OPINIONS PAGE
These are my thoughts on things, if you do not like them do not read them!
On BPL:
Folks, BPL is a serious threat to ham radio. We need to take a stand AGAINST this new technology. For those who do not know, BPL is "Broadband over Power Line". This system sounds really nifty on the surface, your power lines will become high speed internet carriers. Every electrical socket in your house will become capable of providing you with high speed internet. If you can not get DSL or a cable modem, you could sign up with FPL for BPL.
Here is the problem with this system. BPL will send a signal along medium voltage power lines from 1.8 - 80 MHz. These power lines are unshielded copper wires, which happen to be the exact same material that antennas are made from! The power lines will end up working as antennas, transmitting on EVERY FREQUENCY from 1.8 - 80 MHz. This is a MAJOR problem. Here are some of the things that will be effected if BPL becomes a reality.
| Service | Frequency |
| 160 meter ham band | 1.8 - 2.0 MHz |
| 75/80 meter ham band | 3.5 - 4.0 MHz |
| 40 meter ham band | 7.0 - 7.3 MHz |
| 30 meter ham band | 10.1 - 10.150 MHz |
| 20 meter ham band | 14.0 - 14.350 MHz |
| 17 meter ham band | 18.068 - 18.168 MHz |
| 15 meter ham band | 21.0 - 21.450 MHz |
| 12 meter ham band | 24.890 - 24.990 MHz |
| 10 meter ham band | 28.0 - 29.7 MHz |
| 6 meter ham band | 50 - 54 MHz |
| CB radio | 26.965 - 27.405 MHz |
| Shortwave Broadcast Radio | Various frequencies from 2.0 - 30 MHz |
| TV channel 2 | 54 - 60 MHz |
| TV channel 3 | 61 - 67 MHz |
| TV channel 4 | 67 - 73 MHz |
| TV channel 5 | 77 - 83 MHz |
| TV channel 6 | 83 - 89 MHz |
| Your Atomic Clock (clocks that set automatically) | 2.5 , 5.0 , 10 , 15 , and 20 MHz |
There are other users of frequencies that BPL will effect such as international air traffic, maritime traffic (ship to shore), and public safety users. Small towns still have police and fire departments that operate on low band VHF (30 - 80 MHz). Since your house wires will also be antennas, you might also have problems receiving AM radio signals. And this is not all! So many agencies and services use frequencies below 80 MHz that it would take up too much space to list on this page.
Obviously, BPL must be stopped. The FCC is pushing this technology, and I have my doubts that they want to stop it. EVERYONE needs to write their Congressional Representatives and Senators. If left up to the FCC, BPL will become a reality. The FCC has already demonstrated that they do not care about the public interest. In this election year, people who can be voted out of a job might care. Left alone, the FCC will sell the spectrum to power companies for a song and dance.
BPL will effect public safety, this means YOU! Our high tech communications system is very impressive, but also quite fragile. A solar flare could wipe out satellites. A hurricane could take down cell phone towers, and cripple police communications. An earthquake could do the same damage (or more) than a hurricane. Ham radio is often the ONLY reliable form of communication after such events take place. Granted, if there is a local disaster BPL could be disabled - but it will still be working outside of the disaster area. Hams in the effected area will not be able to talk to anyone else due to BPL noise on their end!!
There HAS TO BE a better way to provide the masses and rural areas with high speed internet access WITHOUT endangering such a wide chunk of radio spectrum.
On the FCC Decency Regulations:
They are criminal. This whole decency (or lack of it) hoopla is a disgrace. This republican administration is SUPPOSED TO believe in limited government, states rights, and personal responsibility right?? But now the FCC is going to tell us what is and is not offensive. Well I say to them that THEY ARE INDECENT! If I do not like a radio show or a TV show, I simply do not tune in! If nobody tunes into a show, it goes off the air due to poor ratings. If on the other hand people DO watch or listen to a program, it stays on the air. I do not want Michael Powell to tell me what I think is offensive. If this were a democrat administration, the same "moral" republicans would be up in arms because the democrats want to "censor free speech". But when it is a republican administration, they all say "good - we need to protect the family". I was against the PMRC and Tipper Gore trying to arrest people who want to buy "dirty" rap albums, and I am against the FCC and their attempt to remove anything they find to be offensive. At least I am consistent.
If you think that TV and radio is indecent, sell your TV and rip out your radios. Read a book, or build a model airplane instead. If you do not watch or listen, you can not be offended! WOW! What an idea! Make people responsible for what they deem to be offensive! I must be a communist.
And for what it is worth, I missed the super bowl boob. I do not watch football (or any professional sport) because I find it to be boring. Also I do not bet on sports, so I have nothing to gain when someone wins or looses. Men playing with balls is not what I want to watch on TV.
On the new license proposal:
GREAT!! This has been a long time coming as I see it. There are two sides that were foaming at the mouth over the ITU decision, one side wanted to keep Morse Code testing, the other side wanted it to go away. Both sides had their arguments, and really both arguments were weak.
On the pro Morse Code, the argument was that CW testing has always been around, and should continue to to be required for HF. They stated (correctly) that CW is still quite common on HF, and that hams who operate there should at the very least have basic CW skills. They also said that removing CW testing will turn HF into 11 meters (weak argument).
On the anti-code side people said that CW was an outdated mode, and that newer digital modes are better. They also said that people who never want to use CW should not have to learn it (weak argument, I did not want to take accounting classes but I had to).
The fact is that both sides were too deeply rooted in personal feelings and that made them unable to be objective. This is where the new proposal shows its strength. Both sides get some of what they want. The no-code group gets access to HF, and the pro-code side gets to keep the extra sub-band reserved for those who pass a 5 WPM exam. I suspect that a lot of current technicians will not even get on HF, they are happy with VHF and UHF repeaters. But for now this is all moot, if you want to get on HF this year you need to start learning CW. The proposal, if it is adopted by the FCC, will take a long time to happen. Right now the FCC is busy looking for offensive boobs (and they should start by looking in the mirror).