[DX-CHAT] Computing Unplugged Magazine BPL Article
I think any ham who is concerned about the future of our hobby should read this article in Computing Unplugged Magazine on Broadband Over Powerline (BPL). http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/1818001.html . Be sure to click onto home http://www.computingunplugged.com/ to view the other BPL articles. While the series' intent is to present a fair and balanced summation of the controversy, it has to date been somewhat one-sided on the side of BPL and needs more input from ham radio's viewpoint. I have already submitted a lengthy message-article to the editor, received a favorable response from him, and will now have to update, clarify, and document my article for possible future publication. I am certain there are others who are far more technically oriented than I who might also think to submit a well-written letter (email message) to Computing Unplugged Magazine, especially if you have had firsthand experience with BPL interference. -- 73 de Fred Stevens K2FRD, VO2FS http://homepage.mac.com/k2frd/K2FRD.html Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Computing Unplugged Magazine BPL Article
Fred, I got errors on the complete link you showed, but once I went to the home page itself [http://www.computingunplugged.com/], I could see all the articles, including the one you cited. Interesting. Nice op-ed piece from N3OH explaining the other side of things, too. Of course, in the editor's controversy heats up piece, he has to include a few put-downs. Weird antennas, strange call signs, and my favorite, some of them claim broadband over powerline radiates. Now let's think about that one for a moment... we're get knocked for pointing out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes? But no, the editor isn't BIASED or anything. We were prepared to mock the ham radio operators as being so last century. If you can win them over on the facts, humiliate them until they shut up and go away? Grrr. 73, ron w3wn From: Fred Stevens K2FRD [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/08/14 Mon AM 10:06:55 CDT To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: [DX-CHAT] Computing Unplugged Magazine BPL Article I think any ham who is concerned about the future of our hobby should read this article in Computing Unplugged Magazine on Broadband Over Powerline (BPL). http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/1818001.html . Be sure to click onto home http://www.computingunplugged.com/ to view the other BPL articles. While the series' intent is to present a fair and balanced summation of the controversy, it has to date been somewhat one-sided on the side of BPL and needs more input from ham radio's viewpoint. I have already submitted a lengthy message-article to the editor, received a favorable response from him, and will now have to update, clarify, and document my article for possible future publication. I am certain there are others who are far more technically oriented than I who might also think to submit a well-written letter (email message) to Computing Unplugged Magazine, especially if you have had firsthand experience with BPL interference. -- 73 de Fred Stevens K2FRD, VO2FS http://homepage.mac.com/k2frd/K2FRD.html Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Computing Unplugged Magazine BPL Article
The Follow The Money section incensed me and was the basic inspiration for my long email to the Editor. His innuendoes and insinuations were way out of line, so I answered them point by point and took him to task for making such accusations which border on libel. As it turns out, the Editor responded in a very positive manner to my message, requested permission to publish it which I granted with the proviso that he may do so if I clarify, update, and document some of my statements (I needed to confirm that the ARRL does not have any fulltime lobbyists nor office in DC and to track down the League's grassroots program which I have done, among several other things including the fact that BPL CAN be made to be interference-free as evidenced by the Motorola BPL installation at League HQ) and that the ARRL's Annual Report is online showing that it does not receive funds from DSL and cable providers. I have until Wednesday to finish the document, so have dropped a few projects to concentrate on the article. It won't be my best work since I usually spend weeks on articles for publication. However, the Editor is also very active in Boy Scouting (with which I compare the ARRL's non-lobbying efforts and general lack of political influence and controversy). I had presumed Computing Unplugged would be swamped by ham responses to his article and am still hoping that others with more expertise and different perspectives than I will send more technical and debate information. I am also going through recent back issues of QST looking for buzzwords, position papers (there's a good one by Frank Fallon N2FF and the League's grassroots lobbying effort) and additional information along with an emphasis on the politicalization of BPL at the FCC and NTIA levels. Oh, the original link may have unwrapped resulting in a 404 error. Here it is again: http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/1818001.html . Back to work. 73 de Fred K2FRD At 10:50 AM -0500 14/8/06, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: I no longer have any doubt that the editor of this publication is biased. The following paragraph was on the page right after the comment box ... willing to look at, and print, both sides. Fair reporting at its best. And I quote [see Why are we giving BPL all this coverage from http://www.computingunplugged.com/]: Follow the money We're still trying to figure this one out. From all we know of the FCC and their desire to protect the radio spectrum, I have some trouble accepting the claims of the ham operators. It seems to me that it's likely to have been doubtful that the FCC would approve this technology if it was broadcasting as intensely as the hams claim. Whenever there's a dispute this strong, I always look to where the money interests are. We know where the interests of the BPL advocates are. After all, they have chips, equipment, and services to sell. They have a clean, apparent reason for pushing their agenda. I'm not so sure about the ARRL. The ARRL is a membership organization, but it's also a very well-connected political organization as well. How many of the ham radio operators who contacted us experienced problems on their own and how many just read the lobbying documents provided by the ARRL in the organization's magazine? Who's funding the ARRL? Do the cable providers and DSL providers have an interest in this debate? After all, BPL is a direct competitor to cable modems and DSL services. Or is this truly the case of one technology interfering with another? Frankly, if it were just ham radio operators unable to play with their toys, this debate would be a non-issue. Ham radio is really a technology of the 20th Century. It was exciting back then when you couldn't call any country easily except with a ham radio. It was exciting when you couldn't talk to anyone when they were out and about unless they had an operator's license Un freaking believable. Now if I read this correctly, the author is implying... perhaps smearing would be more precise... that the ARRL is against BPL because of hidden funding from DSL and cable providers. And we don't know any better. Keep in mind that the ARRL has said countless times, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the issue wasn't BPL, it was QRM from the early BPL test configurations. And ARRL has been cooperating with one BPL variant (from Motorola if I recall correctly) which has proven to date to NOT cause interference. But I guess it's just easier as to brand the League, and all of us, as the old geezers who won't get out of the way. Don't bother with the little details, you know, like the facts. G. Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
Re: [DX-CHAT] Computing Unplugged Magazine BPL Article
Well, it is early in the day yet. I plan on writing something to the editor; I just don't want to do it right now while my dander is up. Can't very well expect the editor/author to stick to fair and balanced reporting unless I try to do it myself... What's really sad is the implication, on face value, of his libel (and that's what it is, IMHO): The primary, if not sole, reason that the ARRL is opposed to BPL is because they must have been paid off to do so by BPL's commercial competitors. So if we're not for you, we must have been bribed to be against you? Oh, as far as the lobbyist thing goes, I thought the League did have someone in DC to represent our interests. But I don't recall the details, and hesitate to comment further without them. (Hopefully someone more in touch with that than I am can get you more specific and accurate information). By the way, do take note that the author/editor indicates at one point that he was once interested in amateur radio and getting a license. Makes one wonder why he didn't, and whether or not he has some ulterior motive in his little smear there. 73 - From: Fred Stevens K2FRD [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/08/14 Mon PM 02:52:45 CDT To: dx-chat@njdxa.org Subject: Re: [DX-CHAT] Computing Unplugged Magazine BPL Article The Follow The Money section incensed me and was the basic inspiration for my long email to the Editor. His innuendoes and insinuations were way out of line, so I answered them point by point and took him to task for making such accusations which border on libel. As it turns out, the Editor responded in a very positive manner to my message, requested permission to publish it which I granted with the proviso that he may do so if I clarify, update, and document some of my statements (I needed to confirm that the ARRL does not have any fulltime lobbyists nor office in DC and to track down the League's grassroots program which I have done, among several other things including the fact that BPL CAN be made to be interference-free as evidenced by the Motorola BPL installation at League HQ) and that the ARRL's Annual Report is online showing that it does not receive funds from DSL and cable providers. I have until Wednesday to finish the document, so have dropped a few projects to concentrate on the article. It won't be my best work since I usually spend weeks on articles for publication. However, the Editor is also very active in Boy Scouting (with which I compare the ARRL's non-lobbying efforts and general lack of political influence and controversy). I had presumed Computing Unplugged would be swamped by ham responses to his article and am still hoping that others with more expertise and different perspectives than I will send more technical and debate information. I am also going through recent back issues of QST looking for buzzwords, position papers (there's a good one by Frank Fallon N2FF and the League's grassroots lobbying effort) and additional information along with an emphasis on the politicalization of BPL at the FCC and NTIA levels. Oh, the original link may have unwrapped resulting in a 404 error. Here it is again: http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/1818001.html . Back to work. 73 de Fred K2FRD At 10:50 AM -0500 14/8/06, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: I no longer have any doubt that the editor of this publication is biased. The following paragraph was on the page right after the comment box ... willing to look at, and print, both sides. Fair reporting at its best. And I quote [see Why are we giving BPL all this coverage from http://www.computingunplugged.com/]: Follow the money We're still trying to figure this one out. From all we know of the FCC and their desire to protect the radio spectrum, I have some trouble accepting the claims of the ham operators. It seems to me that it's likely to have been doubtful that the FCC would approve this technology if it was broadcasting as intensely as the hams claim. Whenever there's a dispute this strong, I always look to where the money interests are. We know where the interests of the BPL advocates are. After all, they have chips, equipment, and services to sell. They have a clean, apparent reason for pushing their agenda. I'm not so sure about the ARRL. The ARRL is a membership organization, but it's also a very well-connected political organization as well. How many of the ham radio operators who contacted us experienced problems on their own and how many just read the lobbying documents provided by the ARRL in the organization's magazine? Who's funding the ARRL? Do the cable providers and DSL providers have an interest in this debate? After all, BPL is a direct competitor to cable modems and DSL services. Or is this truly the case of one technology interfering with another? Frankly, if it were just ham radio operators unable to play with their toys, this debate would
Re: [DX-CHAT] Computing Unplugged Magazine BPL Article
The the moment, I'm giving the editor the benefit of the doubt and will wait to see how he treats my article, presuming it gets published. I lean toward this attitude since, as I mentioned in my incomplete run-on sentence in my last post that he is active in Boy Scouting as am I, and also an Eagle Scout. Scouting teaches tolerance, so I'm being tolerant, at least for now. (Vietnam taught me the other end of the spectrum which is also still with me.) However, my article was (and still is) quite defensive of ham radio's and the ARRL's non-political, non-partisan (in regards to all but ham radio and especially not to special interest groups), and generally non-controversial essence, while being critical of the editor's presumptive insinuations against ARRL and ham radio operators. I am still incensed, but am trying to get beyond that with a rational coherent message; normally, like you, I wait 24 hours before making a response so that I cool off. My initial message from which I am building a foundation is somewhat lukewarm at the point and I'm still trying to moderate the invective and rhetoric. I also presumed that on this list, of all lists, where members are inclined toward argumentation that many would respond with their own invective, especially on the topic of BPL which WILL adversely affect us all. Of course, many probably are just cooling off themselves. :-D 73 de Fred K2FRD At 3:20 PM -0500 14/8/06, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: Well, it is early in the day yet. I plan on writing something to the editor; I just don't want to do it right now while my dander is up. Can't very well expect the editor/author to stick to fair and balanced reporting unless I try to do it myself... What's really sad is the implication, on face value, of his libel (and that's what it is, IMHO): The primary, if not sole, reason that the ARRL is opposed to BPL is because they must have been paid off to do so by BPL's commercial competitors. So if we're not for you, we must have been bribed to be against you? Oh, as far as the lobbyist thing goes, I thought the League did have someone in DC to represent our interests. But I don't recall the details, and hesitate to comment further without them. (Hopefully someone more in touch with that than I am can get you more specific and accurate information). By the way, do take note that the author/editor indicates at one point that he was once interested in amateur radio and getting a license. Makes one wonder why he didn't, and whether or not he has some ulterior motive in his little smear there. 73 -- 73 de Fred Stevens K2FRD, VO2FS http://homepage.mac.com/k2frd/K2FRD.html Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
