how-to block ads
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| reply to shashinka
Re: Disappointing
said by shashinka  :This is being deployed in Texas, right? The ARRL is not funded to worry about the whole spectrum, this is up to the FCC and those affected. You DO realize that the FCC has been FSCKING up constantly over the past year, right?
You DO realize that the ARRL is viewed as a quasi-honorable organization concerned with wise and correct use of the spectrum, right?
What this tells me is that the ARRL are money whores like pretty much any other organization I've run across in my too many years.
So the ARRL, ONCE concerned with wise spectrum use for ALL frequencies, has now whored itself to a BPL carrier...
Im not impressed.
--
Ooh measuring dicks with a guy over 30 years your junior, and berating me because I haven't served, as if it actually matters? Good boy! -- said by "A true American Hero". Oh, ummm. Yeah, It actually does matter, by the way. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by DaDogs :said by shashinka :This is being deployed in Texas, right? The ARRL is not funded to worry about the whole spectrum, this is up to the FCC and those affected. So the ARRL, ONCE concerned with wise spectrum use for ALL frequencies, has now whored itself to a BPL carrier... I can't recall the ARRL ever being concerned for all frequencies, although maybe remotely shortwave broadcast since many hams are SWLs. Can you cite an example were the ARRL lobbied for non-ham spectrum in some official public way?
Many have said this before, but the one and only issue that ARRL and ham radio has with BPL is with interference to ham radio. If a BPL carrier can honestly fix that problem without smoke and mirrors, and not be continual thorn in our sides, hams have nothing to complain about (much to the dismay of trolls and ham bashers here). The NTIA documented the issues with aeronautical frequencies, and the FCC implemented some protection for them, but if it isn't sufficient, it's the fault of the NTIA and FCC and they'll have to answer for it. Commercial interests that will be affected need to spend their money to protect their interests, not that of ARRL members. Myself and others may argue that BPL on any frequency is a bad scene, but I'm not going to pay to convince an unresponsive, heavily politicized FCC to protect a for-profit business. The ARRL has made bad decisions in the past, but this isn't one of them. | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA | reply to DaDogs
Except for the fact that you make so damn much sense ...
I would take issue with you  .
--
We dogs are NOT impressed with pussy cats. | |
|
