[PVRCNC] Re: [PVRC] Just say NO to BPL

[Jim Jordan K4QPL]

Hi Rich,

Don't know, but making the environmental argument sure makes a difference
when talking BPL with non-tech people. If you talk about the spectrum as
being basically the same as a clear stream except for the  mud stirred up by
the occasional frog, deer, or human (ham!). Then someone puts a paper mill
or chemical plant and discharges a very small amount of brown dye 24 hrs a
day. Even if the paper mill pays for a filter for a town downstream, the
makeup of the river has been changed so that the casual user has to accept
the pollution. Pouring small quantities of BPL into the ambient spectrum at
dozens of locations will produce the same result for rf users.

But based on the administration attitude on oil drilling in Alaska, forestry
practices, global warming and the environment generally, I guess the
government response will continue to be, "So what's the big deal?" I can't
get very optimistic, but we need to keep on trying.

I wonder what's being done to marshal the SWL's and aaargh, CB'ers, who
would also be affected. Do you thing Progress Energy will QSL?

73,

Jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RICHARD BOYD" <ke3q@msn.com>
To: "Jim Jordan K4QPL" <k4qpl@nc.rr.com>; "PVRC" <pvrc@mailman.qth.net>;
"PVRCNC" <pvrcnc@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [PVRC] Just say NO to BPL


I wonder if this "environmental" argument might be sold to the Sierra Club
and the like.  I know it's different, but
they might like it, who knows.

I wonder if we could demand and sue for environmental impact statements
because of this "pollution?"

73 - Rich, KE3Q
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim Jordan K4QPL
  To: PVRC ; PVRCNC
  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:14 PM
  Subject: [PVRC] Just say NO to BPL


  The ARRL web site has good info on this, but I would remind everyone that
it
  doesn't take but a couple minutes to send a comment, and get your family
and
  friends who can easily understand the analogy to other environmental
  pollution to do the same, by clicking on the FCC web site:

   gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/

  Select the Broadband over Power Line (Docket 03-104) option and then try
  pasting this or something like it in your own words:

  " I oppose the proposed rule changes regarding Part 15 relating to
Broadband
  over Power Line devices. The radio spectrum is a national resource and
  should be protected from the pollution which BPL will inevitably cause.
Once
  lost, the present low ambient high frequency RF background can never be
  regained. The burden should not be shifted to a user to locate, report and
  demand locale-specific reductions in interference from the BPL operator.
HF
  signal levels presently allowed under Part 15, and generally transmitted
for
  short periods, are not adequate to protect against BPL emissions which
occur
  on a 24/7 basis. There is no compelling public need to add another
broadband
  system which has such negative side effects for short-wave broadcast
  listeners as well as amateur radio operators and other licensed users of
the
  high frequency spectrum. I oppose all BPL operations, but at the very
least
  the maximum RF emissions by BPL operators should be greatly reduced below
  present Part 15 permissible levels. "

  Thanks. Every little bit helps. When I think of all the QRP DX I have
  worked, I shudder to think how a BPL system miles away from my QTH could
  easily blank these <S1 signals. And once out, there's no way the genie can
  be put back in the bottle.

  73,
  Jim, K4QPL