>>>AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosenberg [mailto:wd3q@starpower.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:49
To: towertalk@contesting.com; rfi@contesting.com
Cc: aa6yq@ambersoft.com
Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing
At the request of the TT administrators, AA6YQ responded directly to my
email. Except where noted, I will not quote all of his
comments.
>>>I think you mean "except where it facilitates my argument, I will not
quote all of his comments"
Dave's email response to me is his to post where and how he
likes and I respect that. My comments are copied to the RFI reflector,
as I strongly believe that this discussion on BPL, what it means and
how one approaches it is a vital and vigorous one that should and must
continue... on the RFI list!
>>>You also posted your comments on the Towertalk reflector. You are
welcome to the last word there; it exposes you well enough.
That we may (and often do) disagree is a good thing. That we respect
each other's opinions and agree to disagree is even better.
>>>I do not respect your opinion, nor have I agreed to disagree.
<snip>
In his original comments, Dave stated that "If we're going to overcome
BPL, it will be with better technology in the marketplace, not by
plying lobbyists, politicians, and regulatory agencies with emotional
arguments that appeal to no one but us", to which I replied that this
" is dead wrong. The reality of this world is that policy is driven by
politics and economics."
>>>You have conveniently omitted your example of "VHS vs. BetaMax" to
substantiate your position. As documented in
http://www.urbanlegends.com/products/beta_vs_vhs.html, "VHS vs. BetaMax"
is an example of a new technology displacing a predecessor by being
significantly better in a user-critical dimension, in this case
"recording time" -- not by a choice driven by lobbyists, politicians, or
regulatory agencies.
I inadvertently kept the words "appeal to no one but us", which left
Dave to understandably assert that I was the naive one. Having said
that, it should be noted that politics is defined as the process by
which one gets their way by plying lobbyists, politicians and
regulatory agencies with emotional arguments: "my <stuff> works, and I
can prove it if you help me!"; "If I can get the <rules added, deleted,
changed, modified> and sell my wares, I'll set up the factory in your
district"; .. and the list of emotional arguments goes on. Watch any
legislative appropriations committee from the federal government
through your town council. While the issue is not likely to be radio
spectrum, it will often relate to 'infrastructure', 'progress' and the
never defined 'leading edge' (is bulldozing un/under/less developed
land to build more roads and parking lots to accommodate a "super
store" that could likely kill off the older, established, but smaller,
specialized shops in town necessarily a good thing for the community at
large?). The proliferation of megastores and megamalls
[WalMarts/KMarts, etc.] has been slowed down, modified, and even
stopped due to emotional arguments by those who are directly impacted
by their potential presence, even when all of the environmental impact
and other unemotional reports may say otherwise. I'm not saying that
this is good or bad, only that politics do play a role in the
determining the ultimate decision.
>>>The thrust of my argument is that the best way to kill BPL is in the
marketplace with an alternative that is technically, logistically, and
economically superior. The thrust of your argument seems to be "hey,
don't forget about us bureaucrats!". I understand the need to deal with
politicians and bureaucrats; like bad weather, they are always around
somewhere. I do not denigrate political argument, I
denigrate*incompetent* political argument - like "we're here to defend
the old ways" or "we need HF to keep our kids interested in technology".
I said that " The other reality is that BPL in some form is here to
stay until/unless the market kills it." Dave replied (and I quote)
"This was the primary point of my message, and yet you label me as
naïve for taking this position."
My comment was not to disagree -- I, too, believe (hope?) that BPL will
not survive in the market place.
>>>>"Hope" is not a strategy.
My point was to suggest that in this
instance, the market will not and cannot exist if the regulatory
environment doesn't allow for it. Which is where we are in the time
line.
>>>If you want to win, you must play the game by looking more than one
move ahead. Even if BPL was currently losing momentum due to regulatory
concerns, we hams should be seeking ways to beat it in the marketplace
with better technology/logistics/economics. The reality is that BPL is
gaining, not losing momentum - as reflected by the recent high-level
political endorsement noted in the subject of this thread.
Dave said (and I quote again) " Of course, I'm being a somewhat more
pro-active, in that I'm inciting the ham radio community to hasten
BPL's death by providing a demonstrably better alternative." and asks
if that is what I find naive.
While I am not in the least suggesting that the amateur radio community
stop being creative and entrepreneurial towards the development of new
technology, I do believe assuming any single approach is the one and
only path to take is extremely naive.
>>>Nowhere in my message did I suggest that the ARRL -- or anyone else
-- should relax their efforts on the regulatory front, though I do
believe this to be futile in the current political and business
environment. To repeat an earlier point, I cautioned against
*incompetent* political argument, not political argument in general.
The amateur radio community has
a rich history of developing new, better, and less expensive
technologies, don't ever forget that in the end, policy makers are
pressured by time (elections and referendums) and money (unbalanced
budgets and ever-changing tax bases), demands from constituents
(residents, workforce and employers/industry). In my experience
working in the regulatory world, the single most asked question by a
regulator when I applied for a license or asked for a policy decision
was "what happens to me if and when I grant you this license or issue a
decree." Never forget that all politics are local... and once elected,
a politician's most important job is to stay in office.
>>>If there is a purpose to the above words, I don't see it.
Dave rightly commented that the issue at hand -- at the present moment
-- is deploying BPL in the United States, not deploying BPL around the
world.
>>>Yes I did -- in response to your citing UN HF networks as being
impacted by BPL. I asked you how many HF networks the UN operates in
this country. The fact is that there is not much mission-critical HF in
this country. Were it otherwise, BPL would have run aground here long
ago.
What he might not understand is that the world, rightly or
wrongly, looks at United States and more often than not follows our
lead. While it is true that we have made what some consider to have
been mistakes that have hurt us since (the Teledesic spectrum
allocation rammed through the WRC in the early 1990's is often
cited), in all too many cases, other countries have followed our lead
in the radiocommunications regulatory world. What happens in the USA
is very often -- and soon thereafter -- reflected elsewhere. I have
been personally involved in licensing and policy situations where a
foreign country that had been opposed to my employer's entering and
operating in their country welcomed us once the US ruled in our favor.
>>>So you argument is "even though BPL's HF spectrum pollution won't
cause serious problems in the US, HF is used more heavily elsewhere in
the world; if the US adopts BPL, the rest of the world will follow suit
and screw itself in the process". The connection you cite may well be
valid, but I can't imagine an American politician or regulatory official
getting past the first half without rolling his or her eyes. Were I on
the other side, the easy counterargument would be "this creates a great
opportunity for companies -- in the US and worldwide -- to replace that
unreliable HF infrastructure with more modern technology". More jobs,
and economic expansion; case closed.
The question has come up as to who are large users of HF in the
USA. The Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Transportation
immediately come to mind. While I believe it can be safely said that
their systems were in a state of decline until September 11, this
appears to no longer be the case. They all are looking for new
technology, recognizing that HF is an asset that is already in place,
costs virtually nothing to operate (no airtime or other fees) and is a
technology they all are familiar with. That these agencies don't speak
up is, from what I am told, cultural and political. Here's our chance
to change things!
>>>I asked for specifics, and again you provide none. "...comes to mind"
is not exactly precise, where I come from. Independent of BPL or
spectrum pollution, none of those agencies should be seriously relying
on HF in this day and age. To the extent they're still using HF as a
primary medium, I suspect they have replacement programs well underway,
and BPL or spectrum pollution have nothing to do with it.
Dave asked (quoting) "What, precisely, is "the reality of our
predicament"? And exactly what has he ARRL achieved in its defense of
"our position"?"
The predicament? A technology (BPL) has been "approved" that threatens
incumbent users (government, maritime, aeronautical, amateur) of the
newly allocated shared spectrum. BPL remains here, the regulations
governing it appear to be broad, the enforcement mechanism untested.
>>>Agreed, though you overstate the size of the impacted non-amateur
user community.
What has the ARRL achieved in defense of "our" position? Using what
limited resources it has (the ARRL does not have the war chest that the
Nextels, Microsofts and other commercial entities have), the ARRL
brought the issue to the above named incumbents, who likely would not
have paid much attention to it (not sexy enough for them), brought the
subject to the international level, slowed down approval in the USA
(this issue has been going on for some time now) and elsewhere. If not
for their efforts, the impact could have been far, far worse.
>>>When a status report begins with an excuse, project management 101
says you know its bad news; you also know you have the wrong person in
charge. The net-net appears to be "the ARRL alerted the non-amateur
incumbant HF users". If these non-amateur incumbants were seriously
dependent on HF, would they have required notification?
As this debate continues, I'll be curious to see the extent of the BPL
and power industry's lobbying efforts, how much money they spend, and
where their money comes from. As I think we all agree, there is the
potential of a lot of money to be made by the power companies, whose
ultimate goal is to take a piece of the broadband delivery pie. To
that end, I wonder where the satellite (EchoStar, DirecTV, etc.) and
wireline broadband delivery companies (the ROCKS) sit on this issue.
>>>I believe the best alternative to BPL to be broadband via cellular
technology. Geostationary satellites require antennas that are too big.
LEOs might have worked, if competently executed; maybe they'll recover,
but the capital and operational requirements are daunting. Cable modems
complement broadband via cellular, from my perspective.
<Snip>
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|