[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] BPL article lacks insight

To: "Gary R." <>, <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] BPL article lacks insight
From: "Michael Tope" <>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 19:17:42 -0800
List-post: <>
Gary, et al:

This author of the ComputerWorld Article needs to get
a copy of the following article that just hit the ARRL

It light of this article and others describing the real world
performance of BPL systems, it kills me when I then read
comments like the following one from from Mr. Birnbaum,
the BPL Industry rep quoted in the ComputerWorld article
(whatever he is smoking, I want some):

>>>> "If it turns out I'm trying to make a device or sell a
device that would cause interference anytime it's
used, it kind of belies logic that I could raise money
to do that," Birnbaum said. <<<<

It doesn't belie logic when you continually lie to your
investors. These hucksters gambled that they could shove
this pile of crap technology into the marketplace and that
the shear momentum and public desire for more broadband
choice would run over and drown out the complaints from
currrent HF spectrum users.

I am sure all of the industry insiders have known from day
one that this technology was totally imcompatible with current
HF spectrum users (you would have to be retarded not to).
I think their calculus has been to lie, lie, lie in hopes that the
demand for their technology would take hold en masse and
get to such a point that the FCC yielding to public pressure
would be forced to tell us "too bad, this is technology is more
important to the public good than your Amateur Radio
Service". Plan B is probably to cut and run with the invester
money just before the bottom falls out. Either way, the
insiders win.


73 de Mike, W4EF.........................

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary R." <>
To: <>

> well let us know if he responds because it's likely he's not a member of
this reflector and won't be able to reply to the group directly.
> Gary
> wrote:
> > The problem with the article is: here we go again . . .
> >
> > The author acts like Hams (a bunch of weird geeks with a strange hobby
> > screw up your TV set and have ugly antennas on their homes and cars) )
are the
> > only ones affected, and, by the way, FEMA is concerned.  I am sending a
copy of
> > this to the author so he can comment, but I suspect he just doesn't know
> > he doesn't know.
> >
> > Take a look at a frequency allocation chart like the one here:
> >
> >
> > We are only a small subset of spectrum users.  Every single hertz is
> > occupied.  How come the author doesn't interview or mention the other
users?  Even the
> > ARRL is a bit guilty of this.  Instead of emphasizing the disaster this
> > for all radio users, they spin the dial in the middle of 20 meters where
> > background conversation could hardly be described as "important" and, to
> > who is not used to hearing SSB, the conversation is unintelligible
> > Why not spin the dial on top of the BBC, or HF ground-to-air, or
> > beacons (who wants to be lost in an airplane?) or maritime mobile, or
police, fire
> > and rescue, or any of the other users of the HF spectrum?
> >
> > If this boils down to hams vs. BPL, we lose big.  All discussion of BPL
> > got to be in a much broader context than ham radio.   I can only assume
> > other services are not howling bloody murder because they do not
understand what
> > is coming.
> >
> > Radio k4ia
> > Craig "Buck"
> > Fredericksburg, Virginia USA


See:  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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>