After taking a direct hit from the f4 tornado here in Nashville a few years
back I learned a LOT.
I watched as my neighbors put up banners on their homes out of frustration
with the "not like a good neighbor" and "no good hands here" in BIG letters.
These horror stories of insurance ripoffs and indifference from dozens of
companies were featured on many local broadcasts here for a long long time
including a couple of interviews with me.
I had hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to my home including the
ham equipment.
I can sum this up really quickly: Your agent although a nice person and your
friend with great intentions... is employed by "THE COMPANY" and does NOT
represent your best interest, the adjuster, independent or not does NOT work
for your best interests, the insurance company is ONLY interested in getting
out as cheaply as possible...hurry up and sign this release....NOT!
Solution:
To solve the problem, I hired an independent private adjuster firm, familiar
with the industry.(check the yellow pages) They receive a percentage of the
gross BUT nothing up to and including what you were initially offered.
Essentially a win-win for both parties. This is the ONLY way I came out
when sadly, the majority of my neighbors did not. The insurance company
offered me less than 1/4th of the settlement I finally received and had I
not used the private adjuster firm I would have been still rebuilding.
Simply put: using their adjusters, claims personnel and such, is just like
hiring your estranged wife's attorney to represent you in your
divorce....just about suicide..Hi.
Disclaimers: YMMV, not referencing any agent or company, mine worked hard
for me and are still my friends. This is just hopefully a helpful hint to
save some of you a lot of headache and frustration if this unfortunate
situation happens, and to let you know that there is help through this
ordeal. 73, Tommy WD4K
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of
towertalk-request@contesting.com
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:55 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: TowerTalk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6
Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
towertalk@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
towertalk-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
towertalk-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Reminder - Deadline for Comments on Broadband
Over Powerline NOI (Jim Lux)
2. Re: Insurance claim (Jim Lux)
3. Line isolators--one more item (Rob Atkinson, K5UJ)
4. Re: Masting
5. Re: Reminder - Deadline for Comments on Broadband Over
Powerline NOI (Michael Tope)
6. Re: Insurance claim
7. Re: Line isolators--one more item (Chuck Counselman)
8. Re: Ground Rods (Jim Harris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:36:15 -0700
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>, "TowerTalk"
<towertalk@contesting.com>,
<rfi@contesting.com>,
"ham-law related account" <ham-law@altlaw.com>
Cc: Art Goddard <w6xd@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Reminder - Deadline for Comments on Broadband
Over Powerline NOI
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703080050.00ac8a70@mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <004101c34160$d4f2e5a0$0100a8c0@1800XP>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 1
I'd also mention that all too many of those comments seem to be along the
lines of
"BPL will make HF unusable, don't do it"
When the FCC has said that BPL is a done deal, and they're just looking for
advice on regulation/procedure for implementation.
Here's my list of talking points:
1) FCC must weigh the public good of wider variety of access against
degradation in service. Does BPL provide sufficient additional capability,
particularly in a non-trivial rollout (undergrounding of utilities makes
access BPL kind of useless)
2) Part 15 kinds of limits is aimed at single consumer boxes stemming from
EMI/EMC issues in the 70's. Are the style of the regulatory requirement
philosophy of Part 15 appropriate to BPL (particularly the part carried on
MV feeders).
2a) The part 15 philosophy is two pronged: EMI/EMC limits on mfred
equipment is half; the other half is the responsibility of the equipment
operator to mitigate interference.
3) There is a great diversity between the manufacturers, installers,
owners, and users of BPL equipment. Who is responsible for finding and
fixing interference? The ISP using the BPL channel? The company owning the
BPL box? The power company which rents the usage of the wires to the BPL
box owner? etc. There is a mix of regulated and unregulated entities here,
and there are economic incentives to point the finger "somewhere else".
4) This is not a point source of interference, and identifying the source
is difficult:
a) Line source
b) low frequency so DF doesn't work like it does at VHF/UHF
c) The emission is broad band and noise like, not a narrow tone (unlike the
"wireless modem hookup, which was narrow band in the 80m band), making it
difficult to detect (total power radiometers?)
d) large scale deployment makes it worse
5) unforeseen effects
a) skywave propagation (international treaty obligations, etc.)
b) intermodulation (among various BPL signal components) from weathered
equipment, e.g., could produce "out of band" or spurious signals that are
hard to localize
6) Has testing adequately assessed the impact of the aging physical plant
on the viability of BPL as a legitimate competitor (since the FCC's mandate
is to foster competition).
a) Corroded wire, semiconductive insulation reduces effectiveness of wires
as transmission line
b) Does the economic plan address the gradual undergrounding of utilities.
c) Are there more competitive alternatives available (i.e. the replacement
of cables with fiber optic cored cabling, as currently used on HV
transmission lines)
7) Safety aspects
a) You've got to couple across the galvanic barrier of the distribution
transformer.
At 05:44 AM 7/3/2003 -0700, Michael Tope wrote:
>Fellow Reflectorites:
>
>Just a quick reminder that the deadline for filing
>comments in response to the FCC's Notice of
>Inquiry on Broadband over Powerline (BPL) is
>this coming MONDAY JULY 7, 2003. If you haven't
>had a chance to make your voice heard on this
>matter, please try to do so before the deadline.
>The Japanese government said no to BPL largely
>because the Japanese Amateur Radio community
>spoke loudly in opposition to the technology, so
>don't think your voice doesn't count.
>
>If you are not sure what to say, I have posted
>links on my website to a sampling of both short
>and long comments from amateurs that have
>already been filed with the FCC:
>
>www.dellroy.com/bpl.htm
>
>Additionally, a good tutorial on the BPL Notice
>of Inquiry with suggestions for appropriate reply
>comments can be found on the ARRL website
>at the following link:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2003/06/19/2/?nc=1
>
>
>If you haven't read the NOI, you can download
>a copy at the following link:
>
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-100A1.doc
>
>
>You can view all comments filed in response
>to this NOI at the following webpage:
>
>http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
>
>If you type "03-104" in the "Proceeding" field
>and then hit the "Retrieve Document List" button
>at the bottom, you will bring up a list of all of the
>comments filed in response to the BPL NOI.
>
>
>You can electronically file your comments at the
>following link:
>
>http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
>
>Just follow the instructions found on this webpage
>(remember the NOI number is "03-104").
>
>
>Unless you relish having a 24/7 S-9 noise floor,
>please consider taking a little time to comment. This
>technology poses a VERY SERIOUS RFI threat to
>the HF and lower VHF frequency bands!
>
>Thanks and 73,
>
>Mike, W4EF...................
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
>Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
>any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:00:31 -0700
From: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: w7xu <w7xu@iw.net>, Towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Insurance claim
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703094256.00ace478@mail.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <3F044646.C3EE79A6@iw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 2
At 03:05 PM 7/3/2003 +0000, w7xu wrote:
>Assume your antennas and towers were destroyed by a tornado (as mine
>were last week). Would you expect your insurance company to pay only
>for the replacement costs of what you lost, or would you expect them
>to also pay for the towers and antennas to be erected by a commercial
>tower company?
Read the policy... Is it "replacement cost as installed" or "parts and
materials"? Say part of your roof had been blown off. Would the policy
cover the shingles, or the shingles and the labor to replace them.
Now check and see if the equipment is actually considered part of the house
or is it in the category of miscellaneous personal property (i.e. your
sporting goods were stolen from your back yard). A lot might turn on the
definition of words like "fixture" (i.e. permanently installed).
Also, was it "amateur radio equipment, antennae, cabling, and towers" that
were insured (i.e. a bunch of individual items) or "antenna system" (the
integrated whole), and is there backup for the latter position (i.e.
assessed valuation for property tax, construction plans, documented
evidence of the labor required, independent appraisals of value).
I'm drawing from experience with computer systems and the restoration
thereof after things like fires and earthquakes. Many times, a business
will have the personal property (that's what computers are) insured for the
value of the computer (and pay annual property tax on them, as well), but
won't have insurance for "data recovery and restoration". Sometimes, they
carry "business interruption" insurance which specifically covers
incidental and consequential losses.
You're kind of in a sticky situation.. on the one hand, you want to claim
that the system was worth a lot of money (no doubt a lot of value came from
"sweat equity") so that it can be appropriately valued and insured against
loss. On the other hand, you don't want it to draw the attention of the
taxing authorities. It's kind of like building an unpermitted addition to
your house... your property tax doesn't go up, but it's hard to get the
insurance company to pay off when it burns down. There's also kind of a
sticky problem you may be faced with when doing your income tax. You have
an "involuntary conversion" on your hands, and if you try to claim the
loss, you might also wind up with paying tax on the capital gains. (I had
this happen with a totalled car that had been depreciated to zero, but for
which the other driver's liability insurance paid out on the basis of
market value, which was non-zero.)
As I write this, I see the value in having some reasonably official looking
documentation of the entire system drawn up. You can then submit that to
your insurance agent when getting coverage in the first place, and then,
useful if you have to make a claim. In general, insurance companies like
to see lots of paperwork and documentation, particularly if you've spent
time and effort in scrounging things of high replacement value for small
capital outlay. (thought experiment... you are digging in the vegetable
garden and discover a 100 carat flawless diamond... how will the insurance
company handle it if it's stolen.. acquisition cost was very low, value is
very high. )
In any event, you're looking at tens of thousands of dollars, and it is
well worth getting some real professional advice from someone who knows all
the byzantine rules and ramifications peculiar to your situation (i.e. a
local attorney). It may grate to pay a few hundred bucks, but it might be
worth a lot more in the long run. (Insurance companies also treat anyone
who signs their name ABC,Esq., a LOT differently.. both to the good and
bad... so tread lightly.. you don't want your claim paid and your policy
cancelled)
> We're talking about a lot of work (3 rotating towers
>over 130 ft., plus 2 others damaged and 44 antennas destroyed.
>Negotiations with my insurance company are in progress.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Arliss W7XU
>_______________________________________________
>
>See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
>Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
>any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:17:03 +0000
From: "Rob Atkinson, K5UJ" <k5uj@hotmail.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Cc: k5uj@hotmail.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Line isolators--one more item
Message-ID: <Law14-F515o7et3qr3A0007d333@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 3
My July CQ came in the mail yesterday, and in the new product section, it
said MFJ has entered the line isolator market with the model 915, "a 1:1
current balun [sic] ...1.8 - 30 MHz..made up of 50 ferrite core beads placed
onto a 13 inch piece of RG-303 coax...enclosed in schedule 40 PVC ... at
$29.95."
Didn't see anything about power handling capability.
Rob Atkinson
K5UJ
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:33:42 EDT
From: K7LXC@aol.com
To: k1uo@prexar.com, Towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Masting
Message-ID: <104.32000c59.2c35c2f6@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 4
In a message dated 7/3/03 8:33:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, k1uo@prexar.com
writes:
> Anyone know of an East coast supplier of either 1026 DOM or Chrome Moly 2"
> masting?
Champion Radio Products - <A HREF="http://www.championradio.com";>
www.championradio.com</A> - has some some carbon alloy steel tubing that's
in-between
as far as strength goes (1026=65 kpsi,.4130=110 kpsi or more). We have 2"OD,
0.25" wall, and this ASTM A513 steel tubing has a yield strength of 85,000
psi
- good enough for just about anything you can throw at it. Unfortunately
they're not on the website yet but I'll be happy to take any orders on the
phone.
A 20' hot-dipped galvanized one is $250.00 plus shipping.
Cheers,
Steve K7LXC
Champion Radio Products
888-833-3104
------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:35:58 -0700
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>
To: "TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>, <rfi@contesting.com>,
"ham-law related account" <ham-law@altlaw.com>,
"Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Cc: Art Goddard <w6xd@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Reminder - Deadline for Comments on Broadband
Over
Powerline NOI
Message-ID: <001501c34189$91efc240$0100a8c0@1800XP>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030703080050.00ac8a70@mail.earthlink.net>
Precedence: list
Message: 5
Thanks for your very thought provoking comments, Jim.
While I am not sure that I agree that large scale BPL
rollout is a fate accompli, I do agree that it is important
that reply comments address the regulatory challenges
and other possible untintended consequences that will
face the commission if they allow BPL rollout to go
forward. Based on their statements at the end of the
NOI, the commissioners all appear to have a "honeymoon"
attitude toward BPL. We need to make sure they look
at her without all the makeup.
73 de Mike, W4EF.........................................
> I'd also mention that all too many of those comments seem to be along the
> lines of
> "BPL will make HF unusable, don't do it"
>
> When the FCC has said that BPL is a done deal, and they're just looking
for
> advice on regulation/procedure for implementation.
>
> Here's my list of talking points:
> 1) FCC must weigh the public good of wider variety of access against
> degradation in service. Does BPL provide sufficient additional
capability,
> particularly in a non-trivial rollout (undergrounding of utilities makes
> access BPL kind of useless)
> 2) Part 15 kinds of limits is aimed at single consumer boxes stemming from
> EMI/EMC issues in the 70's. Are the style of the regulatory requirement
> philosophy of Part 15 appropriate to BPL (particularly the part carried on
> MV feeders).
> 2a) The part 15 philosophy is two pronged: EMI/EMC limits on mfred
> equipment is half; the other half is the responsibility of the equipment
> operator to mitigate interference.
>
> 3) There is a great diversity between the manufacturers, installers,
> owners, and users of BPL equipment. Who is responsible for finding and
> fixing interference? The ISP using the BPL channel? The company owning the
> BPL box? The power company which rents the usage of the wires to the BPL
> box owner? etc. There is a mix of regulated and unregulated entities
here,
> and there are economic incentives to point the finger "somewhere else".
>
> 4) This is not a point source of interference, and identifying the source
> is difficult:
> a) Line source
> b) low frequency so DF doesn't work like it does at VHF/UHF
> c) The emission is broad band and noise like, not a narrow tone (unlike
the
> "wireless modem hookup, which was narrow band in the 80m band), making it
> difficult to detect (total power radiometers?)
> d) large scale deployment makes it worse
>
> 5) unforeseen effects
> a) skywave propagation (international treaty obligations, etc.)
> b) intermodulation (among various BPL signal components) from weathered
> equipment, e.g., could produce "out of band" or spurious signals that are
> hard to localize
>
> 6) Has testing adequately assessed the impact of the aging physical plant
> on the viability of BPL as a legitimate competitor (since the FCC's
mandate
> is to foster competition).
> a) Corroded wire, semiconductive insulation reduces effectiveness of wires
> as transmission line
> b) Does the economic plan address the gradual undergrounding of utilities.
> c) Are there more competitive alternatives available (i.e. the replacement
> of cables with fiber optic cored cabling, as currently used on HV
> transmission lines)
>
> 7) Safety aspects
> a) You've got to couple across the galvanic barrier of the distribution
> transformer.
>
------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:09:18 EDT
From: K7LXC@aol.com
To: w7xu@iw.net, towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Insurance claim
Message-ID: <15a.20cbd0fb.2c35cb4e@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 6
In a message dated 7/3/03 8:31:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, w7xu@iw.net
writes:
> Assume your antennas and towers were destroyed by a tornado (as mine
> were last week). Would you expect your insurance company to pay only
> for the replacement costs of what you lost, or would you expect them
> to also pay for the towers and antennas to be erected by a commercial
> tower company? We're talking about a lot of work (3 towers over 130
> ft., plus 2 others damaged and 44 antennas destroyed. Negotiations
> with my insurance company are in progress.
First, towers and appurtenances are either covered as an additional
structure or as personal property so your insurance company is typically on
the
hook in any case. Replacement value is something you'll have to check your
policy
for.
Here's what you need to consider: 1) cost of removal by professionals
(could be a dangerous job and require a crane or other equipment); 2)
disposal
costs; 3) purchase of replacement hardware - and I mean EVERYTHING; 4)
assembly
of antennas, cables, etc.; 5) installation of all of the above.
Next, your insurance claims adjuster has never seen a tower claim before
so he/she doesn't have a clue about the assorted costs. They'll be real
happy
to use an estimate from a professional tower company that you provide them.
My
company, TOWER TECH, does this all the time.
Finally, your insurance company wants you to use a professional roofing
company to fix a damaged roof and they expect you to use a professional
tower
company to do the work on your claim. Be sure to use professionals for
anything
even slightly dangerous.
Cheers,
Steve K7LXC
TOWER TECH -
Professional tower services for commercial and amateur
------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:39:20 -0400
From: Chuck Counselman <ccc@space.mit.edu>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Line isolators--one more item
Message-ID: <p04320441bb2a361cd88f@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <Law14-F515o7et3qr3A0007d333@hotmail.com>
References: <Law14-F515o7et3qr3A0007d333@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Message: 7
At 5:17 PM +0000 7/3/03, Rob Atkinson, K5UJ wrote:
>My July CQ came in the mail yesterday, and in the new product
>section, it said MFJ has entered the line isolator market with the
>model 915, "a 1:1 current balun [sic] ...1.8 - 30 MHz..made up of 50
>ferrite core beads placed onto a 13 inch piece of RG-303
>coax...enclosed in schedule 40 PVC ... at $29.95."
>Didn't see anything about power handling capability.
How about _impedance_?!
It can't be much, with a single "turn" through so little ferrite.
For what band(s) are they advertising this product? HF? VHF?
-Chuck, W1HIS
------------------------------
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:58:28 -0600
From: Jim Harris <jimsportal@netscape.net>
To: grf@uneedspeed.net, towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Ground Rods
Message-ID: <3F048AE4.5030907@netscape.net>
In-Reply-To: <3F03A1E2.7050306@uneedspeed.net>
References: <3F03A1E2.7050306@uneedspeed.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message: 8
Hi Jerry:
Recently I was putting in a VHF/UHF antenna and an accompanying ground
rod. My usual method is to just take a sledge hammer and work out for a
while and it is done. However, this time I promply hit a tree root that
was 6-8 inches in diameter. The ground rod (8'x 5/8" copper clad steel)
would not go further nor come out. The day before I had needed to drill
a hole in my basement wall for the coax and had called a local rental
place for a suitable drill and concrete bit. So I called them back and
described what I was doing with the ground rod and they said they had
just the tool. What they had was an electric impact tool with various
size bits. It weighed 21 pounds and had a front and rear handle with a
speed control. The two pieces rented for about $8.50 per hour and about
$25.00 per day including tax.
Remember the ground rod is now stuck in a huge tree root. Between
myself and my son it took us about 15 minutes of actual time to drive
the rod thru the root and about 2" below the surface. Oh, BTW we hit
two more smaller roots or rocks or something while going down. Just
lean a little harder and it goes thru. The bit slightly mushroomed the
head and I had to file it a little to get the clamp over it. (Will put
the clamp on first in the future.)
I found some smaller rental places don't have them but the a larger
location did. Driving time both ways (8 mile round trip) and driving
the rod in was less than an hour. I've previously put in four other
ground rods on the lot and wish I had thought of this before.
Hop the idea helps.
73,
Jim, AB0UK
grf@uneedspeed.net wrote:
>Finally got around to burying my cables to the tow....75'...thank you
>Mr. Landscaping Contractor! Anyway, need to install ground rods at the
>tower before the landscaper finishes up. I live in Lake Havasu City, AZ
>and it's certainly not nice midwest soil. Rocks throughout the soil
>(such as it is). Anyone ever had to drive ground rods into this desert
>soil? Any handy hints? Perhaps I should use some sort of UF'er ground
>instead.
>Tnx for any assistance you can give me.
>Jerry France
>K7LY
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6
***************************************
|