Good work Rob!
We are going to need some passion, effort, and money to defeat this. I'm
peeved enough for two people!
For my part I posted a reply today. I hope it struck the right degree of
implied technical competence and restraint while indicating extreme
displeasure with BPL. It was not and could not be a scientific study. I hope
the FCC will listen to the ARRL. There is strength in numbers. Politicians
understand numbers. (Not the same as understanding math!)
Many thanks to the people who have posted instructions.
One hint for the more computer literate. Compose your reply in "Word" or
"Word Perfect" or other processor. Use the spell checker. Use your spouse
or other for an intelligence checker. ;-)
When you are happy with your composition, copy from the word processor and
paste into the FCC web form.
May we all be lucky on this one!
Pat
wa4tuk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com]On
> Behalf Of Rob Atkinson, K5UJ
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:09 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com; rfi@contesting.com
> Subject: [RFI] Sample letter to club: BPL comment filing--urgent--please
> participate
>
>
> Hi everyone--below is an email I sent to my local radio club yesterday re
> BPL
> Feel free to use it as a template. Note that some of the wording may
> seem odd because it is an employee club.
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is a note to the club's full and associate members to ask you to take
> action during the latest phase of the FCC's inquiry as to the interference
> potential of broadband internet over power line service (BPL). Currently
> the FCC is accepting comments on their electronic comment filing system
> (ECFS) filed in response to previously filed comments to the
> FCC's original
> inquiry. In response to this notice of inquiry (NOI) the BPL
> industry filed
> comments indicating that field trials revealed no reported interference to
> other services. See for example this excerpt from the United Power Line
> Council's filed comments:
>
> <B. Interference
> In this proceeding, the FCC inquires concerning the potential
> for interference from BPL systems under the existing Part 15 emission
> limits,[1] and it inquires whether the existing measurement procedures are
> appropriate.[2] The UPLC is pleased to respond that there has been no
> interference reported in any of the field trials by its members.>
>
> The UPLC's full document is available at:
> http://www.uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/7966/conman/
> 03-104+Com
> ments.doc
>
> This statement is easily refuted. The ARRL sent a representative
> to 4 trial
> towns in which he drove around the streets in a vehicle equipped with a HF
> transceiver, and a mobile HF antenna. The RFI received was horrendous. A
> video of this trip showing the receiver S meter, and audio of the RFI is
> available for viewing at http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg (for high
> speed connections)
> and http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-small.mpg (for dial-up connections).
> Note that the RFI is constant while the operator is spinning the
> tuning knob
> on the transceiver and that the signal strengths likely would
> have been much
> greater with full sized/gain antennas.
>
> At the very least, on your own time please view the streaming video, then
> file a response at the FCC's ECFS, at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ simply
> stating that UPLC's statement is misleading in that "no reported
> interference" does not necessarily mean there was none, and that in the
> trials monitored by the ARRL, the RFI was severe. Cite the video at the
> above URLs as a footnote. Since I'm not sure what the current
> policy is on
> doing this from here, it may be advisable to file from home. If
> you do not
> have an internet connection there, you may file from a public library or
> mail in your comment. Please keep your comments calm and factual by
> avoiding exaggeration or subjective contentiousness with words such as
> "stupid" and "idiotic." Nothing about the process is furthered by caustic
> comments or remarks with no factual basis.
>
> Thanks very much for your time and cooperation. The deadline for reply
> comments is Aug. 20th. BTW, stick with the video to the last trial--it is
> the worst one and a real eye-opener. At this time, the number of filed
> comments represents a tiny fraction of the total number of licensed hams.
> It is extremely important that we fight this every step of the way so that
> we can continue to enjoy our hobby in its present form.
>
> 73,
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
> FARC V.P.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
|