This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum), the FCC seems disposed
to encourage it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. The noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.
-------------------
From:
Amateur Radio Station N0JAA <N0JAA@aol.com>
4:00 PM
Subject:
[ARLI] FCC Commissioner's Comments Concerning BPL
To:
bvarc@clarc.org, clarc@clarc.org, ARLI@topica.com
The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.
This is from today's FCC Digest.
Paul, N0JAA
The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.
This is from today's FCC Digest.
Paul, N0JAA
----------------------
Reaching Broadband Nirvana
United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery)
Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I
have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this
important juncture for BPL.
As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I also fundamentally
believe that the FCC can best promote consumer welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these key goals. It will not only bring broadband to
previously unserved communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I
want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and diversified marketplace is
something I would call broadband Nirvana. We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL technology is a major step forward.
While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is: What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking with my Nirvana
metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the path to enlightenment?
I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services. After all, regulatory
parity and a level playing field are intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology platforms are established. Many of our regulations
are premised on the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become
unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services that need room to breathe.
The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further
undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LECs broadband services as if they were the only available offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect that we will eliminate many existing rules and
substantially modify others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market.
Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many competition-related regulations, other types of regulation may well remain necessary. For example, the
FCC must implement public policy goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition. Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals
generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to protect consumers
where market failures are identified. Although, as I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services when the were introduced, it was also right
to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that, while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we
should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few questions if we have time.
******------****** please click on one or more of the links below to send a blank subscribe message.
Amateur Radio Legal Issues List
(A list for discussing legal and legislative issues impacting Amateur Radio from Congress and the FCC)
What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: opcom <eccm@swbell.net>
Organization: echo charlie charlie mike at swbell dot net
Newsgroups: alt.ham-radio.hf,alt.ham-radio.ssb,rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors,alt.ham-radio
.packet,rec.radio.amateur.dx
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:28:54 GMT
Subject: BPL endorsed by FCC, another threat to HF ham radio
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum), the FCC seems disposed
to encourage it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. The noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.
-------------------
From:
Amateur Radio Station N0JAA <N0JAA@aol.com>
4:00 PM
Subject:
[ARLI] FCC Commissioner's Comments Concerning BPL
To:
bvarc@clarc.org, clarc@clarc.org, ARLI@topica.com
The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It
also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.
This is from today's FCC Digest.
Paul, N0JAA
----------------------
Reaching Broadband Nirvana
United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner Kathleen Q.
Abernathy
September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery)
Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very excited about
broadband-over-powerline technology. I
have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this
important juncture for BPL.
As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to facilitate
the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I also fundamentally believe that the FCC can best promote consumer welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these key goals. It will not only bring broadband to previously unserved communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, wireless, and satellite
services. Such a robustly competitive and diversified marketplace is something I would call broadband Nirvana. We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL technology is a major step forward.
While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is: What should the
FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking with my Nirvana
metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the path to enlightenment?
I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that comes along and apply
the same rules that govern incumbent services. After all, regulatory
parity and a level playing field are intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology platforms are established. Many of our regulations are premised on the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services that need
room to breathe.
The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further
undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LECs broadband services as if they were the only available offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect that we will eliminate many existing rules and substantially modify others; the central question is the degree of regulation
that will remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market.
Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many competition-related regulations, other types of regulation may well remain necessary. For example,
the
FCC must implement public policy goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition. Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals
generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent permitted
by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to prevent competitors
from imposing externalities on one another and to protect consumers
where market failures are identified. Although, as I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services when the were introduced, it was also right
to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that, while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we
should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few questions if we have time.
******------****** please click on one or more of the links below to send a blank subscribe message.
Amateur Radio Legal Issues List
(A list for discussing legal and legislative issues impacting Amateur Radio from Congress and the FCC)
What have you done for Amateur Radio today? --^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data over power >lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum),
the FCC seems disposed
to encourage it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. The noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.
-------------------
From:
Amateur Radio Station N0JAA <N0JAA@aol.com>
4:00 PM
Subject:
[ARLI] FCC Commissioner's Comments Concerning BPL
To:
bvarc@clarc.org, clarc@clarc.org, ARLI@topica.com
The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.
This is from today's FCC Digest.
Paul, N0JAA
----------------------
Reaching Broadband Nirvana
United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery)
Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I
have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this
important juncture for BPL.
As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I also fundamentally
believe that the FCC can best promote consumer welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these key goals. It will not only bring broadband to
previously unserved communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I
want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and diversified marketplace is
something I would call broadband Nirvana. We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL technology is a major step forward.
While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is: What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking with my Nirvana
metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the path to enlightenment?
I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services. After all, regulatory
parity and a level playing field are intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology platforms are established. Many of our regulations
are premised on the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become
unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services that need room to breathe.
The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further
undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LECs broadband services as if they were the only available offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect that we will eliminate many existing rules and
substantially modify others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market.
Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many competition-related regulations, other types of regulation may well remain necessary. For example, the
FCC must implement public policy goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition. Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals
generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to protect consumers
where market failures are identified. Although, as I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services when the were introduced, it was also right
to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that, while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we
should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few questions if we have time.
******------****** please click on one or more of the links below to send a blank subscribe message.
Amateur Radio Legal Issues List
(A list for discussing legal and legislative issues impacting Amateur Radio from Congress and the FCC)
What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------
This should not be a problem, You are represented by the Omnipitentthe numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data over power >lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum),
and SELF SERVING, ARRL.. BUT WAIT. They do NOT carry anywhere
near as much clout with the FCC as they used to. OH WELL!!!!! <BFG>
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:28:54 GMT, opcom <eccm@swbell.net> wrote:
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite of
Gee, their goes 20 meters with all those "California Killowatts"
Gee, Their goes 160 meters with all the bootleg AM broadcast
transmitters..
Gee, there goes all those *ssholes with their Multi Killowatt 75 meter
AM phone rigs Splattering 20 Khz either side of center..
Glad they finally stuck it up the Anal HF groups *ass.
Just my opinion..
Bob
| Sysop: | KJ5EKH |
|---|---|
| Location: | Siloam Springs, Ar. |
| Users: | 10 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 77:09:49 |
| Calls: | 32 |
| Files: | 76,049 |
| Messages: | 59,683 |