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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+re\:\s+BPL\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: ka5mgl at conwaycorp.net (KA5MGL); Date: Thu Jun 5 21:49:30 2003; Pardon my naivte here, gang. Am I correct in thinking the power companies (or whoever) would need to clean up their systems before it will reliably *pass* data at BPL speeds? I'm thinking the bad con; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00011.html (7,041 bytes)
2. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: wa3gin at erols.com (David Jordan); Date: Thu Jun 5 22:05:59 2003; If they can't make it work in japan it's not going to work here...however, the companies have a right to try it and the gov. can't do much more than watch them fail at it...no one here in DC thinks t; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00012.html (7,799 bytes)
3. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: n4zr at contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Fri Jun 6 07:50:09 2003; Hopefully, the same NTIA that has forced the ridiculous 60-meter band restrictions for amateurs, because it wants to protect government HF frequencies, and which is not supporting 40-meter band revis; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00017.html (7,796 bytes)
4. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: wa3gin at erols.com (David Jordan); Date: Fri Jun 6 08:55:01 2003; Yes, and when you add National Security to the mix...power outages would mean data outages on the transmission lines. That is unacceptible! This BPL concept doesn't provide copper like availability w; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00018.html (7,725 bytes)
5. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: wa2bpe at infoblvd.net (WA2BPE); Date: Fri Jun 6 21:17:38 2003; As has been said before, these days, the FCC seems to be following the money. If something won't pass the regulations for, e.g., radiation, just rewrite the rules. And as far as it being rejected in; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00024.html (9,439 bytes)
6. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: W4EF at dellroy.com (Michael Tope); Date: Fri Jun 6 22:38:12 2003; I think the FCC wants this BPL thing to fly as it falls into their political paradigm of increased competition and deregulation. What the amateur community needs to do is make them painfully aware of; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00025.html (12,336 bytes)
7. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: w7ti at ispwest.com (Bill Turner); Date: Fri Jun 6 22:51:48 2003; On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:37:50 -0700, "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com> wrote: _________________________________________________________ Pretty scary scenario. On the other hand, it's not likely your ne; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00026.html (7,733 bytes)
8. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: w1rfi at arrl.org (Hare,Ed, W1RFI); Date: Wed Jun 11 17:23:18 2003; Technically, the stuff can work. In the trial areas, people are reporting an improvement over dialup, although how that will play when there are dozens of hundreds of users trying to shove data down; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00035.html (9,924 bytes)
9. [RFI] re: BPL (score: 1): Author: w1rfi at arrl.org (Hare,Ed, W1RFI); Date: Wed Jun 11 17:25:42 2003; I am in the process of testing the trial areas right now. They are coming in right on the money -- systems that operate "at the legal limit" have inteference that exactly matches what theory says sho; /archives//html/RFI/2003-06/msg00036.html (15,680 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]