[CW] Re: CW digest, Vol 4 #245 - 11 msgs

[Dick Carroll]

From: "KK7MG" <KK7MG@hotmail.com>
To: "n3drk" <n3drk@triad.rr.com>, <cw@mailman.qth.net>,
	"elecraft" <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>,
	"Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" <qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Subject: Re: [CW] Fw: [Drake] Contact your Representatives (BPL)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:14:00 -0600

Hi, Group,

In my humble opinion, I think that ARRL's opposition to BPL is a "payback"
for the power companies' victory regarding the denial of an allocation in
the 136 kHz area.  I think that BPL needs to be given a chance. Anyone have
the same opinion?

73,

Bob
KK7MG
Kuna, Idaho
--------------------

Bob you gotta be kidding, or just trolling. Didn't you read this, just one
report of several that are out there?  Real Hams have been checking this out
and it AIN'T pretty. And once installed do you really believe they would ever
remove it all whatever the nasty results?

Dick


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 This is serious, folks.

 I am located 65 MILES from a test area...and 160, 80,

 and 40 were rendered virtually unusable with any

signal below roughly s-5 to s-7 at some times.

Especially for the QRPp'ers...how many stations have

you worked with just a few hundred milliwatts?

You have maybe a few thousandths of a microwatt on the

receiver's antenna...and this broadband hash puts a

few microwatts on the same antenna...what do YOU

think is going to happen?

 Driving through Allentown during PPL's tests, there

were times when my car's AM radio was blotted out!

The power companies want this scheme to happen,

 because it would be effortless revenue for them...

>>


>  
>