To: | towertalk@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing |
From: | Eric Rosenberg <wd3q@starpower.net> |
Date: | Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:20:57 -0400 |
List-post: | <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
I find Dave's comments on one hand fascinating and the other hand
naive. I'm neither an engineer nor lawyer. Worse, my undergraduate degree (from the mid 1970's) is in film and video production. My successful early career as a film and television production manager in Hollywood, followed by 10 years as a production manager in the public television system and then as head of network operations for C-SPAN has a lot to do with my being a ham radio operator. That I was able to talk with engineers and understand, their concerns, fears, gripes, dislikes and likes is a direct result of my being a ham radio operator. I may not have understood how the innards of the gear worked, but I certainly was able to understand why certain things worked while others didn't. And being "technical", engineers were comfortable and trusted me. After fourteen years in that business, I moved to telecommunications, where I started out working in the disaster/humanitarian community designing HF, VHF and LEO satellite systems that I then installed in the developing world...after writing the user manuals and teaching the users. That led to regulatory work. For the last five years, I've headed the Regulatory Affairs groups at Orbcomm and Iridium Satellite, respectively. I may not have authored the engineering papers we submitted, defended, or conversely, opposed at the FCC, ITU, ETSI and other regulatory bodies, but I did direct and coordinate their efforts. I did write US position papers to those and other regulatory bodies. I say all this because I believe your comment "If we're going to overcome BPL, it will be with better technology in the marketplace, not by plying lobbyists, politicians, and regulatory agencies with emotional arguments that appeal to no one but us" is dead wrong. The reality of this world is that policy is driven by politics and economics. At the consumer level, the "Beta vs VHS" argument proved that long ago. The other reality is that BPL in some form is here to stay until/unless the market kills it. The key in spectrum management is how one protects "legacy" systems -- those that work, are up and running, make money for equipment manufacturers and service providers (i.e., create or sustain industry and jobs), and provide a service to users. Look at the Executive Memorandum on Spectrum Policy Reform from last May and the resulting program on NTIA's website: http://spectrumreform.ntia.doc.gov/ "As defined in this document, the Administration's spectrum policy goals include: i) fostering economic growth; ii) ensuring U.S. national and homeland security; iii) maintaining U.S. global leadership in communications technology and services; and iv) satisfying other vital U.S. needs in areas such as public, safety, scientific research, Federal transportation, infrastructure, and law enforcement." Finally, I do not believe there is a need, political or economic will to replace "legacy" systems -- which would include most, if not all, satellite telephone systems. Believe there is are more HF radio systems in use every day than anything else I've ever encountered. The UN is the single largest user of HF radio, with many, many networks around the world. While hte technology may not be new, it's very mature, inexpensive, a very well known quantity, easy to operate and maintain. Many companies around the world do very well designing and selling HF equipment, not to mention C-band satellite systems, analog VHF and UHF radio systems. You might not see them written up in the popular press, but they are there in big numbers! Funny thing, Friday is my last day at Iridium. On Monday, I join the NTIA group working on the spectrum policy reform project. I'm not a lawyer or engineer, but instead, as Brett would say, a tinkerer. That I have real world experience, have felt the impact of good and bad licensing and spectrum allocation decisions (directly!), can speak comfortably and confidently with engineers, lawyers and politicians, and have them all listen to and respect me is what got me to this policy-making group. Again, ham radio played a tremendous role in my getting to where I am today. Let's face the reality of our predicament and deal with it. The ARRL has it right, has defended their position well (I attended many of the US ITU working groups dealing with this issue), and deserves our financial and political support. Eric W3DQ Washington, DC At 10:55 PM 4/28/2004 -0400, you wrote: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:56:11 -0400 From: "Dave Bernstein" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing To: <towertalk@contesting.com> Message-ID: <02da01c42d95$8a20f810$6501a8c0@natomaradio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" _______________________________________________ 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 |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] Co-ax,, Bill Aycock |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing, Dave Bernstein |
Previous by Thread: | Re: RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing, ve4xt |
Next by Thread: | RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing, Dave Bernstein |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |