[RFI] RE: [TowerTalk] BPL: Presidential Backing

Thu Apr 29 11:13:26 EDT 2004

Fellas,

Email is not always the best way to have a discussion of this type.  
E-mail is a very informal tool and leaves (IMHO) too much to be read 
between the lines.  How about an alternative approach.  What about some 
on-the-air forums that the wider amateur community could tune-in and 
listen and learn!

This Saturday at 10AM on 7.255mhz a Tech Talk is being sponsored by the 
East Coast Amateur Radio Service, Inc.  This group has bout 950 paid 
members. We're having a talk given by an expert in emergency 
communications.  His material (power point presentation) for the 
discussion is posted on our web site (www.ecars7255.com). Anyone 
listenting will be able to follow his presentation via the Internet 
while listening to his talk on 7.255mhz.

I'd be happy to arrange a Tech Talk for the subject of BPL or any other 
amateur radio related topic.  It could be a moderated debate, panel 
discussion or a technical presentation, etc.

I've read all the BPL emails till my eyes are blurred (I am a member of 
both reflectors). I think the emails have reached a point of deminishing 
return and the audience is small compared to the thousands that 
could/would listen to an on-the-air discussion. 

Let me know if ECARS can help,
dave
wa3gin
President ECARS, Inc. 2004

Eric Rosenberg wrote:

> At the request of the TT administrators, AA6YQ responded directly to 
> my email.  Except where noted, I will not quote all of his comments.  
> Dave's email response to me is his to post where and how he likes and 
> I respect that. My comments are copied to the RFI reflector, as I 
> strongly believe that this discussion on BPL, what it means and how 
> one approaches it is a vital and vigorous one that should and must 
> continue... on the RFI list!
>
> That we may (and often do) disagree is a good thing.  That we respect 
> each other's opinions and agree to disagree is even better.
>
> That having been said,  I understand Dave's perspective. His career  
> as a "hardware engineer, a software engineer, an entrepreneur, an 
> executive, and a ham" is quite distinguished and very, very 
> successful.  He has given freely to the amateur radio community as 
> author of the excellent -- and free -- DXLab  software suite.
>
> In his original comments, Dave stated that  "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",  to which I replied 
> that this " is dead wrong.  The reality of this world is that policy 
> is driven by politics and economics."
>
> I inadvertently kept the words "appeal to no one but us", which left 
> Dave to understandably assert that I was the naive one.  Having said 
> that, it should be noted that politics is defined as the process by 
> which one gets their way by plying lobbyists, politicians and 
> regulatory agencies with emotional arguments:  "my <stuff> works, and 
> I can prove it if you help me!"; "If I can get the <rules added, 
> deleted, changed, modified> and sell my wares, I'll set up the factory 
> in your district"; .. and the list of emotional arguments goes on.  
> Watch any legislative appropriations committee from the federal 
> government through your town council. While the issue is not likely to 
> be radio spectrum, it will often relate to 'infrastructure', 
> 'progress' and the never defined 'leading edge' (is bulldozing 
> un/under/less developed land to build more roads and parking lots to 
> accommodate a "super store" that could likely kill off the older, 
> established, but smaller, specialized shops in town necessarily a good 
> thing for the community at large?).  The proliferation of  megastores 
> and megamalls [WalMarts/KMarts, etc.] has been slowed down, modified, 
> and even stopped due to emotional arguments by those who are directly 
> impacted by their potential presence, even when all of the 
> environmental impact and other unemotional reports may say otherwise.  
> I'm not saying that this is good or bad, only that politics do play a 
> role in the determining the ultimate decision.
>
> I said that " The other reality is that BPL in some form is here to 
> stay until/unless the market kills it."  Dave replied (and I quote) 
> "This was the primary point of my message, and yet you label me as 
> naïve for taking this position."
>
> My comment was not to disagree -- I, too, believe (hope?) that BPL 
> will not survive in the market place.  My point was to suggest that in 
> this instance, the market will not and cannot exist if the regulatory 
> environment doesn't allow for it.  Which is where we are in the time 
> line.
>
> Dave said (and I quote again) " Of course, I'm being a somewhat more 
> pro-active, in that I'm inciting the ham radio community to hasten 
> BPL's death by providing a demonstrably better alternative." and asks 
> if that is what I find naive.
>
> While I am not in the least suggesting that the amateur radio 
> community stop being creative and entrepreneurial towards the 
> development of new technology, I do believe assuming any single 
> approach is the one and only path to take is extremely naive.  The 
> amateur radio community has a rich history of developing new, better, 
> and less expensive technologies, don't ever forget that in the end, 
> policy makers are pressured by time (elections and referendums) and 
> money (unbalanced budgets and ever-changing tax bases), demands from 
> constituents (residents, workforce and employers/industry).  In my 
> experience working in the regulatory world, the single most asked 
> question by a regulator when I applied for a license or asked for a 
> policy decision was "what happens to me if and when I grant you this 
> license or issue a decree."  Never forget that all politics are 
> local... and once elected, a politician's most important job is to 
> stay in office.
>
> Dave rightly commented that the issue at hand -- at the present moment 
> -- is deploying BPL in the United States, not deploying BPL around the 
> world.  What he might not understand is that the world, rightly or 
> wrongly, looks at United States and more often than not follows our 
> lead.  While it is true that we have made what some consider to have 
> been mistakes that have hurt us since (the Teledesic spectrum 
> allocation rammed through the WRC in the early 1990's is often 
> cited),  in all too many cases, other countries have followed our lead 
> in the radiocommunications regulatory world.  What happens in the USA 
> is very often -- and soon thereafter -- reflected elsewhere.  I have 
> been personally involved in licensing and policy situations where a 
> foreign country that had been opposed to my employer's entering and 
> operating in their country welcomed us once the US ruled in our favor.
>
> The question has come up as to who are large users of HF in the USA.  
> The Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Transportation 
> immediately come to mind. While I believe it can be safely said that 
> their systems were in a state of decline until September 11, this 
> appears to no longer be the case.  They all are looking for new 
> technology, recognizing that HF is an asset that is already in place, 
> costs virtually nothing to operate (no airtime or other fees) and is a 
> technology they all are familiar with.  That these agencies don't 
> speak up is, from what I am told, cultural and political. Here's our 
> chance to change things!
>
> Dave asked (quoting) "What, precisely, is "the reality of our 
> predicament"? And exactly what has  he ARRL achieved in its defense of 
> "our position"?"
>
> The predicament? A technology (BPL) has been "approved" that threatens 
> incumbent users (government, maritime, aeronautical, amateur) of the 
> newly allocated shared spectrum.  BPL remains here, the regulations 
> governing it appear to be broad, the enforcement mechanism untested.
>
> What has the ARRL achieved in defense of "our" position?  Using what 
> limited resources it has (the ARRL does not have the war chest that 
> the Nextels, Microsofts and other commercial entities have), the ARRL 
> brought the issue to the above named incumbents, who likely would not 
> have paid much attention to it (not sexy enough for them), brought the 
> subject to the international level, slowed down approval in the USA 
> (this issue has been going on for some time now) and elsewhere.  If 
> not for their efforts, the impact could have been far, far worse.
>
> As this debate continues, I'll be curious to see the extent of the BPL 
> and power industry's lobbying efforts, how much money they spend, and 
> where their money comes from.  As I think we all agree, there is the 
> potential of a lot of money to be made by the power companies, whose 
> ultimate goal is to take a piece of the broadband delivery pie.  To 
> that end, I wonder where the satellite (EchoStar, DirecTV, etc.) and 
> wireline broadband delivery companies (the ROCKS) sit on this issue.
>
> In conclusion, I respect but disagree with Dave's comments quoted 
> above.  This is not a personal fight.  To each their own, and may we 
> agree to disagree.  Likewise, this is not a competition to see whose 
> approach is the better one.   Our goal, I believe, is to limit the 
> damage the deployment of BPL systems can cause to incumbent, viable, 
> and working (HF) communications systems in the US and ultimately 
> worldwide.
>
> With that, let's respect the request of the TowerTalk administrators 
> and move this to the RFI reflector.
>
> Eric W3DQ
> Washington, DC 
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>

#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################

#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################

#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################

#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################