Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+BPL\s+in\s+Canada\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+BPL\s+in\s+Canada\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:34:21 +0000 (GMT); Was depressed to read this press release in the Toronto Star this evening: http://www.amperion.com/press.asp?pid=94 It appears that the power utility in Sault Ste Marie, PUC Inc, is about to install; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00017.html (6,874 bytes)
2. Re: [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: "Jim Miller" <JimMiller@STL-Online.Net>; Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:21:49 -0600; Shame, guess OUR FCC has no authority in Canada. According to what I have seen as the projected affected area, we will suffer problems created in Canada as well. HF propagation won't stay in Canada.; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00020.html (8,235 bytes)
3. [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: "knesbitt" <knesbitt@nucleus.com>; Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:40:39 -0700; http://www.amperion.com/press.asp?pid=94 Yes its too bad. I have seen little response from our I.C. (equiv. of the FCC) on this matter. Which begs the question, where the hell is RAC in all this? Wh; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00023.html (8,297 bytes)
4. [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:28:02 +0000 (GMT); And his reply. Comments anybody? believe that this type of interference will be an issue with the technology we are using. Amperion equipment is Part 15 compliant. Not all BPL equipment is the same..; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00035.html (7,745 bytes)
5. RE: [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: "Bert Almemo" <balmemo@sympatico.ca>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:48:17 -0800; I'm not so sure he knows what he's talking about, because he doesn't say anything concrete. It sounds like a politician!! He says "explore these technologies and assess the differences"!! What's this; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00038.html (8,743 bytes)
6. RE: [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:32:58 -0800; He can't rely on Part 15 as a guarantor of noninterference; even Part 15 says so: (quote) Section 15.15 General technical requirements. ... (c) Parties responsible for equipment compliance should not; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00039.html (8,387 bytes)
7. RE: [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:39:34 -0800; Bert, Part 15 is the part of the Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations whicch governs unlicensed intentional, unintentional and incidental radio frequecny emitters in the USA. A good way to exp; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00040.html (8,074 bytes)
8. [RFI] BPL in Canada (score: 1): Author: "knesbitt" <knesbitt@nucleus.com>; Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 23:11:55 -0700; I'm wondering if this is the type of research Martin of the PUC is referring to: http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2004/01/20/1/ This is a Amperion trial conducted by Progrss Energy of Raleigh; /archives//html/RFI/2004-02/msg00044.html (7,827 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]