ARRL REBUTS DENIAL OF INTERFERENCE FROM BPL TRIAL

My comments on yours Lee.

"If Cushcraft were on here taking the position you have repeatedly, I'd be announcing that as well.  But, they aren't strongly supporting BPL and aren't to my knowledge purposefully ignoring factual data concerning BPL, as you are each time you are reminded of it."

My personal opinion has nothing to do with my line of work. Only you believe this. IF you have made OTHERS believe this, then given the fact that this is false, you have entered a whole new world which goes far beyond opinion, don't you think?

"No, I won't go to the trouble of supplying references.  I really don't need to.  Read what I said carefully."

Why not? It is fatuous to make an assertion like thios without ANY basis. There is no evidence for ham radio/RFID interference that I am aware of. And I have looked, after your last suggestion.
 
"There have been some articles written about the prospect of UHF and microwave RFID systems potentially interfering with licensed services.  You've already tried to put down our service's 902MHz assignment by berating it as only 'secondary', as if to berate our rights to use the 902MHz band over your unlicensed 'soda pop wands.'"

I did no such thing. I merely pointed out it is a secondary allocation. You are the one who is offended by that...


"As I had conjectured on another BPL thread, equal treatment under our laws is guaranteed (supposedly) by our Constitution.  I won't cite the Amendent, I'll let you find it yourself.  Needless to say, if the FCC looks the other way for BPL interference claims, I would think that they could be obliged to do the same for unlicensed RFID interference complaints.  Elementary logic."

I understand your point. I just think its silly and not representative of any train of thought I have conveyed. That's your silly statement--not mine.


"False statements?  I don't believe that I've made any.  Correct your partial Curriculm Vitae in the experience department if what I've said isn't correct."

SURE! here's some for starters, as corrections to your falsehoods:

1) I didn't berate our 902 MHz allocation;
2) I am not personally ignoring any data;
3) I didn't say, and don't support, the relaxation of Part 15 for RFID, or anything else;
4) My personal opinion is not determined by my line of work.


"Ciao and touche",

Cheers.

"Lee
W6EM"

 

N1IR AND OTHERS. IT sure looks to me like thses guys are getting paid behind our backs to make BPL seem not as bad as it is. It go's on in the drug industry. There is a cure for lunge cancer and others but we dont know about it because the drug companys make $$$$$$$$$$ every year out of selling drugs. The same thing is going on here with the FCC and the BPL matter and maby some of our fellow Hams. AMERICAN HAMS PLEASE BE CAREFUL AND KEEP THE PRESURE ON!!! I HOPE THIS DOSNT HAPPEN IN AUSTRALIA WITH THE ACA

 

I am a no-code tech operator. No BPL really doesn't affect me now. However, from what I've read it doesn't seem that the BPL providers really want to work with the HAM community, we both want what we want, they want a revenue generating service, and we want our freqs. free of interference caused by them. Seems resonable. Yet, if they don't cooperate which they aren't, then the HAM community has to take what ever action we can. I personally can't affford to fight this battle myself and I apperciate EVERYTHING the ARRL (and Jim) is doing. Why? because I'm trying to learn code and would like to be able to use HF after all of the hard work I am putting into getting the right to use it. Not listen to a bunch of interference. There you have my opinion.

KC7CLL
Unaffected by BPL,.... for now.

 

These aren't 'falsehoods' stated by me.  Simply statements which you've just made.


"1) I didn't berate our 902 MHz allocation;"

I didn't bring up the allocation, and our assignment category, you did.  I'll let our audience judge your motives in having referred to it as "only a secondary allocation" from out of nowhere.

"2) I am not personally ignoring any data;"

You have dismissed the legitimacy of data on countless occasions, including what Jim Haynie reiterated for us all once again in this very thread.  For starters, the factual interference data gathered by the League, the NTIA, and numerous amateurs.  If I'm wrong, please show me where and when that you acknowledged and supported the validity of the ARRL's BPL data; its contractor's data; that data gathered by the NTIA; or by numerous amateurs' filed complaints.

"3) I didn't say, and don't support, the relaxation of Part 15 for RFID, or anything else;"

I didn't say that you did support Part 15's relaxation.  Only you can say or better yet, only your actions demonstrate your true position and possibly your true motivation.  I only provided information about your affiliations from what was posted on your company's site and elsewhere.  And, my inference as to the FCC's stance with respect to one unlicensed service as opposed to another is my conjecture as I said.  If you read every one of my posts, you will not find any statement that directly said what your position is or was.  What people conclude from what they read or hear is their choice.  

"4) My personal opinion is  not determined by my line of work."

Your statement, not mine.  Who knows if its true or not.


Strange, IMO, to conclude that they were my 'falsehoods.'

Lee
W6EM

I certainly hope that the ARRL will not hesitate to use each and every means at its disposal to enjoin the FCC to properly perform its responsibilities under law.  Especially, in those alleged instances where enforcement has not occurred and should have.

 

ye

 

Great; now, it  is asserted, I'm "on the take"-- along with the FCC...and don't forget to keep the pressure on!

What a fairy tale! Along with that cure for lung cancer...IT'S -A-C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y!

Blame it on the extraterrestrials~~

My --we hams  must appear foolish to the outside world...

Chip N1IR

 

Anyone who beleives that BPL is a viable new communication source is only fooling themselves. Unfortunatley, the investors want there way and will slowly wear away the ARRL funding. That's how the game is played. Ruin your opponents ability to fight back monetarily and you'll win. Microsoft is a good example. Why the US thinks this is a capable communicate medium is beyond me. How many other countries have already tried and rejected BPL? What possible motive is there for something that cannot compete favorably in a metropolitan environment, cost prohibitive in rural areas and causes interference beyond it's technical capabilites to render harmless of interference, is beyond me.

 

Talk about hitting the nail on the head

 

N1IR There is nothing nice to be said about BPL at all. BPL has got to go and go it will and I will certainly not praise it until they can find a way operating BPL without interference to all radio communications. THERE IS A MASSIVE CASE OF PAYOLA GOING ON HERE.

 

I am glad to see the ARRL fighting against BPL. I am a strong supporter of the ARRL, as a member I feel they do a fine job in promoting amateur radio, and helping us keep our spectrum. Without the ARRL and those who support it, and afraid to think of what might happen.

BPL is bad news.. and I don't see too many hams who like it. , and many non-hams who don't see a reason for it. My dad was telling me about an article he read in a non-ham technogly magazine (I can't remember which one it was) about how BPL testing was not working out.

@ N1IR

I don't understand why you would disagree with what the ARRL is doing? I also don't understand why you think ham radio will be dead in a decade? I mean sure it will be deemed unusable if we were to get widespread BPL. That is what the ARRL and the supporters are trying to keep from happening...

@ Jim/W5JBP

Thanks for all the hard work you do, serving as the president of the ARRL. Helping to promote and protect amateur radio. I have been a member for three years now, and plan on staying a member for the rest of my life (one of these days getting a life membership). Ham radio depends on the ARRL, and I certainly do wish you luck in the fight against BPL.

 

oh my gosh.....what a bunch ill informed people here.

The ARRL is working to represent Amateur Radio. They are our only strong voice at this point as far as protecting our spectrum. If you folks think they are unjustified in their approach with protecting us from BPL, hire your own dam lawyers and go after the FCC and utility industry.

 

Chip what is it ....................?

 

If you are reading this thread, notice that Chip's arguments are always subtly ad-hominen, in that, if you disagree with him you are a) not as educated. b) attacking a superior intellect (this is a joke!) c) emotional. d) naive.

Don't bother arguing with these and other transparent tactics of non-logic. It is an epistemological nightmare.

Remember, even if you have all of the facts, you are an uneducated, naive, emotional idiot that doesn't know your place! So STFU!

 

I just have to get this off my chest: I've been S-O NAUGHTY!

Back in April (April 1) the extraterrestrials from Oreo entered my bedroom. They said I had two option: the posterior probe (you know, that area of the body that the President of the ARRL compares my opinion with)--or get rich beyond avarice with Monopoly money. Being rather partial to bills printed on yellow paper, I succumbed to their second option: My wallpaper is ALL yellow monopoly money! Now, all I need to do when I get cash drained, is peel it of the wall and live the life of Riley!

All I had to do to keep up my end of the bargain was to
get on here and present an educated point of view. The Oreons (NOT Orion--they get R-E-A-L-L-Y offended if you mispell it) monitor the proceedings with their WiFi link attached to a 500 foot dish. They are happy. You can tell, because when they smile, their heads split in two.

Now, just imagine the deal they made to hide the cure for lung cancer--not to MENTION the F-C-C !  NOW you know how they got that fancy shmancy building down in DC! Its built out of MONOPOLY money! And they have ALL the Community Chest cards ALSO!

NOT!


73,
Chip N1IR

 

The ARRL does not represent the US radio amateurs. It represents a small fraction of that population, and within that, the ARRL has not demonstrated that a majority of its membership supports its present approach.

Issues of legitimate harmful interference are headaches for those who produce it, and certainly not the entire license base US hams. Posturing as: 'us versus them'; 'with us or against us', will throw the spotlight back onto the amateur radio service to see what is the MINIMAL use of spectrum needed to undertake its mission.

Our allocations are NOT a "natural resource"; they are a privilege extended, that can be taken away.

A fantastic opportunity to build bridges existed for a short while, but this has now disappeared, IMO.

73,
Chip N1IR