communicate should be appreciated.
The BPL threat is REAL, And those who think that
running full legal power and killing the neighbors
internet fun is going to stop the problem if it is
implemented, Better get their heads out of the clouds
and understand real politics......... The masses
will prevail.
WAKE UP! This could very well spell the END of ham
radio as we know it.
The talk of "Homeland Security" and all of the other
good things ham radio has done is all well and good,
But needs to be preached to elected representatives
who can make a difference. Write to your elected
officials today!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AE6AT on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr Haynie,
After I read your article and then I tried to read all the comments up to this point, wow, I don't remember seeing so many in such a short time. I believe you have won the comment sweepstakes and rightfully so.
I think that eHam is probably on the front lines of Amateur Radio, where ideas and opinions flow freely and without restraint for the most part. For you to post here puts the general on the ground with the troops so to speak. I, for one, have a lot of respect for that and I think you did us a service by getting into the hand to hand combat with a generals information.
Respectfully from one operator to another,
Don AE6AT
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9MDX on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, thank you for the very nice post. As a critic of the League in the past, I think it has become apparent to me that I may not have been aware of all that the League is doing for the hobby. It is through the sort of effort that you displayed by posting here and the work of Ed Hare that I, personally, have been won over.
I hope that others can see past the "ARRL bashing" and understand how important that work on BPL and Part 97 is to the future of the hobby. No other organization has the resources to pull this out of the fire. The ARRL is not perfect but the more we support it and get involved, the better it will become. Thanks for your work!
--Larry W9MDX
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9MDX on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, thank you for the very nice post. As a critic of the League in the past, I think it has become apparent to me that I may not have been aware of all that the League is doing for the hobby. It is through the sort of effort that you displayed by posting here and the work of Ed Hare that I, personally, have been won over.
I hope that others can see past the "ARRL bashing" and understand how important that work on BPL and Part 97 is to the future of the hobby. No other organization has the resources to pull this out of the fire. The ARRL is not perfect but the more we support it and get involved, the better it will become. Thanks for your work!
--Larry W9MDX
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< Jim, thank you for the very nice post. As a critic of the League in the past, I think it has become apparent to me that I may not have been aware of all that the League is doing for the hobby. It is through the sort of effort that you displayed by posting here and the work of Ed Hare that I, personally, have been won over. >
And Larry, I expect you to be a critic of ARRL in the future. When I disagree with ARRL, I do so behind the scenes, but ARRL NEEDS to hear from people who think that it should be doing something differently. In some of the "spririted" discussions I have had with Jim, even over the BPL issue, sometimes I won him over, sometimes he convinced me why my view was wrong, but in all cases where I have disagreed with ARRL, I have felt that my views were considered and were part of any final decision. In some cases, I won; in others I lost and in some cases, someone else simply reached a different conclusion than I did from the same information.
Those who take the time to criticize ARRL care deeply about amateur radio. If they can take the time to really dig into the issue and base that criticism on fact, they can do a lot of good. Most of the good things you see on the ARRL Tech pages came from those who told me a better way to do things. I have learned far more from those that disagree with me than I have from people who tell me that I am right. Just ask my wife! :-)
Thanks for the support. Right now, we all need to help each other in any way we can.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< It's perfectly understandable why the ARRL has no discussion boards. With all the cranks that "live" to harrass would have a, ahem, Field Day. >
You are probably right. And besides, I think that there is no need for ARRL to reinvent the wheel. All good things in amateur radio do NOT come from Newington, CT and the amateur community has created for itself some excellent places where one can air one's opinion. I think that eham.net and qrz.com work better than a similar board on the ARRL site would. ARRL should not expend its resources on discussion boards that already exist elsewhere, IMHO.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well well well. This is a first. Not only is the arrl a pathetic excuse for a functional organization, its memebers now have dropped to the level of cockroach. Arrl right wing fanatics are now bootlegging my call to post childesh and mentally challenged jibberish. The ham population is really filled with morons with the emotional age of 5. No wonder the arrl is what it is. All you have to do is look at its members.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA9AFM on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said, Jim!!!.
Folks...like it or not, ARRL is the ONLY national organization we have to approach the powers that be (international, national, state, city, etc.) to state our case. I'm a League member because I've seen, and experienced, what a unified front can do for a cause or organization. Do I always agree with each and every position, no; but, that's my problem. In a vast majority of cases, I'm very much in agreement.
Unfortunately, there will always be those who will not be confused by the facts.
Tom Webb, WA9AFM/5
President
Oklahoma City Autopatch Association
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4PZZ,
"I'm just trying to get some kinks worked out that I've noticed in the thread (and wow, is this one long).
"On the other hand, If the ARRL membership is top heavy with General and up licensees, they could stand to lose some of that membership if they do not do everything in their power to keep the code testing requirement."
K3UD
K3UD -- license class does not reflect one's stance on the code versus no-code situation."
In individual cases you have a well taken point. The problem is that we really do not have much data gathered in a scientific way to make a specific statement on this subject, which is why I generalized it.
One can only make comments based on what ones personal feelings are, what is being heard on the bands, in the clubs, in letters to the editor, and in the posts on forums. The problem is that you do not get a random cluster sampling of the ham community or even the reliability of extended focus group results.
Based on what I see posted, hear on he air, and hear at hamfests it seems that the majority of hams who have been licensed over a longer period of time and have the old General, Advanced or Extra as it was before the rules changed, tend to support a code testing requirement. Of course there are some who don't. It also seems, based on the same input criteria, the most no code technicians do not support a code testing requirement.
The fact is that unless some random cluster based research is done among licensed amateurs, we might never know how it really breaks out.
However, If what I suspect is true (my personal feelings based on observation, higher class licensees who have been licensed for a longer period of time, and the possibility that the ARRL is a top heavy in membership with those demographics) then I still say it is a lose / lose situation for the ARRL no matter what position they take.
I think this is why the ARRL board authorized the division directors to begin polling the membership on the code question. Unfortunately, unless a very large portion of the membership responds, we are still guessing.
Not to beat another dead horse, but this situation is fairly comparable to the Incentive licensing proposals in the mid 60s. There was some polling done then and guess what.... Many Advanced and most Extra class hams supported the idea, while very few in the General and Technician classes did.
In light of full disclosure, If anyone is interested, here is where I stand on the subject.
I agree with Jim Haynie, W5JBP that we need to take a look at the present licensing regulations and like him, I feel that there is no compelling need for 6 license classes.
My thoughts:
1. Merge Novice, Tech and Tech+ into one license class.
Call it Class B. Class B requires no code testing and the theory test covers what is needed to get on the air and operate safely with some technicalknowledge and ability.
Combine the past Novice, The present Tech and some parts from the present General test into a 50 - 75 question written exam. Privileges would include all modes and operating privileges on every amateur band with this class getting use of about 50% of the HF spectrum and all from 50MHz and up. This would function as the entry class into the ARS.
2. Merge General, Advanced and Extra into a Class A license that requires a code test of at least 5WPM and confers all amateur privileges. Grant the code credit for those in Class B who have passed the code test for Novice or Tech+. The written test could be 100-125 questions taken from the present General, old Advanced, and the present Extra written.
I don't envy the ARRL board in crafting their recommendations on the code testing. In the long run it might be better for them to do nothing and let the FCC decide it.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K4SFC on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just don't know what to tell you Jim! You and I have disagreed via email several times...and agreed sometimes. Unfortunately the ARRL (I am a member) has let us down for many years. Just to refresh your memory:
1. Filters in home entertainment devices. Left to the mfgs as "voluntary compliance". Barry Goldwater would roll over in his grave.
2. Promises to expand the WARC bands in 5 to 10 years. Well guess what?
3. Relief from CCR's, which is driving people out of ham radio by the thousands. I had no base station for two years myself. Everyone wants us when there is a disaster, but back in the closet afterwards.
4. Ham equipment companies that take months to do warranty repairs. My rig has been at one of the "big three" over a month now and they have yet to put it on the bench.
5. And now the power line deal. Why would anyone hesitate to donate monies. All they have to do is look at your "success rate"?
I'm an ARRL member simply because there is no other large organization to represent us. Some visibility is better than none at all.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N5PVL on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SB QST @ ALLUS
USPN-Q005 Broadband over PowerLine
QST de USPN
USPN Bulletin 005 USPN_Q005
From USPN website
http://www.uspacket.net
To all radio amateurs
Howdy!
The first weekend in August, 2003, I attended the Austin, Texas Summerfest, a ham get-together that hosted the ARRL West Gulf Division convention this year. There were about a thousand hams there,with a great flea-market, and several presentations including one by yours truly on packet radio.
The most interesting presentation was the ARRL president's forum, where ARRL president Jim Haynie talked to a large room packed with hundreds of hams. Most of his time was spent talking about the BPL (broadband over powerline) issue, the most serious threat the hobby has ever encountered.
Mr. Haynie showed us a short film taken in New York state, where the broadband over powerline system is being tried out on a test basis. The film was taken by ARRL engineer Ed Hare. It showed Ed driving around the neighborhood where the BPL system was being tried out, with an HF radio in his car. He had an HF antenna on the car of course, for the TS-430 he used for this test.
As Ed drove along, he would slowly turn the dial on the HF rig, across the 20 meter band. At no time could a human voice or digital signal be heard - only one "birdie" of interference after another, all across the band. Ed switched over to 15 meters with the same results. No human voice, no CW, no digital sigs, just "birdies" from the broadband over powerline system that was being tested.
In the film, ARRL engineer Ed Hare was driving down the street, recieving interference from powerlines alongside the road. In your hamshack, this interference will come right into your shack, radiating from all of the wiring in the walls. - A much worse situation than the one Ed was demonstrating for us in the film.
If BPL is implemented nationwide, as is being proposed, then US hams will be wanting to sell their HF equipment to foriegn hams, because the equipment will be useless here in the United States. We will have to kiss HF Amateur Radio goodbye.
Considering the damage BPL would do to Ham Radio and several other services that utilize HF frequencies, with the overwhelming RF pollution it generates, you would think that the whole thing would be shot down in short order. - Unfortunately this is not the case. The federal government is under enormous pressure to make universal broadband Internet access a reality, and BPL is the only system that shows any potential for delivering this in the near future.
What Mr. Haynie of the ARRL was telling us was that Ham Radio in the US is currently in a fight for its life, and it is going to be a very tough fight.
I am sorry to have to report such news, but it needs to get around. This is a serious situation, requiring a serious response.
President Haynie recommended that hams write thier congressmen, and to remember to use the word "pollution" when referring to the interference of BPL, as this term has great weight in washingtons' political circles. Its a word even a congressman can understand, I suppose!
Also: this would be a good time to join the ARRL if you are not currently a member. They have some of the political apparatus needed to fight this battle in Washington, but will need funding. If you are already a member, consider making a donation.
This is a serious issue.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket.Net
n5pvl@uspacket.net
http://www.uspacket.net
/EX
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD5ING on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How to contact your Congressmen-
To contact your House member:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
To contact your Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Please let you voice and opinion be heard on this matter.
Thanks,
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
Public Information Officer
Nacogdoches Amateur Radio Club
http://www.andersoft.com/narc
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< 1. Filters in home entertainment devices. Left to the mfgs as "voluntary compliance". Barry Goldwater would roll over in his grave. >
Would he? In all of the industry standards and any regulations that deal with immunity, the immunity levels are around 3 V/m. Translation: 100 watts to a dipole 100 feet away. If immunity is enacted into regulation, this is the best that could ever be expected.
I can give you one example that may be a bit chilling. In Germany, they have such a regulation. The German regualtors, however, took a look at this and realized that on one hand they had a rule that set about 3 V/m immunity, but no control on the transmitters. German hams are now required not to exceed 3 V/m in their neibhbor's homes, and if interferene occurs, it is presumed that they do.
IMHO, there is value to voluntary immunity, leaving the door open to resolving interfence on a case-by-case basis, without the risk that US could follow in Germany's footsteps. If you remember the great concerns of amateurs and the RF exposure regulations, imagine having to prove to the FCC and your neighbors that you don't exceed 3 V/m in their homes. Heck, for that matter, imagine not exceeding 3 V/m in your neighbors' homes.
The majority of RFI problems today are conducted, and installing filters and chokes on the affected equipment cures the problem. The immunity standards and regulations are for direct pickup problems and would not affect the present conducted situation.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
Get FEMA involved?
|
|
|
by KD5ING on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FEMA has gone to bat for The Amateur Radio Service in the past. Perhaps we could get them involved with this issue?
Here is an example:
http://www.fema.gov/library/fcc.shtm
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
Public Information Officer
Nacogdoches Amateur Radio Club
http://www.andersoft.com/narc
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD5YTP on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well...first off I'm a new HAM, I've barely had time to test the equipment as it were. On the BPL issue I'm the first to admit that I don't know much about it. However, in a situation like this I'd have to say the power lies in numbers. Dropping the CW 'requirement' might raise these numbers and that's all well and good. I for one would love to get my general license, but I don't have the time to learn the code because I'm starting college and that just takes up way too much time (the school not the CW). So rather than having a requirement have a seperate license for it. It's already it's own test.
Another problem with getting numbers is some of the members. Not majority, or anything close to it, but there are some that are discouraging. Tell me, if your first experience as a HAM is to be ridiculed for a 'dumb' question, why do it anymore? There's also some that will look at when you got your general license and say, "Oh, you're one of those five words pe minute people." From what I can tell no matter how fast you learn it most people do it to get the license and them promptly forget it, so what does it matter anyway?
If the main problem with BPL is that there's just not enough support for it, that can be fixed. I'm not saying that we should turn into CB's and go unlicelsed (I shudder at the thought) just that people need to have a more relaxed attitude. Why drive people away by calling them names because they ask what a dipole is? Better to inform and teach so that knowledge is spread than thin your own herd because no one else is good enough to be in it.
KD5YTP
Jennifer Boyd
MTSU Freshman :)
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N6JSX on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sir,
I do not see how the ARRL or HAMdom in general will stop the BPL steam roller. They have to much money now and more to be made when this is allowed --- there is no stopping it. The FCC is all about money and the commercial interests that make money. We can possibly delay this action with petitions and repetitioning but eventually the commercial interest/lobbiests will win out over our meager resources. The act of submitting petition(s) only means we expect the FCC apply "common sense" and "logic" - when did these two items ever have a bearing to a political agenda?
The ONLY hope we have is
1. You get HOME LAND SECURITY to "OFFICIALLY" declare HAMdom (and our spectrum) as our Nation's PRIME back-up communication system.
2. Get Congress to pass a HAM spectrum LAW.
3. Get the President to issue an executive White House decree supporting HAMdom - and that may not be enough.
Otherwise our days are numbered. Commerical interests do NOT care about the impact to our Nation so long as there are $$$ to be made. Look how dirty (RFI) cable TV is and how little the FCC is "really" doing to get this under control.
Remember - The MBA slogan is "make the $$$ today and let tomorrow take care of its self!" Another name for this slogan is "The Harvard MBA way".
|
| |
|
OVERHAUL Ham Bands, Part 97, YES
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KQ6XA wrote> "The sentiment in the amateur community is well known: even after morse testing is eliminated for HF, we want to preserve CW use somehow. So we should encourage the mode and skills by eliminating the huge Extra-only HF CW bands and allowing all licensees to operate in the CW bands."
KG4PZZ asks> "What incentive would there be to upgrade, then? Same privileges for all on HF?"
KQ6XA replies: Personal incentives should take a back seat to the need for emergency communications preparedness and the overall future development of the amateur service and amateur spectrum. Still, with a good Part 97 overhaul plan, there would be substantial incentives for upgrading to a higher license. The sub-band rules as they stand now are ridiculously out of touch with the reality of spectrum occupancy. We have entire swatches of amateur spectrum laying dormant while other subbands are packed with stations. A little communications engineering applied to the problem would go a long way toward developing better use of our spectrum.
Watch for my new 21st Century Amateur Radio Service overhaul plan in the next few months.
Bonnie KQ6XA
http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa
http://www.hfpack.com
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K0EWS on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim, thanks for your comments. I agree with you. CW or no CW, the bigger issue right now is our surival as a viable radio service. Thanks to the ARRL for all you do there. Yes, there are folks that gripe, but I say; part of the solution, or part of the problem...
For the life of me, I cannot understand what would motivate anyone to pursue BPL. I live in one of the most isolated areas of the country; Western South Dakota. Yes, our power company here is also our internet service provider, but they also spent 3 years investing in fiber communications, wiring the entire area with underground fiber optic cable. You know for all the talk of wireless and satelite internet access, it seems to me that BPL, if initiated not only would be a step backward, but it would destroy a lot of things along with it. It just doesn't sound like a logical idea, nor a practical one either. At any rate, I'll file comments. Thanks for your post, and 73.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K3PZ on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it's time that we all put or differences aside and back the ARRL on this one issue. Right now, it doesnt matter whether we love the ARRL or not. What matters right now is that we support them and help them on this BPL issue. This appears to be the single most important issue that could destroy us as HF operators as we know it. I have read posts where people have knocked the ARRL for not caring and probably not even reading the Eham Forums on issues that pertain to them. Mr Haynie has shown that he DOES read the forums and that he DOES care. I commend him for his post. I hope that silences his critics. As for all of you whiners out there, you better think long and hard and decide if HF operation is important to you or not. If it is, then lets all get on board the same team and fight for what we all love, HF radio.
Semper Fi'
Paul Zora
K3PZ
ARRL Member
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K2WH on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This may seem somewhat crazy but, I just thought of it while reading the other posts.
Since amateur radio is an organization (a union), why not call a 3, 5 or 7 day strike! For 3 days, no transmissions will be made on HF including MARS stations or other special stations.
I think this would send a strong message to the rest of the world since this would be a worldwide event and an attention getter due to the lack of any US stations on the air. The entire world would all of a sudden sit up and take notice that this is what the HF frequencies would sound like if BPL is implemented. Of course, some foreign stations may like it just that way.
What do you think?
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This may seem somewhat crazy but, I just thought of it while reading the other posts.
Since amateur radio is an organization (a union), why not call a 3, 5 or 7 day strike! For 3 days, no transmissions will be made on HF including MARS stations or other special stations.
I think this would send a strong message to the rest of the world since this would be a worldwide event and an attention getter due to the lack of any US stations on the air. The entire world would all of a sudden sit up and take notice that this is what the HF frequencies would sound like if BPL is implemented. Of course, some foreign stations may like it just that way."
I'll take K2WH's suggestion one step further. We should all let Homeland Security, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, our local police and our local public officials know that we won't do any emergency communications anymore if BPL passes.
|
| |
|
RE: W1RFI
|
|
|
by K4SFC on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Since you don't have a bio on either eham or QRZ Ed, I don't know if you were ever a ham in Germany or not. I hope you are not telling me what goes on in Germany if you were not. I WAS a ham in Germany, my call was DA2SN. My MARS call was AEM1SNN. And when I had a neighbor with a problem, The Bundaspost came out, inspected my equipment, then the complaintants receiver(s). And in all cases, mine was fine business, and they told the neighbor to take their equipment to the repair store and get filters installed. This occured three times in two years.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N3NL on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello Jim,
Thank you for posting your comments. I agree with
you on BPL. I have filed my own detailed comments
on the BPL docket (ET Docket 03-104). I have also
contributed money to the ARRL BPL fund even though
I am unemployed. This battle on BPL is the most
important item I have seen in ham radio since I
started out in the 1960s. We need those ARRL
engineering observations and studies to constructively
participate in the BPL NOI docket and future BPL
rulemaking dockets. Jim, thank you for emphasizing
the engineering aspect of the BPL issue.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N7QF on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are so many comments, but I need to give mine as well. This especially in view of WA8KJP !
He is just one among a few, who have just not gotten the picture and his type will eventually disappear
(I hope). They contribute zero to the cause and in fact make it much worse. Consider the source.
Jim Haynie and his staff deserve all the respect and support we can offer them. Without them we'd be looking for another way to spend our time outside of radio. Jim, I thank you for your inexaustable efforts in our behalf ! You and your staff are heros in the face of incredible storms.
73,
John
N7QF
Utah
|
| |
|
RE: W1RFI
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Then things have changed a lot since I was given the information I shared by German hams in my office a few years ago. I will check with some of the DARC folks and see if I can get some updated info so we can be sure.
I was never a ham in Germany, but was related what I have been told.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Do people actually think that the ARRL is capable of standing in front of the multi billion dollar interests of commercial power companies? All the kissing up to Mr. Haynie in the world (and boy theres alot of it on here!) isnt about to stop some corporate interests who can buy and sell us all a million times over from lobbying Washington to get what "they" want! You can take EVERY hams life savings in this entire country and it wouldnt equal a pimple on an elephants butt compared to the money and power these folks have at their disposal. Money talks....BS walks.
Petition your hearts out, and BPL will STILL come if the big money boys really want it bad enough. While I dont exactly love the ARRL for my own reasons, I do respect their effort to try and stop this BPL mess, (kind of like a guy standing in front of a speeding locomotive with his hand raised) but Im just afraid that its a pretty much losing battle right from the start. Didnt UPS swipe a nice chunk of the 220 mhz band from us? Why? Because they payed some big $$$$$ for it thats why!
Wave a few greenbacks in front of ANY politician and what happenes? All the name calling and baby whining on here wont matter one way or another. The fact is, commercial interests win 9 out of 10 times for one main reason....$$$$$$. Washington runs on bucks. Every politician in this great nation of ours lives for one thing. How much money they can make from lobbyists, or stealing, or both.(is there a difference?) Since the power companies have so much to give, and also can afford the sleaziest most unscrupulous lawyers money can buy, do you really honestly think the little ARRL has the power to stand in the way of this freight train? Some folks are just fooling themselves.
Another sad fact fellow hams. As much as we love this hobby of ours, we are a sad relic of the past. Amateur radio is going the way of the dinosaur. Sure, we perceive it to last forever and it will never die etc. etc. etc. But when big money boys wave dollar bills in front of greedy, self centered politicians, they would sooner sell their own mother then listen to a bunch of radio geeks with nothing better to do then whine about interference. Also, computer users outnumber hams by millions. We ourselves are computer users! So, whos big brother going to listen to? A bunch of ham geeks whining about RFI, or millions of money paying "customers" for broadband internet access? Wake up folks!
And besides, I am not fully convinced that this BPL thing will generate the massive qrn that everyone seems to believe it will. One smart fellow pointed out that the noise db figures quoted by Mr. Haynie didnt jibe,and hes correct. S6? Big deal! I deal with 25-30 over static crash on 75 everynight! As it is now we have hams all over the country plagued with horrible line noise and leaky cable TV and we are still here arent we? What about the wireless lans spewing rfi all over the place? We are still on the air. Besides, when your neighbors internet connection goes berserk each time you key up your transmitter, I wonder who is going to listen to all THAT crying? If in fact this thing fills my receiver with so much hash I cant hear anything, then I will feel compelled to endlessly call CQ on a band that totally destroys every BPL internet connection in the neighborhood and wait for them to beat in my door!(sarcastic humor, dont take it seriously!) This ought to be interesting! I love the previous beacon idea. Good idea! Maybe there IS a good use for contesting. Just hook your computer to your rig as many contesters do and have it call cq contest cq contest 24-7. Just turn all the bands into a 24-7 contest forever (at legal limit of course) and watch the BPL folks scream and cry that they cant access their favorite porn sites on the internet anymore.(flamers-The last couple statements were intended as humor, so take your flames elsewhere, I dont have time to argue over petty bull**it)
As others have mentioned here, interference is a two way street and BPL is a disaster waiting to happen for internet users as well as hams. How many times have you heard of hams getting RF into their house wiring from having a dipole too close to the house? Can you imagine what this will do to an internet connection? And besides, when (not if) they decide to fire this mess up, if its anything like DSL or cable internet access, it will be so expensive that most folks wont use it. The huge majority of folks on the internet are STILL using old 56k dial up access. So I dont understand what all this panic and "The sky is falling" attitude is about. Let the big money boys have their BPL and watch it fail miserably.
We also have another weapon in our arsenals. The telephone. Yes, thats right, that thing in your house that has been around for 110 years or so. If your getting horrendous rfi from leaky BPL, call call call! Harrass them to death till they fix it. There has to be some sort of filter device to control this thing. DSL has line filters you must use to filter the squeal out of the voice frequency portion of the line. If you get no action by harrassing the power company, simply call the public utilities commission, and also our friends at the FCC. If we bomb the FCC with complaints I bet they take action! Poor Riley is going to be busier then a one armed paper hanger handling thousands of rfi BPL related complaints from 600,000 hams! So, until the sky actually DOES fall, I think I`ll sit back and watch all the crying and whining about BPL and get a chuckle out of it.
73 Rich
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KU4BT on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On BPL. From a technical standpoint, BPL has to be the most hair-brained scheme I've ever heard of. It's bringing back technology that should have died before WWII, and attempting to use it in the digital age. I'm not even sure it will work; I do know it will hose everything else up. Maybe they should run it to the hospitals. Might solve more than one issue.
On CW. I have already been polled by FISTS. I have not been asked my opinion by anyone connected to the ARRL at this point, and have only heard tell that the division leaders are going to do this (and I heard that here). I am in the South Eastern Division, and the silence has been deafening. I get really lousy representation from the League's Section officials (WCF) as it is, and I'm hoping that this issue will not follow that general pattern. From a membership organization, I expect more than hearsay. If you can contact me to ask for money, you can contact me to get my opinion.
On the NVEC. I'm a VE for three different VECs. Not a single one of them asked my opinion. Now, if testing were an undue burden, it would be an undue burden on me, as I actually give the tests and don't attend national meetings. I found the wording in the proposal to be disingenuous.
On the ARRL. I am a current member. I will stay a member as long as financially able, or until I feel they no longer serve my interests, or the interests of the greater Ham community.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here in AZ, the commission that regulates public utilities doesn’t have ANY authority over DSL. Correspondingly, they won’t have any authority over BPL.
Who you gonna call? Ghost Busters?
What ya gonna do when the QRM is s7-s9+? Me, I going to hold my breath until the power company cures the RFI.
In fact, I think I'll practice holding my
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK; I know I've already posted once here, but all this activity got me to do a little checking. If you want to learn about BPL, go to this web page:
http://www.plca.net/
Learn about your enemy. Notice that BPL will NOT be running data over the entire power grid. Just from the substation to the house.(Last Mile). Even then, all pole mounted transformers will have to be bridged to get the data around them. Notice their complaint about amateurs getting 60Mtrs. They don't want to have to add another 'trap' to the system for this band.
Looks like Amateur radio is the only service actually giving them any real trouble. We may only be a pimple on this elephant's back, but they're scratching it. You know what happens if you scratch a pimple too much? Scratch....Scratch....Scratch....
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K1ZC on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Like them or not, the ARRL is the best friend ham radio has today. They are far from perfect, but that doesn't mean they do not deserve our support; both moral and financial support. I recently made a substantial contribution, and if you are not a member, you should too.
The BPL matter confuses me. If you read sites directed at the broadband interest groups, there is a lot of noise about how the ham community is trying to block BPL. The reason I am confused, it that we occupy less than 10% of the total spectrum between 1.7 and 80 MHz. Where are the users of the other 90.1% and why aren't they complaining just as loudly?
The other voice that is mysteriously silent is that of the telephone carriers and cable companies. Given that many legacy carriers are not financially healthy (Quest and WorldCom/MCI for example) do we really need another option to deliver broadband? Doesn't it make sense to light up all the dark fiber before rolling out another technology, especially one with these kinds of issues?
If users could not call up a local provider and have DSL or cable service in a matter of days, there might be a public policy argument that would suggest that as a nation we should take chance on interference for the greater good. However, with so many low cost options available to get broadband connections without the RFI issues, why take the chance?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K7QL on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1ZC's comments can be doubled for me. I can't say it any better.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K2WH on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Check this site out. This is the eurphoria being felt in the computer world about BPL. It's frightening.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57605,00.html
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
Anonymous post on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All of hamdom, here is your final insult.
The ARRL and the general ham population deserves to loose HF to BPL. Why? Look at some of the posts in this and other threads on this site. It matches the stupidity you hear every day on 80 thru 10 meters. What is occuring on HF is a total waste of public spectrum and all of you know it.
If you were an outsider of this useless hobby which is filled with hopeless losers, and you heard what occurs on HF every day and then you had to choose between killing BPL which would be an infinitely better use of HF or letting BPL pass, which route would you choose if you were a politician or regulator.
YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST HF TO BPL AND YOU DESERVE IT.
What you also are too stupid to figure out is that you were destined to loose HF when the military left HF for satellite 20 years ago. Your loss of HF was inevitable. BPL was just the first to surface.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you, Jim for posting your comments. I too DON'T agree with the ARRL on every thing. I also KNOW that no other organization does for hams what the ARRL does. There is a problem facing the amateur radio community now that requires unity or we lose it all. I posted my comments to the FCC opposing BPL. I wrote to my Senators and told them how I felt. I have authorized the ARRL to automatically renew my membership each year. Until and unless each of us does something more than write stupid and snide comments here, there will be no need for eHam to continue since the mode of communication that drives this board will no longer be viable. If you can find the time to write comments here, pro or con; you should also find the time to write some germane comments to those that can make a difference. It isn't just enough to be call others "sheep" or be sheep; it takes more. We need to become more vocal in writing not just on the air. In the time since 1953 when I first became acquainted with ham radio, it has provided me with untold hours of enjoyment. It has become useful in astronomy, telecommunications, and even helped me thru the USAF electronics school in the late fifties. It is time for ALL to do more. It is time NOW. The ARRL is just a representative body and they cannot do it all. They need our help now more than we needed theirs in the past. Next year I want to be able to say, "I can still operate ham radio because I helped to do something when the issue of BPL first came up." I only hope many others can join me in saying the same thing. I REALLY hope I can hear you say it on the air.
73
Frank
KL7IPV
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N1RWC on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can say this with no remorse. I wrote to the FCC Commissioners and E-filed my Comments on BPL. So far I have heard nothing. If every pencil necked bellyaching geek who is a user of EHam.Net went and replied against BPL to the FCC instead of bellyaching about the ARRL,(I am not a Pro ARRL Member, for the record) maybe we would put BPL to rest. Also did anyone ever think of volunteering their experience with BPL Testing to help the greater good, might actually help the Ham Community? Of course not, because that would require work, something that the bellyachers don't want to do. As for the ARRL paying their engineers, I have this to say, put them on a fixed salary, that's what most companies that are too profit hungry do instead of payimg out Overtime. Also as them to volunteer their services, as you ask the Ham Community members and non members to volunteer to serve the public with Traffic Nets and Emergency Operations.
73 -. .---- .-. .-- -.-.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NA6Z on August 4, 2003
" Hey Ed W1RFI,
Has anyone done link margin calculations with legal limit amps and yagis on towers at both ends? Would those assumptions
be enough to overcome BPL? "
---------------------------------------
Is that really relevant? Not every Amateur has, can have, or can afford a legal limit amp. and a Yagi on a tower. Or is Amateur Radio to become a hobby only for the rich and rural?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by TOMAHAWK1 on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Capacitor-couple your legal limit output from your antenna feedline directly to your AC outlet, so that 60Hz is not passed but HF is. Just make sure your SWR to the antenna is still a good match. Yhen, pump legal limit RF power directly into the power grid. Listen to the neighbors scream!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AD5HD on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With all the carping about the ARRL's efforts, I have to ask: Just what does anyone expect to accomplish on their own? Gonna write a letter to your Congressman? To Commissioner Powell? Yeah, sure, that'll work.
Pooling resources and working the problem, with a common voice, is just common sense. If you don't like what the ARRL's doing, do it yourself. Put together the technical expertise and political connections, run the tests, do the legwork, get the legal paperwork together, and save the world.
We'll wait...
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AK4P on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It seems to me that NRA members are a lot more vocal about their gun rights than we hams are about our hobby, even when it is being threatened. Maybe we should take a lesson from their strategies. "I'll give up my CW key when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"......
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K1WW on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those who think it isn't happening
this article by USA Today tells the whole story.
http://www.plca.net/plcarticle.asp
Keep up the good work Jim.
73, Ray....K1WW
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WC4SKY on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems what is needed to fight BPL:
1) is lots of hams on HF.
2) is lots of money.
Can anyone think of a new source for the above?
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NN7B on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As for me, I support my League. I don't always agree with their position on things but, I don't throw them aside either. We as hams certainly need that common voice and like them or not, I haven't seen any other amateur organization standing tall to oppose the BPL disaster looming in our future. We will always have 'hay-sayers' and and few idiots but, it would be ham radio without the entertainment... ;)
On the CW requirement - 90% of my operating time is on CW. Drop the requirement for licensing? Sure. The rest of the world is. Ham radio is most unique now as it is the only group still using CW. I say, don't REQUIRE it for a license but, don't prohibit it's use or ruin that mode by disolving the CW/digital band segments either.
As for BPL, it is an uphill battle for us. What is really needed is for our licensed lawmakers to get involved as well. This is as big a threat to our ability to provide the services we were created for as selling off segments of our spectrum is. This needs to be a common rallying point for a common voice for everyone. Thanks, Jim Haynie for bring this to this forum. 73 - Paul, NN7B
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N1EA on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What speaks volumes to me is that there is NOT ONE WORD of the NCVEC petition on the front page of www.arrl.org.
Also, since ARRL knew about this, I am surprised that Dave Sumner, K1ZZ didn't even mention this when I spoke to him in the main hallway of ARRL on 9 July 2003. He must have known something was up.
Shouldn't ARRL be our primary news source for matters relating to Amateur Radio in the USA?
Right now, there is nothing on the web page - not even a mention of what has happened.
73
David J. Ring, Jr., N1EA
Life Member ARRL
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N0KFV on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
tsk, tsk Dwayne (AK4P). Plagiarism! See my response to another topic on QRZ.com
http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=3f30723a40afffff;act=ST;f=3;t=38774;st=120
Send the royalty check to:
WA8KJP Education Fund
PO Box 666
Whiners Cove, MI 48192
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC7BDP on August 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
X-WB1AUW -> If you believe the Arizona Corporation Commission has no authority over DSL in AZ; you are sadly mistaken. In fact, Mark Spitzer and his colleauges have almost complete regulatory control over all operations of, Qwest Citizens/Fronteir, and the Arizona Telephone Company - they are all regulated utilities. (Just as the FCC has turned the bulk of their testing/qualifying of personal license applicant to the VEC's and NABER; they have turned much of telephone regulation over to the state PUC's.) The ACC has in fact pushed for far greater DSL rollout in the "outstate" areas which are served by Qwest than Qwest intended; for which I'm doubly grateful - it will be that much sooner that I'll have DSL service in my home AND I have now a career path (DSL qualification/installation/repair) that aims me in the direction I wish to be headed - right here in my hometown of Yuma, with my present employer. Outstate DSL rollout is being used as one of the benchmarks that Qwest must meet before the ACC approves Qwest's 271 (long-distance) application.
The ACC also does infact regulate the operations of many electric utilities within the state - I would assume that does include their utilization of BPL. Obviously, there are municipal electric companys not so regulated (I'm thinking SRP, etc); as well as those "Rural Co-ops" such as (off the top of my head) Navopache Electric in the White Mountains.
What does the ACC *NOT* regulate? That would be the cable companies. No slur against any cable operators - I have a lot of friends amongst that "cable guys" here in Yuma. But, the fact remains; their corporate office - not in AZ - aren't local, aren't regulated, and they know it!
Enough editorializing; that fact remains that you and every Amateur Radio Operator can infact write your state's Public Utility Commission, and voice your views.
I'm only a Tech, but I love 6M; and I'm going to close this and go back to spending time with CodeQuick. So you see this affects me too!
Jimmy
KC7BDP
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to the people I've talked to at the Corporation Comission they do not regulated DSL.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< As for the ARRL paying their engineers, I have this to say, put them on a fixed salary, that's what most companies that are too profit hungry do instead of payimg out Overtime. Also as them to volunteer their services, as you ask the Ham Community members and non members to volunteer to serve the public with Traffic Nets and Emergency Operations. >
The ARRL Lab staff are all on salary. Other positions at HQ are hourly.
This past weekend is the first one in 8 weeks that I have actually had off. I have been working 60-80 hours a week for the past couple of months.
What you are asking ARRL to do is exactly what it has been doing all along.
The point Jim was making is that the League can't do this sort of work exclusively with volunteers, although many hams have given of their time to help the HQ staff in this effort. We have found a few good EMC engineers who have been able to donate a few hours a month. That is not enough. This overworked salary dude has been putting in 60-80 hours a week. It would take about 60 volunteers at 5 hours a month to get it done, and the coordination and continuity would be lost.
Jim is also making the point that air fare to DC or mileage to the trial areas costs money. Hotels want to be paid and the staff expects to be fed. Contrary to what a few may think, the donations are not a cash cow for ARRL. This work has been going on since before the BPL NOI came out. It will continue through the NOI period, afterwards into "decision" period, where ARRL and the other side will continue to send information to the FCC. The Commission may well go to an NPRM, which will start this all over again. If the League were to take in $300,000, that would be spend and then some, by the time this is over. And that $300,000 would be about fifty cents from every licensed ham.
To have this sort of staff time available requires a full-time staff. Jim is right; we expect to be paid, because although I would do my job for free, I would do a lot less of it. It would not be enough. Although if helps you see this in the right light, that pay scale is several tens of thousands of dollars less every year than I could make in industry. What does my support of Amateur Radio cost me in "dues" every year? :-) (I am surprised the BPL industry has not tried to woo me away to their side. I won't go!)
Seeing as you are asking that I donate tens of hours a week for free, I think that I can ask you do do something, too. Help support this with your membership. The work I am doing now is building on work started years ago, with ARRL's participation with Home Plug, the Home Phone Networking Alliance, VDSL committees, carrier-current equipment manufacturers, industry committees. My "low friends in high places" throughout industry have been invaluable to me in this BPL issue.
Amateur Radio can't afford to wait for the emergency to have a strong national organization. You have seen the posts. I, too, have stated that I have not always agreed with ARRL. With some of the issues and wide range of opinion about what is "right," no organization could set policies that are in line with everyone's thinking all of the time. Heck, I have even seen a ham who resigned because ARRL signed an Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Homeland Security.
But in spite of those differences, 160,000 hams were willing to pony up 12 cents a day for years to help make sure that when things like this happen, there are resources in place to start the ball rolling. Several thousand more were willing to pony up donations to help the League use those resources to address this issue. It isn't all about the money to anyone involved, but without the financial resources to have a full-time paid staff, to buy equipment and pay for travel, it can't happen.
The work done in the past was dealt with quietly, reported by ARRL in various forms, but geneally unnoticed, until something sensational like BPL comes along to really get everyone's attention. (See http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfiteljx.html.) ARRL will continue to make good and important use of the financial support of your membership.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> All the kissing up to Mr. Haynie in the world (and
> boy theres alot of it on here!) isnt about to stop
> some corporate interests who can buy and sell us all
> a million times over from lobbying Washington to get
> what "they" want!
First, you may see it as "kissing up," but Jim has been working his butt off, donating the time to make numerous trips to DC to talk to the right people. Some people here see it differently and have been taught that it is appropriate to thank someone for doing that sort of thing for all of us.
The BPL industry is startup. One I have worked with has a single engineer, a single technician, an administator or three, and a couple of secretaries. Another has an engineer whose email address was john@company.com. The utility industry is big, and they want to do this *if* they think it won't be more trouble than it is worth. They are well aware of the FCC interest in interference, and if the case can be made to them that this will cause them more of the same, they will run faster than you can think. I have no promises, becauase this is the fight of HF amateur radio's existence, but the picture is not as bleak as you might imagine.
> Petition your hearts out, and BPL will STILL come if
> the big money boys really want it bad enough. While
> I dont exactly love the ARRL for my own reasons, I
> do respect their effort to try and stop this BPL
> mess, (kind of like a guy standing in front of a
> speeding locomotive with his hand raised) but Im
> just afraid that its a pretty much losing battle
> right from the start.
I don't agree. If it were just amateur radio that would get trashed, I would be more concerned, but this stuff occupies large blocks of spectrum across all HF into low VHF. There are many affected users, from amateur to SW broadcasting to radio astronomy to gov't and commerical HF to the low VHF still used by many a fire department and police department for pagers and such. Part of what Jim is doing is to build the coalitions that are needed. Part of what I am doing is to document the technical reasons that they should be concerned.
And don't discount amateur radio. One attendee at an industry meeting told me that the FCC told them that they should deal with ARRL, as we have more political clout than they probably realized. HomePlug, Home Phone Networing, the VDSL committees all chose to put notches in their product specifications after pressure from ARRL. Not exactly the impotence that I think you are seeing.
> Didnt UPS swipe a nice chunk of the 220 mhz band
> from us? Why? Because they payed some big $$$$$ for
> it thats why!
And, in my opinion, our use of that band was much less than our use of HF, and that did play a part in the FCC decision. Did thousands of hams file comments in opposition? Did other industries join ARRL in asking the FCC not to do it?
> Since the power companies have so much to give, and
> also can afford the sleaziest most unscrupulous
> lawyers money can buy, do you really honestly think
> the little ARRL has the power to stand in the way of
> this freight train? Some folks are just fooling
> themselves.
Maybe. But I wouldn't bet on it. This freight train has the potential to cause severe interference to HF, and that potential can and is being demonstrated.
> And besides, I am not fully convinced that this BPL
> thing will generate the massive qrn that everyone
> seems to believe it will.
I have seen it up close and personal, and I am fully convinced. Check the ARRL web page later today and get back to us on this forum. . .
> One smart fellow pointed out that the noise db
> figures quoted by Mr. Haynie didnt jibe,and hes
> correct. S6? Big deal! I deal with 25-30 over static
> crash on 75 everynight!
Yes, you do. But could you really live with S6 interference that occured continuously, not in crashes, for 24 hours a day, on all frequencies in a band simultaneously. That may not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to me. And, you may have missed the post I made that the figures Jim quoted were a typo. The levels are not S6, but closer to S9. The permitted field strength from BPL is 30 uV/m at 30 meters distance. On 80 meters, if you put a halfwave dipole in a 30 uV/m field, you will see a signal of S9+16 dB. On 14 MHz, if you put a 3-element Yagi in that field, you will see S9+10 dB. Is is a big deal for you yet? How about if your antenna is closer than 30 meters to the power line?
> As it is now we have hams all over the country
> plagued with horrible line noise and leaky cable TV
> and we are still here arent we?
Those hams that have S9 noise levels from power line noise are not going to say "we are still here." Well, maybe they would, because they would be here on eham.net instead of on 20 meters calling CQ DX...
> What about the wireless lans spewing rfi all over
> the place?
The wireless LANs operate on 20 MHz channels on 2.4 GHz, with limited range. BPL is going to operate on the same bandwidth on HF, and occupy entire bands and entire communities. That is not a good analogy.
> As others have mentioned here, interference is a two
> way street and BPL is a disaster waiting to happen
> for internet users as well as hams. How many times
> have you heard of hams getting RF into their house
> wiring from having a dipole too close to the house?
> Can you imagine what this will do to an internet
> connection?
Yes, I can, and it ain't pretty. You may find it "interesting" that you will interfere with your entire neighborhood, but most hams don't. Right now, Amateur Radio is enjoying an increasingly good reputation. Jim Haynie testified before a congressional subcommittee, and several of the congressfolks had some good things to say. ARRL has an MOU with the Homeland Security folks, who also were very positive about amateur radio. That will all make good fodder at the next town meeting, when tower issues come up. But if BPL is deployed, and hams WILL cause it interference, that will all change, and we will once again be the bad guys. I don't want to see that happen, and neither should you.
> Let the big money boys have their BPL and watch it
> fail miserably.
It may fail, but it may do damage to HF in the meantime.
> If we bomb the FCC with complaints I bet they take
> action! Poor Riley is going to be busier then a one
> armed paper hanger handling thousands of rfi BPL
> related complaints from 600,000 hams!
No he won't. I am the one that cut the deal with Riley to have him handle power line cases. The ONLY reason he was willing and able to take on the power-line cases is that ARRL was willing to do most of the work. If the FCC got 600,000 complaints, it simply wouldn't handle them.
> So, until the sky actually DOES fall, I think I`ll
> sit back and watch all the crying and whining about
> BPL and get a chuckle out of it.
If the sky does fall, at that point, you will wish you did more than laugh at your fellow hams...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NA6Z on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Of course, it's relevant. If the analysis shows BPL can't be overcome by power and antennas, that's more information for our case against it. Otherwise, the BPL folks can argue there's a feasible solution.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KB3JKB on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Jim and Ed. After a 40 year hiatus, I've come back to Ham Radio to find it as thriving as ever. Thanks in no small part to the ARRL. Frankly Rich, I don't know about others, but I take offense being told that I am kissing up when I pay someone a sincere compliment. One thing I do know, if the ARRL abandons the fight against BPL than it's as good as implemented. I'm sending my donation today.
73's
Charlie - KB3JKB
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K3IIN on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sure would be nice if Barry Goldwater (rest in peace)was still around to lend a hand!!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K0EWS on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, I just looked at your presentation via the ARRL web page from your testing. All I can say is WOW...this is very serious stuff wer're talking here. Folks, look for yourselves. Go to the ARRL main page, and click on the article on BPL pollution. There is a link from there to the MPEG file that shows Ed's work in late July. I saved it to a CD, and will show my friends in the area who don't have high speed access what this stuff can do(the file itself is quite big, so get a cup of coffee while it loads.) This really is as bad, if not WORSE than I thought it would be. This is very damning stuff indeed. Hope you all will take the time to check it out.
73
K0EWS
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W0FM on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Thanks for all of your efforts in our behalf. Here's a thought I had recently: I have a substantial number of X10 devices controlling lighting in my house via the AC wiring. I wonder what effect BPL will have on those devices. Would ham radio be wise to partner up with the folks who manufacture and distribute X10 devices? Just thinking outloud.
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5PVR on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a lot of money in Amateur Radio, from the manufacturers to the stores to us "hams". If we were to hold off on all purchases until this issue is resolved I am sure somone would get the message. It would be foolish to buy equipment that could not be used.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5GCX on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I must agree with the comments of Ed Hare, W1RFI. As an amateur who has lived with RFI for the last 5 years +/- any more will bury me. More noise level is typically s5 and many time s9. The power company has cooperated with me to locate some sources of RFI within their system but many times there are noises from lights in commercial estabilishments, signs, computers etc. If the power companies put RF signals on the power lines all amateurs will hear it on the HF bands.
Have you ever had a portable radio in your office where all the computers are wired together to the computer network. Well then you have noticed that picking up more than 1 or two radio stations is darn near impossible unless your office or cubicle is next to a window.
Well just imagine the RF level when signals are transmitted on every power line surrounding your neighborhood.
We must support the League in its efforts to fight this one or we might just use internet for our QSOs
Ed
W5GCX / YN2EJG / YN2EJ
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I GOT IT!!!
Let's ask the government to force the public to take a 20 wpm typing (letter/document) exam in order to be able to upgrade their dial-up internet connections to broadband/high speed access. Sounds like and idea I've seen used elsewhere. It would sure discourage lots of people from using or wanting it.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5USB on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All Americans should be jumping up-n-down when our gun rights are being removed. Our use of guns are protected by the Constitution (at least for now), unlike amateur radio.
If I could own either a gun or a transciever, it's goodbye transciever.
Art
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If anyone wants to see and hear what BPL intereference sounds like, here is a link. It helps if you have broad band. (how ironic is that?) Really nasty stuff!
http://news.cq-amateur-radio.com/news.htm
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr. Haynie,
BPL is indeed a threat not unlike the seige I live with every day. What is that?
First I'm a 6m/2m weak signal op so those are the bands I refer to.
I see power line noise on 6/2 that never gets much below S3 and has hit S9+. Power company is unresponsive. Listening to W1AW on 80m is high
power line noise and not better on 40m. The wide spread use of Lamp dimmers make that worse after dark.
I like to listen to WEEI radio 850 (I'm ~20miles west of Boston) save for there is a whine from likely leaking DSL or other stuff on the power poles. Forget the use of an AM car radio in the area.
My use of many parts of 6m is limited due to spurs from the Needham antenna complex where the major broadcasters are including the worst of the bunch, digital TV, it's only 15 mi away.
Then there are the spurs (wideband signal with phase noise) from a widescreen TV most likely a neighbors. It makes a buzz ~3khz wide that appears every ~70kc across the band.
Then there is the spur off a neighbors weather station that sends data on 433mhz to it's box but apparently(I hear it when I aim my antenna that way) there is a signal from that that lands in the 6m band.
There is also a occasionally leaky cable connection.
So you can see adding BPL is just another drop in the overful spectrum bucket. Of course I hear about it IF I interfere with any of them but, they are already interfering with me, spectrum protection is here and it's their spectrum that is protected not any I use.
Sure I know part 15 devices generally are not protected but try and put that on them, IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
So code or no, there may be nothing left that is useable for weak signal ops. BPL is only a single threat amoung the many that already exist.
Hopefully there will be some wins, by then the bands may be useless from the other infringers.
Allison
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I downloaded the ARRL mpeg and viewed it. NASTY! I would like to know how BPL would affect TVs. The low TV channels, 2, 3 and 4 are within BPL's range of frequencies. Even though most people are on cable today, you still have to access it through channel 3. What's the alternative? Upgrade to digital TV? The cable companies would love to charge you more for digital reception. The stores would love it too when you come in to buy an expensive digital TV.
I'd also like to know if BPL would interfere with home stereo systems. How about pace makers? Baby monitors?
VHF business band, just below our 6m amateur band is used by governmental agencies. Florida Dept. of Transportation uses 6m Business Band. I guess they will just have to open their coffers for a whole new system on high-band VHF or UHF. Loads of new base station radios and mobiles to buy. Their entire fleet of maintenance vehicles and cars, every DOT maintenance yard and every DOT office is radio-equipped. I know all about DOT. I used to work for them. That's a lot of radios state-wide! All on 6 meters.
If we lose the BPL battle and it is implemented, I hope lawsuits would follow; not only from ARRL, but any person or entity that is adversely affected.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4HY on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
well well, arrl bashing, huh?
has any of you ever had a thought about this?
We aren't governed very much by elected officials.
NO! for the greater part, (can you say 99 per-cent?) it is by beaurocracies...
of which the FCC is one, the others are; the inviro-"MENTAL"-protcetion agency,( stress on MENTAL), food and Drug administration, American medical association, supreme court, etc encrorium, just take a look: they are NOT elected, at no time,they are APPOINTED, and have full powers to enact laws, and "CLAIM" it is for the good of the masses, (NOTE: "MASSES"), you arent people,human beings, But "MASSES".. like the police ive heared on scanners, to them you are, "SUBJECTS", (NOTE; "SUBJECTS")not people, but SUBJECTS<(slaves?) The ones that use the "most good" thing, it simply means; for THEIR most good, trips,posh vacations, posh hotel stays, lavish dinners, UNDER the table stipends, very necessary LITTLE things of this sort, YOU HAVE NO SAY IN A BEAUROCRACY.. think so? did you vote even one of them into office????? For the people, By the people? heh!heh!heh! THINK! ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!
So why all the arrl bashing? they are just like you, tring to do what they can,,,, in the face of bigger odds.......
and how in H did some on here ever get a license, it is beyond me... maybe the doctor dropped them on their heads, or came in the world with their (brain?) relocated... so to them STAND UP! and get the pressure off your, "brain", if you have one. either put up or shut up. I have PUT-UP. so what? IF i only passed the five words code, dems da conditions dat pre-vailed...
willie ag4hy
PS no appoligies given!!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NN6EE on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Mr. Haynie and everyone else!
The only way to prevent "BPL" from going thru is to fire the head of the FCC!!!
Mr. M. Powell is a staunch "Pro-Corporate/Capitalistic" public servent who loves the idea of bringing more money into the Govt. coffers at our expense!!!
He has even mentioned in a roundabout way that he has no qualms about THROWING OUT Part 15 rules and regs. which presently PROTECT HF Amateur Radio from made-made electrical devices that cause "noise interference" to our beloved HF frequencies!!!
So I as one sincerely doubt that even thru all of our collective efforts at squelching this devious mode of Data transmission that it will in anyway sway Mr. M. Powell and his FCC lackeys from their "Pro-BPL" stand!!!
I hope I'm wrong in this thought, but I doubt it!!!
Jim Davis/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4HY on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
addition to my pervious post...
just thought of this; there are a lot of lawyers that LOVE suing. Why not a CLASS ACTION SUITE? not all at once but one-after-another. first one division then another and so on. it is done every day over nip-s**t stuff, just look around. example; some
-one doesn't like how a credit card does their billing,or date of posting the payment to their account, they start a class action suit. how do i know, i just got a notice in my card statement for some coaxial cable. they didn't like the date that the company posted their payment to their account, so! bammn! class action suit.
so why can't we do the same, even name chairman powell in it,and the whole of FCC. that can and does get some attension. most every time it happens. the people that started it doesn't get diddly squat out of it, but the lawyer does, BIG TIME, but the thing gets rectified.. and someone takes notice... just a thought worth considering....it may very well our only course of action for relief
ag4hy
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by RFSOAKED on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THANK you for posting this article!!
That has been my point exactly for some time now, and i have posted in the CW debates on here, but i posted about BPL.
Its time to look down upon the real threat to our hobby, CW will have its day of judgement, right now lets worry about something that will make even CW useless! Have a listen to the audio files and view the videos on BPL (PLC) on the ARRL web site, they also have the full details of the service.
73
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W0LFS on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO PUTTNU2SLEEP,[Once again people! Is not the common bond for the masses radio communication. I think we lose sight when we try to
look down on our own. Amatuer radio is just that, a bunch of amatuers. When we try to look down on those who want to be where your at i.e. extra...]
YOU SEEM TO BE DOING A LITTLE { look down on our own.]
YOURSELF.I DON'T DO THE CODE MYSELF BUT I DID LEARN IT AS A MEANS TO GET MY UPGRADE. MAYBE ONE DAY I WILL USE IT ,BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT IN JIMS {W5JBP}POSTING. I THINK WE ALL BETTER START TO WORRY ABOUT BPL. AND STOP THE BITCHING ABOUT CODE OR NO CODE..THANKS JIM FOR YOUR POST...W0LFS
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NN6EE on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gawd Dsmn Boys!!!
I just downloaded and viewed/LISTENED to the ARRL's Video that Mr. Hare so kindly made for all of us!!!
I guarantee it will turn even the most "Stout-Hearted" stomachs!!!
We're in "Deep-Do-Do" now!!!
Phewwww!!! Very scary stuff to say the least!!!
Jim Davis/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WZ5PM on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you Jim! Thank you Ed! My sincere thanks for all that you have done for Amateur Radio and the ARRL.
I voted via credit card - and will do so monthly until this issue is resolved.
We have about 6000 licensed hams residing in New Mexico. When it came time to get a PRB-1 law enacted in the State, it fell on a handful to get the job done. I hosted the dinner for the guy that did the work and really spearheaded getting the bill passed. We had 27 people, with spouses (some of whom where hams) at the dinner.
It seems to always fall on a few...
My thanks to all of you that have helped with $$ or effort in working on this issue.
And yes, I did file my comments to the FCC - did you?
Pete
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W8OB on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The really sad thing about all of this is that as of this date only 2,182 comments have been filed, judging by the number of cryers and whinners on this site and the other one if each one of them filed a comment you would think this number would be doubled. The ARRL is the only one I know of who is taking this on, where are YaekenIcom??? or where is Ten-Tec. Where are all the great organizations like no code intl. Yeah right leave all the work to someone else and bury our heads in the sand.... Then bitch later.
Keep up the good work Jim.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N1RWC on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seeing the above posts make me chuckle, so I'm going to do one better, I'm GOIN' FISHIN'!!!
Hopefully I will see a quicker response from the fish than the FCC and ARRL
73 Matt N1RWC
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K8WV on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ on August 6, 2003, asked:
>
>"What's the alternative? Upgrade to digital TV?"
>
Actually, yes.
The FCC has directed that the traditional TV channels are to be vacated and used for other services. All TV broadcasters have been mandated to broadcast the existing analog (traditional) service PLUS a digital signal on a different (higher frequency) allocation until 85% of the station's market have digital receivers (or can receive the digital signal). The analog signal is then to be shut down and the channel vacated. As you might expect, TV broadcasters screamed bloody murder and are spending fortunes. Cable companies are wheeling and dealing. It didn't and doesn't matter.
There were timetables established for all of this, and they've slipped at least some. But it is still a mandate and it doesn't look as though it's going away.
The HF spectrum is, IMHO, viewed by the FCC (and by extention the "government") as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. I sincerely hope that BPL can be stopped,or at least hobbled. But the clear trend is to drive traditional broadcasting (including amateur radio) higher in frequency and toward digital modes.
Are we the blacksmiths of the 21st century: quaint, but an outmoded, superfluous curiosity?
On a positive note, I discussed the timetables with a senator, and expressed my concern about meeting them. The FCC, I said, is not inclined to extend them. Who, he asked, do you think tells the FCC what to do?
So, tell your congressional delegation how you feel about this. There are two things a politician understands, the second is the collective voice of their constitutents. By the way, don't worry about trying to talk to someone else's senator or representative. If you don't live in their state or distict, they do not care what you think. That's harsh. But I've witnessed it.
Make phone calls or send faxes. A personal visit is best. (Make an appointment.) They do not receive mail any longer. They don't care much about e-mail. It's too easy. They want something personal from you, that takes effort on your part. Do not fax a form letter. Write your own for maximum impact.
|
| |
|
New Slogan
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL : Radio Spectrum Pollution, Not a Broadband Solution !
Bumper stickers anyone ?
Goody
K3NG
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K0RFD on August 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has anybody watched the W1RFI video from the localities where BPL is being tested?
It'll curl your hair.
It's linked from lead article on the ARRL web site--
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1
The videos are here:
http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg
(if you have cable or DSL)
http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-small.mpg
(if you have dialup)
If anybody thinks this is NOT something to worry about, please watch one of the videos.
The Code vs No-Code debates can resume once we've saved Ham radio from this scourge. Because if we DON'T, nothing else will matter.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N3NL on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you fly a model plane or operate a radio control
car or boat, write to your organizations and magazines
about the BPL problem. Model planes use 72 MHz and
model boats/cars use 75 MHz which will be impacted by
BPL. Similarly, if you are an ocean boater speak up
about BPL impact on shore stations using marine HF.
Even TV viewers have to consider the impact on BPL on
channels 2 through 5. The broadcasters are not happy
about this at all. The common denominator is that we
have to speak up about this to the FCC (by August 20th
for reply comments) and to our Senators and Congress
man. Also, write to newspapers and magazines about these problems. Speak up and mention the specifics about BPL's impact on you.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA1KWA on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RFD is right. I just watched W1RFI's video myself & it's scary. My hat's off to Jim W5JBP, Ed W1RFI & others unnamed for their countless hours of dedicated service to Amateur radio on this issue. Thank you all from a 3 generation ham family. You are appreciated.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KE5C on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
I think your right-on with this issue, and it really is David vs Goliath. Code/no-code is a non-issue compared to BPL, and we ought to accept that a cw requirement is history and focus all our efforts on resisting BPL.
73, John
(30 WPM solid so code does matter to me, but life goes on.)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've read the ARRL financials, looked over the ARRL website and read many of their publications. I've seen their work on BPL and other major projects. This is an absolutly fine organization for which we should be thankful. A very big thank you to Ed Hare and staff for their outstanding efforts on BPL.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3NL
RE: RC aircraft... big risk there. I also fly real aircraft and that would be a lot of interference for
Nav radios (118-136mhz), Marker beacon RX (75mhz), and VOR nav (108-116.95). I can see it now flying at 2500ft above the local terrain hearing this noise.
Bad idea, very bad idea.
Allison
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W8LV on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank You Mr. Haynie! I hope that we will see a forum like this on the ARRL web site.
Concerning any leglislation here in Ohio, if there is any way that I can help, please let me know.
Bill Pietschman
W8LV@arrl.net
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I hope the radio equipment manufacturers (Ten-Tec, Icom, Yaesu, Kenwood, Alinco, etc) make an effort to lobby FCC, since it will be devastating to their businesses if HF becomes useless.
Hopefully Channel 2-6 on-air TV, Shortwave and AM Radio broadcasters are aware of the potential destruction of their businesses too. Not to mention the Dept of Homeland Security, and Drug Enforcement Agency, which will have huge trouble eavedropping on clandestine communications in the HF bands.
I wonder if BPL will be as easy to piggyback as WiFi is. Downtown scans with our laptop showed lots of unprotected WLANs in operation.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Are we the blacksmiths of the 21st century: quaint, but an outmoded, superfluous curiosity?
To answer than, I will ask a couple of questions myself. Has any other potentially affected HF and low-VHF user offered the quantity and quality of information about BPL as have the "blacksmiths?" My email box has been filled with some of these other potentially affected users asking amateur radio to provide information that will help them.
Quite a bit of value for a curiosity, I would say. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has anyone thought about the cancer issue? It is a well-documented fact, even among non-hams that RF causes cancer. Our exposure to RF as hams is limited to the time that we actually are transmitting. Even so, our duty cycle on SSB and CW is never 100%. The duty cycle of BLP would be 100%, and we would all be exposed to it 24/7/365. Even at low levels of power, it will be something that we will have no relief from. We will be bombarded by this signal at home, at work, in the stores, shopping malls, doctor’s office, out on the street, at a park, anywhere and everywhere we are. Twenty or thirty years down the road, when the cancer rate is the highest that this country has ever seen, maybe something will be done about BPL.
I am very worried about BPL. Our government is not lilly-white. The cronies that run it are interested in just one thing – MONEY! The very reason why Aspartame (NutraSweet) is still on the market is because the NutraSweet company has the FDA in its hip pocket. For those of you who don’t know how Aspartame can mess up your health and well-being, do a Google search on Aspartame. Just scroll down the Google page. Click some of the links and read all about it. If you’ve had your head in the sand about the NutraSweet menace, then you’re in for a rude awakening. I used it in 1987 and had very bad effects from it, which cleared up when I stopped using it. Aspartame is in most sugar-free and/or diet products. Why? Because the FDA was bought off.
I fear the same with BPL. I agree with another post that indicated that the only way to prevent BPL from being implemented is to get Commissioner Powell fired. If you read some of the crap on the BPL people’s very own site, you will come to the conclusion that Powell is in bed with these people.
We need to fight this on several fronts. Besides what the ARRL is already doing, the League as well as us as individuals need to attack from other fronts. Powell is Bush’s appointee, just as his brother is.
---Next year is an election year. I think we should make it known to our President that we will vote for whoever is running against him unless he prevents BPL. Bush has plenty to worry about regarding re-election without having this added to the long list of an economy in a shambles, high unemployment rate, terrorism still a threat to our country, Bin Laden still at large, Al Quaida still alive and well, American soldiers dying daily in Iraq, etc., etc, etc.
---Petition Tom Ridge, Homeland Security chief to intervene by convincing him that we are vital to this nation’s homeland security, and the threat that BPL poses to amateur radio, and therefore to homeland security.
---Petition our members of Congress and the Senate, particularly if they are up for re-election.
---Begin filing lawsuits, loads of lawsuits against the FCC, against Powell personally and against the BPL entities. Lawsuits need to be filed by the League, the Big Three (Kenwood, Icom and Yaesu), as well as any companies that manufacture and sell anything ham radio related, individual hams and any person or entity that is adversely affected by BPL. Lawsuits need to be filed all across this country by the thousands – even by the hundreds of thousands. Back up the courts for many years. If anything, it will delay implementation for many years. Hopefully, by the time the courts resolve this issue, a better and harmless technology will be developed that will kill BPL before it gets off the ground. Any ham who uses ATT for either long distance or internet needs to drop them and tell them why they are dropping them. Same goes for Earthlink.net. Both ATT and Earthlink are a party to BPL. The lawsuits really need to roll if we lose this battle and BPL is implemented.
---Publicity is a big weapon. Go to the media. I have not seen anything about BPL in any of the news services. The public needs to know what kind of harm BPL would cause in the way of interference and as a possible cancer-causing agent.
---Petition your State legislators to disallow the utilities in your state from implementing BPL.
The most effective way to successfully crush this menace is to make it so impractical, so cost-ineffective and so much more trouble than it is worth, that with nothing to gain and much to lose, they will back off, and the concept will die.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD7KOY on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Are we the blacksmiths of the 21st century: quaint, but an outmoded, superfluous curiosity?
To answer than, I will ask a couple of questions myself. Has any other potentially affected HF and low-VHF user offered the quantity and quality of information about BPL as have the "blacksmiths?" My email box has been filled with some of these other potentially affected users asking amateur radio to provide information that will help them.
Quite a bit of value for a curiosity, I would say. :-)"
I'm a blacksmith and bladesmith..I look at it this way..
If you just want to cut a piece of rope once in awhile, go to K-mart and buy a knife..
If you want a blade to depend your life on..it has to be forged, hardened and tempered with loving care my friend.
I don't consider myself 'quaint or outmoded' in radio or steel. I consider you get what you pay for; thats the skill behind the hammer and anvil..: )
73
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another thing about Bush's re-election campaign. I'm sure he remembers how tight the last election was. He just barely squeaked by Gore. It will give him something to think about. If the upcoming election is as tight as the last, we hams could very well decide who will be elected to the Presidency next year.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by BORN2TROLL on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE ALL YOU FOOLS WHINING ON EHAM WITH MY HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION WHEN BPL PASSES :-)
IT WILL BE ALL GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT AND THEM DARN NO-CODES THAT RUINED IT ALL FOR US.
LOOKING FORWARD TO CHEAPER AND FASTER INTERNET? INSTEAD OF THROWING YOUR CASH AWAY TO THE ARRL YOU SHOULD BE INVESTING IN THE UTILITY COMPANIES AND THE CONTRACTORS THEY USE.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ says:
"Begin filing lawsuits, loads of lawsuits against the FCC, against Powell personally and against the BPL entities. Lawsuits need to be filed by the League..... as well as any companies that manufacture and sell anything ham radio related, individual hams and any person or entity that is adversely affected by BPL"
Yikes! Just what this country needs, more litigation!
Don't confuse the license that grants us the "privelege" of operating with a fundimental "right" granted by the constitution. As hams, we do NOT own the spectrum, the government "permits" us to use it via a license. The government choses how, when, where and under what terms we can use our license.
Because hams have no "vested right" to a clear spectrum, litigation is doomed to failure. "Clog the courts" he says. All such suits would be consolidated by the Federal courts into MDL's or Multi-District Litigations (like a class action). Put your money into something that has a chance of succeeding. Litigation will not work. Litigation is a typically liberal idea whoose time has passed.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has ANYONE, ANYWHERE tried an adaptive filter like the Clearspeech product on BPL? Or is that some dirty little secret?
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KB1IUB on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Could you offer a supporting membership?
I would pay for a membership at a rate of
$10 to $15. I am not interested in QST
magazine. I am only interested in product
reviews or such from the website.
I can not afford memberships in the
$40 price range. I already belong
to a historical society for $25 per
annum in addition to my two local
radio club's small membership dues.
This adds up to a significant reduction
of my potential outlays for hobbies.
I don't know if you have ever lived
in the Northeast, but much of my wages
have gone to rent, car insurance, and
car maintenance. I only scraps for
playthings. Now, I am suffering the
poor economy and have been laid off.
I simply can not afford the high price
range.
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From The ARRL website,
"ARRL has identified active field trials in Briarcliff Manor, New York; Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Cullman, Alabama; Emmaus, Pennsylvania; Hyde Park, Ohio; Manassas, Virginia; Potomac, Maryland; and Raleigh, North Carolina. In addition, the FCC has granted experimental licenses to BPL equipment manufacturers or utilities in a number of other states. To ARRL's knowledge, actual field trials have not started there yet."
Are there any hams posting here who live in the areas where field trials are going on? If so, can you let us know what you experience with it has been?
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WD5DXL on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been reading, with interest, all of these posts about BPL and the code requirement. I suppose it is appropriate for this debate, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where BPL would destroy the HF spectrum. Or perhaps it is more accurate to state that such an event would not be allowed to happen in a civilized world.
I believe that there is a vast amount of misinformation being bantered about, likely from both sides of the "battle." This type of discussion is what always draws in the likes of our resident "forum squirrel," the estimeed Mr Anonymous. He is likely quite intelligent, but unable to relate to the real world because of some pathological disorder that filters out good input, allowing only the outpouring of destructive commentary. It reminds me of a kid I saw hiding behind a tree and randomly throwing rocks at passersby. They all deserved to be hit with a rock, but somehow the kid was to be immune from this grief because of the tree. Too bad that much energy has to be wasted to the task of causing ill feelings to the rest of us.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC7BDP on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ex-WB1AUW:
The ACC regulates the telephone companies serving Arizona. (I'll go out on a limb and editorialize that, as a telco employee, I believe this is a good thing!) Regardless of one's view on that matter; the ACC then does regulate the operations of AZ telcos - including their DSL operation. Do they ACTIVELY regulate it? That's like asking if the FCC ACTIVELY regulates all private radio users. Rest assured, if we phone guys do it, the ACC regulates it!
As W1RFI pointed out, DSL is fairly unobtrusive. Regardless of the mode used (CAP or DMT), its operating frequency range is closer to the audio spectrum than RF; and as a result, the impetus on the telco folk is to insure that the paying customers aren't interfered with by its operation. "Good operating practice" takes on a whole new meaning when your customers regulate you more closely than a government entity and your paycheck is at stake; so we work very hard to keep it clean! Would like to know if 'RFI's trip around Phoenix was with our guy "Bear" - I'd love to spend about a year or two being his apprentice, as he spends his time working with and debugging much of our cutting edge data transfer stuff.
My original point, regardless, is that individual Amateurs have another forum to express their views on BPL - or any other form of communication that is provided by a public utility - and that is through their state's public utility commission.
Jimmy
KC7BDP
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to W9WHE:
“Yikes! Just what this country needs, more litigation!
Don't confuse the license that grants us the "privelege" of operating with a fundimental "right" granted by the constitution. As hams, we do NOT own the spectrum, the government "permits" us to use it via a license. The government choses how, when, where and under what terms we can use our license.
Because hams have no "vested right" to a clear spectrum, litigation is doomed to failure. "Clog the courts" he says. All such suits would be consolidated by the Federal courts into MDL's or Multi-District Litigations (like a class action). Put your money into something that has a chance of succeeding. Litigation will not work. Litigation is a typically liberal idea whoose time has passed.”
W9WHE, you may be right about having no case in court regarding our amateur operating “privileges”, but there are other infringements that the FCC and the power companies could be liable for. One is rendering all my expensive ham equipment useless. Its through no fault of my own that I won’t be able to use my equipment. Another is compelling me to upgrade to digital TV. When the whole thing about digital TV first surfaced, it was made known that converter boxes for analog TVs would be available for about $200 as an option instead of buying a digital TV for a couple of grand. With BPL, I don’t think a converter box for an analog TV would work. Another might be compelling me to subscribe to Satellite Radio if the AM and FM broadcast bands rendered useless. It will also make VCRs useless, as they operate on channel 3. Another might be rendering my home stereo equipment useless. If it affects the stereo, it would probably also affect my telephone service (not just the phones themselves, but the line). Who knows what else BPL might affect. We will only know once the monster is upon us. As for causing cancer, I guess that will come to light 20-30 years down the road.
With all the possible consequences of BPL, it just might make the general public madder than hell. Then, watch the lawsuits pile up!
|
| |
|
Government Contact Info
|
|
|
by KD5ING on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everyone,
Here is a listing of websites to contact various government organizations and agencies that are in a position to help us if persuaded to do so. Please contact them with your concerns about the BPL issue.
Thanks,
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
----------------
White House
https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm
US Senate
http://www.senate.gov/ - just find your state in the pull down menu
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
http://commerce.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
http://energy.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
US House of Representatives
http://www.house.gov/ - Just enter your Zip code in the form at the top
Select House Committee on Homeland Security
http://hsc.house.gov/contact.cfm
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/feedback.htm
House Committee on Science
http://www.house.gov/science/contact/index.htm
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
http://www.house.gov/transportation/organization.html
Department of Homeland Security
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mailing Addresses - http://www.fema.gov/about/addresses.shtm
Regional Offices - http://www.fema.gov/regions/
Federal Bureau of Investigation
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
National Weather Service
http://weather.gov/feedback.php
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/index.html
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K4SX on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to comment on 2 very important issues before Amateur Radio today. The first issue, Morse Code, is more than an emotional issue, it is fundamentally important to emergency communications during adverse conditions and funamental to Amateur Radio. Morse Code (CW) should remain a requirement for Amateur licensing in the United States, especially for Amateur Service in support of Homeland Security measures at the local, state, and regional levels. I would expect the ARRL to support CW remaining as a key component of licensing. As for will Amateur Radio survive, it absolutely will, but at what cost both internally and external to our hobby. Our commmunities and governments will expect Amateur skills and experieice to deliver communications service in all key modes; voice, digital, and CW during emergency situations. I encourage all Amateurs who support CW remaing as a licensing requirement to write to you and express their support for CW.
AS for BPL, I appreciate the level of effort that the ARRL is expending on this critical subject. It goes with out saying that this will negatively impact all modes of operation within the HF spectum that include Amateur Radio, Commercial Radio, and military communication. I will expect the ARRL to represent the Amateur community at-large with all its power to ensure this does not impact Amateur Radio Service in the United States.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NN6EE on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Boys! Boys!
Let's not get our PANTIES all bunched up here!!!
Just go to the ARRL Website and download Ed Hare's super VIDEO on his listening experiments thru East Coast neighborhoods that have "BPL" and all of us should be worried!!!
Now of course if all of the "East-Coast" HFers are the only ones who'd be affected by BPL I really would'nt have a problem with that because they always get first-dibs on all DX coming out of Europe and Africa, unlike us here on the WEST COAST who have to fight for every DX-Station we work!!!
That last statement was with "tongue-in-cheek" but I'd say every HAM ought REALLY worry about this impending RFI plague!!!
Regards,
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Has anyone thought about the cancer issue? It is a well-documented fact, even among non-hams that RF causes cancer. Our exposure to RF as hams is limited to the time that we actually are transmitting. Even so, our duty cycle on SSB and CW is never 100%. The duty cycle of BLP would be 100%, and we would all be exposed to it 24/7/365. Even at low levels of power, it will be something that we will have no relief from. We will be bombarded by this signal at home, at work, in the stores, shopping malls, doctor’s office, out on the street, at a park, anywhere and everywhere we are. Twenty or thirty years down the road, when the cancer rate is the highest that this country has ever seen, maybe something will be done about BPL. >
From everything I have read, the researchers and others who have legitimately studied the problem have NOT concluded that RF at the level of the present safety standards causes cancer. See http://www.arrl.org/rfsafety for tons of sound information on the subject.
Radio transmitters can generate fields of up to 412 volts/meter on the low HF ham bands, and 27.5 V/m worst case. The total power of a BPL radiator occupying 10 MHz is -15.23 dBm, 0.03 milliwatts. This would result in a total field strenght in 10 MHz of .001 V/m. This is 88.8 dB less than what will come from an amateur station -- a factor of 758 million times less RF exposure.
As I have learned over years of experience, always do the math.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interestingly, membership without QST can't be undercut like that. With QST, the funds that are collected for membership dues are supplmented significantly by the funds paid by QST advertisers. Without the benefit of getting the ham equipment manufacturers to pay for much of the work that benefits members, the dues would be more than $39 a year.
Look at it this way, for $39 a year, you will be paying 12 cents a day. Today, you can either help pay for all the the things that ARRL will accomplish today (quite a list, I might add) or you can stop at the coffee shop and pay for a good-size sip of a cup of coffee.
I live in New England, too, though I live a very frugal life. The BPL-mobile is my newest car -- a 1989 Subaru wagon with 208,000 miles on it this week. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< I have been reading, with interest, all of these posts about BPL and the code requirement. I suppose it is appropriate for this debate, but it is difficult to imagine a scenario where BPL would destroy the HF spectrum. Or perhaps it is more accurate to state that such an event would not be allowed to happen in a civilized world. >
What do you believe to be misinformation, and what information can you offer in its place? I, too, would like to believe that our regulators, when given the correct information about BPL vis a vis the present FCC Part 15 limits, will do the right thing.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Radio transmitters can generate fields of up to 412 volts/meter on the low HF ham bands, and 27.5 V/m worst case. The total power of a BPL radiator occupying 10 MHz is -15.23 dBm, 0.03 milliwatts. This would result in a total field strenght in 10 MHz of .001 V/m. This is 88.8 dB less than what will come from an amateur station -- a factor of 758 million times less RF exposure."
Ed, at what distance is that field strength computed at? Is this computation based upon street level to the overhead wires? With our house wiring within feet or sometimes inches from us, what would be the field strength then? Think about it. If your bed is against a wall, you may be getting BPL RF radiated within a few inches of your head for 6-8 hours continuously as you sleep.
"I live in New England, too, though I live a very frugal life. The BPL-mobile is my newest car -- a 1989 Subaru wagon with 208,000 miles on it this week. :-)"
Ed, you've got me beat there. My jalopy is a 1990 Toyota Corolla with a mere 90,000+ miles on it. :-)
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WA9JBM on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought my rights came from God. I also thought we were the government. If I don't have the right or privilege to trash the HF spectrum, how does it follow that I(we) will authorize the FCC to allow the power companies to do it?
I think our Constitution is meaningless without the Declaration of Independence. I don't see governments granting rights. Ours acknowledges them.
One of the recent "rules" I don't understand is cell phone frequency banning on receivers. If I can hear them what did I do? Sort of like walking down the street and it's ok to look left but wrong to look right. Didn't Germany make reception a crime in the 30's and 40's? Must not have had a Charter like ours, the D of I. FCC should stick to transmitters. Too much contraband nonsense. People commit crimes, things don't commit crimes.
I've noticed on the internet quite alot of interest on Tesla Coils and Jacob's Ladders What does that do to HF? I'm wondering how they might affect BPL, especially with there bypassed transformers. It might give there algorithms a nice tune to dance to.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KQ6YF on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder what would (or will) happen, if BPL were brought into an airport? [Aviation uses frequencies as low as 3 mhz. up to about 140 mhz. in AM or USB modes.]
Just a thought...
B
.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K8WV on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI on August 7, 2003, correctly observed:
>>Are we the blacksmiths of the 21st century: quaint, but an outmoded, superfluous curiosity?
>To answer that, I will ask a couple of questions myself. Has any other potentially affected HF and low-VHF user offered the quantity and quality of information about BPL as have the "blacksmiths?"
No, they haven't. But we are NOT the blacksmiths of the 21st century - although some would argue that we are. The general public would trade amateur radio for broadband Internet access in a heartbeat.
We have to (1) make this about more than just "those hams", and (2) pump up the image of amateur radio - and amateurs.
The League is on the right track - but they need and deserve more of the fuel that drives the train. ($$$)
And how does one get an article in "Parade"?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on August 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, W1RFI
Even though I've voiced some complaints about the cw requirement, the $39 a year membership with the included QST subscription is a real value in my opinion. I could never get my CQ magazines on time but QST comes on time every month and in very good condition. My wife is also a member. $39 dollars is less than my annual AAA membership and less than my monthly satellite TV bill.
If Bill, KB1IUB (see post above) is having financial hardships and is willing to pay $15 for one year I'll pay the rest of the balance for him one time. Can this be arranged?
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<Has ANYONE, ANYWHERE tried an adaptive filter like the Clearspeech product on BPL?>>
You're right, a simple digital audio filter will work wonders on an S9+30 multi-tonal signal that spreads throughout the HF spectrum. Jeez, why didn't anyone else think of that? And, hey, why don't we try the bazillion of other anlaog and digital audio filters on it? Lets see if they work!!
Hey, I found a knob on my radio, and whenever I turn it all the way counter-clockwise, ALL my RF noise goes away!!! Oh wait.. that's the AF gain... ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by NK9R on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder if the hams in the affected areas have complained to their local power companies. The FCC just might be tracking complaints and I would think that we need to get as many on the record as we can.
First, file an interference compaint with the power company, then follow it up with a letter to the FCC. The more complaints they have on record, the harder it is for the pro-BPL side to dismiss the ARRL's data as just an alarmist reaction.
73
Harry
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KQ6YF on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Are we the blacksmiths of the 21st century: quaint, but an outmoded, superfluous curiosity?
>To answer that, I will ask a couple of questions myself. Has any other potentially affected HF and
low-VHF user offered the quantity and quality of information about BPL as have the "blacksmiths?"
No, they haven't. But we are NOT the blacksmiths of the 21st century - although some would argue that we are. The general public would trade amateur radio for broadband Internet access in a heartbeat.
To K8WV, the poster of the "blacksmith" comment, and all.
The apparent relationship between amateur radio and the internet reminds me of that between the Borg and the Federation from the Star Trek Next Generation series. We as amateurs seem to be fending off an attempt by the web to absorb us and to turn us into a sort of pseudo-random version of internet chat. [Echolink comes to mind, for one...]. The clever humans in the Star Trek series defeated the Borg with a combination of luck and cleverness and an occasional assist from a demigod. Where is Q when you really need him?
With respect, K8WV, I have found that most people under 30 scarcely know what amateur radio is let alone preferring it to broadband internet connections. When I was a 20 something, I used to fret a bit about looking like a space cadet with my rather bulky HT on my belt. These days, I see youngsters at Starbucks (and other premier hangouts_ with cell phones, pagers, and palm pilots. They don't seem to be to terrifically worried about their images. Perhaps it's the occasional unfortunate kid without these toys who's uncool.
Cheers!
B
.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think you are onto something here B.
Lets get Jerry Ryan to be the spokes person for the ARRL.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KE4RWS on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2XE wrote,
"CW is the essence of Amateur Radio, without it, the hobby is just a bunch of fat, old men sitting in their basement in a grease stained tee shirt and boxer shorts, sending porn over SSTV and intentionally jamming QSOs when someone says something they don't like--kind of like it is today without the refuge of the CW sub-bands."
It's a shame people have this attitude about other amateur operators who aren't interested in cw. Although this is off-topic, I felt it required a response since N2XE feels he's at the top of the food chain in the amateur community. This statement represents the arrogance of many amateur operators. Personally, I don't care for cw so that makes me a greasy, fat, porn sending SSTV operator?
N2XE, your remarks were arrogant, elitest, and totally uncalled for in this forum. I've seen this attitude shared by many other cw enthusiasts, and I say you can have cw all to yourselves if this is what you have to become to enjoy cw in any form.
Randy Evans
KE4RWS
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< First, file an interference compaint with the power company, then follow it up with a letter to the FCC. The more complaints they have on record, the harder it is for the pro-BPL side to dismiss the ARRL's data as just an alarmist reaction. >
Actually, ARRL has a history of not engaging in alarmist reaction. I was part of the work with HomePlug, where we helped them decide to put notches in their product specfication, about 30 dB less than the FCC limits. Ditto with the Home Phone Networking folks and the two major VDSL standards committees.
With VDSL, I even did some drivearound testing in Phoenix, AZ, which has a VDSL system installed, and determined that in areas of underground telephone wiring, such as Phoenix, there is no significant interference potential from VDSL.
There are good technical reasons for those determinations. HomePlug and HPNA generally have a localized interference potential, so even the residual problems expected with notching will be limited in area. Phone wiring is reasonably well balanced, even at RF, and with underground wiring, or notching, VDSL shouldn't cause us major difficulties.
ARRL did the same type of technical analysis of BPL, and reached different conclusions. Systems that put Part-15 level signals on good radiators, using MHz and MHz of spectrum and occupying entire communities is truly a different interference potential.
Besides, only one or two folks who have seen that video have any doubts at all about what they saw, or that it is an alarmist reaction. It is a good representation of my experiences in the trial areas. I wish I knew then that I had more time, what with the reply comment date extended now to 8/20, or I would have taken that time to do additional measurements.
Of course, there is always room for doubts. One fellow on QRZ.com thought I may have heard a lot of people popping popcorn. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N2MG on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
How susceptibile is BPL to high-powered HF (amateur or otherwise) transmissions? Many have suggested interference is a two-way street and seemingly infer that hams could "jam" BPL.
Since BPL is BROADBAND I don't believe this. I don't think our relatively narrowband transmissions would have much effect on BPL at all (except in a few rare cases where we could overload some electronics).
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< Ed, at what distance is that field strength computed at? Is this computation based upon street level to the overhead wires? With our house wiring within feet or sometimes inches from us, what would be the field strength then? Think about it. If your bed is against a wall, you may be getting BPL RF radiated within a few inches of your head for 6-8 hours continuously as you sleep. >
The Part 15 limits for BPL are at a distance of 30 meters.
For large radiators like the power lines or electrical house wiring, a good rule of thumb is that 20 dB(distance) should apply. However, for very close distances, that is probably going to be a bit high.
But if you were do compare 30 meters to 0.1 meters, you would have 20*log(30/.1) = 49.5 dB. This is about 40,000 times less than the present FCC RF exposure limits.
RF safety is not at all an issue with BPL.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ says:
"W9WHE, you may be right about having no case in court....but there are other infringements that the FCC and the power companies could be liable for. One is rendering all my expensive ham equipment useless......Another is compelling me to upgrade to digital TV"
Once again, respectfully disagree. When the FCC re-allocated a chunk of 220 Mhz to commercial uses, did owners of 220 Mhz gear get $$$ from the FCC? No. Why? Because we hams have no "vested" right to use any part of the HF spectrum. We are mere "licensees" subject to FCC regulation. Did owners of "leaded gas only" cars get $$ from the Feds when they ended sale of leaded gasoline? No.
Litigation is NOT the answer. Making sure the regulatory scheme controls BPL interference and new filter technology is.
|
| |
|
RE: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DOES ANYBODY ELSE THINK SOMETHING IS STRANGE HERE?
WHY don't we hear from hams in the test areas?
If what the ARRL and W1RFI tell us is true, hams in the test areas should be "off the air" and wiped out.
WHY aren't other services in the test areas up in arms and being wiped out? If what the ARRL and W1RFI tell us is true, other services in the test areas should be "off the air" and wiped out.
WHAT GIVES?
WHY isn't ANYBODY whom is ACTUALLY "off the air" or wiped out by BPL standing up and saying so?
AM I MISSSING SOMETHING? If BPL is so bad, and multiple test areas are in operation, where is the outrage of people ACTUALLY effected? Are they here and I have missed them?
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K1XT on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here are a few of the companies involved with BPL:
Electric Broadband at www.electricbroadband.com and Finepoint Technologies at www.finepoint.com. I suppose one could send comments to them also to let them know that there is a large contingent of people against this idea. It wouldn't be a bad idea to contact Homeland Security either. The atmosphere from the White House is pro-corporate. I'm not so sure how far we'll get with the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To AG4RQ:
It remains to be seen that your analog TV, VCR, stereo and refigerator (and HF radio) will be rendered "useless" as you fear. IF (and I say BIG IF) that were true, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that BPL would be approved because of a 240 MILLION PERSON REVOLT!
Do not let chicken little convince you the sky is falling. Let's see the Data and let's talk to people in and around the test areas. THEN make a decision.
BY THE WAY.....the ARRL knows who the hams are in the test areas. Have any of them complained? To what extent are hams actually operating in the test areas actually effected? I don't know. I would like to talk with them. WOULDN'T YOU??????
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I vaguely remember another huge controversy when we were convinced as a society that the world would cease to exist at midnight on December 31st 2000. Does anyone remember Y2K?
This could indeed prove to be an issue. On the other hand, we could go off the opposite extreme as well.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To WA9JBM:
John:
Your rights come from 1) the US constitution and federal laws/statutes; and 2) your state constitution and state laws/statutes. Because the Federal government is supreme, when it comes to the radio spectrum, the federal government and its designee, the FCC, reigns supreme, unless you can trump it with a Federal Constitutional right. The authors of the US constitution did not create a right to a clear HF spectrum. They never even knew one existed to begin with.
Congress, in 1934, deligated regulatory power of the spectrum to the FCC. The FCC granted you and me a "license" to operate, not a deed of ownership. Thus, your rights come from your license, as granted under 47 C.F.R. 97 (part 97). NOTHING in Part 97 guarntees you clear spectrum. You and I are licenseholders, NOT owners. Because we are not owners, we have no "vested protectable right". In fact, the FCC could take all of HF away from us. Remember 220 Mhz?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA9JBM: As far as God is concerned, you have no rights. Were it not for his grace, you wouldn't even be breathing, much less contributing to this forum.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
RE: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If everything goes as planned, I will put my rig in the van and drive up to Cape Girardeau, Missouri in the next week or so to find out for myself. The problem might be that the test has been terminated or so limited in scope that I will not be able to find the interference. I think that Ed's video has educated me enough to know it when I hear it.
For those who missed the test areas:
"ARRL has identified active field trials in Briarcliff Manor, New York; Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Cullman, Alabama; Emmaus, Pennsylvania; Hyde Park, Ohio; Manassas, Virginia; Potomac, Maryland; and Raleigh, North Carolina. In addition, the FCC has granted experimental licenses to BPL equipment manufacturers or utilities in a number of other states. To ARRL's knowledge, actual field trials have not started there yet."
I also find it interesting that we have not seen any posts from hams in the test areas. it might be that if some are experiencing interference, it is not recognized as BPL origin or, as mentioned, the testing is so localized that there are no hams in the immediate vicinity to experience it.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE WRITES:
"Do not let chicken little convince you the sky is falling. Let's see the Data and let's talk to people in and around the test areas. THEN make a decision.
BY THE WAY.....the ARRL knows who the hams are in the test areas. Have any of them complained? To what extent are hams actually operating in the test areas actually effected? I don't know. I would like to talk with them. WOULDN'T YOU??????"
Yes, I am very curious about what is going on in the test areas. I'd love to talk to a ham in one of the affected areas, if any of them can hear anything through the hash. However, I would think that these test areas are very limited and small in area. Your guess is as good as mine how many hams that are capable of HF operation are in the test areas. I did a QRZ search of Briarcliff Manor, NY, one of the sites indicated to be a BPL testing site. It doesn't even mean that all of Briarcliff Manor is indeed a test area. There are 20 hams in Briarcliff Manor of which 15 are from unique addresses. Of the twenty, there are 7 Extras, 3 Advanced, 1 General, 3 Tech Plus and 1 Novice. Considering bad conditions on 10m, that leaves 11 hams in Briarcliff Manor who would be on 17m and below who could be affected by BPL. That’s not an awful large number of hams. Fact is, I have yet to hear anyone from that location on any of the ham bands to date.
You seem to be making light of the BPL problem. Are you suggesting that ARRL is fabricating this whole thing? I, myself wouldn't think they are. To fabricate a huge lie like that would shoot any credibility that they have with anything to pieces. I am not going to stick my head in the sand thinking that it will go away, and then when its too late, wonder why I can't hear anything on the bands. I think your statements about BPL and what ARRL has to say about it are made out of pure hatred for ARRL. Here's your very words regarding ARRL from another thread:
"RE: The ARRL Needs More Members! Reply
by W9WHE on July 11, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Most hams ARE NOT MEMBERS.
A ham for 26 years, I've been a member for only 3. I'm one of the LARGE MAJORITY of hams that WILL NOT join. But why??????
1) The ARRL has been an entity OF, FOR, AND BY EXTRAS. If you aren't an extra, you just do not count.
2) ARROGANCE. Ever encounter one of the Newington boys? Heaven forbid that you do not see things the ARRL way. There is the ARRL perspective and ALL OTHERS BE DAMNED!
3) A REALLY BAD case of N.I.H. (Not Invented Here). If the ARRL did not think of, or at least be consulted on it, they will oppose it.
4) The MAJORITY of hams will NEVER join the ARRL unless it changes. MARKETING 101: People will not pay to join an organization that detests them!
Don't get me wrong. The ARRL is not all bad. But the undeniable fact is that the MAJORITY of hams find the negatives SO OUTWEIGH the positives that they simply will not pay money to people that detest them.
HELLO!"
As for the ARRL being "an entity OF, FOR, AND BY EXTRAS. If you aren't an extra, you just do not count", yeah. Right! That's why I joined the ARRL as soon as I received my Tech license and have been a member since. Fact is, the advice to join the League came from another Tech. My biggest mistake was not becoming a life member when the dues were reasonable. I don't know about you, but I want the ARRL representing my interests as a ham. Good work Jim and Ed. Keep fighting for the rest of us.
|
| |
|
RE: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!
|
|
|
by N4QX on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll let my friend and colleague Ed reply authoritatively, but my understanding is that the trials thus far are quite localized. That there doesn't appear to be a ham on these few streets and neighborhoods seems to be dumb luck.
This is precisely why Ed is making these trips--to bring the ham station to the problem. And if this is deployed nationwide, it *will* be a problem, because sooner or later, it will go on your street.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ARRL has identified active field trials in Briarcliff Manor, New York; Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Cullman, Alabama; Emmaus, Pennsylvania; Hyde Park, Ohio; Manassas, Virginia; Potomac, Maryland; and
Raleigh, North Carolina".
Could there really be no HF hams in any of the test areas? Possible, but unlikely!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Could there really be no HF hams in any of the test areas? Possible, but unlikely!"
I think its very possible and very likely. I also think that it is very possible and very likely that the BPL proponents did their homework and intentionally selected small enclaves where there were no antennas. If they wanted to be more thorough, there's QRZ to check for hams by zip code and city or town. They most likely thoroughly did their homework and picked streets where no hams reside. Where there are no hams, there is no interference. Right?
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why does W9WHE make light of the BPL situation? He offers facetious “solutions” such as claiming that a digital audio signal would somehow survive the overpowering QRM, or suggesting that a simple audio DSP unit would solve the problem. He then ignores the video that W1RFI made showing the devastating effects of BPL, and instead makes the questionable assumption that there HAS to be HF-active hams in the small areas where BPL tests are going on (drive around ANY neighborhood ANYWHERE, and you’ll find it VERY likely that you will find blocks and blocks and blocks where there is no evidence of HF hams. We’re less than 1 out of every 1000 people in the US) and if they don’t notice a problem, there isn’t one.
That’s a question we should be asking. Not the ones W9WHE is suggesting we do.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K0RFD on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE wrote:
"Could there really be no HF hams in any of the test areas? Possible, but unlikely!"
--------------------------------
As AG4RQ wrote, not unlikely at all.
Power companies were among the first entities to embrace GIS in the late '80s and early '90s. Almost all of them have extensive GIS capabilites. It would be a pretty simple matter to download and geocode the FCC database, overlay it on your powerline maps, and choose BPL test areas where the probability of documented RFI complaints is zero.
Testing right now is very small scale, proof-of-principle. Not even marketability or commercial potential. Very easy to avoid hams.
It would be an excellent way to get the camel's nose under the tent--"SEE, We've been testing, no complaints"
Then watch out!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by FJGH on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am at a loss to understand this need for some users on this site to have to beat up any person who adds a comment that they don't agree with. This kind of conduct reminds me of all the bully's that you can find in any elementary school.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And the BPL advocates are working with the Black Helocopters! Its all part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to subvert the defense of the USA by taking out our first line of defense...Hams!
Ok, Ok, Ok....now I understand!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The ARRL is conducting their tests. Isn't the FCC conducting their own? Being that they will make the decision whether or not to allow BPL, shouldn't they be conducting their own tests and compiling their own data on this? This is the FCC's specialty. They are the ones with the resources and all the sophisticated equipment to do fine-tooth comb research. I'd like to see what the FCC's data reveals. Of course, if Powell is hell-bent on pushing it through, I'm sure he'll find a way of sweeping all the damaging evidence under the rug.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N3EVL on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Thanks for the good work regarding this matter...
Another way to spread our side of the story is available - I just did a google search on the subject of "Broadband over power lines" and got several hits representing telcom trade journals. The sampling of articles that I looked at were descriptive of the technology and, surprise surprise, made no mention of the potential disruption to HF etc.
I've sent email to one of the authors - here's what I sent...
-------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I read with interest, your recent article on Broadband Over Power Lines and was surprised that there was no mention of the downside of this technology - namely the potential for interference to and from the entire HF and low VHF spectrum. You should be aware that the comments made by the pro-BPL industries at best gloss over the potential for interference to and from other services that use HF and Low VHF.
I refer you to the other side of the story as documented at http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1 so that you may familiarize yourself. I especially recommend the video clip that is available there.
Sincerely
etc.
------------------------------------------------------
I've no idea if this will do any good but it's worth a try - especially if they get lots of such emails. I think it's important that we make our case with these journalists.
73, Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
BPL Video
|
|
|
by KD5ING on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The United Power Line Council have produced their own video available at this link: http://www.uplc.utc.org/ and there is no mention of the potential interference issues but he does mention the 18 MILLION MILES of power lines that criss-cross the country.
That is one big antenna.
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AD5X on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To AG4RQ: The FCC doesn't do testing. They want the industry to do the testing, and report it to them. If you certify equipment now-a-days, you provide the information measured by a certified lab. But it is not done by the FCC.
I got into it with them several years ago concerning spread spectrum interference into 2 gHz fixed microwave. I provided calculations showing how it would be a problem. The FCC told me that they were tired of seeing calculations, and wanted to see actual field data.
This is contrary to good engineering practice. You shouldn't be trying to build, or implement, something until you've shown that it should work theoretically.
Our tax dollars at work.
Phil - AD5X
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by VA3PWH on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Jim,
Thanks for the posting. You reminded me, a Canadian ham and member of ARRL that I should contribute. As of yesterday, that has been done although I couldn't afford too much.
Canadians recognize that the American fight against BPL is one which we would have to fight if your efforts do not succeed. We are all hoping for the best.
I wonder if the anonymous loudmouths have ever been told that we members pay their way at every international event, a levy being made for every ham, not just members. We don't begrudge paying for them. It is worth it for us to retain some of the privilieges we have.
As often pointed out by both ARRL and RAC here in Canada, there is only one national organization to fight for our interests. Not to be a member seems quite silly. Your efforts are much appreciated by those of us who try to understand the issues rather than looking at merely superficial aspects of each issue.
Please accept my thanks for all the work you do and please convey thanks to those staff members who have worked so hard on the BPL comments. ARRL's comments are so professional that I can't help being proud to be associated with amateur radio.
73 de Pete
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KE1MB on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Do a search on this topic in google, they claim it won't affect us, well because the militay, civil air, and marine all use those frequencys. If they can prove it "safe" whatever that means, then it will take off.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KE1MB on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
go here,
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110390,00.asp
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Every ham needs to read this article "Broadband over power lines closer to reality" from Network World:
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0602carrspecialfocus.html
This will show you where Powell stands on the issue of BPL.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KE1MB on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
this one is a good site also, will make you feel a little better.
http://www2.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/04/25/1/?nc=1
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N3EVL on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ said:
"Every ham needs to read this article "Broadband over power lines closer to reality" from Network World:
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0602carrspecialfocus.html
This will show you where Powell stands on the issue of BPL."
Right indeed - it was to the author of this article that I sent my email described above - will report back if there's any feedback.
Pete
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD5ING on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"AG4RQ said:
"Every ham needs to read this article "Broadband over power lines closer to reality" from Network World:
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0602carrspecialfocus.html
This will show you where Powell stands on the issue of BPL."
Right indeed - it was to the author of this article that I sent my email described above - will report back if there's any feedback. "
There is a feedback option to the right of the article. I recommend sending them feedback on the drawbacks of this technology.
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< "Could there really be no HF hams in any of the test areas? Possible, but unlikely!"
I think its very possible and very likely. I also think that it is very possible and very likely that the BPL proponents did their homework and intentionally selected small enclaves where there were no antennas. If they wanted to be more thorough, there's QRZ to check for hams by zip code and city or town. They most likely thoroughly did their homework and picked streets where no hams reside. Where there are no hams, there is no interference. Right? >
I don't think they went that far, but the trial areas range from about a dozen to a few hundred homes. Fewer than 1/few hundred people are hams. Of those, many are not active on HF, or active at all. With limited trial areas, I am not surprised there are few reports. I am in communication now with hams in one of the trial areas, and expect more reports relatively soon.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AC4UR on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wanted to wait a day or two to add my comments. I see many off topic remarks and several childish responses, so I will only respond to the original topic of BPL.
This is a very serious issue for every ham operator regardless of location or operating mode. This goes beyond ARRL or not ARRL chatter. This will certainly prove to be the dividing line in history between what ham radio has been and what is left for us to salvage. You can argue and scream whatever fact or assumption you wish. Ladies and gentlemen, this is it. There has never been a more important time for all of us to join together and make a stand. You must make up your mind now and make a choice. Either you do something to stop BPL from becoming a reality or you have the choice taken away from you. By not speaking out or contributing in some way, you have given your approval for BPL. If you just standby, it will become a reality. It is mandated to happen. Their main issue is not whether it should happen, but how it will happen.
Now as far as money goes...give it to anyone that can make a difference. Think carefully, study the issue and give what you can. My first choice would be the ARRL. If that is not your choice then make a logical decision.
Please do not gripe, do not whine, just make a difference. Do something.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N1OL on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL on Slashdot
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/08/2020237.shtml?tid=137&tid=193
Add your comments now!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I found an interesting article. The next solar cycle is predicted to be a strong one. Read it at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11874
If the next cycle is as strong as 1958, wouldn't that create havoc with BPL internet connections?
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W5ARS on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry to have to tell you but all those;
'fat, old men sitting in their basement in a grease stained tee shirt and boxer shorts, sending porn over SSTV and intentionally jamming QSOs when someone says something they don't like'
Pass their code requirements years ago!
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by K8WV on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KQ6YF Suggested:
>With respect, K8WV, I have found that most people under 30 scarcely know what amateur radio is let alone preferring it to broadband internet connections.
==
I apologize if I was unclear - I intended to say that most people don't understand or care about amateur radio, and would sell it down the river for beans if they could get broadband Internet access.
Congress is very much interested in providing broadband access, especially in rural areas. That's one thing that makes the BLP activity dangerous. If a member of Congress can claim at least some responsibility for providing broadband access, that will translate into votes, and politicians like votes very much.
What can we offer in place of BPL? We had best come up with something. One alternative might be access to a portion of the digital TV spectrum. At least some PBS stations are proposing to use a portion of their digital channel to provide high speed downlink, with uplink, perhaps, via a dial-up connection. There are other possibilities. Some are reasonable and practical. Some are not. BPL is one alternative, but one with a very high "societal" cost.
Dan Ringer, K8WV
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KQ6YF on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From AG4RQ on August 8, 2003
"If the next cycle is as strong as 1958, wouldn't that create havoc with BPL internet connections?"
To AG4RQ on August 8, 2003...
Short answer: No. The people who designed BPL are certain to have considered interference TO their system as opposed to interference suffered by other users of the HF and VHF spectrum. Then again, if you live next door to a BPL user in the old part of town...
It may be quite sometime before BPL arrives in my neighbourhood. The utilities are still above ground and much of that infrastructure belongs in the Smithsonian! (I live in a 75 year old house.) Over the years, pole transformers have EXPLODED in my neighbourhood causing destructive overvoltage conditions - voltage high enough to fry my monitor twice, but not enough (alas, it would seem) to trip the MOVs.
B
.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KQ6YF on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K8WV...
My mistake, sir! Dylexia strikes again! I occasionally esrever things especially late at night when I'm tired.
I apologise...
B
.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've run into the traitorous comments of W9WHE before.
The guy must be a major stockholder in a company waiting to push BPL down our throats. I just ignore him anymore and believe the technically educated info that W1RFI has as a result of his research. Keep up the good work Ed! 73. KD7EFQ
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, what an array of comments.
As far as I am concerned I would support any individual who has the guts and come forth providing truth to the ham community about his impartial personal insight.
Obviously, this is a reflection of the dedication the individual has toward the amateur radio community at large.
I think Amateur radio operators need to recognize this spirit in a much clearer light.
Sometimes, we are too quick to make judgements before we take the opportunity to read between the lines.
KC8VWM
Columbus, Ohio
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One user wrote:
"The apparent relationship between amateur radio and the internet reminds me of that between the Borg and the Federation from the Star Trek Next Generation series. We as amateurs seem to be fending off an attempt by the web to absorb us and to turn us into a sort of pseudo-random version of internet chat. [Echolink comes to mind, for one...]. The clever humans in the Star Trek series defeated the Borg with a combination of luck and cleverness and an occasional assist from a demigod. Where is Q when you really need him? "
Man, you really do watch too much Star Trek don't you...
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Phil, AD5X writes
> This is contrary to good engineering practice. You
> shouldn't be trying to build, or implement,
> something until you've shown that it should work
> theoretically.
um, no. good engineering practice is to build and test models, to design conservatively and to only use that which has been shown to work empirically.
Typically, in engineering, theory lags practice by quit a bit. The classic example would be the railroads building all those steam locomotives before there was a good theory of operation for steam engines.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm confused, can someone help me out here:
>> ARRL has identified active field trials in
>> Briarcliff Manor, New York; Cape Girardeau,
>> Missouri; Cullman, Alabama; Emmaus, Pennsylvania;
>> Hyde Park, Ohio; Manassas, Virginia; Potomac,
>> Maryland; and Raleigh, North Carolina".
> Could there really be no HF hams in any of the test
> areas? Possible, but unlikely!
This leads me to an interesting question. How *does* one find out about such tests?
Driving around yesterday, I saw what sure looks like a BPL test site, but I can't find any information anywhere on whether or not PG&E is doing tests, let alone whether they are doing them near here.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One user wrote:
"What a pathetic excuse!!!! For this guy to post comments like everone else which he has already done, is not good enough. He posts his comment concerning the other article by posting his own article. The big shot president of the failing arrl thinks he rates his own article just to post his opinion. Mr. Big Shot Grandstander go back to your pay site and wallow in your self delusions of greatness. What is really pathetic is that you have to make your opinions known on this site since non of the users of this site would waste much of their time at yours. Does that tell you anything???"
To reply to your comments sir, and I am surprised at your tone on this matter. I would have to indicate that the president of the ARRL is here in support of your sorry a**.; Furthermore, you obviously don't have the guts to display your real identity, therefore your comments do not really mean anything to anyone in this forum.
Let me clarify this for you a little,
If you dont have the guts to come out and make your comments known as an individual in the good spirit of Amateur radio, then you don't have any validity in this forum. You are then under the same catagory as spam.
I believe I speak for many other individuals here in this forum.
As far as any comments made by the President of the ARRL making his statements known in this forum is concerned, It is only your opinion that matters. You are welcome to disagree with opinions expressed or implied.
Please note, there is however a point when a person crosses a line and information they reflect is no longer an opinion.
You sir, have crossed that line.
I would like to formally request that the moderator of eham remove these hate comments from this website as they clearly are directed at making hate related & slanderous statements toward an individual. It is clearly not in the interests of this user group to entertain this offensive manner of user posting.
It is one thing to post statements in disagreement of ARRL policies and practices, or individual user comments or to even have a strong opinion about a certain subject matter. I myself can accept a certain level of criticism in good taste. however, it is clearly another matter to post offensive and slanderous material of this nature in an open public forum on this website.
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AE6IP on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Your rights come from 1) the US constitution and
> federal laws/statutes; and 2) your state
> constitution and state laws/statutes. Because the
> Federal government is supreme, when it comes to the
> radio spectrum, the federal government and its
> designee, the FCC, reigns supreme, unless you can
> trump it with a Federal Constitutional right. The
> authors of the US constitution did not create a
> right to a clear HF spectrum. They never even knew
> one existed to begin with.
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"
I think the gentleman from Virginia might disagree slightly with your analysis of the source or human rights.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< Driving around yesterday, I saw what sure looks like a BPL test site, but I can't find any information anywhere on whether or not PG&E is doing tests, let alone whether they are doing them near here. >
Early on, this was fairly easy. Most of the test sites were covered under an FCC experimental license. At this point, the equipment has been tested by the BPL manufacturers at 3 typical installations, as required by Part 15, and that interference level you saw in the video meets FCC Part 15 rules. If so, an experimental license is not necessary.
These trials then, will occur when a BPL manufacturer convinces a utility to let them demonstrate the system. They are generally not well publicized, but the utility does have to do a mailing to customers in the trial area so they can agree that they want to try the service. In all cases so far, these initial demos have been free to the customer, although one utility is reported to have sent out a notice saying that it was no longer free.
Naturally, the industry marketing folks want everyone to know about successful trials, while the "political" folks would want to ensure that the industry is the one that assesses the interference potential and provides that information to the FCC and the press.
I don't know of any trials, probably more appropriately called demos, taking place in California. PG&E has enough trouble with conventional power-line noise. :-)
A contact I have in the broadband industry has noted that the BPL industry has become very silent over the past couple of months. Very few articles are appearing in the public press. No reason or speculation offered.
73,
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AB0N on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Personally, if someone doesn't post under thier name, I don't read it. Must be a bunch of B.S. anyways.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N8REZ on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, the other fellow is correct. If you are gutless and hide while you post a comment, you are spam and should be deleted. I would go further in the other guys request to block posts that are not signed.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile! This statement may be from a fictional program, but it holds more truth than you think. AE6IP quotes the constitution, however our society is no longer a true democracy. Ever since the philosophy of Sun-Tzu's "The Art of War" became standard business philosophy, We have mutated into a purely capatilist society. He who has the GOLD, makes the rules. Why do you think the last several presidential elections were decided by less than 50% of eligible voters? People nowdays know that Special interest & Corporate Payoffs to the Govt. decide the course of this country. So Money talks, and B.S. walks. If you want to fight BPL, give some "GOLD" to the ARRL. It's the best chance we have, albeit a slim one. 73 :-)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You hit the nail on the head. Its bad enough now...cw was a filter to keep most of the riff raff out. Look at the bands now...get your head out of your asses and listen with your own ears. You'll hear "cbers". Most of the 25 year veterans of chickenband are extra class now. Some are vec's and hamtickets are being given to "good buddies". Most you folks need to get your heads out of your asses or the sand which ever way you want to put it. Arrl is for "themselves" Anything they can do to further their commercial interests they will do. They have sold us all out so they can help the major manufacturers sell more radios and they get the kick backs. Oh brother ...you're a "life" member...well take a look at it. Arrl is not the arrl that was founded years ago. Has anyone lately ask them for some "help" with anything. They want your dollar. They dont have anything to "give" to you...unless you line their palms. Wake up guys you're living in the past...look what the arrl is taking part in for their own interests...."the demise of hamradio" pretty soon all you'll have to do to get a ticket is write in like the cbers did in the 70's. They'll sell all kinds of radios..."pitiful" i cant believe any "ham" who cares about hamradio would back these cut throats.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KE4ARH on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Our rights are certainly not granted by the government or any document created by the government. Our rights are granted by the Almighty (Founder's words so don't geek on me) and thus are not revokable by the government. The founding fathers knew that all governments tended toward abuse of their power and thus stated "...that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights..." in the Declaration of Independance.
I realize that you are merely a product of the public schools but do try to read up on freedom:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm
http://www.inalienable-rights.org/
etc.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is intolerable that BPL providers operating within mandated field-strength limits may still cause unacceptable levels of interference to so many services.
Once the BPL genie is let out-of-the-bottle, there will be no stuffing it back in.
It is ironic (or dichotomous) that the very agency (FCC)charged with making sure that BPL meets all technical requirements before roll-out, will also be mired-in-the-muck of the literally tens of thousands of interference complaints it must lodge against BPL providers in behalf of services affected.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4ARH: Just when you think you've heard it all, someone graphically displays yet another shining example of Amateur reasoning. Amateur Radio is not, has never been, nor will it ever be, a right. It is a privilege, and a privilege only. Privileges by the way, can be taken away. There is absolutely nothing about our constitution that gives you any privileges in any form or fashion. It's no different than driving. Nobody ever took away someone's driving rights. To cite our founders and constitutional rights, says volumes about where you are intellectually. If I were you, I'd remain silent before making a bigger dingy out of myself.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD5WNO on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi
I got my license (TECH) little more than 4 months ago and I'm practicing to take my CW exam (Which need to stay so can show that put one kind of effort learning the basic for this hobby and after I got my CW license I may use one of those programs so I CAN DO 40 wpm but I will know the basic). Reading most of the articles and special those concern BPL I was thinking it worth my time, energy and money to buy more equipment and study for something more than TECH license.
Q: The ham community is the only one that objects to BPL?
Q: If ARRL is not capable of doing the job of representing the Ham community?
Q: If ARRL is not doing good job who can?
I’m new in the Ham Radio but I’m not intend to fall with out a good fight (Nice Words)
73’s
KD5WNO
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<cw was a filter to keep most of the riff raff out>>
I passed MY 20 WPM, so there goes THAT theory out the window ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks to Jim Haynie for posting his views.
Who is going to look out for ham radio in the US?
The ARRL has a long history, from the beginnings of amateur radio, of working with the US government on behalf of hams. Some facts:
The ARRL is older than the Federal Communications Commission.
Hiram Percy Maxim used his connections with the Navy Department to persuade them not to completely pre-empt radio for military purposes.
ARRL published a special wartime edition of the Handbook in 1942, because it was the only good practical book available for training radio technicians.
There's more history, and some more of it needs to be made NOW. The ARRL can't do it without our help, and we certainly (as individuals) can't do it alone.
I have previously turned a deaf ear to ARRL's pleas for funding in the effort to preserve "our" frequencies.
This time, however, the BPL/PLC thing has me really worried. For that reason, I opened my checkbook and contributed. I was gratified to read that Ed Hare W1RFI had been traveling around the Eastern US, observing and measuring BPL/PLC interference. I hope my contribution helped with Ed's travel expenses.
Incidentally, if you think BPL threatens only the HF bands, consider this: 1.8 MHz to 80 MHz includes 6 meters too. Consider this also: Even if the BPL implementation uses low pass filters to block stuff above 80 MHz, the nonlinearities in the power network will generate harmonics, which will be radiated by those long wires. The third harmonics of 2-80 MHz would be 6-240 MHz, and the 5th harmonics would be 10-400 MHz. It's not too hard to see that the VHF and UHF bands are also threatened.
73TomAB5XZ
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KD7EFQ: The founding fathers and framers of the constitution never intended the USA to be a democracy. ITS A REPUBLIC. And thank goodness it is!
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To W9WHE:
I don't care whether it's the preamble, amble, post-amble or whatever, all that matters is the part about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and to secure these rights, governments will be instituted by men & derive their powers by the CONSENT of the governed.
The constitution is nothing more than a fancy museum piece anymore anyway. The original intent of our founding fathers has been misinterpreted & perverted over and over again, to where it resembles absolutely nothing close to what they originally intended. I hold more to the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson Who said (this is not an exact quote, but close) " The tree of liberty from time to time needs to be watered by the blood of tyrants & criminals. Thomas Jefferson Had some real insight into just what our government would become. :-)
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< There's more history, and some more of it needs to be made NOW. The ARRL can't do it without our help, and we certainly (as individuals) can't do it alone.
I have previously turned a deaf ear to ARRL's pleas for funding in the effort to preserve "our" frequencies.
This time, however, the BPL/PLC thing has me really worried. For that reason, I opened my checkbook and contributed. I was gratified to read that Ed Hare W1RFI had been traveling around the Eastern US, observing and measuring BPL/PLC interference. I hope my contribution helped with Ed's travel expenses. >
It did. ARRL's work on this one started as the NOI was in the works, will continue through the NOI, into the decision period afterwards and if the FCC goes to any rules changing, it will start all over again. I am not the only one working this issue. Jim has spent 15 days in DC on the matter; Chris is doing all of our filing and the DC guys have been tapped from time to time, too, as have the other Lab guys. By the time it is all said and done, I am sure ARRL will spend more than it raises, but it will spend it.
Your help is appreciated, but when it is over, it is important to continue that support to make sure that when the next problem surfaces -- and it will -- that ARRL has the resources to make things start to happen. This work did not spring up overnight, but is drawing on work started years ago, and contacts built by ARRL in decades of existence.
I trust you have managed to look at the video, because it is part of what you bought when you last renewed and/or ponied up what was appropriate for you for spectrum defense. The number of web-page hits is absolutely astounding, and growing rapidly.
This sort of thing is the ONLY reason I have remained a member during those times when the Board did something I would have "done differently." Whether I get my way with a particular award or contest rule, or even with CW testing, just doesn't seem as important.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by FJGH on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Who cares what a bunch of dead people thought? If this country is locked in to everything somebody thought in 1776, for ever, then we are slaves to dead people.
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KA0MR on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am always amazed at how anonymous posters of opinion or so galantly proud of their craftwork of words and are quick to identify their thoughts but are ever so terrified to reveal their true identity.
Probably because they are unable to muster an independant thought of their own and have taken an opinion that belongs to someone else and remain in denial that they haven't the drive to be an independent thinker they so desire to be.
Don't let the mindless get us free spirits down.
Good work Jim.
Bob KAØMR and proud of it.
|
| |
|
KC8WCW
|
|
|
by KE4ARH on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8WCW,
If this board was properly threaded you would realize that I was not stating that talking on the radio was a right. Your zeal in judging my intellectual acumen appears to have overridden any small talent you may have for using logical thought structure. Nowhere did I state that ham radio is a constitutionally granted privelege- for you to imply otherwise speaks volumes about were *you* are intellectually.
In the future do please try to think before condemning. I know that knee-jerk reactions are much easier but they also show who the real "dingy" is.
Cheers.
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KS1A on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've talked with Jim H at length recently at a convention and he is the REAL DEAL. Wake up everyone, this BPL issue is huge and with the BUSINESS FRIENDLY FCC we have right now it's even more of a threat. YES it costs MONEY to defend against it. I don't understand the mentality so hams who hate the ARRL for often foggy reasons that they can even fully articulate. I guess I have a different look at life: I don't spend a week making my own capacitors just to save 10 cents, because I can just BUY them. The ARRL dues are CHEAP for the representation I get in DC. You wouldn't believe the money we are up against in the private sector. Without money on our side, it's a lot of fat guys with ht's on their belts and antennas on their hats up against smooth, well oiled attorneys who know Washington and how to get to those who want our band space. WAKE UP. Don't just hate the league for some foggy reason like "they're raising a lot of money." Money is what it takes on our side. The league's accounting is wide open for anyone to look at. I know the facts aren't going to change the mind of Joey Bagodonuts cause Joey hates the league, in fact he hates any association and all government in general. But for those on the fence who are reasonable, PLEASE realize the giant we are up against with an FCC that is letting the broadcast industry consolidate even further. These days it's almost "anything goes" for the right business interests. We STILL have to stop BPL or hamming will be horribly changed from what you have know it to be. Now is a time for unity. Please think long and hard before you decide not to support the only representation we have in DC. Thanks for listening, my 2 cents,
Life member,
Jim KS1A
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KD4TOQ on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been a Ham off and on for about 30 years. I have seen good changes and bad changes. I only recently joined the ARRL. I did it mostly because of access to technical articles and such at their members only area on the website. I have no particular loyalty to the ARRL. I do however understand some basic things about the government and how things are done. All those who blame the ARRL for not making the FCC do something about this or that issue should realize that the ARRL is a club composed of interested parties that join because of their particular interests. It is not a government entity and therefore can only accomplish things in the government system from the fringes as lobbyists or by getting enough people to write their elected representatives so that some efforts will be made on the Amateurs behalf. I look at this much like the gun owners of America and the NRA. I believe the only reason the politicians have not passed even more draconian gun laws is because the NRA, whatever it's faults can field several million voters in a national election. That is the key, weight of numbers in the form of emails, letters, faxes, phone calls, telegrams and votes. Sufficient numbers of these to the right politicians will get notice. If we are disorganized and do not act in union our impact will be very small. If we present a untited front we will have much more impact. As I said, I have no particular loyalty for the ARRL. They are a means to an end for me, but they have the ear of many in Congress, how many of you do? They can go into the committee rooms and talk to the politicians, can you? The point I am making here is I don't much care what anyone thinks of the ARRL outside the halls of congress. The FCC will do whatever it is pressured to do by the people that give them money, that is the congress. I can remember many death knells tolled for ham radio because of rule changes of this and that sort. Thye never came to pass. The BPL can I belive reduce the ham adio community to using VHF and UHF. Is that worth sticking to your prejudices about the ARRL? Sometimes we must do things we find unpleaseant to get along every day. In this case we need as many Hams as possible to present a solid front of resistance through every means possible to defeat BPL. If that means giving money and support to someone we don't like, than we must decide which is more important, our prejudices or use of HF radio. You will never be a member of any organization with which you agree 100%. It doesn't happen. As many people who don't like some of the NRA's policies sign their membership dues checks they know that the NRA is the best solution they have, and they take it. We had better weigh our priorities the same way. We may end up finding that an exotic DXpedition is to somewhere there are no power lines within a few miles.
Mark
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by AJ5TT on August 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI,
The work you and your peers have done to document BPL has been commendable. The level of effort far exceeds what I personally can do financially and technically. One of the ways I can support your efforts is to submit a donation to supports your efforts on the BPL campaign, which I have done.
I have seen the video and shown the video to some of my fellow IT members. As a HAM, I am concerned (hell scared) of the impact to the frequency spectrum. Your video shows constant signal level readings along with the audio. I can interpret the signal level and clicks. As a HAM, I can see and understand the impact to amateur radio. In showing the video to other IT members, it required considerable explaining on the impact to the frequency spectrum, S meter reading and why the clicks and noise is not good. If I could I would personally travel to one of these sites, but I cannot financially.
I see you are using your personal car and radio equipment to document the interference created by BPL. I think that if a video, using a radio such as an ICOM 756Pro with a band scope showing a normal conditions, say on 20M away from a BPL site and then conditions on the same band in the area of a BPL test site would show a contrast with regard to interference from BPL. It would be a nice gesture for ICOM to donate a radio such as the 756PRO II, due to its visual nature using the band scope, to support your effort with BPL.
What I can do, if requested, is create a video showing the band scope of my station that is not located near a BPL site. It would be great to have someone near a BPL test site, with a similar radio, record the effects of BPL. Maybe, this would help non-HAMS understand the impact to the RF spectrum such as those on forums on slashdot org.
Sincerely,
John Taylor – AJ5TT
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on August 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One user wrote:
"I look at this much like the gun owners of America and the NRA. I believe the only reason the politicians have not passed even more draconian gun laws is because the NRA"
Comments:
Gee, we should start a new user group,
"The coalitian of ham radio operator gun owners of America"
Our motto: "25wpm - 6 rounds a second"
|
| |
|
RE: It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I have been a Ham off and on for about 30 years. I
> have seen good changes and bad changes. I only
> recently joined the ARRL. I did it mostly because of
> access to technical articles and such at their
> members only area on the website.
For those that may not know, there are over 600 of the best ARRL technical articles available for download from the pages at http://www.arrl.org/tis. About 60% or so are not in the members-only area, so there is plenty of opportunity to look around.
> As I said, I have no particular loyalty for the
> ARRL. They are a means to an end for me,
They are a means for an end to me, too. I am loyal to what ARRL represents. I am loyal to the process that ARRL has created for its governance -- a Board of Directors elected by the direct vote of members on a regional basis, with, by policy, no financial interest in ARRL or amateur radio. (I could not be a director unless I were to quit my job at HQ and not work in ham radio). I am loyal to the volunteerism that is represented in the ARRL sections -- local chapters of the organization that also elect section leadership that determine the volunteer ARRL activities in their sections.
I am not loyal to blindly believing that what I described above will always be perfectly implemented, and I personally do what I can to try to make it better, by being part of the process and giving my ARRL director, Tom Frenaye in the New England division, my views and criticisms. I also throw in some attaboys, because that really helps a volunteer like Tom know that his work is appreciated.
> I can remember many death knells tolled for ham radio
> because of rule changes of this and that sort. Thye
> never came to pass. The BPL can I belive reduce the
> ham adio community to using VHF and UHF. Is that
> worth sticking to your prejudices about the ARRL?
I, too, have seen the "End of Amateur Radio As We Know It" predictions, and I am pretty well known for disagreeing. Though I am a 99% CW op, nothing in any of the rules changes have taken place over my years of hamming have changed what I am permitted to do on the bands one bit. If I were to play a tape made the day before the latest major rules change -- restructuring -- and a tape of the bands made 6 months later, other than more /AG and /AE calls on the bands, I don't believe that anyone could really tell the before from the after.
But if I were to play a tape of the before and after in the BPL trial areas, the difference would be clear. (And, yes, I am going to add a recording of what that test setup sounds like at the same time of day from an area with no BPL).
> Sometimes we must do things we find unpleaseant to
> get along every day. In this case we need as many
> Hams as possible to present a solid front of
> resistance through every means possible to defeat
> BPL. If that means giving money and support to
> someone we don't like, than we must decide which is
> more important, our prejudices or use of HF radio.
I think you are talking about ARRL, so let me ask -- who doesn't like me? :-)
> You will never be a member of any organization with
> which you agree 100%. It doesn't happen.
It doesn't happen even within that organization. I have seen ARRL Board motions pass 8:7, so in that case, 7 of the ARRL Board of Directors disagreed with the policy. But those that believe a representative process is more important than the outcome in any individual case support the end result, just as I support upholding the law of our land, because without law, we are barbarians.
> We may end up finding that an exotic DXpedition is
> to somewhere there are no power lines within a few
> miles.
And communicating only with a handful of stations that also not near power lines. Assuming that those stations got on the air at all to talk only to another handful of station. More accurately, some amateur signals are well over S9 when the band is open. Stations with equal capability could communicate with them, when the band is open, at least during the times there were no ionospheric fades. But how many people would build such stations to communicate with a handful of others, some of the time? I would take up building Tesla coils or some other related hobby. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Mark
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N4QA on August 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, W1RFI,
I still use a Kenwood TS-440S/AT which I bought new in 1986...mainly as a sig gen/mon these days.
The '440 has a 'pretty good' noise blanker, at least for minimizing impulse noise such as vehicle ignition.
While I would never recommend a noise blanker as the sole defense against anything as ominous as BPL, I was just wondering, did you make any comparative s-meter / audio out measurements on the BPL-mobile's TS-440S while touring BPL test areas...NB on vs NB off?
Thanks.
Bill, N4QA
ps
I watched and listened to your BPL data.
Don't want BPL in *my* neighborhood...
|
| |
|
It Seems To Me...
|
|
|
by N4QA on August 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, W1RFI,
I still use a Kenwood TS-440S/AT which I bought new in 1986...mainly as a sig gen/mon these days.
The '440 has a 'pretty good' noise blanker, at least for minimizing impulse noise such as vehicle ignition.
While I would never recommend a noise blanker as the sole defense against anything as ominous as BPL, I was just wondering, did you make any comparative s-meter / audio out measurements on the BPL-mobile's TS-440S while touring BPL test areas...NB on vs NB off?
Thanks.
Bill, N4QA
ps
I watched and listened to your BPL data.
Don't want BPL in *m | |
