Michael Powell was appointed by Bill Clinton. Please read his bio at the FCC
web site.
Joe Crawford W4AAB
----- Original Message -----
From: <towertalk-request@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:33 PM
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 22, Issue 51
> Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
> towertalk@contesting.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> towertalk-request@contesting.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> towertalk-owner@contesting.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: BPL (Joe - WD?M)
> 2. Re: Tower Talk BPL (Robert Shohet)
> 3. correction (daniel hearn)
> 4. Re: Re: BPL (nj9k)
> 5. Re: BPL (Joe - WD?M)
> 6. Re: Re: BPL (Larry Phipps)
> 7. Re: BPL (Michael Urich)
> 8. Re: Re: Tower Talk BPL (Jerry Keller)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:23:37 -0600
> From: Joe - WD?M <WD0M@centurytel.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] BPL
> To: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>, <kd4e@verizon.net>,
> <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041014182237.01d5f7b0@mail.so.centurytel.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> I'm with you, Doc. Amazing how people drag politics into something like
> this without looking at all sides.
>
> Joe
> Colonel, USAF (Ret)
> WDØM
>
> At 05:39 PM 10/14/2004, Robert Shohet wrote:
> >Hey Doc,
> >
> >It is really APPALLING that you can take an issue like this, that
> >affects ALL of us, and use it as an flimsy excuse to slam Democrats!
> >
> >The last time that I checked, it was Michael Powell, a REPUBLICAN,
> >that was practically jumping up and down and frothing at the mouth
> >about how excited he was about BPL. And let's not forget that other
> >famous REPUBLICAN, G.W.Bush, who APPOINTED him and also
> >cheered on BPL as though it were the 2nd coming!
> >
> >Strangely absent from your slam was ALL mention of Commission
REPUBLICAN'S,.
> >the FCC CHAIRMAN, and the PRESIDENT. I guess that they had NOTHING
> >to do with this fiasco, right?
> >
> >Since you have intentionally decided to politicize this issue, please
> >enlighten us as to why the FCC Republicans and the President got into bed
> >with the
> >BPL lobby and then systematically postured to change the regulations so
as
> >to remove
> >any interference safeguards that BPL would have to meet under Part 15?
> >
> >Bob KQ2M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >From: "doc" <kd4e@verizon.net>
> >To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:48 PM
> >Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] BPL
> >
> >
> > > Gene Smar wrote:
> > > > Tom et al:
> > > >
> > > > Rat cheer: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/14/1/?nc=1 .
> > >
> > >
> > > The FCC Democrats are posturing like Kerry, big words but zero
> > > action -- they could have made a big noise and have demanded
> > > real protections *prior* to approval but are trying to benefit
> > > from the appearance of caring about Hams as they gave the
> > > industry what it wanted.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> >Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
> >any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >TowerTalk mailing list
> >TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:24:55 -0400
> From: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: Tower Talk BPL
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <002b01c4b24d$66339920$ab00a8c0@dchm7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> People who teach critical thinking and "logic" skills teach
> others to be OBJECTIVE and balanced in their UNBIASED
> assessment of the facts. In this instance you did neither.
>
> > Obvious to one who teaches critical thinking and logic skills.
>
> The only thing that was "Obvious" was the hypocrisy of bashing
> people whose ideological beliefs you don't like while staying silent
about
> the beliefs of partyniks that you do like, who in this case are the
> cheerleaders and perpetrators of this disaster that affects our
> national security!
>
> If you had bashed BOTH sides, then you would have gotten no
> argument from me.
>
> > If we are to defend the hobby we need to watch out for those
> > who will lead us down the primrose path of pretending to be
> > our friends and who then betray us.
>
> That's fine. And that includes members of BOTH parties. And then
> let's be upfront about the real danger that this administration and party,
> BOTH Republican, pose to all of us that are not "Big Bidness".
>
> BPL is only ONE of many, large business interests that this Administration
> panders to "in the name of the people", including, but not limited to
> Big Pharma, Big Oil, Steel, Big Farmers, NASCAR, the PGA, and many others.
> Try to remember that when you vote on November 2.
>
> > We are in better stead to deal with those who directly and
> > honestly disagree.
>
> Yes, we certainly agree on that.
>
> > It is not partisanship, it is wisdom. IMHO, YMMV :-) doc
>
> It IS partisanship when you mention only one side, and you DO NOT
> mention the side that created the problem and caused the damage!
>
> Bob KQ2M
>
>
>
> > Robert Shohet wrote:
> > > It is really APPALLING that you can take an issue like this, that
> > > affects ALL of us, and use it as an flimsy excuse to slam Democrats!
> > >
> > >>The FCC Democrats are posturing like Kerry, big words but zero
> > >>action -- they could have made a big noise and have demanded
> > >>real protections *prior* to approval but are trying to benefit
> > >>from the appearance of caring about Hams as they gave the
> > >>industry what it wanted.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
> > West Central Florida 100% Linux. Suse 9.1
> > Drake, Hallicrafters, Heathkit, TenTec, Yaesu
> > Radio Life: http://www.gospelcom.net/twr/
> > Linux-Incompatible hardware is defective!
> > USA Pres. Election 2004: http://www.rnc.org/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:28:46 -0700
> From: "daniel hearn" <dhearn@ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] correction
> To: "Towertalk@Contesting.Com" <towertalk@contesting.com>, "Amps
> Reflector" <amps@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <GKENJJLNHDAPNEAEJEJCEEGMCIAA.dhearn@ix.netcom.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Sorry that copy and paste did not work for the url. Try this method go to
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/ and look at the bottom of the page for a
> link to the story. 73, Dan, N5AR
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:50:41 -0500
> From: nj9k <nj9k@wi.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Re: BPL
> To: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
> Cc: "Towertalk@Contesting.Com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <416F1EE1.7DE19A04@wi.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> And just maybe we will wind up being labeled as the "NUISANCE" and all the
rules in
> the world are not going to save amateur radio. Follow the "money"!!!
>
> Jim Lux wrote:
>
> > From the FCC press release (the R&O isn't online yet... search for
> > FCC-04-245 tomorrow)
> >
> > The press release says:
> >
> > Sets forth rules imposing new technical requirements on BPL devices,
such
> > as the capability to avoid using any specific frequency and to remotely
> > adjust or shut down any unit;
> > >>> might be interesting to know the resolution with which this must be
> > done, and what performance level they expect (skirt steepness, for
instance).
> >
> > Establishes "excluded frequency bands" within which BPL must avoid
> > operating entirely to protect aeronautical and aircraft receivers
> > communications; and establishes "exclusion zones" in locations close to
> > sensitive operations, such as coast guard or radio astronomy stations,
> > within which BPL must avoid operating on certain frequencies;
> >
> > >>> Looks like they paid attention to ARINC..
> >
> > Establishes consultation requirements with public safety agencies,
federal
> > government sensitive stations, and aeronautical stations.
> >
> > >>> Don't see amateurs here... responding to NTIAs original filing, and
> > the FEMA, etc. concerns.
> >
> > Establishes a publicly available Access BPL notification database to
> > facilitate an organized approach to identification and resolution of
> > harmful interference.
> >
> > >>> Be interesting to see how this actually plays out. The devil is in
> > the details with this kind of thing. Is it at the "Company XYZ has
> > installed Access BPL in Los Angeles County" or is it "P/N xyz S/N abc
> > installed at Lat/Lon". There may be a lot of finagling on
implementation
> > here (Homeland security concerns, proprietary rights concerns, update
> > frequency for the database, etc.)
> >
> > Changes the equipment authorization for Access BPL systems from
> > verification to certification; and
> >
> > >>> this is quite significant... and not good.. verification means they
> > have to test for compliance. certification means they can just sign a
piece
> > of paper saying, in effect, "designed to meet"
> >
> > Improves measurement procedures for all equipment that use RF energy to
> > communicate over power lines.
> > >> who knows.. could be good bad or indifferent.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:54:10 -0600
> From: Joe - WD?M <WD0M@centurytel.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] BPL
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041014184958.01cef008@mail.so.centurytel.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> Apparently there is the possibility that no one could actually "see" my
> tongue planted firmly in cheek.....I was hoping that I would be seen as
> being facetious.....to ensure that is the case, I choose to say that I too
> find it appalling that some will selectively choose to slam one side of
the
> FCC to suit their purpose.
>
> Joe
> Colonel, USAF (Ret)
> WDØM
>
>
> At 06:44 PM 10/14/2004, I wrote:
>
> > >I'm with you, Doc. Amazing how people drag politics into something
like
> > >this without looking at all sides.
> > >
> > >Joe
> > >Colonel, USAF (Ret)
> > >WDØM
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:53:13 -0400
> From: Larry Phipps <larry@telepostinc.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Re: BPL
> To: nj9k <nj9k@wi.rr.com>
> Cc: "Towertalk@Contesting.Com" <towertalk@contesting.com>, Jim Lux
> <jimlux@earthlink.net>
> Message-ID: <416F1F79.5000207@telepostinc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Just as was the case in selling valuable spectrum to the cellular crowd,
> the government (all parties, all agencies) find it hard to pass up the
> opportunity to raise money by selling something of value to deep
> pocketed businesses.
> Gives them more money to spend on their pork barrel projects. You can
> always find pseudo-science to bolster a political agenda.
>
> Larry N8LP
>
>
> nj9k wrote:
>
> >And just maybe we will wind up being labeled as the "NUISANCE" and all
the rules in
> >the world are not going to save amateur radio. Follow the "money"!!!
> >
> >Jim Lux wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> From the FCC press release (the R&O isn't online yet... search for
> >>FCC-04-245 tomorrow)
> >>
> >>The press release says:
> >>
> >>Sets forth rules imposing new technical requirements on BPL devices,
such
> >>as the capability to avoid using any specific frequency and to remotely
> >>adjust or shut down any unit;
> >> >>> might be interesting to know the resolution with which this must be
> >>done, and what performance level they expect (skirt steepness, for
instance).
> >>
> >>Establishes "excluded frequency bands" within which BPL must avoid
> >>operating entirely to protect aeronautical and aircraft receivers
> >>communications; and establishes "exclusion zones" in locations close to
> >>sensitive operations, such as coast guard or radio astronomy stations,
> >>within which BPL must avoid operating on certain frequencies;
> >>
> >> >>> Looks like they paid attention to ARINC..
> >>
> >>Establishes consultation requirements with public safety agencies,
federal
> >>government sensitive stations, and aeronautical stations.
> >>
> >> >>> Don't see amateurs here... responding to NTIAs original filing, and
> >>the FEMA, etc. concerns.
> >>
> >>Establishes a publicly available Access BPL notification database to
> >>facilitate an organized approach to identification and resolution of
> >>harmful interference.
> >>
> >> >>> Be interesting to see how this actually plays out. The devil is in
> >>the details with this kind of thing. Is it at the "Company XYZ has
> >>installed Access BPL in Los Angeles County" or is it "P/N xyz S/N abc
> >>installed at Lat/Lon". There may be a lot of finagling on
implementation
> >>here (Homeland security concerns, proprietary rights concerns, update
> >>frequency for the database, etc.)
> >>
> >>Changes the equipment authorization for Access BPL systems from
> >>verification to certification; and
> >>
> >> >>> this is quite significant... and not good.. verification means they
> >>have to test for compliance. certification means they can just sign a
piece
> >>of paper saying, in effect, "designed to meet"
> >>
> >>Improves measurement procedures for all equipment that use RF energy to
> >>communicate over power lines.
> >> >> who knows.. could be good bad or indifferent.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>TowerTalk mailing list
> >>TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >TowerTalk mailing list
> >TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:30:42 -0500
> From: Michael Urich <ka5cvh@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] BPL
> To: Tower <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <15b2c6c704101418303464dafa@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:04:06 -0700, Alan C. Zack <k7acz@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > education and wants to push its installation and use. Why do they
> > need BPL? If they have a phone line they can use dial-up or DSL. But
> > the point is he wants to push BPL.
>
> Mike wrote
>
> There is a discussion group for BPL & Ham Radio
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPLandHamRadio/
>
> --
> Mike Urich, KA5CVH
> http://www.ka5cvh.com/democ.htm
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:33:05 -0400
> From: "Jerry Keller" <k3bz@arrl.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Re: Tower Talk BPL
> To: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <013001c4b256$eb455e60$6400a8c0@homebrew1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Of course we should all try to be balanced, unbiased, logical and
objective in our comments, but
> achieving such lofty goals evades even the best of us at times.
>
> I wonder why more of us aren't being more patient, maintaining faith in
the laws of physics which
> must eventually triumph over the BPL proponents, be they motivated by
political or financial gain...
> or both.
>
> Isn't it pretty clear by now that BPL simply will not work? I've been
hearing and reading that it
> isn't practicable or cost-effective. That it won't be sufficiently
profitable soon enough. That it
> will be too costly to implement because there are too many technically
unworkable aspects to it, and
> too many problems to solve, and not enough time to solve them. That it
will interfere with, or be
> interfered with by, too many other services and/or products. That it has
already failed and been
> cast aside in some other countries that deployed it, and even in a few
places where it was being
> tested in this country it has been dropped. That there are other competing
technologies with greater
> profit potential and nowhere near the downside of BPL, that are quickly
catching up. Or at least
> that's what I've been hearing from all sorts of really smart people, like
many of you here on TT, at
> the ARRL, etc.
>
> All this has been reported, and all of it together seems to say.... calm
down, be patient, get the
> information out to those who will listen and don't worry about the
rest.... the laws of physics are
> on our side and they are truly non-partisan. So what are we worried
about?
>
> 73, Jerry K3BZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Shohet" <kq2m@earthlink.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:24 PM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: Tower Talk BPL
>
>
> > People who teach critical thinking and "logic" skills teach
> > others to be OBJECTIVE and balanced in their UNBIASED
> > assessment of the facts. In this instance you did neither.
> >
> >> Obvious to one who teaches critical thinking and logic skills.
> >
> > The only thing that was "Obvious" was the hypocrisy of bashing
> > people whose ideological beliefs you don't like while staying silent
about
> > the beliefs of partyniks that you do like, who in this case are the
> > cheerleaders and perpetrators of this disaster that affects our
> > national security!
> >
> > If you had bashed BOTH sides, then you would have gotten no
> > argument from me.
> >
> > > If we are to defend the hobby we need to watch out for those
> >> who will lead us down the primrose path of pretending to be
> >> our friends and who then betray us.
> >
> > That's fine. And that includes members of BOTH parties. And then
> > let's be upfront about the real danger that this administration and
party,
> > BOTH Republican, pose to all of us that are not "Big Bidness".
> >
> > BPL is only ONE of many, large business interests that this
Administration
> > panders to "in the name of the people", including, but not limited to
> > Big Pharma, Big Oil, Steel, Big Farmers, NASCAR, the PGA, and many
others.
> > Try to remember that when you vote on November 2.
> >
> >> We are in better stead to deal with those who directly and
> >> honestly disagree.
> >
> > Yes, we certainly agree on that.
> >
> >> It is not partisanship, it is wisdom. IMHO, YMMV :-) doc
> >
> > It IS partisanship when you mention only one side, and you DO NOT
> > mention the side that created the problem and caused the damage!
> >
> > Bob KQ2M
> >
> >
> >
> >> Robert Shohet wrote:
> >> > It is really APPALLING that you can take an issue like this, that
> >> > affects ALL of us, and use it as an flimsy excuse to slam Democrats!
> >> >
> >> >>The FCC Democrats are posturing like Kerry, big words but zero
> >> >>action -- they could have made a big noise and have demanded
> >> >>real protections *prior* to approval but are trying to benefit
> >> >>from the appearance of caring about Hams as they gave the
> >> >>industry what it wanted.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
> >> West Central Florida 100% Linux. Suse 9.1
> >> Drake, Hallicrafters, Heathkit, TenTec, Yaesu
> >> Radio Life: http://www.gospelcom.net/twr/
> >> Linux-Incompatible hardware is defective!
> >> USA Pres. Election 2004: http://www.rnc.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and
> > lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask
for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 22, Issue 51
> *****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|