[Oremem/Idamem] BPL - Email the White House

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:18:54 -0700

While I cannot say you should act on this as MARS members, as the various
Chief's are doing so OFFICIALLY, I think we as HAMS do have a stake in
this. In my 'tag-line' I almost always include my ARES/RACES, MARS and
Ham calls, and so on. As Mike Elequently puts it, A show of the technical
reasons behind this versus 'emotional' ones will be much more effective, and
not of least consideration will be volume. The President does not read
emails
himself, staff folks do. They then will write the president a brief on what
kinds of topics, ideas and concerns arrived. If they were to see several
thousand emails a day from a variety of areas and walks of life, they will
surely report that to the President more readily than say a 'single' email
with
a petition claiming to have thousands of electronic signatures.

73 de John Jewkes, W6HNC
ARES/RACES Washington County Oregon
State Director Oregon/Idaho US Army MARS
http://www.oregonarmymars.org
http://netcom.army.mil/mars
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Besemer (KG8L)" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 19:45
Subject: [ForSale-Swap] BPL - Email the White House

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Besemer (KG8L) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 10:43 PM
> To: Kenwood List Server ([email protected]); SOC Mailing List
> ([email protected])
> Subject: BPL - Email the White House
>
>
> As many of you know, President Bush addressed BPL in a speech made on 26
> April.   (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/04/27/1/?nc=1)
>
> Now is the time to email the White House, offer your opinion, and ask for
> Mr. Bush's withdrawal of BPL support.
>
> To email the White House, use the following URL.
>
> https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm
>
> Remember... Be specific, concise, credential yourself, offer technical
> reasons for your position, and offer alternatives.  Also... Be polite...
You
> don't want the Secret Service or the FBI knocking on your door.
>
> Below is a copy of what I sent forward.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> On 26 April 2004, you endorsed the development and deployment of a new
> broadband delivery medium known as Broadband Over Powerline, or BPL.
While
> I understand the need for exploration of new broadband delivery mediums,
the
> concept behind BPL is technically flawed and could represent a tremendous
> danger to the security of our nation in the event of another 9/11 type
> terrorist act.
>
> BPL utilizes our existing power grid to deliver broadband data.  It
> accomplishes this by inducing radio frequency energy onto the powerline.
> This energy is then transmitted by the powerline from point to point.
> Unfortunately, the radio frequency energy induced on these powerlines
> represents a tremendous interference potential to licensed radio services
> such as military, police, public safety, and amateur radio.  It is the
very
> design and concept of BPL that causes potential for interference; that is
to
> say, BPL, by its very nature, must radiate radio frequency energy.
>
> My particular concern is for the amateur radio service.  I am a licensed
> radio amateur, Call Sign KG8L.  I have held the highest class of license
> available, Amateur Extra, for over 25 years and have considerable
experience
> in a variety of amateur radio operations.  Additionally, I am a 23-year
> veteran of the U.S. Air Force with a background in radio communications
and
> radar.
>
> Amateur radio operators have served the public for decades to provide
> communications for public service and disaster relief when all other
methods
> of communications have failed.  I sincerely fear that in the event of
> another major attack upon our country, or in the case of a natural
disaster
> or other event that impedes or disables our day-to-day communications
> mediums (police radio, television, broadcast radio, cell phone, etc.) the
> ability of amateur radio operators to provide critical backup
communications
> would be severely hampered or eliminated by interference caused by the
> deployment of BPL technology.  Current FCC regulations calling for
> mitigation of BPL interference are neither aggressive enough nor fully
> technically deployable to the extent required to eliminate the
interference
> potential.
>
> Other alternatives, such as Broadband Wireless Access, provide reasonable
> alternatives to BPL and present no potential for interference with
licensed
> radio services and therefore no danger to the security of our nation.  I
> urge you to reconsider your support for BPL and ask you to direct the
> exploration of other methods of broadband delivery.
>
> <snip>
>
> 73 to all,
>
> Mike
> KG8L
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ForSale-Swap mailing list
>  FAQ: http://mailman.qth.net/swap/swap.htm
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/forsale-swap
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:[email protected]
>