BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
Dennis Zabawa (KG4RUL)
on
October 25, 2003
View comments about this article!
Here is the text of a letter from Ambient Corporation's, Legal Counsel to the FCC. Of SPECIAL interest are the paragraphs numbered 8 and 9 respectively:
===========================
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 100
Washington, D.C. 20006-6801
202-955-3000
202-955-5564 FAX
www.hklaw.com
July 8, 2003
GEORGE WHEELER
202-457-7073
gwheeler@hklaw.com
Re: Submission of Progress Report and Request for Confidential Treatment Regarding Special Temporary Authorization, Call Sign WB9QXT, File No. 0435-EX-ST 2002
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the terms of the Special Temporary Authorization, File 0435-EX-2002, Ambient Corporation (Ambient) is filing the attached six-month progress report (Report) on its progress in evaluating the feasibility of broadband access via carrier current systems over power lines.
Because the Report contains proprietary and confidential technical information about Ambient's technology, which would customarily be guarded from competitors, Ambient requests that the Report be treated as confidential and withheld from public inspection in accordance with Section 0.457(d) (trade secrets) of the Commission's Rules. (This Report contains information similar to earlier submissions accorded confidential treatment.)
Pursuant to Section 0.459(b) of the Commission's Rules, Ambient provides the following information in support of its request for confidential treatment:
(1) Ambient's requests confidential treatment of the Progress Report and attachments thereto. The Report is marked as "Proprietary and Confidential;"
(2) This Report is being submitted as required under Special Temporary Authorization, File No. 0435-EX-ST 2002;
(3) This Report contains highly confidential and proprietary information about Ambient's unique experimental network, including information about system architecture, equipment and performance;
(4) Although power line communications systems are still in the experimental stage in the U.S., there are a number of competitors all trying to be first to market in developing and deploying viable telecommunications systems;
(5) Disclosure of such information to competitors could compromise Ambient's efforts to develop this technology, in that other PLC companies could better compete with Ambient if they had information concerning Ambient's proposed network architecture and technology. This would cause Ambient substantial competitive harm;
(6) Ambient has marked the Report as "Proprietary and Confidential." In addition, Ambient has been careful in protecting proprietary aspects of its system, including the use of confidentiality agreements with technical consultants;
(7) Technical information contained in the Report has neither been disclosed to the public, nor disclosed to third-parties (not including counsel or consultants bound by confidentiality agreements or otherwise);
(8) Ambient requests that this information be withheld from public disclosure until such time as Ambient discloses such materials publicly as part of its anticipated commercial rollout. Disclosure during the term of the STA or any experimental license would compromise Ambient's position vis-á-vis competitors; and
(9) Confidential treatment of this Report will allow Ambient to fully disclose its progress under the STA to the FCC. Because power line communications systems are still in development, it will serve the public interest if the FCC is fully informed of the progress of innovators like Ambient. Refusal to treat such documents as confidential, would result in less detailed reporting and defeat one of the objectives of the STA.
If there are any questions regarding the submission and the request for confidentiality, please contact Jonathan Epstein, Esq. at (202) 828-1870. For technical questions concerning the Report itself, contact Dr. Yehuda Cern, Ambient's Chief Engineer, at (617) 332-7680.
Sincerely,
/s/ George Y. Wheeler
George Y. Wheeler
Jonathan Epstein
Holland & Knight LLP
Counsel for Ambient Corporation
(1 This includes previous narrative statements submitted in support of STA applications and Ambient's previous progress report.)
==============
So, the way I interpret Paragraph 8: We, the persons most likely to be harmed by their new profit making endeavor, will not be able to see the results of their testing (including reports of interference observed) until they have their "COMMERCIAL ROLLOUT". This is being done to protect their COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.
Paragraph 9 reads to me as: If you make us tell, we will hold back on the information. Smells like three-day-old Fish to me!
I think we need to let the FCC know, in no uncertain terms, that information on inference to Licensed Radio Services SHOULD NOT be held as Confidential by ANY applicant for BPL services.
Dennis -- KG4RUL
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N1JAO on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This whole thing worries me, and I'll tell you something; As soon as I learned about BPL, I got my lazy self to join the ARRL after 12 years of being a ham. I hope many will join to give the voice we have the power to fight this menace.
Robert
N1JAO
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K0BG on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It isn't going to make too much difference whether the FCC publishes the data or not. The ARRL will, and this is why it is so important to support them in their effort.
If BPL is allowed to propagate (excuse the pun) it will have more effect on radio (amateur and otherwise) than any other snafu the FCC ever pulled off.
If it does go through, it'll be time to recall Chairman Powell.
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N0MLR on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It makes no diferance if the ARRL does publish it in QST or on the bathroom wall. Nobody will see it except for the few who subscribe to the "Membership". The ARRL would not have the money to fight this if every Ham in the USA was a mamber and paying double the subscription I mean "Membership" rate.
The Power companies have always got what they want from the Government since the RECC's were created. They have the Money and Lobby to Buy anything they want from the FCC or any other Goverment agency. Just look around in your town. You see the small business man running around trying to make a living in a beat up old truck and working out of a rented over priced building. Now compare this with the Power company. They have Nice buildings and All their Trucks are nearly new with all the Equipment they need. The power companies will do what ever they want. They always have.
Greg Dunn
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K1TL on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Love it when they shove things down our throats. The power companies can't even clean up their own power line interference problems as it is and now they want to introduce more interference???
Give us a break!
Once it is implemented, it will take more than an act of Congress to remove it...guaranteeeeee!
Tom/K1TL
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N0FPE on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why is there so many gloomy Gus's. In every topic there always the doom sayers.
"Just forget it, we cant fight it, why try, they always get what they want. on and on and on.
My question to the folks that never have anything positive to say is:
Why the heck are you a Ham Radio operator?? If things are so bad why dont you just trun in your license now and save those of us that enjoy the hobby the grief of reading your negative comments!!!!!
I know I sure wont miss the whiners and negative nonsense
Oh and of course I have to comment on Code/nocode...
hmmmm....naaaa I dont have to....
Dan/N0FPE
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N8UZE on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL is doing more than just publish their results in ham journals and web sites. They are sending the data to other groups who use the radio spectrum. They are sending the data to the FCC. There are no doubt other organizations that they are contacting. Now even the ITU is studying the issue and may try to incorporate appropriate language in future treaties.
By the way, most of the BPL stuff is being placed on the open pages not the "members only" areas.
However, I think our best bet lies in the realm of financial reality. There are already independent analysts, who know nothing about the effects on the radio spectrum and couldn't care less, putting out business analyses showing that it will be very difficult if not impossible to really make it pay off. The investment is very high (got to bypass all those transformers you know) and to make a profit, pricing will be as high or higher than other methods of providing broadband.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K4FAU on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We had an article in the newspaper today letting us know that my community of Manassas, Virginia (Washington, DC, suburb) has approved plans for a citywide BPL rollout. The City Council voted unanimously to grant a 10-year BPL field trial and offer high-speed Internet service to the entire community over municipal power lines.
So it all begins....
and why start here -- this is where most of the politicians live while they are here -- so they will see first hand that it does work and if it works here in DC then it will work in their communities....
Brian
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K4IA on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ambient appears well-named . . .
As in, "How much can we add to the ambient noise level?"
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N3HKN on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doesn't BPL potentially interfere with 40mhz cordless phones, and low-band fire companies? Where are those voices??
Dick N3HKN
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To all those who are killing themselves with worry:
I don't know if BPL is as bad as some say. I also don't know if BPL will be economically sound. And neither does anyone else know with certainty.
What I do know is that nobody is listening to the ARRL. It is obvious that their arguments are not being considered seriously. So why send them more money? They are ineffective, totally!
BPL may not be the beast that will kill ham radio. If nobody is listening to the ARRL, it might be that they just might be wrong in their overall assesment.
We will see because BPL is coming to a power line near you.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At the risk of addressing the spirit of this STA request and pissing off the black helicopter crowd, I'll point out there is nothing in the request that isn't reasonable expectation for the FCC to agree NOT to divulge technical trade secrets of this endeavor.
The public has no right to know the "secret sauce" but can only comment on the aftertaste. The public only needs to know what the end goal is, and that has been clearly stated as broadband internet over power lines. If this goal is met, but with undesirable side-effects, then it is up to the FCC to deny the technology. The technology to be used is:
1. not subject to public approval or scrutiny in this development stage.
2. none of yer damned business.
That's just business. Anybody who has a problem with this request must surely have no problem with all their personal financial data, compromising shower photos and **** size being published for all to see.
C'mon guys, we have a procedure in place. It's being followed.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reminds me of those guys with expensive silk suits and pencil mustaches that tell you to sign here and don’t worry about the fine print. Of course its proprietary information, the dam thing makes enough RF noise to be classified as Russian jamming transmitter. Careful FCC, you are about to be taken in.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KA5S on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I noted while doing Comments to the NOI that it was difficult to find information about ongoing tests in FCC filings. This is to the BPL folks' advantage, but it is not especially sinister.
It's quite common in public regulatory filings that commercially valuable matters, especially those not protected by patent, are kept confidential.
Cortland
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N8UZE on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"BPL -- Love it, OR Else! Reply
by FJGH on October 25, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
To all those who are killing themselves with worry:
I don't know if BPL is as bad as some say. I also don't know if BPL will be economically sound. And neither does anyone else know with certainty.
What I do know is that nobody is listening to the ARRL. It is obvious that their arguments are not being considered seriously. So why send them more money? They are ineffective, totally!
BPL may not be the beast that will kill ham radio. If nobody is listening to the ARRL, it might be that they just might be wrong in their overall assesment.
We will see because BPL is coming to a power line near you."
-------------------------------------------------------
It remains to be seen how effective the ARRL is. So far they have gotten the NTIA involved (this is the government group that very effectively quashed the amateur thrust to get a decent 60meter band).
The ARRL has an active monitoring program to document the BPL interference.
According to one article I have seen, they have put the city of Manassas on notice that if ham frequencies are interfered with, they will be filing interference complaints with the FCC and lately the FCC has really been jumping on power line interference.
One thing is certain though, without funding the ARRL can't do anything at all. The level of their effectiveness is highly dependent on how much resources to muster. So cutting off donations is the wrong tactic to take in the BPL issue.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N5LB on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, why all the negative emotionally driven responses. Second, BPL may indeed be a good technology. However that determination will be made by the market. If it fails to be reliable, or the ISP's are just plain bad people will not change from DSL or cable. Don't forget they have substantial competitors with major capital investments in infrastructure. There have been many failed technologies "pushed" by the Federal Government. The Federal Government has never been successful in forcing their ideas on the marketplace.
Third, where is the voice of MARS and the DOD?
This isn't likely to be a conspiracy. The government is too incompetent for that.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know why this BPL issue is being argued. It's already here. Not full strength, but it is here, now. The ARRL has already effectively lost. The ARRL doesn't intimidate, influence, or even get the attention of the public with all its threats. And for their threat to 'monitor' BPL test sites, I bet the city is really losing sleep from the ARRL threat to monitor them. What a joke. Is this the best the ARRL can do?
Unless BPL turns out to be a very big problem for the general public, the ARRL isn't going to get rid of BPL once its in use because of interference to hams.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K6SDW on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All this BPL talk reminds me of the old saying: "Money talks, everything else walks!" And the ham community isn't even in the same league with Big Business and the politicians that believe Big Business can do no wrong!!!
The FCC is no friend of the ham community, they too know what side their bread is buttered on....
SRI to be so cynical, but this is reality in the US.
CQ ya via the power lines!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by NUTONES on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If it does go through, it'll be time to recall Chairman Powell." -- Alan, KØBG
Chairman Powell should have been recalled the day he was placed into office. Powell is in way over his head. In the late '60s, Laurence J. Peter was correct when he wrote the following axiom printed in his classic book entitled "The Peter Principle:"
"In a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their level of incompetence."
This fact is no more apparent than within our Commission. Powell is an idiot; an absolutely incompetent idiot who is devoid of ethics, integrity and an understanding of the mission he was charged to accomplish on behalf of the American public. I am convinced that a grade-school student could have accomplished more to advance the public interest, convenience and necessity than Mr. Powell.
My comments have no bearing on that fact that he is black -- Nor do they have any bearing on the fact that he is the son of our Secretary of State. It has everything to do with the fact that he is clearly the wrong person for the job.
Several weeks ago, Powell declared that "he was tired, his wife was tired, and his family was tired." He further stated that he had "only intended to stick with the job for three years." This is not a trivial point: does anyone else believe that perhaps he should have put the public on notice of his intent to remain in office for only three years? We could have then spared ourselves of the mess that we we're experiencing with our FCC and we could have counted on a real leader with the spirit and determination to get the job done that is so sorely needed.
And once we run Powell out of Washington, our next effort as amateurs should focus on displacing the incompetent and malicious personnel within the FCC's Gettysburg Enforcement Division.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You said it FJGH.
With all the would-be operators who were discouraged from having access to HF frequencies and chased away to discover and grow resources like Echolink, I think the filtering tactics of the ARRL and the FCC actually helped expedite BPL's progress and development along by creating more increased demand for more bandwidth and affordable high Internet service. Next you will see the unaffected high frequency bands get sucked up fast enough to make heads spin as government entities and big pocketed commercial interests demand and get the frequencies they need now or for future expansion for their communication systems and wireless networks.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K3AN on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone remember the ads for that gizmo that "turns your house wiring into a giant TV antenna?" Could a similar gizmo "turn your house wiring into a giant ham antenna?"
Imagine being able to operate from anywhere in the house just by plugging an appropriately-designed device into any nearby ac outlet, and connecting your rig to the RF port on the device. The ultimate in stealth, too.
Who will come up with the first safe, practical design?
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K9WQ on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once again we get posts here repeating the religious notion that "the market" is the source of all wisdom and that government is dangerous or incompetent.
This is a very dangerous idea that is being repeated over and over by the extreme right.
In BPL, hams can see just one example of what can happen if the greed of the market is unrestrained, or if the government is too weak, or too on-the-payroll-of-the-market, to do its job.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3AN- You mean something like this?
http://web.archive.org/web/20010523000737/www.c2i2.com/~lasono/dovetron/index.html
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by WB5HZE on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is not unusual for emerging technologies to ask the FCC to protect their trade secrets. It is only reasonable that this company desires to protect their competitive advantage from THEIR COMPETITORS. The trick is to ensure that PERTINENT DATA is not obscured under the "trade secret" umbrella- that the BPL folks are not allowed to hide hard information such as interference measurements under the argument that public knowledge of such information would damage their competitive advantage. This is fairly simple to address . . . someone just needs to call their hand on it in a filing to the FCC.
And now to digress away from the post topic (such a common practice in this forum that I feel no guilt at all). . .
I'd like to toss out a reminder, since it appears that an awful lot of folks still think this whole proceeding is about PREVENTING BPL from rolling out, and believe that it is the fault of the ARRL that BPL has made it this far along.
BPL became permissible years ago with modifications to Part 15. At the time NOT ONE of the incumbents or major regulatory advocacy groups- not the ARRL, not the NTIA, not the LMCC/ API/ APCO folks, not the NAB- saw those changes as risky. No one conceived of BPL looming on the horizon, and even so never believed that the FCC would consider a reduction of interference protection to incumbent licensees. So years ago, when it might have made a difference, no one actively worked against regulatory changes that effectively permitted BPL and similar technologies. ANY "failure" occurred THEN and it was a failure by ALL INCUMBENTS (each and every licensee included) to see into the future. But hindsight is always 20-20, isn't it?
There has been no "failure" by ANY advocacy group in the current proceeding- it is still underway. But the current proceeding is ONLY focused on further deregulation of Part 15, which would permit BPL even higher levels of incidental interference than they are currently allowed. It is NOT about whether or not BPL should be permitted. BTW, the FCC is more than a little peeved that so many commenters missed this point, because they made the distinction perfectly clear when the proceeding was opened. That might be one more reason that they aren't taking us as seriously as they should.
To even take the first step towards actually banning BPL, a petition to that effect should be filed- and I do not believe that ANYONE has done so. Frankly, if such a petition is filed it will probably be rejected. For obvious reasons, it is doubtful that the FCC will seriously consider ANY petition to ban BPL. Even so, there is value in making such a petition if for no other reason that to "get on the record" & establish standing for any future BPL-related proceedings.
So as I see it the maximum returns that can be realized from our participation in the ongoing proceeding are limited to 1) increased public visibility of the issues related to BPL, 2) prevention of further Part 15 changes permitting even MORE potential for interference, 3) reinforcement of "standing" for future NPRMs related to BPL or similar "polluting" technologies, and 4) planting of seeds for such future NPRMs. These are all good things, I suppose- but clearly not as as good as effectively protecting our spectrum from BPL. And I don't see how that can be accomplished within the current proceeding, not at all.
BPL may well fail in the marketplace, for obvious reasons. Let's hope so. But at the same time, it might be worthwhile to file a petition moving to ban the technology. Also, if Congress passes legislation targeted to protect both the quantity AND QUALITY of the amateur radio spectrum then the whole BPL issue could become a moot point (for amateur radio, at least)- so it seems only logical to throw our wholehearted support behind the bill currently in the works (and push for additional language in the bill that will keep "polluters" such as BPL away from the amateur spectrum).
This matter of BPL is far from being closed, unless we give up in the middle of the fight. It's simply not in the nature of most adult Americans to become "quitters". So for the apathetic few amongst our ranks . . . please get out of the way while the grown-ups take care of business.
Ron WB5HZE
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by NC2F on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is rolling out in various locations. Money talks, what else is new?
We're a hobby group, not an industry group. For the last several years the ARRL has made efforts to bump the hobby up on the importance ladder via it's emergency communications program. But truth be told, those who are invovled in this aspect of the hobby make up a small percentage of all of the amateur licensees.
So where does this leave the hobby? The same place as it was before, except with 9db noise level from BPL in areas of our spectrum.
Our "lobby" is not that of the NRA, therefore, we can expect the gov't to treat us accordingly.
Let's hope technology keeps us in the game, but so far it's taken us out.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC0LOD on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is harming the general public, the low-band frequencies counties, hospitals use are around 39Mhz, State patrols are at 42Mhz. So you are telling me that the general public is not affected, their safety is. Period, when the noise comes, you are in a squad, the hospital can prepare if they know whats coming. Right. Do you want them to be ready or prepare when you arrive. So, your safety is a risk, so I would not bash the ARRL or anybody trying to protect our safety.
KC0LOD, steve
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC0LOD on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is harming the general public, the low-band frequencies counties, hospitals use are around 39Mhz, State patrols are at 42Mhz. So you are telling me that the general public is not affected, their safety is. Period, when the noise comes, you are in a squad, the hospital can prepare if they know whats coming. Right. Do you want them to be ready or prepare when you arrive. So, your safety is a risk, so I would not bash the ARRL or anybody trying to protect our safety.
KC0LOD, steve
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC0LOD on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FJGH, do you know something we don't? Are you a HAM operator? I just want to know were you are coming from to understand your do nothing attitude about BPL. Thanks KC0LOD
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K3AN on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Dovetron Stealth is evidence that it is possible to couple HF RF signals to the house wiring. It's probably overkill for most hams who already have an outside antenna, and just want to be able to feed the power wiring at appropriate times for scientific A/B comparison purposes. We need a simpler, homebrew-able design.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010523000737/www.c2i2.com/~lasono/dovetron/index.html
|
| |
|
Corp Strategy : Swap Bands
|
|
|
by K4III on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Corporate Strategy: How to turn tables!!! For when FCC declares majority uses outweigh others. Benefits include owning and/or using these power lines throughout the country and potentially can serve every American maybe not BPL, but with Power which can be considered the same service? (potential customers)
Strategy:
1. Obtain permission to use bands (neglect mentioning inteference)
2. Get blamed & potential fines for inteference
3. Claim unforseen cost from FCC, new licensing necessary
3. Try to change Part 15 or get licenced as primary user
4. Hams then cause and are blamed for inteference
Game Over -
Corporations Win Victory!!!
(No Start Again or Restart though, Scary?)
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There will always be those who just roll over when a threat presents itself. Ignore them. Get educated about the facts and support the ARRL. When appropriate respond to municipalities and utilities with your emails and letters. Now is the time to stand up for what you believe in.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Typical scenario/conversation in Washington, D.C.
Secretary says:
Congressman (fill in the blank), you have two phone calls. On line one you have one of those major utility companies lobbying for BPL that wants to give you a tremendous campaign contribution on board their CEO's private yacht with the girls from Hooters catering while they film a commercial saying that with more choices for high-speed Internet access the prices for all consumers will drop significantly with the extra competition in the industry while at the same time creating news jobs for people in your district by upgrading and maintaining the new system that will grow and grow yearly, on line two you have a couple of grumpy old men wanting to know if you got all their emails and they want to tell you about the noise that will be caused by BPL on their HF amateur bands. Which call would you like to take sir?
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by G3SEA on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll take the " Or Else " path :)
1. Join the ARRL.The USA has the greatest concentration of hams in a Democracy where their
UNIFIED voices WILL be heard.
2. Fire off versions off the ARRL form protest letters
to your legislators.
3.STOP arguing about CW v SSB blah,blah,blah :) and concentrate together to fight this along with all other
affected services.
It is just not the American way to " Give Up " and I'm sure you don't need an alien to remind you of that :)
So " Damn the Torpedo's, Full Speed Ahead and up and at em fellow Hams " ! :)
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok Gloomy Gus's:
Since you seem to be convinced that either (a) the FCC has already made up their minds to give us amateurs the shaft over BPL, and/or (b) the ARRL lacks the (1) money (2) manpower (3) prestige (4) public exposure [or (5) pick as many as applicable or use your own excuse in this space] to succesfully combat BPL rollout, you can be excused from reading further.
But for the rest of us:
If you don't like what you read in the original article, don't (or don't just) kvetch to the FCC.
Write your Congressman and both Senators.
Tell them in no uncertain non-technical (ie layman's) terms WHY you think BPL and WHY you think we are getting the bum's rush from the FCC.
Will one letter or ten or even a hundred make a difference? No, but it's a start. Now a couple of hundred, per Congressperson... well, enough come in, they will take notice.
You see, many of our Congresspeople operate on the basis of polls and polling numbers -- ie, statistics. They extrapolate trends from small samples.
And the last I read, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong here, is that on average, every single letter received statistically represents the like feelings of AT LEAST 1000 concerned citizens -- ie voters. Now you figure, a Congressperson gets 5000 letters... which represents 5,000,000 potential votes... and the margin of victory in an election is very often much less than this in some districts...
But... and this is a big But... it also makes a big difference if these are all DIFFERENT... if they see a lot of form letters, they will start to think that it's a very small number of people concerned who got a lot of other people to sign something they didn't neccesarily understand!
Finally... write them all, and write them often. But again, don't send the same letter over & over again. The squeaky wheels eventually do get the grease, and while an initial onslaught can get blown over, continual streams of letters will get a response. Will it be enough? Who knows? We can be sure of this, though -- if we don't try at all, then it DEFINITELY won't work!
And don't forget, there are two political parties... you think someone in one of them wouldn't use something like this to try to embarass someone in the other?
73
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K3NG on October 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is one particular reason that Ambient would want their filing confidential and proprietary. Their system is a hybrid BPL and wireless system. BPL carries the data through a neighborhood and the "drops" to houses are 802.11 2.4 Ghz ISM or 5 Ghz UNII wireless. I don't think any other equipment manufacturer is doing this. (Don't confuse this with Corridor's 5 Ghz BPL which actually uses G-line techniques to couple microwaves to the line).
I doubt, though, there is anything really proprietary in their filing. We've seen the smoke and mirrors from BPL PR people. The more information they make available to the public, the more they are under a microscope. The more this is examined, the more it falls apart.
I know there's BPL people cruising this forum. How about y'all say "Hi" and introduce yourselves ? :-)
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KE6I on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I don't think any other equipment manufacturer is doing
>this. (Don't confuse this with Corridor's 5 Ghz BPL
>which actually uses G-line techniques to couple
>microwaves to the line).
Would the Corridor system interfere with ham radio at all? If it's 5G all the way, is there interference to ham radio?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N0JCG on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From what I understand about G-line, there would be some RF leakage from the line, but it would be in the UNII band around 5GHz. Other than perhaps affecting our allocation there, when in close proximity, I don't see how it would affect other bands.
By the way, aparantly G-line was tried for TV distribution in the early 50's, but that was at broadcast TV frequencies and people could pick up the signal by just pointing their antenna at the line. For info look at the Saturday Evening Post blurb near the bottom of this page;
http://www.infoage.org/webpages/paperclip.html
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N0JCG on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another point is that, since Corridor uses the UNII band, and the feed may qualify as a backhaul, they can run 10 watts RF. Loss could be around 1 or 2 db/100 ft, so they may get the signal a couple of miles or more before they have to repeat it.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KA1EEC on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
to follow up on your comment that BPL may not be economically viable.
Very nice insight. Over the past few years I have researched economics and telecom policy and the current broadband "Nirvana" exists because the FCC substituted ideology for an economic analysis. Last mile is a natural monopoly which means that in order for a single player to make money, they must have a monopoly share and increasing competition means increasing prices.
In a natural monopoly environment, the only way to have competition is to separate content from carriage. In other words, you compete on services, not on wires. Having ignored this inconvenient little bit of reality, the FCC is now desperately trying to create broadband competition when it was their rules that destroyed broadband competition in the first place. It's also the FCC's rules that are killing end to end completeness of the Internet as well and turning it into another form of cable TV.
---eric
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FJGH:
Still spewing your meaningless mental feces on here EH?
Your Cowardice and Insecurity are of no concern to the topic at hand.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else! or WHAT? You going to sic
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This kind of thing is what bothers me the most. Technicaly inept special intrest groups who hint that if technical problems are brought to the publics attention we'll weild the DMCA. (Kind of sounds like Microsoft) Another thing is that since the data is "radiated" packets could be sniffed, I guess the next thing is to BAN ALL HF RADIOS to keep their cutomers data private.
Personally I think BPL is a dead end "last mile" solution. The interference that "WILL" come from it is just too great.
|
| |
|
Repeater needed every 2000-2500 feet
|
|
|
by KC0LOD on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A note no one is talking aoubt that there is a need to have a repeater every 2000-2500 feet for BPL. Think about the miles and miles of wiring, it is hard to imagine that they will put it in use nationwide just because the cost of machinery and upkeep. KC0LOD, steve
|
| |
|
RE: Repeater needed every 2000-2500 feet
|
|
|
by WT0A on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC0LOD
That is exactly why it requires a fiber or wireless backbone. It is a "last mile" solution, not a(long distance) transportation means.
|
| |
|
BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Think about the miles and miles of wiring, it is hard to imagine that they will put it in use nationwide just because the cost of machinery and upkeep<<
As I said before, new jobs created, cheaper Internet access. If the special interests donate enough money NOW, the government will always, and I do mean always, help...oops, I mean bail them out of any financial difficulties down the road. They will do it in the name of protecting jobs and investments. Look at the airline industry, if the government let it fail it would be disastrous for the American economy so it's always in the government's interest to bail them out. BPL, if it provides cheaper Internet access, therefore creating a new public demand will ultimately become to many...a right to have.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here are some points to consider:
1. Alot of people on this site are already giving up IF bpl is implemented on a large scale. Hams seem to be willing to 'fight' bpl now but there seems to be a general assumption that hams are dead in the water if it comes full scale. I don't hear anyone talking about possible ways to live to bpl. Why assume there is no remedy to some possible interference from bpl to hf receivers?
2. When tv became widespread in the '50s, there was the same gloomy outlook for ham radio operation because of feared interference to tv reception. Hams and tv have lived together for the past 55 years.
3. Hams may find that if present receivers are wiped out, the extent of the problem may have more to do with the front ends in receivers that have no selectivity before the 1st mixer. You may end up blaming icom, kenwood, yaesu more than bpl.
4. Everyone seems to think that if bpl is implemented, that the providers won't try to fix or reduce the problem. I would not assume that the bpl people will simply ignore any interferance problems. They may surprise you. Who knows at this point.
5. I really believe that the arrl is using bpl as a convenient excuse to suck as much money out of you that they can. There is always 2 sides to a story. They are not talking about anything but doom.
6. Hams have been living with other problems for decades. If I had to guess, I would estimate that at least 50% of the hams now can't use more that 50 watts because of the interference problem to totally unshielded consumer electronics that in theory was supposed to accept all interference. Yea, try screwing up all the radios and tv's on your block with your super clean signal and watch what happens.
7. I doubt that any bpl people would waste their time snooping on a ham internet site.
Some point to consider!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by N0JCG on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some replies to your points;
"1. Alot of people on this site are already giving up IF bpl is implemented on a large scale. Hams seem to be willing to 'fight' bpl now but there seems to be a general assumption that hams are dead in the water if it comes full scale. I don't hear anyone talking about possible ways to live to bpl. Why assume there is no remedy to some possible interference from bpl to hf receivers? "
This one has to be fixed at the source, not the receiver. The noise is random, non periodic, and of a wide band impulse nature. That's a tough cookie. The closest thing we have faced to date is ignition noise and that was solved by limiting the rise time of the transmitter, in the car. There are now RFI emission limits for auto mfgrs. Specific standards will also have to be imposed on BPL
"2. When tv became widespread in the '50s, there was the same gloomy outlook for ham radio operation because of feared interference to tv reception. Hams and tv have lived together for the past 55 years."
Here again, the fix was to the consumer product, although in this case it was the receiver. TV IF's were changed from 21MHz to 45 MHz to eliminate the problem. The ARRL was closely involved with the engineering of that at the time. More recently, the expanxion of cable systems means that many of us can actually run full power without problems with TVs.
"3. Hams may find that if present receivers are wiped out, the extent of the problem may have more to do with the front ends in receivers that have no selectivity before the 1st mixer. You may end up blaming icom, kenwood, yaesu more than bpl."
See #1. Pre selectivity is generally a good thing, but no amount of selectivity will eliminate an unwanted, in band signal. In fact it will just make it worse.
"4. Everyone seems to think that if bpl is implemented, that the providers won't try to fix or reduce the problem. I would not assume that the bpl people will simply ignore any interferance problems. They may surprise you. Who knows at this point."
I agree. They will have to deal with interference as it comes up. The question is whether they will deal with it in a legalistic manner (fields strength is under the limit therefore there can't be interference) or in a logical sound engineering manner.
"5. I really believe that the arrl is using bpl as a convenient excuse to suck as much money out of you that they can. There is always 2 sides to a story. They are not talking about anything but doom."
Once again, the "the're doing it to raise money" bitch. I'm not going to even comment on this one.
"6. Hams have been living with other problems for decades. If I had to guess, I would estimate that at least 50% of the hams now can't use more that 50 watts because of the interference problem to totally unshielded consumer electronics that in theory was supposed to accept all interference. Yea, try screwing up all the radios and tv's on your block with your super clean signal and watch what happens."
I prefer to think of it as challenges, and one of those challenges may be educating your neighbors. Actually I like working QRP, which is exactly why I am most upset with BPL.
Once again-- they need to do in the UNII band at 5GHz (that's becomming my mantra)
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
kd7efq, you gotta get yourself some help! You are totally nuts!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K3NG on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Would the Corridor system interfere with ham radio at all? If it's 5G all the way, is there interference to ham radio? "
Amateur Radio has an allocation at 5650-5925 MHz which I think is secondary and not primary. There's three UNII bands of which the middle and upper ones can be used for outdoor Part 15 use. The upper band, 5725-5875 MHz, overlaps with the Amateur allocation.
So, yes, the 5Ghz Corridor system could interfere with an Amateur band, but certainly not the HF bands. Considering the nature of microwaves and directional antennas in use, I think interference could be mitigated. Not to anger microwave fans, but I'd 'sell out' the 5 Ghz band before I would all of HF :-)
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by KA5S on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>The question is whether they will deal with it in a legalistic<<
>>manner (fields strength is under the limit therefore there can't<<
>>be interference) or in a logical sound engineering manner.<<
Und er the limit doenst mean you're home free.
From Part 15. Section 15.15 General technical requirements:
(c) Parties responsible for equipment compliance should note that the limits specified in this Part will not prevent harmful interference under all circumstances. Since the operators of Part 15 devices are required to cease operation should harmful interference occur to authorized users of the radio frequency spectrum, the parties responsible for equipment compliance are encouraged to employ the minimum field strength necessary for communications, to provide greater attenuation of unwanted emissions than required by these regulations, and to advise the user as to how to resolve harmful interference problems (for example, see Section 15.105(b)).
e=½mv^2
It's the law!
Cortland
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by N0JCG on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Exactly! Thanks. I didn't have chapter and verse in front of me.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KS1A on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ARRL does a LOT more than "just preach to the membership about BPL". Come on! They are actively fighting on our behalf on the legal front, lobbying front and political front. There's power in numbers even though we are greatly OUTNUMBERED. The League is all over this. They recognized the problem, got the word out, and are taking action. I just don't understand the axe some folks have against the ARRL. If you're not going to help them fight against BPL, please sit on the bench so you're not in the way.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A thought just occurred to me: if the power company is going to have to run fiber, etc. to get the signal up to the point where it is finally distributed, why not just run a shielded cable the last mile to the user's home? Does BPL begin to sound a lot like a cable system without the usual customer drops? I was always under the impression that the reason that people in the sticks couldn't get the high bandwidth distribution backbone run to them was because of the extreme costs. Now, all of a sudden, that backbone is feasible for the Power Companies??? Is the 'last mile' really the economic straw that breaks the Camel's back or have the cable companies been BSing us and going just for the high profit areas all along???
Some more ideas for y'all to ponder.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on October 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To all the naysayers and negativists:
Have YOU called or written to your local AM radio stations and low-VHF TV stations and warned them about the total wipeout of their signals if BPL comes to town?
Their lobby voices are needed now.
Maybe the local talk radio shows can take up the cause too.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W6PMR2 on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is there any reason why we cant sue the power companies in small claims court for the costs of our gear if all the noise generated by BPL makes the radios unusable?
Can you imagine tens of thousands of Hams getting up
to $5k judgements against the power companies,..Hey, that might just hit them where it hurts the most !
Just a thought to fight back a bit.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N2MG on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<
Is there any reason why we cant sue the power companies in small claims court for the costs of our gear if all the noise generated by BPL makes the radios unusable?
Can you imagine tens of thousands of Hams getting up
to $5k judgements against the power companies,..Hey
>>
Only $5K????
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W9WHE on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its no big suprise that a company with a "new" technology wants to keep some of its non-patentable ideas/processes secret? Can you say "trade secret"?. EVERY industry has "trade secrets". Most states have statutes protecting trade secrets. Evidently, these guys think they have some competitive advantage. Perhaps it is related to interference suppression or some technical advantage. Big deal.
Some people see balck helicopters behind every cloud.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W4VR on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I would imagine that the Ambient attorney checked with the FCC before it filed its confidential report. I've never heard of a filing held confidential by the FCC, especially having to do with Special Temporary Authority. These reports are generally available to the public. Have you tried to get a copy of it from the duplication contractor at the FCC? If not, perhaps the ARRL should do so through their legal representative....it may contain information that would help it's case against BPL.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W9WHE on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6PMR2 writes:
"Is there any reason why we cant sue the power companies....for the costs of our gear if all the noise generated by BPL makes the radios unusable?"
WHEN will liberals stop trying to sue everybody everywhere for everything they don't like?
NO, you can't successfully sue manufacturers of BPL equipment for interference to your hobby any more than you can sue General Motors, Colt, Smith & Wesson, or any other company when a LAWFUL product does something you don't like. Can you sue VOA or VOR because they interfere with you on 40 meters?
Why?
1) 1) IF BPL is approved, it will be a lawful product;
2) DO NOT assume that BPL will be a part 15 device. The FCC may choose to approve it under different rules. AND even if it were a part 15 device, the FCC (and not you)would have standing to sue.
3) We are mere LICENSEES, not owners of the spectrum. Our priveleges to use the spectrum are subject to the terms and conditions of our licenses. If the FCC approves BPL, our licenses will be subject to other approved users, INCLUDING BPL. Remember, what the FCC giveith, it can takeith away...does 220 Mhz ring any bells?
YOU CAN'T SUE EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE FOR EVERYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE. Suing everybody, everywhere for everything is costing our economy billions of dollars in wasted money in litigation.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> 1. Alot of people on this site are already giving up
> IF bpl is implemented on a large scale.
From what I have seen, only a handful of folks are ready to "give up."
> I don't hear anyone talking about possible ways to
> live to bpl. Why assume there is no remedy to some
> possible interference from bpl to hf receivers?
If anyone has any ideas on how to mitigate what is seen at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc#video, please share the specifics here.
Can you suggest even a starting point on the necessary filtering, cancellation or DSP-algorithms that could make a 40 dB difference in what is heard on the video? Any engineering specifics would be a good starting point. I can think of none that would work on the very noiselike signals and for the more coherent signals that are heard in some of the OFDM systems, while DSP may remove some of the noise, it would also remove an equal amount of channel capability. When it comes to information vs bandwidth vs noise there are no free lunches.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> At the risk of addressing the spirit of this STA
> request and pissing off the black helicopter crowd,
> I'll point out there is nothing in the request that
> isn't reasonable expectation for the FCC to agree
> NOT to divulge technical trade secrets of this
> endeavor.
Let me put this into a different perspective. Such requests not to share proprietary information are common in this arena. There is nothing unusual about Ambient's requrest at all.
Ambient has gone one better. They were the first of the BPL manufacturers to contact ARRL and offer to work with us. Not only did they offer, but when I asked the logical questions -- where and when -- they offered to meet me in their Briarcliff Manor, NY trial and we could do some testing together, to help us both better understand each others' results. Other BPL manufacturers and utilities have made similar contact with ARRL, but many months later, we have not gotten past the contact stage and got to do any of the when's or where's.
Ambient's filings with the FCC were among the more candid, although ARRL did disagree with some of what they had to say. But, unlike all of the others to date, they were willing to walk the walk when it came to working with ARRL. As I had suggested to them from the getgo, we may agree to disagree on some points, but there is also common ground and they are willing to work within it.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> This whole thing worries me, and I'll tell you
> something; As soon as I learned about BPL, I got my
> lazy self to join the ARRL after 12 years of being a
> ham. I hope many will join to give the voice we have
> the power to fight this menace.
Thanks, Robert. When this NOI hit, what ARRL did in immediate response built on the work done in similar areas over the past five to ten years. The cooperation between ARRL and groups like HomePlug, the Home Phone Networking Alliance and the VDSL committees had prepared ARRL for the BPL issues. Over the ensuing months, ARRL drew on its contacts in industry, national and international committees and government, through the FCC and NTIA, to help to represent the views and needs of Amateur Radio in this very important rulemaking.
The most important contribution anyone can make to ARRL's work in this one is to support the League. The financial and political support of your membership will go a long way in making sure that ARRL has the resources to stay with this for the long haul. As I was discussing this with someone, I made the point that the only reason that ARRL had the resources to get started in this one at all is that 160,000 members made sure that ARRL was prepared and at the ready to go when it became clear that BPL was being looked at closely by the FCC. We can't afford to wait for the crisis to hit before we make sure that Amateur Radio has a strong and viable national organization.
You will not agree with everything ARRL does during the coming year. I don't; Jim Haynie, the ARRL President, doesn't and having seen ARRL Board motions pass 8:7, in that case, seven of the ARRL Board of Directors didn't agree with what the League did. But I can assure you that every single day, ARRL will do something for amateur radio that is worth 12 cents to you, because that is what it will cost you to fund the work of 100-some-odd HQ staff and provide support for the volunteers of ARRL. That is about the cost of a good-size sip of coffee, or a bite of donut, to put it into perspective.
Those that can will also help in other ways, from volunteering time to offering additional contributions to the parts of ARRL's work that are the most important to them.
Pull the volunteers, the volunteer Board of Directors and the HQ staff together, along with the amazing help offered by some of our members, all together and you have the essence of the League. It takes all of us, and I am honored to be a cog in the wheel. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL Part II
Further points to consider about BPL:
1. BPL will not be everywhere, nothing is. BPL will be installed where there is a financially strong market for it. It isn't going to be on every single power line that is hanging on a pole. Do you think BPL will ever be in high density areas where there is fiber?
2. There are other probems that have killed ham radio before BPL. Antenna restrictions and tvi / rfi interference problems have already qrt'd many home based stations. BPL isn't going to affect these people. See #3.
3. There seems to be a strong interest in mobile and portable stations. BPL should not affect mobile operation to a large degree.
4. There are still alot of people living in less dense areas. BPL will probably not envade all of them. You have to keep in mind PBL costs money just not as much as fiber. Even the desireable target markets for BPL have to be big enough to support it.
5. The most important consideration to keep in mind is that BPL may not stay forever as now invisioned. BPL could very well migrate to much higher freqs in the future. Just about every radio frequency device started at low freqs and ended up on ??Ghz.
6. Can BPL screw up the 40 meter band any worse than it already is? And BPL will probably do the 75 meter band a favor.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by AE4X on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The more I read about BPL and learn about it the less worried I am. I highly doubt it will be implemented, and if so, not on EVERY HF frequency. I agree that, if successful, it will probably migrate to the upper Ghz frequencies.
Anyone who subscribes to National Geographic, like I do, will find this month's edition VERY interesting. It is about surveillance techniques and technology. There is basically a page about the availability of our computer information over the air with wireless technology. Encrypters and crooks would have a field day with this information (bank, credit card information and more) all available to them over the air.
Kind of reminds me of the scene in "Heat" with Robert Deniro. They are planning a bank heist and in order to get blueprints and financial information on how much the bank actually has inside it they hire a criminal encrypter who can secure all the information from all the "stuff flying in the air."
BPL will not be a threat with all the options available out there for cheaper. Power companies will never find the resources, time and money to implement it on a widespread scale and, lastly, true interference is a direct violation of Part 15, supported by resistance from other "big" parties out there.
I'm convincing myself more and more, as day goes on, to splurge on that new HF rig afterall.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought "BPL" was "brass pounder's league." At least, it used to mean that.
We need to continue with the code tests....oops, wrong forum.
I say, take the utility company execs and string them up with a fan dipole!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by WT0A on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FJGH,
Your points one and four contradict each other. Why would mobiles be less suseptible? Even if you drive to a non BPL area the fixed stations in the BPL areas still won't hear you.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- A Politician's Dream Come True :-)
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The logic behind # 1 is fiber operators will try to keep BPL out of its markets by adjusting prices to kill PBL interest which is why BPL is desireable. Fiber carriers have no incentive to lower their prices now.
#4 refers to the reality that even BPL may not be economically feasable in all low density areas where BPL is supposed to be a good solution.
Mobile or portable operation will let hams operate if they can't at home. The only contacts that mobiles can make are not just other mobiles.
And, am I the only person on this site that recognizes the very good possibility that BPL may ultimately fail when it becomes more widespread? New technologies have failed for decades because of unforeseen problems that were not anticipated during developmental stage.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N6STA on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
For a second I thought this was about the Brass Pounders League.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on October 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO W1RFI:
I applaud Ambient for their cooperation with the ARRL.
However, the fact that they are treating their entire STA interim report, including information related to interference as 'Confidential and Propietary' and, choosing to maintain this posture until after their 'rollout', makes me extremely uneasy. I would feel much kinder toward their position if the data on interference were published in a timely manner.
Do you have recordings of interference measurements in Ambient's test area? And if so, will those be made available to ARRL members?
This whole business sounds like the Doctor telling the Family that the operation was a complete success but, unfortunately, the Patient died.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by N4LEW on October 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One question that I have is, what will happen to BPL when I swing my 20 meter beam to the east (pointing to the power lines in front of my house) and work stations on the other side of the pond with 1500 watts? Just curious, don't have a 1500 amp but I could get one.
Larry / n4lew
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K2WH on October 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I finally figured out what I don't like about FJGH (whatever that means). Maybe "(F)ools (J)ust (G)ravitate (H)ere".
He is a flame thrower (or a politician), because if you read his postings, he exudes both optimism and pessimism in the same post while he sits on a very comfortable broad fence.
This probably pisses everyone off no matter which side of the fence you happen to be on. Obviously, he can't decide one way or the other when most of us have already decided that BPL is BAD! Then again, flame throwers just burn everything.
K2WH
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by WB4OFT on October 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In the beginning BPL was billed as "the last mile". So how does Manassas, Virginia qualify as an internet deprived rural community?
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k2wh,
You and those like you are exactly the reason I gave up general operating activity decades ago. Ham radio is filled with hams like you, ie. when you decide you don't like someone you don't even know, you revert to public name calling, insults, demeaning and condescending comments, etc........
Do you really think I care what you think about anything? I doubt anybody else does either.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K2WH on October 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So what! I'm too old to care what anyone says anymore. But, back to you. What you fail to do is take a position one way or the other. This could be because of your ignorance of the subject (BPL) or you have a need to analyze an issue to death with "what if" scenarious. Everything is colored gray in your world when it is really black and white to 99% of others contemplating the same issue. BPL to a ham operator could not possibly be a good thing. There is no "Upside" to this. To this you must surely agree - but you don't.
If I am one of the reasons you have abandoned amateur radio, (you have admitted as such), then you are part of the problem. Therefore, your position on this issue has now become crystal clear and for obvious reasons.
You obviously do not help the issue since you are out of the loop, not involved and you really don't care one way or the other.
Please don't take this or my previous post as a personal insult, because it is not insulting. Like you, I am simply expressing my thoughts on this wonderful thing called the internet.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by WT0A on October 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB4OFT,
Last mile does not have anything to do with rural or urban. Last mile describes the final link to the subscriber as in cable TV where the common architecture is "fiber to the neighborhood" with the last mile being coaxial cable. Rural areas will be the last to be served due to the economics of cost per subscriber.
Just my view, Glen
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K4PIT on October 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>what will happen to BPL when I swing my 20 meter beam to the east (pointing to the power lines in front of my house) and work stations on the other side of the pond with 1500 watts? >>
Can Ham radio cause interference to BPL? Sure would put a damper on a new technology with major $$$ invested.
BTW, has anyone else lost their attempted post to a pop-up window? Very annoying eHam. The informative/interesting articles I have seen, have been just enough to offset all the negative posts and name calling to keep me checking back. Not sure I want to contribute just yet.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on October 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All radio systems operating in the bandpass of the BPL devices with 25 watts or more will cause varying degrees of interference depending upon proximity. The interference will range from dropped packets to total shutdown of the BPL devices. A high power ham station with a gain antenna pointed directly at the device on the power pole 50 feet away may actualy cause the front end of the BPL device to act like a line fuse and fail completely.
My wire antenna is less than 20 feet from the power pole serving four houses. If there was a BPL device on that pole my 100 watt HF station would totally block the device every time I transmitted. The device would probably recover but any internet sessions through that device would be disrupted completely. The end user may see it as no different than the current dial-up connections which often drop out and need to be reestablished. Cable and DSL both win over BPL in this scenario.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on October 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah, the doom and gloom of BPL. The end of ham radio as we know it. Everyones HF rig will be worthless, our gear will be nothing more then paperweights. The ARRL is going to save ham radio! The sky is falling! Funny thing this hobby of ours. It has survived world wars, it has survived the arrival of TV, it has survived the evolution of technology from old tube type AM to solid state SSB, it has survived tower restrictions and CCR`s, it has survived no code techs and HF in various countries, it has survived spectrum pollution (contests), it has survived the arrival of the internet, (thanks Al Gore!) it has survived licensing requirement changes, it even survived changes to the bandplans and has also seemed to grow in spite of all these obstacles. In fact, hasnt amateur radio been around for at least 90 years or a bit more? And now this great BPL monster is going to wipe it out of existence. Yeah......right.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K2WH on October 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All you describe is true. However, BPL is a different animal like non other.
All the situations you describe were not RF related and did not destroy your ability to hear weak signals (except contests I guess). BPL will dominate the front end of HF receivers. It cannot be tuned out, it cannot be turned off, noise blanker will be useles, DSP will not help. It will be everywhere all up and down the HF dial. It will be like an oozing glue on your font end.
Those of you with cable modems and HF receivers, disconnect the cable line from the modem and connect a wire to the center conductor of the cable system. That is a good indicator of BPL's noise and interference signature. Try it. It will really open your eyes to this threat.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on October 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K2WH Good points made. However, as many calamities as amatuer radio has made it through, I still feel that even if forced to deal with this noisy mess, amateurs will prevail in ways to deal with it and or technically work around it. This BPL thing is a festering sore to amateur radio, but there are those in this hobby who have electronics knowledge that may very well be able to filter this garbage out of our rigs. Like it or not, BPL is coming, big money will win out over small timers like the league and amateurs. They probably already have. Our lobby power amounts to about as much as a drop of water in the ocean. We can however use the government against itself in fighting this thing. If you experience ANY interference from a local BPL user, you CAN and SHOULD call the Public Utilities Commission and report a complaint. They are VERY effective at getting power companies to fix line noise, so why not use this to report ISP`s who`s BPL is interfering with your rig? Just a thought.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KB7YOU on October 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Guys,
Seems to me that there is a simple solution to the BPL issue. Don't forget that if the BPL signal leaks out then our HF signals will leak in.
Get on HF, use your KW amp, point your beam at the offending power pole and start calling CQ.
What do you think the power company will do when thousands of internet customers start complaining about their lack of service? I'll tell you what they will do, they will fix the leak or drop the service.
73
Chris
KB7YOU
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K4CMD on October 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Love it or else?
Since we're not being listened to, and this BPL thing is being rammed down our throats, and our own neighbors are about to begin assaulting us with RFI after nearly a century of good-natured self-policing of our signals and harmonics, I say ... GLOVES OFF TIME, power companies! I'll be the first to remove all the ferrite beads, toroids and chokes from my shack and feedlines! Hell, I'm all for trading DSP for SPARK GAP! Where's my 1920s QST collection? ...
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB7YOU writes:
Hey Guys,
Seems to me that there is a simple solution to the BPL issue. Don't forget that if the BPL signal leaks out then our HF signals will leak in.
Get on HF, use your KW amp, point your beam at the offending power pole and start calling CQ.
What do you think the power company will do when thousands of internet customers start complaining about their lack of service? I'll tell you what they will do, they will fix the leak or drop the service.
73
Chris
KB7YOU
++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a good argument except for the fact that unshielded wires, carrying RF energy, are antennas. By definition, something like this is going to radiate (leak). In fact, subway systems use lengths of 'leaky' coax to provide radio coverage in tunnels and below-ground track sections.
In this case, I think if we deliberately interfere with the people's right to cheap and easy Internet communications (read this as lower profits for power companies), the FCC will turn on us in a heart beat.
IMHO, the ONLY way to deal with BPL is to NOT LET IT BE IMPLEMENTED!
Dennis - Kg4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Get on HF, use your KW amp, point your beam at the offending power pole and start calling CQ.>>>
Interesting philosophy however, it is more likely that you will suddenly be viewed as the problem and not the solution.
Part 15 legislation doesn't mean anything when it comes to Mr. Joe Ham vs. the interests of the public and the power companies at large.
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ahhh. It's all becoming very clear to me now.
My Conspiracy Theory:
They are dropping CW as a requirement for the HF bands in a masterful ploy so all the Techs will leave the currently allocated tech bands and head for the much sought after HF spectrum.
This will happen when the FCC decides that all the techs can have full HF privileges including all modes, full power levels and even the previously designated extra's spectrum. This would of course be in exchange for their current VHF/UHF privileges.
This will then open up all the VHF/UHF frequencies for all the current Generals and Extra's to use, while all the Techs will be fighting BPL QRM all day!
To this is say all the techs should agree to, "Keep the code!... Keep the code"!!!!
Ok...., now back to the regularly scheduled postings.
:)
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K2WH on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC will just change Part 15. Why doesn't anyone see this.
Part 15, can be changed at will. While Part 15 protects our rights and frequencies today, maybe not
tomorrow. Fight BPL. We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them in the streets. Never give up, never give in.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Ah, the doom and gloom of BPL. The end of ham radio
> as we know it. Everyones HF rig will be worthless,
> our gear will be nothing more then paperweights. The
> ARRL is going to save ham radio! The sky is falling!
> Funny thing this hobby of ours.
> It has survived world wars...
ARRL played a very strong role in getting amateur radio back on the air...
> it has survived the arrival of TV,
Lew McCoy probably literally saved amateur radio's bacon by getting information about how to solve the TVI problems, both with very real problems at the amateur station and in overloaded receivers...
> it has survived the evolution of technology from old tube type AM to solid state SSB, ...
What's to "survive" there?
> it has survived tower restrictions and CCR`s,
Those that can put up effective antennas are active hams. Those that cannot do so probably will not agree with you.
> it has survived no code techs and HF in various countries,
What is to "survive" there?
> it has survived spectrum pollution (contests),
I can read between those lines and see your agenda wrt contests. :-) Shame on contesters for actually getting on the air!
> it has survived the arrival of the internet,
What is to survive there?
> and has also seemed to grow in spite of all these ? > obstacles. In fact, hasnt amateur radio been around
> for at least 90 years or a bit more? And now this
> great BPL monster is going to wipe it out of
> existence. Yeah......right.
In all of those crises (real and imagined), amateur radio survived because people who cared got off their butts and did something about each of them. And in each case, I am sure there were those who just claimed that those doing something were just preaching gloom and doom.
Same thing today, it would appear...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> 1. BPL will not be everywhere, nothing is. BPL will
> be installed where there is a financially strong
> market for it. It isn't going to be on every single
> power line that is hanging on a pole. Do you think
> BPL will ever be in high density areas where there
> is fiber?
So are you saying BPL won't be economically viable in cities?
> 4. There are still alot of people living in less
> dense areas. BPL will probably not envade all of
> them. You have to keep in mind PBL costs money just
> not as much as fiber. Even the desireable target
> markets for BPL have to be big enough to support it.
So are you saying that BPL won't be econmically viable outside cities?
> 2. There are other probems that have killed ham
> radio before BPL. Antenna restrictions and tvi / rfi
> interference problems have already qrt'd many home
> based stations. BPL isn't going to affect these
> people. See #3.
Gosh, I didn't know that ham radio had been killed. :-) Is that why we have more hams now than we did a few scant years back? There are many hams who have gotten on the air in spite of those restrictions. I am sure they would disagree with your proclamation that their ham operation has been killed.
> 3. There seems to be a strong interest in mobile and
> portable stations. BPL should not affect mobile
> operation to a large degree.
Surely you jest! Mobile stations are located within tens of feet of the power lines. When the BPL industry claims that ARRL found strong noise only because I was operating a mobile station, can we count on you to set them straight? :-)
> 5. The most important consideration to keep in mind > is that BPL may not stay forever as now invisioned.
> BPL could very well migrate to much higher freqs in
> the future. Just about every radio frequency device
> started at low freqs and ended up on ??Ghz.
Yeah, and don't worry about the tornado headed your way, either, because it won't last very long...
> 6. Can BPL screw up the 40 meter band any worse than > it already is?
My word, yes! On 7040 kHz, I can work stations worldwide with only 5 watts on both ends. If I go mobile in Emmaus, PA and park in an area where BPL is in use, I cannot.
> And BPL will probably do the 75 meter band a favor.
So you admit it causes interference after all, or does your assessment vary from the beginning to the end of your post, depending on what point you believe you are making?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Do you have recordings of interference measurements
> in Ambient's test area? And if so, will those be made
> available to ARRL members?
Trial area #4 in the ARRL video.
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc#video
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w1rfi
If BPL completely destroyed ham radio, you would be one of the the biggest beneficiaries because you might get a life before you croak.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on November 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO W1RFI:
Thank you very much for your reply. While others have responded negatively, in this and other forums, I believe you, and the ARRL, are doing a VITAL service for Amateur Radio.
I authored this article to get people a little mad so, maybe, they might start thinking about BPL. Surprisingly, the responses have stayed mainly on topic and have brought up some interesting points. I am gratified that you have chosen to respond in this forum.
Keep up the good work!
Dennis - KG4RUL
PS Great Call Sign!
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K4PIT on November 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Get on HF, use your KW amp, point your beam at the offending power pole and start calling CQ.>>>
>>Interesting philosophy however, it is more likely that you will suddenly be viewed as the problem and not the solution.>>
BPL is in its infancy. Now is the time to be viewed as a problem. As much as we enjoy our hobby, they stand to loose a lot more. If ham radio is viewed as ONE potential obstacle maybe BPL will not be as attractive to the investor. If BPL poses a threat to us, imagine the battle to take HF privelages away from the Amateur Radio Service and even if that were to happen, wouldn't the investors be concerned that there may be a few hams willing to become outlaws? I'll be the first to admit that I am far from the most technologically minded among us, but I can be rather savy at fighting the good fight and exploiting the other guys fears; in this case:
The BPL guys are attempting to offer ONLY ONE MORE WAY to provide internet access. If they have to fight an uphill battle with so much at stake, maybe they would fold as quicklyly as some Hams have, when all the Ham has at stake is some potential interference to a hobby that they may have a few thousand dollars invested in?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on November 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You can always count on Ed for all the answers. He must be kin to Steve in 6 land. Ed since you seem to know everything and have all the answers, you should run for president. Maybe the ARRL can save the country too. ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You can always count on Ed for all the answers. He
> must be kin to Steve in 6 land. Ed since you seem to
> know everything and have all the answers, you should
> run for president. Maybe the ARRL can save the
> country too. ;-)
I do appreciate a good laugh, so thanks. Surely no one got taken in by this one, though, so you may want to improve the delivery. I have offered quite a bit on BPL on this forum and others about BPL, but surely no one would think that my doing so means that I know enough to be President.
If you are willing to take over and do all the work, I am sure that everyone would be most appreciative.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If BPL completely destroyed ham radio, you would be
> one of the the biggest beneficiaries because you
> might get a life before you croak.
If this is your response to the points I made, I win. :-)
If you have anything of substance that is acutally germaine to the topic, I am still quite wiling to discuss actual ideas. If the best you can do is to drag up a junior-high-school-quality put-down, I think I will gladly let that stand as your final word.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on November 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nothing like a grandstanding politician to add spice to a forum. Notice how many posts Ed made here in defense of the savior of amateur radio, the ARRL. To hear him talk amateur radio would die tomorrow if the ARRL folded. What a bunch of BS! ED, you sound just like a typical politician with all your rhetoric and propaganda. Maybe you and Mr.Bush can get together and figure how to deal with the Iraq situation?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> What a bunch of BS! ED, you sound just like a
> typical politician with all your rhetoric and
> propaganda.
Care to disagree with anything specific that I said? If you think that I have said something that is incorrect, quote me, and tell me why you think it is wrong and what you think is right instead. Feel free not to be anonymous, too; it will add a bit of credibility to your posts.
You can find lots of things to disagree with at:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Amateur_Interference_Studies
Oh, and the ARRL politicians serve on the ARRL Board. I am the hired help in the ARRL Technical Laboratory.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
Your doing a great job. People that are "genuine" in preserving the "art" of Amateur Radio also have an inherit understanding of the objectives & goals to preserve and to constantly improve our radio interests.
There will always be hecklers out there trying to disprove what is obviously a well intended attempt to preserve our interests from this RF noise pollution.
When I see a hecklers comment that attempts to discredit these efforts, I am only left in a position to question where these "amateurs" true interests are at heart.
The efforts of yourself and the ARRL are not going unnoticed. Then again, those efforts have been noticed since the original inception to provide a group that represents early radio experimenters on April, 6 1914.
Why kick the efforts of those that are trying to help improve one's interests?
Don't worry,... It's beyond my scope of understanding too.
73
Charles Bushell
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>If BPL poses a threat to us, imagine the battle to take HF privileges away from the Amateur Radio Service and even if that were to happen, wouldn't the investors be concerned that there may be a few hams willing to become outlaws?<<<<
Yup, and they would deal with you as an outlaw too.
The real solution is to use common sense and rational thinking. I agree with one point you made. If the investor finds it "unattractive" to pursue BPL then perhaps we would be on the right track.
For example, WiFi internet services can offer more range of services, higher data thoughputs, if attached to cell phone towers and could be provided to the consumer at a lower cost than BPL services.
This would make BPL technology a "less attractive" option to the investor.
73
Charles Bushell
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w1rfi
Is that the purpose of your visits, to WIN discussions on internet sites? I agree. You are visiting ham internet sites and trying every possible way to paint the worst possible picture about BPL that you can.
The arrl probably sent you to dismiss any public comment that doesn't demonize BPL which the arrl uses to pound out every penny they can from hams.
People like you try to convince hams that the arrl has political power, can persuade the fcc to take the arrl view, only if everbody sends the arrl lots of money.
The reality is that the arrl has ZERO power to affect anything, but as long as you can convince hams that the arrl does have some power, hams will sent you money.
Keep talking, not as many are listening that you had hoped.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
FJGH - BINGO! You win the award for not being as blind as some of the leauges a**kissers on here. Its all about how much money the league can milk out of gullable people who believe all the BPL propaganda.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KF8ZR on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like another company is trying BPL in the 5GHz range instead of using HF land.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/35181
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wonder, if this BPL thing doesnt come to pass, if the league intends to refund the donations (or at least a portion) that will no longer be needed to fight it? Dont hold your breath! I also wonder if Ed, since he is supposed to be a technician, is working on suppressing the BPL noise rather then spreading doom and gloom propaganda on internet forums? After all,you wouldnt expect a guy on the ARRL payroll to NOT spread a little propaganda on their behalf would you? Im sure he wouldnt bite the hand that feeds him. Theres where your defense fund and membership money is going, to guys like Ed sitting at his PC writing BPL propaganda.....
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>The reality is that the arrl has ZERO power to affect anything, but as long as you can convince hams that the arrl does have some power, hams will sent you money. <<<<
What? more baseless information?
It seems to me that we have yet another conspiracy theorist verbally injecting thoughtless rhetoric without displaying fact.
Opinions are usually good if you can back them up with relevant information. Otherwise, it usually holds little credibility. But, I know, you knew that already right?
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is no secret that the arrl has had money problems from bad investments and 'other' problems. BPL has been chosen by the arrl to be the cash cow that gets the money the arrl wants.
The apparent desperation the arrl has to raise more money is a big red flag concerning the problems and their causes at the arrl and the behavior of the general management of the arrl.
Instead of arrl members sending emails to the fcc about BPL, the members might want to send a letter to the Conneticut attorney general's office and request an investigation of the arrl's books.
It would be interesting to see where the expense, credit card, 'defense fund' money is being spent.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Is that the purpose of your visits, to WIN
> discussions on internet sites?
Of course it is the intent of people who post here to persuade others to the validity of their ideas. The other reason people get on sites is to troll up some fun. Which is YOUR reason?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Its all about how much money the league can milk out of gullible people who believe all the BPL propaganda.<<<<
The only "propaganda" here is your negativity toward the well intended efforts of an NON PROFIT organization that exists for the benefit of your sorry a**.
If you don't like the service, then try another restaurant.
Do you think the ARRL was just started up last week by a group of ebay entrepreneur's with the intention to steal all your money?
You better start hiding behind those tall walls along with those other self delusional conspiracy theorists. They are going to get you! look out!
You my friend, must have truly fallen off the proverbial turnip truck and hit your head if you are not aware of what the ARRL has done for Amateur Radio.
The ARRL has been around since your grandpa wore diapers. They have done a lot for the Amateur Radio community since then. (would you like a few 1000 boxes of supporting documents dated from 1914 to 2003 sent to your home address to prove it?) What are you contributing to Amateur Radio lately?
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> BPL has been chosen by the arrl to be the cash cow
> that gets the money the arrl wants.
By my guess, the League can expect about $300,000 in donations to the BPL effort. My work has been pretty steady since May, doing the various studies ARRL has done and documenting them for ARRL's filings; going to various trial areas to assess the interference potential from BPL and the like. Other HQ staff, including the ARRL DC office, have done similar work, at the national and international level. Jim Haynie and Chris Imlay have attended meetings and prepared the ARRL filings.
This is at an FCC Notice of Inquiry stage. If they go to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the process will start all over again. By the time is said and done, it appears to me that the League will have spent what it has taken in and then some.
Your idea of a "cash cow" seems a bit odd. I find it laughable to see folks ballyhooing ARRL's modest fund-raising efforts to cover the costs of doing this, but trusting absolutely in an industry that has some serious money at stake.
Could it be that you have a big investment in one of the BPL companies that you don't want to see get lost? Your propaganda sounds just like some of the BPL-manufacturer spin.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If anybody believed one word from the arrl about bpl, there wouldn't be any test sites, no money pouring in from investors for bpl, and the fcc wouldn't have gone as far as they have.
NOBODY IS LISTENING TO THE ARRL. THEY HAVE NO CLOUT, NO POWER OF PERSUATION, NO FAVORS TO CALL IN, AND NO MONEY TO CONTINUE FIGHTING A CAUSE THAT IS LOST.
BPL is here, not widespread, but it is here now. Whether bpl stays or doesn't will have nothing to do with the arrl. They are totally ineffective. They might actually be hurting their own cause by their arrogance that probably doesn't play well with the fcc.
If the arrl has done anything positive concerning bpl, WHAT IS IT! WHAT IS IT THEY ACCOMPLISHED. IS IT THAT THEY COLLECTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES?
The arrl is afraid if bpl stays, and bpl does't kill ham radio, they will look like total fools.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The arrl is afraid if bpl stays, and bpl does't kill
> ham radio, they will look like total fools.
I must admit that there is a bit of foolishness here, but it is in the idea that ARRL would want to see BPL kill amateur radio. I realize that you have an investment to protect, but that one is really reaching.
For the record, there is nothing I would like more than to for a solution to be found that would mean that BPL would not cause harmful interference to HF and low VHF operation. Unfortunately, the laws of physics are not on your side. A 30 uV/m field at 30 meters distance, on tens of MHz of spectrum at a time, spread fairly uniformly across a geographical area that will be as large as an entire community, has a very predictable effect.
The laws of antenna physics predict that S9-level signals will be picked up on nearby antennas. If you have any information to the contrary, you are welcome to share it. If all you can do is to stick your caps lock key on and claim that ARRL is completely ineffective to counter the League's reasoned and reasonable scientific positions, you are welcome to do so. Of course, if that is all you have, I suppose it will have to do. . . :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by FJGH on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w1rfi
Who's listening to you and all your scientific data. If your data is so valid and the arrl still can't get anybody to listen to it, how pathetic is that.
Again, who is listening to the arrl's claims??? I would tell you to give it up but you aren't ready for reality. If you believe you are effective, then at least one person believes you.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KB1KHI on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've gotta say, I am surprised at the number of (alleged) amateur radio operators on this board who are suspicious of the ARRL's motives concerning BPL. How are you helping our hobby by sniping at people who are trying to protect the bands from commercial encroachment? If you don't like the ARRL, don't send them your money. But don't turn on other operators who actually do care to preserve our hobby.
To those who say "wait and see", I say it will be too late by then. If the FCC decides to allow BPL over our objections, it will be very difficult to turn back the clock later. And to those who think they'll just slam the nearest power line transformer with 1.5KW of CW, I say that you don't understand the limits of your own license. Do you really think that the power companies won't shut you down for inconveniencing their customers with your QRM?
I for one am very appreciative of the diligent work that has been done by W1RFI and the ARRL to protect our bands. Keep up the good work, Ed!
Christopher Phillips
KB1KHI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Who's listening to you and all your scientific data.
> If your data is so valid and the arrl still can't
> get anybody to listen to it, how pathetic is that.
What do you believe to be incorrect about the ARRL's technical data?
> Again, who is listening to the arrl's claims??? I
> would tell you to give it up but you aren't ready
> for reality. If you believe you are effective, then
> at least one person believes you.
http://tinyurl.com/tnlt
Make that two?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>Who's listening to you and all your scientific data.<<<<
This comment would be similar in context to watching a court case and making the following statement in front of a judge:
"Your honor, are you actually going to listen to him and all that scientific data?"
You are suggesting that we should not listen to the relevant facts and collected data on BPL, but rather we should be listening to ??? what... conspiracy theories?
|
| |
|
BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on November 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In order for the amateur community to accurately access the potential impact to our service, we need to understand more about the technologies companies like Ambient intend to use.
For all interested in the technological aspects of BPL and how exactly the broadband data transfer will be accomplished, Ambient Corporation has secured a U.S. patent for their device. The patent number is 6,452,482 and is viewable on the U.S. Patent and trademark site at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
Here's a couple of exerpts from their invention that I think all of you will find the most interesting:
"A data communication network in accordance with the present invention offers a capacity for very high data rates, e.g., exceeding 10 Mbps. The couplers are all magnetic and electrostatic devices with bandwidths that can reach at least tens of megahertz if high frequency magnetic and dielectric materials are used. Transmission lines that are not too lossy and that have minimal dispersion could conduct frequencies exceeding 20 MHz. Such frequencies could be used for modems using various modulation schemes, and even at one bit per Hertz, would yield high data rates."
"The present invention produces a low electromagnetic emission and has a low susceptibility to external noise, especially when used with spread spectrum techniques. Power levels may also be kept low, because of low cable-to-coupler loss. Susceptibility to external noise sources would be proportional to radiation, with the modes having the lowest electromagnetic interference (EMI) also being those most resistant to external noise reception, based on the reciprocity principle."
In short, they intend to use a patented inductive coupler/transformer to allow a spreadspectrum datastream to bypass the distribution transformers on the utility system. These transformers are inherently lossy at HF and will attenuate a normal broadband signal. They get around this with the magnetic coupler described in the invention.
Ambient has also accomplished a couple other things:
They have been running trials with Consolidated Edsion of New York and are in the midst of setting up similar trials in Idaho. According to FCC press releases, they have secured Exempt Telecommunication company status. Form their own web site, www.ambientcorp.com they have recently secured over $4M in investor funds.
These guys seem to be moving right along. Makes me wonder just how much the ARRL knows in terms of the results of these trials and if any real data is available to indicate what the actual EMI levels might be and whether this would severely impact our service.
|
| |
|
Lets share actions we are taking to STOP BPL!!
|
|
|
by KI4CFS on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just saw an article in my local paper, happly anouncing BPL! (see link below) and no mention of it damanging effect. So
I am quite concerned that their was no mention of the effect on amateur radio by BPL.
Progress Energy expands testing of power lines as Internet channel http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/7981667.htm
I was so disturbed by it, I contacted a reporter I know from my volunteer award in the Durham Herald. I asked if she thought they might be interested in hearing another perspective on this story. She transferred me to the science reporter that said he had never hear of anything negative with BPL . He was very interested in the story when I shared about the community service and emergency back up features of ham radio. How people of all walks of life were involved, volunteering to do training in a "hobby" to offer disaster / emergency back up support. That a blind man in Boston could help patch trough a call of someone after the 9/11 disaster and make a real difference in a way with out ham radio he could not. How this community support is a real risk, that I felt if more people know the effect of BPL it would not be as popular. I am not contacting my local club to get the "BPL" expert to give him more "details" so he can finish his article. I will update my results here.
One more thing, since I am an Earthlink customer, and they are involved in this project, I called Earthlink management. They left for the day but I want them to know I am not a "happy camper" that they are supporting this project. Also how I believe if they know the harm it can do they may not want to be involved. I left a message for them to call me back.
KI4CFS Martin (919) 847-4757
Also, not that Eartlink in involved.
If you are an Earthlink member call their main office and talk to those responsible for BPL, let them know how you are not "happy campers" about this. Also, anytime the press mentions how wonderful it is we need to speak up with our voice!!!
Remember no action is an action, it says what you value is not important. Lets hear what others are doing to fight! This is just WRONG, and that what America was build on, standing up for what is RIGHT!!
KI4CFS Martin
|
| |
|
Actions taken against BPL , join us!
|
|
|
by KI4CFS on February 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have created a discussion on QRZ.com about stopping BPL. I thought it would be redundant to have the same post here so I am posting the web link below. If you are committed to personal action on BPL please join me!
http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=40398dca3cb5ffff;act=ST;f=7;t=56114;st=0
OR go to http://www.qrz.com/ ,select the Forum section and search BPL in the "Talk and Opinions" section.
Thanks, KI4CFS Martin
|
| |
|
RE: Actions taken against BPL , join us!
|
|
|
by VK3KCG on June 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sit under the power lines and pump out 100w Of digital comms on HF. Just jam the F#%kers.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Love it, OR Else!
|
|
|
by K8EQC on August 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello NC2F.
9db's here in Cottonwood, AZ is a little light.Try 60 over S-9 on 75 mtrs and S-9 plus 60db on 10 mtrs. Our local hams can hear BPL up to 1.5 miles away.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
ARRL Responds to Wall Street Journal Article on BPL:
SWLs May File BPL Interference Complaints:
FCC Proposes that Unused TV Spectrum Goes to Wireless:
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
Broadband over Power Line Video Available:
Other Regulatory Articles
Bandwidth versus Keying Speed
Fact or Fallacy?
HFA Spotlights ARRL Board Meeting
Kiss 33cm (900 MHz) Goodbye?
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress
|
