|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG (CALLSIGNPENDING)
on
February 17, 2004
View comments about this article!
ACTION ON BPL BY CONGRESS??
[NOTE: My name is Don Schellhardt. I list myself as CALLSIGNPENDING because I do not yet have a ham license. However, I have joined the ARRL and enrolled in a Technician License Training Course.]
In a January 5 multi-party letter to 8 key Congressional legislators including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman William J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-LA) and Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) -- 3 groups urged Congress to override the FCC if Broadband Over Powerlines (BPL) is approved.
The multi-party letter stresses that BPL would interfere with both military communications and emergency civilian communications. The letter adds that FEMA, ARRL, REACT and the NAB have all opposed BPL.
The 3 groups on the letter are NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC), THE AMHERST ALLIANCE and NORTH AMERICAN SHORTWAVE ASSOCIATION (NASWA). The last 2 of these groups have also filed Written Comments against BPL in FCC Docket 03-104.
ARRL had been apprised of the letter and was invited to sign it. However, ARRL officials declined, stating they wish to maintain the perception and reality of "functional independence" from other opponents of BPL. They indicated a continued willingness to communicate with, and perhaps even coordinate with, NAC, Amherst and NASWA.
I was involved in writing and sending the letter because I am President of THE AMHERST ALLIANCE and also the newly recruited Vice President, Government Relations & Membership Development for the NAC.
To read the text of the multi-party letter to Congress, go to the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM Web Site at:
www.antenna-consortium.org
In the column of links on the left hand side of NAC's Home Page, click on the link to "Communications To Congress". Then click on the letter opposing BPL.
A press release about the BPL letter can be found through the “Press Releases” link. An FYI letter to the FCC can be found through the link to “NAC's Regulatory Filings”.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by N1JAO on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Next to CAPS, bold type has to be the second most annoying thing to read. I need sunglasses now.
Robert
N1JAO
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a staunch supporter of ARRL, I am starting to get somewhat peeved at their political perceptions and actions.
What the hell is "Functional Independence"?
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by N4GI on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Non-ham lawyer lobbyists asking for donations on E-ham. Now that's a new one.
Blake N4GI
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>ARRL officials declined, stating they wish to maintain the perception and reality of "functional independence" from other opponents of BPL.<<<
... and your point is?
The article you have written isn't clear & concise.
For example, does the above statement I quoted imply that the ARRL are not doing thier job to the satisfaction of its members? or are you pointing out that the ARRL is taking a new position in approaching the BPL matter?
>>>>They indicated a continued willingness to communicate with, and perhaps even coordinate with<<<<
Are you trying to validate the ARRL's position with respect to recent BPL efforts by indicating ARRL's association with other interest groups? Or are you pointing out that ARRL is not strong enough to lobby on it's ow accord?
Lots of name dropping appears in your article. No offence intended however, there appears to be little or no actual content or opinion expressed for the reader to digest.
I am left with the feeling that I have just finished reading a GM parts assembly manual for building a new car.
As a reader, I am left with nothing to think or reflect about after reading this article.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by N8YV on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote KC8VWM: I am left with the feeling that I have just finished reading a GM parts assembly manual for building a new car.
****************************************************
The trouble is, just like the efforts to stop BPL, you can build all you want but it still won't run!
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Functional Independence defined. We have a certain amount of political capital and good will. We spend it where appropriate and where we get the most bang for the buck. If we show up everywhere and sign everything, we begin to blend into the background and lose our creditability.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: BPL "action" By Congress?
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey "Action Jackson",
Maybe instead of forging this "alliance", you should do some more background research.
Tauzin is leaving his seat. Pointless. He is also the same guy who helped pass the Electronic Criminal Protection Act of 1986 & its update in the 90's. It banned listening to phonecalls, ANY! The CTIA is his biggest fan since he has seen to it they come first. When it comes to telcom, "Billy" is on board.
McCain is the moron who passed "Campaign Finance Reform" that has given an uneven advantage to fringe "523's" like MoveOn.org while killing citizens' free speech. Now the PACs rule the air 60 days before any election.
Nice try but how did you suck in NASWA to this futile attempt at "fame"? Do we have to quit them now too?
Your "movement" names say it all. If I have to ask what it is & stands for usually means your efforts are less than effective! Then I have to ask twice?
Jeeves...
NE1Z/Bill
PS: You got any fighter jets for sale?
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KD7SRC on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KF6JZC on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC has approved BPL for use. I read it in a news item a couple of days ago (from the ARRL). What do you expect from a bunch of technology challenged lawyers.
And you expect anything more from a bunch of technology challenged politicians? All of these people are guided by who gives them the most money and other lobby booty.
I have known for a long time that we don't have a representative form of government. It is an oligarchy.
Of all of the reasons that have been stated about why BPL is a bad idea, the one that I have not heard talked about is the issue of security. Why would anyone want to use an internet connection that can so easily be comprimised is beyond me. I am not an expert on network technology but I do know that the most secure internet technology uses fiber optic cable and encryption. The least secure are all of the wireless methods and any other technology where the signal can be radiated. Would you want your private info sent over a wire that can be received by someone sitting in there home or car who is not the intended recipient? What encryption is going to be used on BPL? What-ever encryption is used, will an unauthorized listener be able to decrypt it?
Think about it.
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>If we show up everywhere and sign everything, we begin to blend into the background and lose our creditability. <<<
We should just form a new "interest" group of individuals for this very reason!!
Move over Greenpeace - Here is what the NAC refers to as the "Citizens Against Virtually Everything" interest group.
In this way, we will better serve and streamline the process of solving a lot of various problems within the structure of one single interest group.
uh, wait a sec..? isn't that what we call "Federal Government"???
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by N4GI on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's a worthy cause!!
The attorney needs gas money to drive around in his Hummer while his secretary video-tape records 20over9 hash received by his new dash mounted TT Orion....
N4GI
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KD5RGJ on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
yOU NEED TO GET A LIFE IF CAPS AND BOLD PRINT ANNOY YOY!!!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by K2IY on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Time to get our fellow ham and journalist Walter Cronkite involved. BPL would make a great 60 MINUTES piece. Also need to point out how Ham Radio served as an effective tool of international goodwill during the cold war. Most of our politicians are "Gerbil Brains" when it comes to technical issues. Getting someone like Bill Gates on our side would also help us.
|
| |
|
BPL is a great Idea!
|
|
|
by NS5U on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We need to get up to speed if we are to address this issue successfully. BPL is a great idea. The implementation maybe the worst thing to come down the pike since cell phone tower started spreading intermod years ago.
We need to make the case for supporting the technology if it can meet certain reasonble perfomance tests while NOT causing interference.
No one would argue what a great technology Xrays have become but medical facilities don't saturate our neighborhoods with xray radiation.
Broadband on the powerlines is a great concept if it can be a safe noninterfering neighbor like xrays. Let us focus on encouraging the public to force the utilities to demonstrate the benign nature of this technology before we embrace something that will hurt so many people. As amateurs our purpose is largely to embrace and help develop electronic technology as it pertains to radio communications. It is counterproductive for us to be perceived as codgers opposing new initiatives and BPL is a good thing if it doesn't cause interference.
I personally would need a demonstration as I can't support the present level of noise the power lines distribute and I can't believe BPL can be accomplished without wiping out much of the useable spectrum for users physically near the grid.
my two cents and worth every zinc penny of it
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by N8UZE on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KF6JZC:
You misunderstood what you read on the ARRL web site. The FCC has approved issuing a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on BPL. Although this is quite a serious step, it is not quite the same as actually approving BPL.
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Functional independance? Where the ARRL is concerned, its more like "Dysfunctional independance"! Perhaps they should lobby congress to give away free computers with internet connections on BPL just like the ARRL wants to give away hf to anyone with a pulse and a wallet full of dues money. Face facts all you ARRL supporters, they sold you out to make $$$$$$$$$$. In fact they not only sold you out, but anyone else not dumb enough to fall for their line of crap. They are trying to sell the whole damn hobby out. After all, every ham who worked for their ticket will have to listen to the new influx of cb good buddies on hf now. All we can hope for now is that the FCC shows some common sense ( I know this is asking alot) and shoots this proposal down in flames. Thanks ARRL, may you file chapter 11 in hell.
|
| |
|
Good BPL System?
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
There may be a "good" version of BPL that will not
jam the short wave bands. This is the 5 GHz BPL
being tested by Corridor Systems in California.
Refer to URL: http://www.corridor.biz/
This BPL evidently uses the G-Line approach which
was originally invented in the 1950s and was the
subject of a QST article in the 1970s.
In this system, the 5 GHz signal is propagated
in the vicinity of the electric power line. I have
been told that this technology can also have inter-
ference problems (especially depending on the
customer premises technology used) but it is worth
examining in the context of the great BPL debate.
This approach may defuse the debate at least in
part.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
Good BPL SystemS?
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is the URL of the QST article on the g-line
technology for microwave propagation on a single
wire:
http://www2.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/7406011.pdf
This article is " Putting the G-Line to Work" by
George Hatherell, K6LK in the June 1974 issue of
QST magazine (P. 11).
Should we support this BPL technology as an
alternative to the HF jamming "conventional" BPL?
Comments on this would be very useful.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: Good BPL SystemS?
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I had a look at the registrant on this domain antenna-consortium.org - all things point to a hotmail address. I would not send them a dime. It doesn't appear to be anything official - probably goes into somebody's pocket and not where it can be useful. Looks like a scam to me. Sad it has to show up here.
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by RADIOBOB on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Happen to like the bold type. It's easier on older eyes.
N1JAO, get a life.
TYPICAL RULE FREAK
|
| |
|
"A Scam"??!!
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good Lord, KB2FCV!!
Watch the way you throw those accusations around!!
Donations to NAC are "a scam" because somebody at NAC has a HOTMAIL address?? Talk about "reckless disregard" for the truth!!
I'm a fairly new face at the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM, and so I don't know who first registered the domain. I suspect, however, that it was NAC's Chairman -- who is, as the Web Site clearly states, FRED BAUMGARTNER, C.P.B.E. KG0KI of Colorado. Fred has been around ham radio for decades, and he was also one of the founders of the Society of Professional Broadcasters (S.P.B.E.).
As the NAC Web Site also indicates, NAC's Executive Director is ANOTHER longtime ham: GERALD L. AGLIATA W2GLA of New York. He's been in ARRL for decades, too.
Other NAC Members include FRANK FALLON, a member of the ARRL Board of Directors, and NICK LEGGETT N3NL of Virginia. These are names that have been popping up on EHAM.NET for quite some time now.
As for myself, I personally have a Hotmail address, pioneerpath@hotmail.com, but I also have an Earthlink address, pioneerpath@earthlink.net ... The Earthlink address is posted plainly on the NAC Web Site, along with 2 different phone numbers for calling me.
If you thought NAC was so "fly by night" or mysterious, why didn't you just E-Mail me or call me to prove that I exist and am reachable through the indicated points of contact? Why didn't you look me up on www.google.com, where my home snail mail address would have turned up about a dozen times in the 300+ listings for me?
You could have found on the NAC Web Site everything you needed to contact me, or KG0KI, or W2GLA, or NAC Web Manager MELISSA LEAR.
If you don't like NAC, and/or are not convinced we have anything to offer the ham radio community, it is certainly your right to think that and say it. However, when you start making the pronouncement that NAC is "a scam" -- without any evidence, and without even trying to TALK with anyone at NAC -- you are really "stepping over the line".
Calling all of us dishonest, without any kind of evidence or investigation, goes well beyond the bounds of vigorous but honorable debate.
I think you owe me, and the other officers at NAC, an apology. Seriously. You do.
Sincerely,
Don Schellhardt aka CALLSIGNPENDING
PS. If your bio is accurate, I grew up one town away from you. I was born in Passaic and raised in Livingston.
|
| |
|
Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
S.P.B.E. stands for "Society of Professional Broadcast Engineers" -- not "Society of Professional Broadcasters".
Sorry about that.
Don aka CALLSIGNPENDING
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by NY7Q on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
DON'T RELY ON THE ARRL FOLKS...BETTER GET TO THOSE PHONES AND CALL YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES (CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN) AND SEND EMAILS TO ALL OF THEM. SEND EMAILS TO THE WHITEHOUSE, FCC, SEC OF STATE, AND TO GOD, IF YOU RELY ON THE ARRL TO FIGHT bpl.
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by K9KJM on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The "Corridor" Prototype system seems to be nothing but an unproven idea. I would like to see some real, hard data on one of these BPL trials showing how well
(Or poor) they really work.
So now instead of junking up the low bands, They will be junking up much higher frequencies?
While the idea of using existing lines to also run broadband may be nice, Face the facts: Power companies CANNOT EVEN take care of the core business of providing nice clean power! How many of you have interference noise trouble because of noisy power lines?
If power companies want to get in to the broadband business, they should just run fiberoptic lines right to the house. They already own the poles and have a huge advantage right there.
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I was offering my opinion on the way the website was setup and how it is registered. It may very well be 100% legit. I would never do business with it. There are so many people out there that set up ANY kind of fake website that attempt to take people for their money. I must get a bunch a day in the email. I get very suspicious when I see that something is registered to the likes of a hotmail address - which can be filled out by anyone, anywhere with any kind of internet access. If the person who setup the website is requesting dues, they should have the domain registered to an actual ISP email address - not an address that any person can walk into a library and create in 5 minutes. I personally don't trust it. Too many unknowns as to who it's registered to, where the website resides, etc.
How many spam emails do you get with people spoofing an ebay site or a paypal site saying your account needs updating? Sure it's fake.. ever look to see where it points to? It all points to free website / email addresses. Why? Because they can be impossible to trace. An earthlink account or an aol account or any other ISP account can always be traced back to a paying owner, who pays with a valid credit card. Someone posting a website on the NAC asking for dues or money should use a little better judgement in where everything is registered to. I didn't mean to offend anyone, if my comments were taken as offsive or accusational, again I apologize, that's not how it was meant.
|
| |
|
How to Access Mr. Schellhardt's Radio Documents
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Those persons interested in Mr. Schellhardt's
background can access the documents he has filed
in various FCC dockets by following this proceedure:
1. Access the Federal Communications Commission internet web site at the URL: www.fcc.gov
2. Click the “E-Filing” button near the top of the FCC home page.
3. Scroll down and click the option: “Electronic
Comment Filing System”.
4. Click the option: “Search for Filed Comments”.
5. Enter the text string “Amherst Alliance” in the field “Filed on behalf of”.
6. Select the “Retrieve Document List” button.
7. Select a document from the document list for display. Each document is in a pdf file.
This procedure will obtain all of the documents that Don Schellhardt wrote for the Amherst Alliance on LPFM
radio (148 documents). Additional documents can be
obtained by entering the text string "Schellhardt"
in Step 5 above (25 documents). Use this proceedure
to examine and judge his work for yourself.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by WT0A on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Have been in broadcast engineering since 1970, never heard of S.P.B.E. Have heard of SBE (Society of Broadcast Engineers) and SPBE (Societyof Parrot Breeders and Exhibitors) though.
Glen
PS, didn't say it didn't exist, just that I had never heard of it.
|
| |
|
RE: Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Calling all of us dishonest, without any kind of evidence or investigation, goes well beyond the bounds of vigorous but honorable debate.<<<
Welcome to the wonderful world of Internet forums where individuals can paint a profile of you ranging from an angelic church saint, to a full blown war crime criminal in under 60 seconds...
|
| |
|
RE: Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by N6PYF on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why try to convince Congress, wait for the administration change in November then get a commissioner that isn't in the pockets of corporate media. That is your only chance to change things.
|
| |
|
RE: Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Eric:
Don't wait for administration change in November...NONE of the John Kerrys (just as none of the Al Gores) can beat Bush. If you oppose BPL, start letter writing now.
W9WHE
Proud supporter of the ARRL boycott.
|
| |
|
RE: Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N6PYF "Why try to convince Congress, wait for the administration change in November then get a commissioner that isn't in the pockets of corporate media. That is your only chance to change things."
What a simplistic view of the world. It is also wrong!
The commissioner isn't the problem, the consumer is. They demand broadband & considering everyone has electric, it is not as "spotty" as dial-up or cable/fiber coverage.
If it were wireless broadband, you'd bitch about that too because it MIGHT use an unused ham band like 2.4 or 5.7GHz! Thank God 802.11 wasn't stopped because of ham radio objections!
I guess you believe that the President & the poor directly create jobs too? I love the lack of logic or understanding but BPL will create jobs! No one has noticed that yet? All you outsourcing crybabies fail to see the whole picture, just bits & pieces as it applies to your narrow agenda. Government helps no one but themselves!
No changes, stay the course of decisive clarity, not hysterical criticism!
Bill
|
| |
|
RECALL ARRL DIRECTORS
|
|
|
by W9WHE on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Congress is no the answer, RECALLING ARRL directors is:
From the ARRL bylaws:
24. In accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Articles of Association, members of a territorial division may petition for recall of the director of their division.
Any League member may give notice of proposed recall by mailing to the Secretary by certified mail a letter to that effect. The fact of receipt will be communicated only to Officers, the Director concerned, the sender and the Election Committee. The recall petition shall be presented to the Secretary not later than 75 days after the mailing of the notice of recall and not later than June 1st of the final year of the term of office. A valid petition shall contain the dated signatures obtained on or after the date of mailing of the notice to the Secretary, and will include not less than 10 percent of the number of Full members voting in the election at which the director was elected or not less than 10 percent of the Full members resident in the division on the preceding December 31st if the director was elected without membership balloting. Upon certification by the Election Committee that the petition is valid, the Secretary shall prepare a ballot asking the single question, "Shall the Director be recalled, yes or no." If a majority of the votes cast are for recall, then the office of director shall be declared vacant. No director shall be subject to more than one recall election during a single term of office. A person removed from office by recall, shall not be eligible to be a candidate for Director or Vice Director for three years following removal from office.
Ten percent, just ten percent is all it takes!
|
| |
|
RE: Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by WI4CW on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill (NE1Z) - your comments are valid. But - what do do about the documented actual interference that IS generated by BPL? Are there other implementations of BPL - where they use a different part of the spectrum, or low levels that doesnt produce interference? If so - hell - bring it on.
So far the best idea that I have come up with is to designate a slice of the spectrum (not in 2-80mhz) for them to operate in - and let 'er rip.
As far as internet security goes - oh well. Take your chances. You are not really secured from your upstream internet service provider 'sniffing' their internal network (which your traffic passes through) either - unless of course your data itself is encrypted.
Here's the RIGHT answer for BPL: "No you cant deploy in the current 2-80mhz spectrum. Use a different method, levels, spectrum, etc" They can do it - guaranteed. There's too much money to be made to not make it fit....
73 all - Bill - thanks for the comment
Ken
WI4CW
|
| |
|
RE: Correction Re S.P.B.E.
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ken,
I agree that they should just designate a band & flip the switch. It's coming, "defense" over, move on. The infrastructure only requires modification, not construction from scratch, that even WISP's face.
I have formed my opinions based on what I had heard & then read the very same attitudes on here. Just shows how "elite" our peers are. Hard to believe there is any advancement possible!
Speaking of security (freeloading), I wonder how secure BPL will be? Afterall, the current way to "freeload" electic in Iraq is by simply tossing bricks on the ends of some tap wires over the grid to "connect".
73 Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To both KF6JZC and N8UZE:
BPL can be deployed now under existing Part 15 rules, no new action by the FCC was required. The whole purpose of the NOI was to inquire about changes to the Part 15 rules to better accommodate BPL. The industry wanted a relaxation in the emission levels so they could run higher power and use fewer repeaters. They probably also wanted reduced or eliminated responsibilty to prevent interference to licensed services.
To all appearances, they lost out on both counts. In fact, it looks like new requirements will be imposed upon them such as a detailed directory of BPL devices so that affected HF spectrum users can locate interfering devices easily. No other Part 15 device maker/deployer has to do that. It also looks like the FCC is going to hold them to the non-interference requirements and offer no relief from interference by licensed users. While not a win, it looks a whole lot better than it could have been. To make BPL work, it looks like they have a whole lot of engineering issues to solve and it may just not be economically viable in the long run. It certainly won't bring broadband to currently underserved areas because they will need a large subscriber base to afford that. It's going to be real tough to compete with DSL, cable and fiber providers in the same markets which is what they will need to do to gain a large enough subscriber base to support the expense of bringing it to the rural areas.
|
| |
|
RE: RECALL ARRL DIRECTORS
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE:
Going to be a little tough to get a petition with enough numbers on it because all those who are opposed to the ARRL license proposal have quit or will quit if what you have stated elsewhere is correct. Even if enough stay members long enough to submit a valid petition, a majority still has to vote for the recall.
If you are serious about changing Directors you'd better renew your memebrship and get all those in your Division who are not members and oppose the proposal to join so they can vote the current Director out.
Afterwards, you need to find someone who supports your views to run for the vacant spot, how about you?
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by KB0FHP on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it is Bush, Kerry or the Thief of Bagdad - the only thing that matters is money. BPL action by Congress will not go our way - for one reason - MONEY.
Hams are too old and cheap to donate money - especially enough money to beat BPL. It can't be done. But on the good side of things, at least they aren't out beating the "no code/know code" horse....
|
| |
|
RE: Action On What Threat?
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just consider the following quote & ask yourself "why isn't the ARRL addressing this threat?" or is that member book fire sale/reward program cashing out their chips?
Game over?
From NTIA Spectrum Management document:
1. Does the bifurcated spectrum management system currently used by the United States present obstacles to the most efficient and benefical use of the spectrum? Should the Federal government consider establishing a centralized organization to perform these functions?
2. What are the benefits and risks of combining the common administrative processing functions performed by the NTIA and the FCC?
Spectrum Allocation Issues
3. Published versions of the United States Table of Frequency Allocations compiled by NTIA [4] and FCC [5] differ in several ways (e.g., different priorities, different document printing schedules, etc.). NTIA seeks comments on the feasibility, benefits, and risks of replacing the existing tables with a single national policy document.
4. The table of allocations divides the spectrum into various categories: government exclusive, non-government exclusive, and shared. Are the current exclusive allocations justified?
---------
These are just 4 of the 35 items that will determine the future of the spectrum policy. NTIA website has it all in HTML, DOC & PDF.
Where is the real threat & why is the ARRL silent?
Not BPL & the ARRL knows it can't "justify" our spectrum, used or unused! NTIA has a BS filter.
Bill
|
| |
|
Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by K8XF on February 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC has shown its ignorance regarding the BPL issue. The current Chairman is a man that consistantly
sides with Big Money/Business. I think the only way to defeat the BPL NPRM is to get all the other US Govt agencies on our side to shoot this foolish item out of the sky. It appears that hundreds of letters from Hams mean nothing to the FCC. The ARRL better try more
offensive tactics. BPL will be the death of Amateur Radio. The FCC only listens to other Govt agencies. When Congress is on our side we will defeat this ogre.
73
and may the
force be with US
Mike, K8XF
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by W6TH on February 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
About the ARRL, see I told you so. You don't listen to a man of wisdom.
I also mentioned to watch your back, but you still did not listen to a man of wisdom and you failed me and let this happen.
Take heed to my posting next time and think about it.
The FCC is not the FCC in my days, so be careful of not getting stabbed in the back again.
Do what is best for ham radio at any cost.
---.:---
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by K1WCC on February 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What is the Amherst Alliance?"
Good question.
If it has anything to do with Amherst, MA, watch it carefully.
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by K1WCC on February 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's who they are:
About the Amherst Alliance
"American Voices for Media Choices"
The Amherst Alliance is a net-based, nationwide citizens’ advocacy group founded in Amherst, Massachusetts in 1998. We advocate media ownership diversity.
Amherst’s Role In Establishing Low Power FM Radio (LPFM)
Don Schellhardt, Co-Founder of the Amherst Alliance and its first National Coordinator, was a Co-Petitioner in a 1997 Petition For Rulemaking which triggered the first FCC deliberations on Low Power Radio. That Petition, with Nickolaus and Judith Leggett as Co-Petitioners, led the FCC to solicit public input in Docket RM-9208. The Amherst Alliance was founded to mobilize and channel public support for Low Power FM and AM Radio. Once the FCC issued its own official proposal for Low Power FM, in Docket 99-25, Amherst was a key “player” in the proceedings.
After the FCC established a Low Power Radio Service in 2000, Amherst helped to defend the new Service against a Congressional counterattack by large, established broadcasters. Amherst lobbied, and testified, against proposed restrictive legislation. Although an anti-LPFM law was enacted, without Hearings or a floor vote in the Senate, during a “lame duck” Session of Congress, Amherst won a partial victory when the House voted to allow LPFM stations in most rural areas and small to mid-sized cities.
Other Amherst Alliance Initiatives
The Amherst agenda has grown over time. Initiatives since 2000 have included:
Petition For Rulemaking on spectrum allocation (FCC PRM02ET & 95-31)
Petition for comparisons of Digital Radio systems (FCC PRM02MB & 99-325)
Request for Environmental Assessment of IBOC Digital Radio (FCC 99-325)
Petition For Reconsideration of approval of IBOC Digital Radio (FCC 99-325)
The Amherst Alliance has also supported:
Tighter “caps” on media ownership (FCC Docket 02-277 and related Dockets)
Phased replacement of satellite broadcasts with local stations (FCC RM-10609)
Fair Internet royalties for small Webcasters (Copyright Office & Congress)
If you would like to help us in our cause by becoming an Amherst signatory, please click here.
|
| |
|
RE: Action On BPL By Congress?
|
|
|
by W2CO on February 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Of all of the reasons that have been stated about why BPL is a bad idea, the one that I have not heard talked about is the issue of security"
I have talked about this very concern a few times on the BBR webpage. Nobody seems to listen. I suggest watching www.broadbandreports.com regularly for new forums concerning the subject of BPL. We get hams and pro-BPL people bashing it out there, and many of these topics come up. Also I believe that some of the companies involved watch that forum along with others.
Go to the webpage and do a search on "bpl" and you will find a years worth of reading on it and all the prior forums. de W2CO
|
| |
|
RE: RECALL ARRL DIRECTORS
|
|
|
by W1RFI on February 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Afterwards, you need to find someone who supports
> your views to run for the vacant spot, how about
> you?
If memory serves, one of the few requirements to be an ARRL Director is that the candidate have 3 years of continuous ARRL membership. The other is a minimum age (21?) and a requirement that the candidate not have any financial interest in Amateur Radio. I, for example, couldn't run for the office unless I resigned my position at ARRL.
Still, Director Hare.... hmmmm... Would that put the fear of the Devil into Dave Sumner, or what? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
RFID: A lot more than I knew!
The Hijacking of 40-Meter RTTY
Invite Your Congressman or Congresswoman to Field Day!
Texas BPL Pilot Project Shuts Down, League Withdraws Complaint:
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority, Court Filing Says:
Other Regulatory Articles
Bandwidth versus Keying Speed
Fact or Fallacy?
HFA Spotlights ARRL Board Meeting
Kiss 33cm (900 MHz) Goodbye?
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress
|
|
|
