ARRL Shifts Congressional BPL Focus to US Senate:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 19
on
May 12, 2006
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
ARRL Shifts Congressional BPL Focus to US Senate:
With an amendment requiring the FCC to study BPL interference now included
in Section 502 of the House telecom bill, HR 5252, the ARRL is shifting its
focus to the Senate. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee will conduct hearings on its own version of telecom legislation, S
2686, later this month and will begin consideration of the bill in early
June. Between now and then, the ARRL is urging members in the 22 states with
Senators on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to write
seeking support to include similar BPL study language in the Senate bill.
"If we can protect Section 502 when the bill comes to the House floor for
consideration, and if we can get similar language introduced on the Senate
side, we'll be in a good position when and if the two bills go to a
Conference Committee," observes ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner,
K1ZZ.
Proposed by Rep Mike Ross, WD5DVR (D-AR), the amendment to the House bill,
the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of
2006, gained the support of Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), and House
Energy and Commerce Committee voted 42-12 to send the COPE Act, amendment
intact, to the full House for its consideration.
The Ross amendment has received significant opposition from electric
utilities. The United Telecom Council (UTC), a bulwark of BPL support and
administrator of the Interference Resolution Web site, has referred to the
amendment as a threat and is urging its members to contact their members of
Congress regarding its inclusion.
This week the League began getting out the word via e-mail to members in
states with Senators on Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The
letter to members in targeted states asks League members to urge their
Senators on the committee to support language addressing the BPL
interference issue when the Senate bill is marked up in committee on June 8.
The language the League wants to see in the Senate amendment to the telecom
bill would call on the FCC to "conduct, and submit to the House Energy and
Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
a study of the interference potential of broadband over power line systems
leading to improved rules to prevent the deployment of systems having a
potential to cause destructive interference to radio communication systems."
The ARRL plea includes a sample letter
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/files/BPL-Amendment-SenateSampleLetter0506-Rev2.doc, which members are encouraged to personalize as much as
possible. The League wants members to fax their letters to the number
indicated in the e-mail to members plus a copy to ARRL's government
relations firm Chwat & Company, ATTN: Eric Heis, KI4NFC, 625 Slaters Ln --
Suite 103, Alexandria, VA 22314. Fax 703-684-7594.
The sample letter points out the value of Amateur Radio's role in recent
disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. "The reason we need your help is that
the FCC continues to resist growing evidence that its rules are inadequate
to protect radiocommunication systems, including those relied upon by First
Responders, from radio spectrum pollution caused by BPL systems," it says.
"The FCC needs to objectively and carefully review this evidence and adopt
rules that will keep interference from BPL within reasonable bounds."
The sample letter notes that not only has the FCC shown no inclination to do
that, it's so far failed "to enforce its existing rules in specific, well
documented instances of harmful interference."
"Remember that it is not BPL that we oppose, but BPL interference," Sumner
emphasized this week. "Some BPL systems are designed not to cause widespread
interference, but many are not. The problem is that the FCC rules don't
distinguish between the two. This is unfair to licensed radio services that
must deal with the consequences of spectrum pollution."
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 25, No. 19
May 12, 2006
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
ARRL Shifts BPL MIS-Focus to US Senate:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So now arrl wants congress to tell FCC to "double study" BPL. Or is it "triple" study? I've lost count. WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO TO HAVE FCC "DOUBLLE" STUDY BPL? This is just more form over substance.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Shifts BPL MIS-Focus to US Senate:
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So what. In your mind the ARRL can't even hold its spoon right.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Shifts BPL MIS-Focus to US Senate:
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Talk about mis-focus:
Is this not the same Congress (was the Senate) that can't even define "ILLEGAL Alien" for the security of their own country???
The ONLY impartial decision can & will come from a Federal Court. Whenever these jackasses stop screwing around buying lobsters for the mobsters, it MIGHT get past the "study" phase to an actual DECISION...
Yea, I know, "wait until all other means are exhausted" but when does that wait actually end?
|
| |
|
ARRL Shifts Congressional BPL Focus to US Senate:
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on May 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
They can study it all they want. Its still an RFI spewing pile of crap and everyone knows it. The utilities want it strictly for money making purposes and the cronies of big buisness (republicans) back it because they got lobbied big bucks to support it. Bush wants it because all his fellow party members and big buisness lobbyists stand to make billions from it. He could give a rats a$$ less about ham radio operators. As long as theres big money involved in this BPL its not going away anytime soon. The only recourse we have is for it to die of its own technical shortcomings due to better technologies that will be more profitable. After all, its all about the money. The league can bellyache all it wants, but unless they cough up several billion dollars, they dont stand a snowballs chance in haties of stopping BPL...its already here!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Shifts Congressional BPL Focus to US Sena
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, BPL is already here, all 4,900 subscribers of them, according to an FCC-released report:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/04/2/
Interference issues are very much among the reasons that some utilities are NOT proceeding with BPL. Others include financial and technical issues.
I know of three utilities that have told BPL manufacturers to come back after they actually fix the interference issues.
Although it should be patently obvious that the rules governing RF emissions from BPL should be changed to match those BPL systems that have deployed without major interference problems (Current Technologies, IBEC, Motorola), it should also be patently obvious that enforcing the existing rules about harmful interference would also be an important step.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What?
4,900 subscribers for a technology that "won't work"? How can this be? Don't those 4,900 people know that the almighty arrl has determined that BPL "won't work"?
How dumb can they be?
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by N3EVL on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah the old "technology that won't work" chestnut!
Look at it this way -- for a technology that's been hyped and ballyhooed (sp?) to the extent that this one has, for as long as it has, I'd say having only 4,900 subscribers could reasonably be construed as "does not work."
What really does not work is an incessant barrage of ARRL-bashing posts have no relevance to the current state of affairs with respect to BPL and its deployment and can't even be taken as constructive criticism!
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> How dumb can they be?
About as dumb as the guy who is given explanation after explanation and still keeps coming up with the same tired old line. Why do you ask? Do you really not understand that "doesn't work" includes factors like the reliabilty issues that have been cited by some utilities as the reason they are not pursuing BPL. It includes the "credibility" issues that have been cited by other electric utilities that have been involved in BPL. It includes utilties and their spinoffs that have abandoned BPL after beginning commercial deployment, in one case announcing a $10M loss to utility stockholders. And of course, it includes the gross spectral pollution that is a inevitable local byproduct of radiated field strengths at FCC Part-15 levels. Sorry, WHE-II, but to me, that is a pretty good description of something that doesn't work. Do you really think that with all of that evidence, you want to stick to your cut-and-paste reposts of the same old oversimplification?
I think that "dumb" is asking a question that implies that one thinks that having 0.011% of broadband subscribers using BPL proves anything other than after years of trying, BPL does not yet seem to be gaining inroads.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by N7UQA on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's nice to see Ed adding his $.02 on this matter; it's been pointed out too many times that W9WHE simply doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to BPL. Now I would like to recap the reasons I believe BPL will never work.
1.A technology born of fraud and deception. Peddled to clueless and technically inept (politically appointed) FCC commissioners and others who couldn't see they were being sold a bill of goods.
2.A 'technology' that promised bandwidth that is the stuff of science fiction, and certainly fits in the old 'too good to be true' analogy.
3.When presented with the technical facts from the NTIA and others, it was met with, 'there is no problem, your data is flawed, open to interpretation and debate'.
4.A commission that changes, violates or enforces it's own rules when it's 'politically correct' to do so.
5.An administration that tells it's own frequency coordinating body (NTIA) to shut up, accommodate it, and not shine a negative light on BPL.
Media Fusions, William Luke Stewart ( patent # 5,982,276) sold our government a bill of goods. He never intended to deliver this technology and bilked innocent investors out of a lot of money. Now we have an administration desperate to cover their asses, trying to make BPL work. Even though the current throughput is a microscopic fraction of what was promised, and generates enormous amounts of interference.
BPL is a dead end. No matter how many times you try, what location, power level or modulation scheme you use; it's not going to change the fact that you cannot legislate new laws of physics to fit your whims.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is a "flawed technology" that "won't work".
Those are the words of paid arrl employees. You can try all the Clintonian explanations you want (i.e. depends on what the definition of "is" is) but except for the most strident of arrl supporters, we all know what those simple words mean. You are not fooling very many of us.
Why arrl is so "sensitive" about being wrong?
Its not the first time arrl has been DEAD WRONG on an issue. Golly-gee-wiz, you would think that arrl would be accustomed to being WRONG by now.
Its OK, Ed, you can admit it. arrl was wrong. BPL actually works. They got past all the loss, transformer and transmission line "issues" and have made it work. Why not just take this opportunity to admit that arrl was wrong? Is it really so hard? Would it really be so bad?
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by K1OU on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sounds like you're the one who is sensitive about being wrong, little Johnny. Oh, better not call you that, because that's why you got sooooo upset at Jim Haynie awhile ago.
eHam.net 2/7/05:
"RE: ARRL Board of Directors Make Us Angry! Reply
by W9WHE-II on February 7, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
1) BELITTLING COMMENT BY ARRL PRESIDENT:
W5JBP quoted me when I suggested that if you dare to directly criticize ARRL:
"the president of ARRL will make a posting belittling you"
Then W5JBP went on to say:
"I don't think so, but your posts over the years speak for themselves. I do not have to say a thing"
REALLY?
You don't think so? What what was the point of YOUR posting on the other thread when you wrote:
"Johnny, those of us on the board knows what it means. It is obvious you do not".
I guess YOUR reference to "Johnney" was a term of endearment? You were complimenting me? Let's be candid here. You were belittling me because you don't like my opinions. You were looking down your ARRL nose at me, an ordinary ham. To be honest, its a small thing (I just consider the sorse), but your posting, and now your back-pedaling illustrate to everyone here what ARRL is full of - ARROGANCE & INTOLLERANCE."
And you are any better how?
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI writes:
"How dumb can they be?
About as dumb as the guy who is given explanation after explanation and still keeps coming up with the same tired old line"
Typical arrl arrogance.
HOW DARE I not swallow arrl bilge!
FIRST: The term "won't work" is not "my" line, Ed, its arrl's.
SECOND: So anybody that does not accept arrl propiganda (or accept its pronouncements) is "dumb"? Or is it just people that point it out in public?
THIRD: You call me dumb because I am not GULLABLE enough to believe your Clintonian explanations of the term "won't work". arrl can play all the word games it pleases, but its not fooling many people. I am reminded of that old saying:
"[arrl] can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but [arrl] can't fool all of the people all of the time".
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by N7UQA on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I'm not a paid ARRL employee, but Johnathan, I'll list some other things that are 'flawed' and 'won't work'
1.Using 4 conductor telephone cable in place of CAT5 cable.
2.Using 300 ohm twin lead as interconnects with your transceiver, amp and antenna tuner.
3.Not soldering your (non-crimp on) PL-259 connectors.
4.Soldering PL-259 connectors on both ends of long runs of twin lead and using it in place of 50 ohm coax.
5.Loading up a light bulb for 160 meters.
6.Using #18 wire for a 30A 240V service.
7.Using a 300W antenna tuner with a 1500W amp.
8.Pouring water down the tube chimneys of your amp to help keep the tubes cool.
9.BPL, the undisputed king of a cardboard, duct tape and bailing wire last mile Internet delivery method.
10.W9WHE's ARRL bashing posts.
BPL 'WON'T WORK' because of the medium the signals are being coupled on. BPL is 'FLAWED' because of this, it's physics, and nothing will change that. I don't call ~4900 nation wide BPL subscribers something that 'works'. I have seen various posts on broadband sites where BPL subscribers extolled how much their BPL service sucked; some even said they had a more reliable connection on dial up. I would never subscribe to this service even if it was free; I want a service that is fast, reliable and cannot be brought to a screeching halt by arcing power line hardware or wayward radio sources.
I commend the ARRL for going to bat for us in the face of this BPL crap. I would say that Ed W1RFI has gone above the call of duty.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> FIRST: The term "won't work" is not "my" line, Ed,
> its arrl's.
Actually, no; it is your line. The more complex explanation that you have twisted into "ARRL says BPL won't work" was, I believe, this one:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/03/22/104/
I can see why you brought Clinton into it, though. IMHO, it is a far cry from what Dave said to what you say it really means...
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7UQA writes:
"BPL 'WON'T WORK' because of the medium the signals are being coupled on"
Try telling that to the 4,900 people that get their internet via BPL every day. They would laugh at you! Try telling that to IBM, MOTOROLA and Matshusta, they will also laugh at you! But then again, you and arrl know more about communications then Motorola, IBM and Matshusta. Silly me. Where does such supreme arrogance come from?
UNFORTUNATELY, BPL works. You can argue all you want about "how well" it works, but the FACT remains that "it works".
In order to concur your enemy, you must first admit that he exists. By denying reality, you set yourself up for failure.
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by N7UQA on May 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7UQA writes:
"BPL 'WON'T WORK' because of the medium the signals are being coupled on"
Try telling that to the 4,900 people that get their internet via BPL every day. They would laugh at you! Try telling that to IBM, MOTOROLA and Matshusta, they will also laugh at you! But then again, you and arrl know more about communications then Motorola, IBM and Matshusta. Silly me. Where does such supreme arrogance come from?
UNFORTUNATELY, BPL works. You can argue all you want about "how well" it works, but the FACT remains that "it works".
In order to concur your enemy, you must first admit that he exists. By denying reality, you set yourself up for failure.
W9WHE
It would be interesting to interview these BPL users and get first hand information on how well they would rate their BPL service. I'm sure some of them would say it's the best thing since sliced bread. I'm sure that a good many of them would be complaining about less than promised bandwidth and service outages. I'm sure they would be thrilled knowing their service could be easily disrupted or hobbled by arcing power line hardware, CBers and HAMs for hours on end.
BPL does work, however, my problem is how this technology was sold to the government; how they ignored the problems and the less than ideal medium used to deliver it. BPL in it's current form is NEVER going to deliver the bandwidth users are going to demand. There are major problems with throughput, egress and ingress interference issues.
Puget Sound Energy uses a better method for remote meter reading. They use the bottom of 70cm and deploy pole mounted receivers. Only out in my area do meter readers still come out and actually read the meter. When PSE announced the were going this route I called them to find out if this was going to turn into an interference issue; other than the continuous packet bursts on the low end of 70cm, it wasn't an issue. BPL will always be a spectrum polluter no matter what band they use. And like I have said in many of my posts, BPL is at it's best, is a cardboard, duct tape and bailing wire kludge-a-tronic technology.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: 4,900 BPL subscribers prove arrl wrong!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 22, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7UQA writes:
"It would be interesting to interview these BPL users and get first hand information on how well they would rate their BPL service"
I agree. Because if BPL service is not competitive, it will fail.
++++++++++++++++
"BPL does work, however, my problem is how this technology was sold to the government"
I'm glad to know that you have finally seen the light. Congratulations.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
