September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9500] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

No need to explain yourself, Jim. We all have different ways of getting there, but churn this around and what comes out is that it's perfectly all right for us to oppose BPL as a concept. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (CR) Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 5:21 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9499] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL Dave, To be practical (I am every now and then), there is no BPL proposal in front of the Commission that would include shielding power lines. Frankly, if there was I would think we would be willing to support this provided FCC would make it extremely clear they would highly regulate offenders for any leakage that would cause interference. Having said this, it is obvious that power companies at least in general barely even give lip service to preventing and correcting interfering leakage from their lines as it is. Consequently, absent some iron-clad (maybe I should say, shielding-clad) guarantees and tough fines adopted by FCC I'd not even breath of the possibility of offering this solution. Being practical from an economic viewpoint, the power companies I am sure could not afford to shield their lines to insure non-interference. OK, so try and figure me out! Probably better off if you don't. 73 AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040-9660, Tel. 513-459-0142, E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:05 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9498] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL You get no argument from me, Jim. We don't oppose every dumb idea that impacts the spectrum -- only the ones that impact OUR use of the spectrum. The problem with BPL is that its interference potential is inherent in the medium being used. So, there's nothing wrong with our opposing it as a concept. If you don't want to oppose it as a concept we could offer the following: "We support BPL as long as the power lines are shielded." Dave -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (CR) Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9495] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL Jim, Tnx for correcting my misunderstanding. Given the fact the power companies aren't interested in making BPL available to "my relatives in Indiana" I'll pull back on feeling kindly toward this line of thought. However, my basic point nonetheless remains. This is that we are "against BPL" as a concept, but rather we are against it as a matter of practicality - I think. We would not be fighting it if it did not pose the unquestionable threat of crapping all over our territory. Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040-9660 Tel. 513-459-0142 E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9491] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 09/25/2003 2:20:39 PM Central Daylight Time, k8je(a)earthlink.net writes: I agree with Greg, the concept of using electric lines to make the Internet more available in particular to folks in rural areas. Jim, this is a false concept. The BPL boys are playing it up, but in reality the farmer Jones are not going to get it. Let us say you have a farm or house five miles out of town. First off, they say that they will pull fiber to the last mile. Then the signal has to be injected, by pass all the pole pigs and amplified every 200 meters. This is a very large investment and the BPL people are just not going to do it. I was called by one of the BPL people and he admitted that they were just going to "pick the low hanging fruit." So, the idea that every home in America will have BPL broad band is a public relations hype. 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9498] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

You get no argument from me, Jim. We don't oppose every dumb idea that impacts the spectrum -- only the ones that impact OUR use of the spectrum. The problem with BPL is that its interference potential is inherent in the medium being used. So, there's nothing wrong with our opposing it as a concept. If you don't want to oppose it as a concept we could offer the following: "We support BPL as long as the power lines are shielded." Dave -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (CR) Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9495] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL Jim, Tnx for correcting my misunderstanding. Given the fact the power companies aren't interested in making BPL available to "my relatives in Indiana" I'll pull back on feeling kindly toward this line of thought. However, my basic point nonetheless remains. This is that we are "against BPL" as a concept, but rather we are against it as a matter of practicality - I think. We would not be fighting it if it did not pose the unquestionable threat of crapping all over our territory. Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040-9660 Tel. 513-459-0142 E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9491] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 09/25/2003 2:20:39 PM Central Daylight Time, k8je(a)earthlink.net writes: I agree with Greg, the concept of using electric lines to make the Internet more available in particular to folks in rural areas. Jim, this is a false concept. The BPL boys are playing it up, but in reality the farmer Jones are not going to get it. Let us say you have a farm or house five miles out of town. First off, they say that they will pull fiber to the last mile. Then the signal has to be injected, by pass all the pole pigs and amplified every 200 meters. This is a very large investment and the BPL people are just not going to do it. I was called by one of the BPL people and he admitted that they were just going to "pick the low hanging fruit." So, the idea that every home in America will have BPL broad band is a public relations hype. 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9496] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by dick＠pobox.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

25 SEP, 2003 - 1550 CDT I'm quite certain we can document, with the right "PE stamps" on the paperwork that BPL would truly be RF pollution on a national scale. However, the Commissioners are going to ride this horse as far as they can drive it - in spite of "professional" proof that PBL is a badly flawed concept. I believe the only way this dragon can be truly slain is to make it politically unpopular to the point our federal legislators will again override the FCC as it just did in the commercial broadcast service. True, we are not equipped to mount a mass-media campaign aimed at the prospective users of BPL. But we should be able to get consumer groups on the warpath by documenting for them that BPL cannot be the ubiquitous, low cost, high-speed broad band Internet link because its physical limitations reduce signal bandwidth/throughput and make it far more costly, than hyped by its proponents, to serve widely scattered customers. Much of Corporate America is in deservedly disrepute with many of our citizens today. If consumer organizations (Consumers' Union, AARP, etc.) were to really spread the word that BPL is a greatly overstated proposal that cannot provide a competitive Internet communications service, will endanger our national security, and will only enrich a few CEO's, I believe the necessary "critical mass" can be achieved and it will crush this proposal. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9494] The economic argument against BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

I don't have the author's permission to distribute this, so I haven't identified him. This was sent by a member to Jim Haynie and me. Dave >From graduate school buddies, I KNOW that power companies are trying to mine their rights-of-way for growth market opportunities. It's also quite clear that in their search for niche markets, they're over-reaching. Grasping at straws. We know a few other things, too, and I believe they roughly describe the achilles heel of the PI problem: * The cable industry was forced to pull in a fiber optic network, in order to control leakage from their systems and prevent RFI to Air NAV/COM systems, along with amateurs and public safety bands. The industry also saw internet access demanding wideband back-channel capability, which supported this build-out. * Telco's couldn't afford to simply replace their Cu based outside plant (POTS, or plain old telephone service), to support DSL activity. As a result, DSL is constrained to within 3 miles of a central office, or a line concentrator to which they pulled fiber. * Telcos DID pull in massive amounts of long-haul fiber, to support forecast growth, much of which didn't materialize. 80% of the fiber pulled in during the 90's remains dark. Thus, there is massive inventory of fiber, which can come online very cheaply. It's estimated it will take 20 years for demand to catch up with supply. * 80% of the SMSA's had fiber to the curb in 1996. That number is now well above 90, I believe. Haven't had opportunity to verify, but the FCC knows. * Thus, the technically capable telcos and cable operators have both recognized and responded to the market requirement. (which was grossly over-forecast. If in doubt, see Cisco, Lucent, et. al.) * Satellite operators(e.g. Hughes Network Systems Direct Access) have built out residential TV and entertainment distribution without a back- channel. They are presently introducing bidirectional wideband for commercial users, which will compete with the pricing of terrestrial fiber and dedicated satellite links. HNS website has details on this. * From a business perspective, we know that market share and profitability are closely related. Ted Leavitt @ Harvard documented that 30-40 years ago, in a study called PIMS, or Product Information Marketing Survey. The derivative work is what drove GE's strategy decisions over the last 30-40 years. Short form is this: In a stable market, you will find between 3 and 8 players. #1 will have 35% market share or more, and reflect 20% pretax profit. #2 will have 27% share, and have 14% pretax. #3 will have something like 15% share, and only show 8-10% pretax. Everybody else will have miniscule share, and be wondering why they didn't buy CD's. But they hang on until dynamics force them to fold. * Precisely what IS it that the power company can provide, which would destabilize a market already overserved by existing competitors, and thereby provide a new and compelling technology to the consumer? * There is already excess infrastructure. Some of it uses RR rights of way, and perhaps PI r.o.w., as well. * The potential for acceptable ROI can't be demonstrated, in the face of a surplus of national bandwidth inventory. i.e., there can be no demonstrable cost advantage. * They don't control content. That's increasingly held by a smaller and smaller cadre of large firms, which are driven by precisely the same market dynamics as I described, above (and recently supported by the FCC, in their modified ownership rules). To grant the BPL expansion request, therefore, would be to enable a technically marginal player dabbling in a highly questionable business venture, without the slightest hope of success, and with great potential harm to other services. >From a policy perspective, if the FCC doesn't want to appear to close doors on market opportunities...then they should grant a limited field trial, wherein PI can demonstrate that they neither impact other services, and offer something which is not already available in a competitive market. Pick one or two SMSA's, and trial it. However, granting the BPL request will further destabilize the market in which cable and telco's are operating--the robustness of which is at the core of our national economic situation. I would argue that the PI BPL proposal serves no one. Surely not the communications industry. Possibly not the power industry. Definitely not the economy or the sitting administration.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9493] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Well, I have an MBA and am willing to wade a bit deeper into that water than my learned legal colleague. I've done it before. One reason is that I've watched the U.S. delegations to successive WRCs squander our national credibility by railroading new technologies with flawed business plans through the international regulatory process. Teledesic is perhaps the outstanding example. Our ox wasn't gored by that one, so we kept quiet. I still get mileage out of the fact that the Little LEOs business plan called for them to have 55 million customers by the year 2003, but that in the November 1996 QST editorial I said it was a lousy investment. But my favorite example is March 1988 QST: "TV Answer: What Was the Question?" A quote from that editorial: "Once in a while an idea comes along that is so preposterous, and the actions of its proponents so outrageous, that no amount of human charity can put a reasonable face on it -- or on the actions of those who would even take it seriously." Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Imlay, Chris (ARRL Counsel) Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9492] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 9/25/2003 3:20:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, k8je(a)earthlink.net writes: Are we against BPL? Or, are we against the interference it brings with it? Would we fight BPL if it did not cause interference on our frequencies or potential frequencies? I doubt it. Jim W. I think Jim put this very well. We stated in our comments that our concern was not with the commercial viability of BPL, or its value as a competitive service, but with the technical problems that make it simply not feasible. I don't think we are the experts on the commercial viability of BPL and we stand to lose credibility wading into that deep and subjective water, which requires predictive assessments. But then, I didn't major in economics in college, as I should have. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9492] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by W3KD＠aol.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

In a message dated 9/25/2003 3:20:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, k8je(a)earthlink.net writes: > > Are we against BPL? Or, are we against the interference it brings with > it? Would we fight BPL if it did not cause interference on our > frequencies or potential frequencies? I doubt it. > > Jim W. > > I think Jim put this very well. We stated in our comments that our concern was not with the commercial viability of BPL, or its value as a competitive service, but with the technical problems that make it simply not feasible. I don't think we are the experts on the commercial viability of BPL and we stand to lose credibility wading into that deep and subjective water, which requires predictive assessments. But then, I didn't major in economics in college, as I should have. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9491] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by W5JBP＠aol.com 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

In a message dated 09/25/2003 2:20:39 PM Central Daylight Time, k8je(a)earthlink.net writes: > I agree with Greg, the concept of using electric lines to make the > Internet more available in particular to folks in rural areas. Jim, this is a false concept. The BPL boys are playing it up, but in reality the farmer Jones are not going to get it. Let us say you have a farm or house five miles out of town. First off, they say that they will pull fiber to the last mile. Then the signal has to be injected, by pass all the pole pigs and amplified every 200 meters. This is a very large investment and the BPL people are just not going to do it. I was called by one of the BPL people and he admitted that they were just going to "pick the low hanging fruit." So, the idea that every home in America will have BPL broad band is a public relations hype. 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9489] New BPL story at the top of the ARRL Web crawl
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/09/25/100/?nc=1 Dave

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9487] Re: Web Story Earthlink
by Andy Oppel 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Hi, Let me add some weight to Barry's conclusions. I have an arrl.net e-mail address and have for many years. It does not appear on any web pages and I seldom use it. I NEVER get spam on that account. My arrl.org address does appear on a few web pages and I do get some spam on that account, but not a lot. I conducted an experiment. I have a web site that my UC Extension students use. And it's provided by a hosting service that gives me about 30 e-mail accounts in the package. So, I setup a fake email account of paul(a)andyoppel.com (there is no "paul" in my household). Then I added an e-mail link for "Webmaster: paul(a)andyoppel.com" to the web page. I gabe the address to no one and never used to actually send any e-mail. Yet, within hours, that e-mail address started to get spam. After just two days, I took the link off the page. That was 2 months ago, and I STILL get mail for paul(a)andyoppel.com (which my spam filter knows to trash). So, the presence of your e-mail address on a web page makes it a primary target for spam. Will we be able to convince our membership of this? Probably not. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Shelley, Barry, N1VXY writes: > Rod: > > Currently, we have about 62,000 members with arrl.net addresses. And those same people who give out their e-mail addresses probably post them to public web page as well. That's why they get spam to their arrl.net address. I have an arrl.net address as well but have never gotten any spam through it. Of course, you can't find it posted anywhere in public either. > > We are going to have to do something about this but it won't come without additional costs. How much that is and if we want to incur the additional expense remains to be seen. > > As for your question about backlash, I'm not sure. At the moment, as you might suspect, I've been flooded with responses from members who are also Earthlink customers. With the exception of only a handful, all are complaining to Earthlink and using words like "valuable service", etc. when talking about arrl.net. I think those who have it value the ability to have their callsign attached to ARRL in their e-mail address. I think its more of an identity thing than it is a real benefit, but the perception is generally positive. > > Barry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stafford, Rodney (Int'l Vice President) > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:34 AM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9478] Re: Web Story Earthlink > > > As one of those 2,600 Earthlink subscribers (actually, w6rod(a)ix.netcom.com which was purchased by Earthlink) I did a little test yesterday about 13:38. You can see I was really, really busy yesterday! > > I sent one test message to w6rod(a)arrl.net and another test message to w6rod(a)arrl.org. > > The ".org" message arrived within a minute. I still haven't seen the ".net" message sent some 34 hours ago. > > At this point I wonder if we should just toss the whole "@arrl.net" idea. Anyone have a feeling if this would result in a backlash or not? I hear people giving out email addresses on the air and giving their call sign "@arrl.net" so it is being used by our members, apparently a lot of them. However, I have also heard a number of discussions (and participated in some) by different people complaining about all the spam they get through "@arrl.net." > > Personally, I think it is a great idea but it seems to generate about as many bad comments as good ones. > > Well just a thought. 73, Rod > > -------------------------------------------- > > At 10:41 AM 9/24/2003 -0400, you wrote: > > > > The following item will be posted to the ARRL web page today. In addition, I will be sending an e-mail to the 2,600 members who are affected by Earthlink's actions. The most frustrating part of this, with possibly the exception of finding an actual live human being to talk to, is the fact that Earthlink has given at least three different reasons directly to us or one of our members. One of their reasons is an outright lie, one has been resolved and the third is their "too much spam" response. > > 73, > Barry, N1VXY > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Earthlink Still Delaying arrll.net e-mail > > Despite several discussions with representatives of Earthlink and changing stories from them on why they have instituted this action, Earthlink continues to delay messages being forwarded from arrl.net to earthlink.net addresses. As a result of Earthlink s actions, ARRL cannot guarantee that messages forwarded from arrl.net to members e-mail addresses at Earthlink will be delivered. > > At the root of the issue, is Earthlink s contention that the arrl.net domain is a spam source based on their internal standards and analysis. While they understand the concept of a simple mail forwarding system like arrl.net, and admit that the spam is not originating from it, they maintain their position that blocking all messages, including valid e-mail, from this domain is an effective tactic in their efforts to fight spam on the Internet. Earthlink has told ARRL staff that they will continue to delay messages until the amount of spam being sent through this system is reduced to a level they deem acceptable. > > Although we are attempting to contact the appropriate authorities at Earthlink, the situation is currently at an impasse. We understand and appreciate the inconvenience this represents to ARRL members. Other large national ISPs have dealt with this specific issue in a much more reasonable fashion once we were able to contact them and explain the situation. Those ISPs as well as hundreds of other smaller ones are accepting forwarded mail from arrl.net. Earthlink, however, is not. > > If you are one of the members affected by Earthlink s actions and have another e-mail account with a different ISP, you can change your e-mail address where your arrl.net is forwarded. This can be done through the Member Data page on the ARRL Members Only Web site. Changes to this information are delivered automatically twice daily so it may take several hours for the change to take effect. > > You may also want to contact Earthlink individually if you do not agree with their policies and tactics in this situation. E-mail can be sent to abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net < mailto:abuse@abuse.earthlink.net>. > > Again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we will continue to try and resolve the situation with Earthlink. >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9486] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Well, I have to disagree as to its being a good concept, Greg. It's rather like "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9484] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL Dick I beg to differ. The Commissioner's comments sounded good to me. I agree with most all she said. The only problem is a technical one. IF we could get BPL WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, I think it would be great. This all doesn't mean we can win on technical grounds only BUT we should recognize that it is a good concept. I hope someone can come up with a way to move the signals away from us or filter us out. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0