BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
Darrell Gordon (W4CX)
on
June 3, 2004
View comments about this article!
There have been many heroic efforts by our ham radio leaders towards addressing the BPL problem. We owe them a huge debt of thanks. There have been filings, comments, NRPMs, and bantering going on for quite some time, and many feel that it's just a matter of time before BPL ruins ham radio "as we know it". Others feel (and as a communications professional I agree), that the BPL financial business model does not "wash" and will ultimately be abandoned as a money loser.
Regardless of how you feel about BPL and the future of ham radio, I'm wondering if we are not missing an opportunity to put this to bed in a more effective way. How? Take it to the highest court in the land: The Court of Public Opinion. Consider a few facts:
1) So far, our discussions have been primarily technical in nature, and between technical audiences. Let's face it. With our knowledge of technology far surpassing the average Jane and John Doe, we don't consider them to be parties to the issues. We think, "This issue is between the utilities, us hams, some commercial interests, and the FCC". But yet, we are the first to claim spectrum as belonging to the citizenry. That's us -- and the Doe family, too!
2) The Executive mindsets at the power utility companies come from the old, old regulated side of the business overseen by the various states Public Services Commission. BPL is not, and its internal proponents aren't of that mindset. The Executives know they are afforded the privilege of being a monopoly, and the last thing they want is to upset the "public trust". They are stewards of natural resources that we all depend upon. They are paranoid about their impact on air quality, water quality, and environmental hazards.
To keep their good name, they spend millions upon millions to ensure they are providing capacity and do so without polluting our air, streams, and land. They sponsor "goodwill" events all over their market, scholarships, community grants and endowments. This is not altruism on their part. It is simply to preserve their corporate 'goodwill' in their operating communities.
Meanwhile, the Doe family is paranoid about everything they don't understand, and they don't understand all this technology stuff. Unsightly cell towers, cancer-causing radiation, health effects from "fields", and acid rain. Whether or not it's true, it's human nature to be afraid of things you can't see. Like, maybe, BPL radiation???
Then they hear us hams raising a ruckus about interference to our hobby. What do they care? They don't. In their view, that's somebody else's problem. But they would care, if only we could position it with them within the right context. That context is "BPL is negative on our environment". And if we could be successful, their opposition would be heard in the Executive boardrooms much louder that we Hams could do it. Remember, BPL is just another form of pollution. No sane Wall Street savvy utility Executive could fail to see the PR damage to their name coupled with another form of pollution.
My question is this: Have we done enough to educate those non-technical Doe families about BPL? Could BPL be shaped into the form of another type of pollution, an invisible hazard cast upon the public trust? Don't you think they would form a not-so-positive opinion? Add to that the fact that the reach of the Internet through DSL, Cable and soon wireless broadband is growing everyday. Their question becomes: "Why would I want to generate pollution and risk environmental safety (BPL) for something we can get other ways?"
To be sure, it would be a challenge for us to do this. For we have an axe to grind. And are we being sneaky, exaggerating environmental effects of BPL? -- Maybe, maybe not. But that's how things get done: shaping the public mindset. In fact, with Bush's endorsement of BPL, even the politics could oppose the onslaught of "yet another big government giveaway".
We need to think outside of our 'rice' boxes, and in the same way those Execs think. Yes, it IS all about the money, and since BPL is a far cry from their core business of supplying electrical power any degradation of their corporate 'goodwill' will be quickly relegated to the trashcan, and BPL with it.
So how can we meet Mr. and Mrs. Doe effectively and without showing bias? -- Ideas, anyone?
73, Darrell W4CX
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by K6BBC on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good idea. But forget about its harm to people. That will never work. If we can show it’s harmful to our pets, then you’ve got something.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The dying gasp of the BPL proponents will be to efficiently use their propaganda machines to paint Amateur radio operations as needless high level pollution in an attempt to save themselves. When this happens we will get pulled down with them. Remember we radiate "hudreds of watts of pollution for idle chitchat."
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by NL7GB on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good idea W4CX. I will try to think like a dweeb here, LOL!
BPL is a kind of pollution.
BPL will reduce quality of broadcast radio!
BPL will reduce protection from lightning strikes.
BPL preempts true wireless broadband development.
BPL is a giveaway to big business.
BPL will result in higher electric bills.
BPL will waste energy.
BPL will harm international good will.
BPL destroys spectrum that poor countries need.
"BAAD!"
BPL stands for "Bad Power Lines!"
BPL is bad for Hi-fidelity audio systems.
BPL is bad for electronic laboratories.
BPL is bad for fire fighters.
BPL is bad for ambulances.
BPL is bad for Police.
BPL is bad for all disaster response.
BPL is bad for ships at sea.
BPL is bad for aviation.
BPL is bad for automatic garage door openers.
BPL is bad for broadcast radio.
BPL is bad for shortwave radio.
BPL is bad for CB radio.
BPL is bad for Amateur radio.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by NL7GB on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KF7CG: Amateurs radiate a perfectly controlled signal on a tiny frequency that is one ten thousandth of the bandwidth of the BPL signal. Amateurs only radiate briefly and then they are done, leaving the RF environment pristine and healthy. BPL pollution is forever.
(Just throwing out spin points.)
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by NL7GB on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Amateurs have been the stewards of the RF spectrum, and are the reason why it is a beautiful, functional space that wasn't polluted decades ago. BPL would treat this resource as the disposable byproduct of political ambition and profits at any cost.
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Darrell,
there's some good points here, but I don't think educating the consumer is really
the answer. Look at all the people re-financing for adjustable rate mortgages right
before the rates go up. Maybe the better approach is convincing the utilities that
BPL will in the long run be a black hole money loser and they should better
concentrate on other technologies that will really make money for them.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I tend to agree with George.
Lobbying and telling a corporate entity that we are trying to save the seals, trees, or RF enviroment for that matter is futile.
To be effective, you need to speak thier language.
Preventing the implementation of BPL means you have to communicate to them using excel spreadsheets and quickbooks.
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by K0RFD on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Naah, if you called it pollution, the Bush administration would want to sell you credits so you could do it legally. You could then sell the credits to other polluters, or trade BPL pollution credits for, say, mercury credits, so that the people with the MOST money could generate the most pollution.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good article Darrel, unfortunately its government's role to regulate commerce and protect the environment. In this case, the FCC is failing to regulate because of political considerations, so now the market will decide if this product has a future. BPL will likely have a 3 to 7 year run which is long enough for the BPL companies to recoup their investment and make a profit. Investors, utilities and municipalities will then look foolish for having squandered funds for a system plagued with complaints and mediocre performance. By way, your title can use some editing. Your reference to rice box takes the reader away from your subject, which is BPL.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by K5UJ on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would avoid the idea that BPL is some kind of unhealthy radiation. The people who would react to that are also the same ones who think cell phones are dangerous and power lines cause cancer. (For more on that see http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html)
These people would also react negatively to ham radio if it were to appear on their radar screens.
Additionally, the idea that BPL causes "harmful" radiation is baloney. RF is non-ionizing radiation. It is physically impossible for it to break DNA etc.
It can only cause heating, and then only when there is enough energy and field strength (i.e. microwave ovens). In the case of BPL, this is not going to happen. Unfortunately, due to the FCC's reaction to pressure from politicians who have felt heat from constituents who are scientifically uneducated, we have ridiculous completely unnecessary "RF exposure limits." But that's another issue.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by K5SF on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes,
Absolutely think outside the 'technical' box.
NO!
Don't associate Radio wave as harmful pollution.
We already have EPA breathing down our necks if neighbor complains of radiation problems because his part 15 device started overloading. Then we have to produce all of our documents stating power to our antennas and the 'safe' distances allowed.
We may need to band together a demand part 15 be enforced. Thus if we cause interference to or are interfered from these devices, we need a strong reaction team to push the issue to have them stop the interference. The BPL device is the part 15 device.
73's
Rich
K5SF
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W2DUG on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Judging by the way hams handle the Morse code testing debate, it is clear that many hams are not capable of making an effective argument without appealing to emotional response. I doubt the emotional arguments will work well with the general public because of the infinitesimal influence the amateur radio hobby has on real life. In other words, the Doe's don't give a damn about ham radio. Even the most successful education program is not likely to make a difference, especially when they find out how easy it will be to get Internet access. The only argument to the general public that will effectively prevent BPL is if you can conclusively prove that BPL will interrupt cell phone service.
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by WB0M on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good point. First of all, BPL could be considered a form of censorship endorsed by the U.S. government, i.e. -- the blocking of SWL bands from foreign broadcasts. Is that a stretch? Not really. Also, the airwaves are public and regulated by the FCC. BPL would render large sections of the spectrum unusable to others such as business band, citizen's band and maybe the FRS (although I'm unsure of its frequencies). And, from a financial point, who is going to pay for BPL? Living in the Midwest, I'm sure most of the farmers that will "benefit" from BPL will not like their CB's jammed when trying to reach home and, more importantly, when harvest comes and the grain dryers are in action, the increased cost for electricity. And further more, I don't want my city bill increased to pay for a outdated idea either. And this is something we should also point out to the White House, representatives and local officials.
73 & GL, Jeff/wb0m
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by AB2MH on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Probably a good idea, but we need to make sure the public knows we're the good guys and not the bad. Some people are against ham radio operators because they claim we mess up their TV reception. Firstly, I don't think many hams do this, it's mainly the freebanders with overdriven, illegal, (non)linear amplifiers.
The topic of BPL has come up time and time again at BroadBandreports.com, which is a forum relating to broadband internet access. Many of the people there view ham radio as old and outdated, "horse and buggy" technology. We need to change that by showing people the more high tech aspect of the hobby, and why we're their allies, not their adversaries.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by K0IZ on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
People want broadband Internet, so if BPL is offered at a good price, the public will buy. How many will depend on cost/benefits of other forms of broadband, such as satelite, DSL, Cable.
Utilities will go with BPL if they think they can make money, and that any problems can be overcome or tolerated.
So the money part will mostly be determined by the public. But we (hams) can help with the problems.
Specifically if normal ham operations cause interference with BPL, that's not a "problem". But if that "problem" causes the public to have Internet problems, that IS a problem for the Utilities.
How do you think the Utilities will respond to "interference" to their expensive system (BPL) by hams? I suspect by trying to force the hams to stop transmitting, etc.
If we can't stop BPL, then we must make sure we have the right to operate normally, even if that causes disruptions to BPL.
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W0FMS on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, maybe we could start a rumor that BPL on the lines increases the "Power Line Cancer Risk" by 752%
That would work on the average Joe-Six-Pack wouldn't it?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah, that would work on Joe Six Pack but, what happens when they find out the truth?
We will only start losing public credibility then?
We can go around advertising the perils of BPL in the amateur radio community until the static bends the s-meter. This is going to have little or no effect in the consumer industry as BPL companies continue to dangle their proverbial marketing carrots over average consumers.
Here's an example of a company Advertising BPL:
"The Current Technologies™ PLC system is capable of providing multi-megabit speeds for residential and commercial Internet access users and can support VoIP, gaming, and digital quality video streaming. PLC is "always on" at every outlet in the home or business without the need for re-wiring."
Now doesn't that "sound" enticing Mr.Joe Sixpack?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W8MW on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for your out of the box article, Darrell. I agree with your premise that public opinion is a powerful force. I suspect trying to portray BPL as a biological threat won't fly and would damage the credibility of whoever makes that assertion. However the term BPL Pollution is both accurate and easy for anyone to comprehend.
IMHO, the public won't buy the BPL Pollution idea while it still only a fear among radio enthusiasts. Even as ham shacks get clobbered, chances are we can expect zero public sympathy for our situation. It only becomes important when it becomes their situation. The first time BPL Pollution is proven to disrupt critical communications concerning lives and property ... all hell should break loose.
I wouldn't want to be one of those executives who downplayed Pollution from BPL as entirely inconsequential while facing litigation from injured parties ... and receiving publicity about the technical community's warnings that went unheeded. That ought to take it down if economics don't destroy it first.
Highly recommend everyone visit www.gobpl.com
This site speaks to investors, internet end users and the media. Content deals with what is important to those audiences.
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W4VR on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Keep dreaming. With the NTIA supporting BPL (by direction of the executive branch), despite the negative results of it's own interference study, BPL is here to stay. The only thing that will eventually shut it down is if it's not a money maker.
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Others feel (and as a communications professional I agree), that the BPL financial business model does not "wash" and will ultimately be abandoned as a money loser."
If the thinking* of seasoned professionals is that BPL makes little economic sense, the thing to do is nothing. Let the investors lose their money, if they are so determined.
Now, if the investors happen to be taxpayers footing the bill for subsidizing the BPL service infrastructure, then it becomes of greater interest to consumers, who are already expecting a hike in the cost of energy over the summer, with no end in sight. Adding BPL will seem like a luxury they cannot afford, and it won't seem so necessary to consult the rhetoricians and spin doctors to explain why their energy bill might be lower if the cost of developing the BPL infrastructure weren't being passed to them.
73,
N2JHZ
*I would prefer to use the word "thinking", as opposed to "feeling", which, for me, refers to involuntary emotional states beyond conscious control. There is no need to discuss personal feelings, which are to be distinguished from expert opinion and seasoned judgment.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by CBER1289 on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I know it is illeagle for things to interfere with hams but what about C.B. operators.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CBer1289,
All you guys operate "ILLEGALLY" anyway so why worry about anything that interferes with you? Secondly alot of your brother and sister CBers interfere with we LEGALLY licensed Amateur Radio operators on OUR 10/12/ & 15 meter bands, even in our CW portions!!!
JIM/ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by N7UQA on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by NN6EE on June 3, 2004 CBer1289,
All you guys operate "ILLEGALLY" anyway so why worry about anything that interferes with you? Secondly alot of your brother and sister CBers interfere with we LEGALLY licensed Amateur Radio operators on OUR 10/12/ & 15 meter bands, even in our CW portions!!!
JIM/ee
Now while I can sympathize with you, I do know some Cbers who do operate legally. I am also frustrated with the the illegal CB operators who think it's their god given right to operate on and frequency they want. But to answer this guys question think of this.
Imagine ALL 40 channels obliterated with 30dB+S9 whines, buzzes and click 24/7/365. This noise will radiate off ALL the wiring in your house and off ALL your appliances. Going to the so called “freeband” will do no good either because it will be as equally wiped out. Not to mention that with the transformer conviently bypassed, all the noise generated by corroded connections and cracked insulators will now be radiated off all the wiring as well. I hope this provides some food for thought...
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by VE7LFN on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Rice box?!?!?!
so what are made in the states radios called?
Bubba boxes?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by CBER1289 on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is why I stick to 11meters,becouse I get these reactions from smart asses like NN6EE.I should just let my damn ham ticket expire!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by K6BBC on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And what nickname does a radio made in Canada have?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
.........Actually, the Cb'ers with their 500 watt solid state amps are going to be a Tremendous RESOURCE in the Ongoing battle of Amateur Radio...vs...BPL......HOW, well, IF the equipment too transmit and deliver BPL to the customer is as Sensitive as has been predicted , the CB'ers are going to create Havoc for the BPL folks. Just how is the FCC going to control the hundreds of thousands of illegal 500 watt mobiles running around all over the country ????? They will be infecting every BPL system that is setup . The FCC KNOWS the name and address of ALL Hams so we can be notified by the FCC about reductions in our ERp. Cb'ers, are not subject TOO the same kind of notification and therefore are free to do as they please. I'm trying to remember where my old 40 channel , BPL infection machine has been stored......kd5ir , sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Question:
>>> I know it is illeagle for things to interfere with hams but what about C.B. operators.>>>
Answer:
CB radio is not protected under the same Part 97 FCC rules as Amateur Radio.
CB Radios are covered under Part 95 of the FCC rules and you may operate your CB radio under the following conditions and I quote:
"This device complies with Part 15 of FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
1. This device may not cause harmful interference.
2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation."
End Quote
Therefore you must accept any interferance you recieve, but you must not cause interference.
Hope that answers your question.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> And what nickname does a radio made in Canada have? <<
uh, Labatt Squak Boxes?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
..........The main point that I'm trying too make....is that.....There are literally thousands of UNregistered CB operators ...with amps that the FCC is NEVER going to beable to Control, much less punish for interefering with BPL systems. Hams, on the other hand, are ALL documented and as such are subject to Edicts issued by the FCC to diminish interference with BPL systems should they choose to Do so......kd5ir , sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W3DCG on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Court the A.M. Talk Radio bunch of the general populace. Like I can't believe Talk Radio guys and gals are not making a big commotion about BPL.
Seems like a good topic, but someone needs to bring the video and audio proof to people like Neal Boortz, let them do a show on it. Let they play the audio.
Let them take it to the public about what it means.
I would think BPL has the potential to ruin Talk Radio and AM Broadcaster professions.
Especially since, that microwave spectrum other form of supposed no interference BPL has not been spoken of at all lately.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by WB9NJB on June 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Are there any radios made in Canada by our leftest Northern friends?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB0M said,
>>> First of all, BPL could be considered a form of censorship endorsed by the U.S. government, i.e. -- the blocking of SWL bands from foreign broadcasts. Is that a stretch? Not really. <<<
This is the best strategy I've heard yet!
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that BPL interferes with? Does it interfere with the AM broadcast bands? I've seen an ARRL video from 2003, which shows interference to the shortwave bands; however, if the video were to include AM broadcast band interference, that would be an even greater indictment.
The video is available on www.gobpl.com (which probably should have been named www.stopbpl.com; had to overcome my initial reaction to the name gobpl before I decided to visit the site; gobpl sounds pro bpl). The video shows interference to short wave receivers located in the vicinity of a BPL test area; we don't know how large the test area is, or how far from the power lines the receivers are placed, however, you get the impression that the interference extends for hundreds of feet away from the power lines where the BPL is deployed. Strikingly, the RFI is considerably worse than the ignition noise caused by the vehicle in which some of the videos were taken.
One would like more details about how the videos were produced, the geometry of the test area, measurements of the interference, and so on.
The video does make a point of illustrating BPL interference to WWV around 10 MHz. Many superheterodyne IF amplifiers work at 10.7 MHz; one imagines that BPL would cause interference to receivers with 10.7 MHz IF stages.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The mention of 10.7Mhz IF raises the issue of the 4.5Mhz audio channel IF in television receivers. Does this mean that BPL on the power lines could damage this comsumer product?
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box Reply
by CBER1289 on June 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
This is why I stick to 11meters,becouse I get these reactions from smart asses like NN6EE.I should just let my damn ham ticket expire!
************************************************
By the above comment from a gentleman that uses the word "SMART-ASS" to describe me are'nt you getting out of your realm of legitimacy???
Excuse me?
No CBer operates legitamately!!! You said: I should have let my (meaning your license expire)? CBers don't have licenses MORON!!! And if you want to HIDE behind a cute IDer whether you're a licensed Amateur or a AC/DC CBer then your NO BETTER then they are!!!
Apparently you don't realize that your a"Smart-Ass" personified!!!"
Legit Call: NN6EE
Have a crappy day OB!!!
PS, I've been licensed a helluva lot longer than you've been and will continue to honor the HOBBY instead of trash it!!!
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KI6HT on June 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Buy an ampRun RTTYPoint beam at nearest telephone pole
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KT0DD on June 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
QUOTE: We already have EPA breathing down our necks if neighbor complains of radiation problems because his part 15 device started overloading. Then we have to produce all of our documents stating power to our antennas and the 'safe' distances allowed.
You mean what little protection we have from Part 15 becomes null and void if someone gets the EPA involved? WOW! Any city dwellers must then sell their amps and run 5 watts ERP/QRP. Some of these new filthy consumer devices could malfunction if they're 2-3 blocks away! Pathetic. EX patriotism is looking more and more attractive all the time. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by CBER1289 on June 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To NN6EE
When I said my ham ticket I ment my Amateur Radio License.Just because i am a CBer doesn't mean that I operate illegally.
KD5ZER
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the Box
|
|
|
by WB0M on June 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
When W4CX started this thread it was to get ideas about convincing non-hams why BPL is a bad idea. Threatening to disrupt BPL or calling CB ops. names is not really going to help. Come on folks, suck it up and let's use our brains. We've passed licenses which required us to learn and think about radios, theories, rules and regs, surely we can come up with ideas to PREEMPT BPL. And YES, we have to be all inclusive: SWL, Citizen Band, foreign broadcasts, US religious broadcasts, etc. We are all in this together. I would rather be the one to decide what I'll listen to or whom I'll talk to rather than have a utility decide for me. 73, Jeff/wb0m
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by OMNIPRESSIVE on June 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
As an Asian person, I find the subject line of this thread highly offensive. The word "rice" should not be synonymous with Japanese, or any other Asian nationality.
Perhaps we should start calling Ten-Tec equipment "honkey boxes"?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by OMNIPRESSIVE on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice response there K6BBC. I can see you're quite the exemplary ham. Lets take at your profile, shall we:
Quote
My equipment consists of...
junk
I am a member of the following ham radio clubs...
I hate clubs.
I would like to try the following new things in ham radio in the next 10 years...
no more code
When I'm not on the radio, you can normally find me...
cleaning the kitchen
End Quote
In summary, your equipment is junk, you hate clubs, you want to get rid of code and you have a dirty kitchen.
Interesting...
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the (gratuitous reference re
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Will these soporific putdowns of CB operators never cease? The greatest contribution of the putdown-artist to the world is the putdown.
The issue was supposed to have been BPL. CB operators would be affected as well.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (gratuitous referenc
|
|
|
by K6BBC on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And yours...
None, no, and not.
That's really putting yourslef out there.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (gratuitous referenc
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The fact of the matter is that we are not the only service that will be affected by BPL. I think as Amateurs we need to recognize that fact. We sure could use others in support of our own hobby.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (gratuitous referenc
|
|
|
by KE6I on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We need to document damage from BPL when it comes on line in preparation for the CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. We need to make it clear to power companies now, that if they claim BPL does not interfere and then it does, that we are entitled to compensation for damages.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (gratuitous referenc
|
|
|
by K3QS on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is off the subject, but can someone explain why associating rice with Asia would be offensive? I learned as a child that I can only be offended if I choose to be offended.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (gratuitous referenc
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear cbER1289!!! (supposedly a HAM???) I doubt it as your way too accomplished as a "Flaming TROLLER" and that's well apparent and also HIDING who you really are, whaddayah have to hide for??? What goes around comes around!!! Yah, let your (supposed) license lapse as you won't be missed!!!
Secondly, yes it's well apparent that OL'Bubba and all the other CB-Boys will be pulling their hair out as well!!!
Jim/nn6ee (REAL CALL es proud of it and the HOBBY!!!)
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the Box
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I learned as a child that I can only be offended if I choose to be offended."
For me, this is a gloss over several off-topic issues, one of which is the question of whether one can choose to have the feelings one has. Another one is whether certain expressions are generally used to express hostility, whether or not the object of them responds.
Some neurolophysiologists distinguish between the public and private aspects of emotional response. Feelings are the private, internal involuntary aspect, over which one has no direct control, and only limited influence (by changing behavior); as such, they lie outside the moral sphere. Emotions which are the public aspect; one can to learn to control the public expression of one's private, involuntary feelings, to some extent.
Whether anyone chooses to mask any involuntary feeling of umbrage or outrage, which may accompany the perception of having been subjected to some kind of attack or slight (e.g., through ignorance of cultural differences) is distinct from the fact of having been so subjected.
P.S. None of this addresses why the expression "rice box" could be considered offensive; various stereotypes come to mind though. One wonders why thinking within a "rice" box would be any more limiting than thinking within other kinds of boxes. It is a fair question to ask why the distinction was made: what was that about?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the Box
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2JHZ,
Well apparently it has something to do with Amerika's fetish for "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS". Like do Blacks want to be called "Negro"? Nope! It's "African American"!!! Do various Asians want to be called "Oriental"? Nope!!! They now feel slighted by that terminology!!! I'm Causcasian by birth but I'm happy with being a "AMERICAN" not lumped into any racial group. That's one of our on-going problems now in that we're becoming fractionalized like the Balkan-States!!!
Is that what we want??? Ethnic war???
I hope not!!!
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the Box
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5ZER aka cber1289!!!
Ah!!! Now I understand about your "mental-state" @ 14yrs of age as you are now I was exactly like you!!! Not too damn bright in certain sectors!!!
You should KNOW how much trouble your CB-bretheren aka "Free-Banders have caused on alot of our exclusive Amateur Radio bands in the past and continue to do even now!!! So when you start SPEAKING-OUT about CBers' abuse of Amateur Radio frequencies (ILLEGALLY) then we'll respect you!!!
73,
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the Box
|
|
|
by W4CX on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Boys and Girls! Please! Enough of this! The purpose of my article was to suggest exploring non-traditional methods of generating opposition to BPL.....opposition from the general public, who would have a much louder voice than we have. THAT's what we need to be doing! THANK YOU to those who responded with well considered comments.
POSSIBLE BPL OBJECTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC:
1) Hidden public funding through higher electrical rates. Not gonna happen. Power production business is strictly *regulated* by the PUCs which control the cost envelopes the utilities operate under. BPL expenses would never be allowed to be included in this envelope. BPL would be managed by a separate unregulated business unit...similar to their surge protection and inside wiring contracts.
2) BPL pollutes our environment. - This was my suggestion, and you were rightly concerned that it might backfire on us hams who intentionally radiate.
I still believe that we could use this to heavy advantage if we could bring the topic to the fore through non-ham related environmental activist groups.
3) BPL harms public services: Fire, Rescue, Police. A good one, but hard to prove
4) Censorship of SW broadcasting. I LOVE this one...but we couldn't use the word 'censorship' because it's not intentionally targeted at broadcasters by the BPL operators.
5) Talk show host discussion (Neal Boortz). GREAT IDEA! I can hear him already. Even better would be Jim Bohannan. Who wants to give him a call?
6)....keep thinking.
Now, as to my choice of "rice" boxes in the title, I was merely trying to use a catchy 'thinking outside of the box' metaphor. Dear OMNIPRESSIVE: Bugger off! If I had used 'Boat Anchor' do you think I'd get blasted by the Navy? How 'bout an amplifier as a "brick". Don't you think the Brick industry would file a libel suit? Please use your 'offended' energy to help us find a solution to the most serious threat to amateur radio in decades.
And THANK YOU to those you provided good, clear, constructive suggestions. Keep 'em coming!
73, and Blessings. Darrell W4CX
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the Box
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Darrell.
Why shy away from HUMAN INTERACTION???
QRZ.Com does'nt have anything better to offer then what is out here presently!!!
It's all about "Human-Interaction" and if anybody does'nt like that then they SHOULD'NT even be out here either!!!
Jesus Cristo!!! What else can be said???
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by AB3AX on June 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why Go BPL? - http://www.gobpl.com/
We chose the name Go BPL for our site because the site is aimed primarily at non-hams - at prospective BPL investors, subscribers, journalists, legislators and other non-technical folks. Do you really think they would visit a site going by the name of "Stop BPL"?
Our strategy is to take the fight to the enemy. Initially they blindsided everyone with the New Technololgy v Reactionary Luddite Hams argument. The fact is that many more folk than radio amateurs oppose BPL, for a whole host of reasons to do with subjects such as safety of life, property, boats and planes, and also the really bad prospects to investors, who seem more likely to lose their shirts than make a lot of money on the back of this most debatable of technologies.
So visit our site, tell everyone about it, link to it, give us your ideas for articles and links to items of interest, and your comments too using our feedback form.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by N2JHZ on June 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We chose the name Go BPL for our site because the site is aimed primarily at non-hams - at prospective BPL investors, subscribers, journalists, legislators and other non-technical folks."
Yes, I could see that, after I visited the site.
Do you really think they would visit a site going by the name of "Stop BPL"?
No, but I didn't express that opinion: I gave my own initial reaction, which is of someone not in the demographic you mentioned. For the intended audience, it was a clever and carefully calibrated choice.
I have linked to your site in my own, incidentally.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on June 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I feel that there isn't all that much we can do to stop BPL. I've written the form letters, signed petitions..but we are such a small minority that I don't see how we can win. It's already being rolled out to more and more customers every day. I do hope that it fizzles out on it's own because of unpopularity, the service sucks, etc.
The general public could care less about us or our plight to save HF. If they don't care about the hobby.. they certainly are not going to care whether it destroys our spectrum. They just want to know they are getting something cheaper/better/faster. That's the general public, folks.. plain and simple.
I'm hoping things like thunderstorms 50 miles away render BPL useless due to the noise. I hope that BPL is so unreliable that it falls flat on it's face and that something else comes out that is away from our spectrum and we can go on worrying about other things. 73's
James KB2FCV
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Rice) Box
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
James,
Can you or anyone else out here tell us what the DOWNLOAD SPEEDS are presently of the areas where customers are actually using "BPL"??? Obviously the major problem of that mode of DATA xmsn is noise, granted, but as I understand the down-load speeds are'nt anything to write home about anyway!!! And besides why use a ARCHIAC system of xmsn by inefficient powerlines when (WIRELESS) is coming into it's own and is a Helluva lot faster besides!!!
I'm presently hooked up with COMCAST (cable) and our average download speed is typically 1.3mbps. Are the experimental "BPL" systems doing that or better???
Thanks in advance,
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on June 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Power lines would look like rather high impedance open-wire transmisson line at RF, wouldn't they? Or in some cases, they are twisted pairs or triples to the home. If the phone company can make it work on their twisted pairs, then the power company better try just as hard to do the same....
I recently got on Rogers cable. I get 2.88 Mbps now, and the modem is a 10 Mbps modem, ready for the gradual access network upgrades (according to the installer, anyway). No need for BPL here, as I have 5 cable connections -- one in each room that is ever likely to have a computer or TV. I hope all my neighbours see it that way too, so my radios won't be interfered with.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on June 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oops, I'd better clarify a bit.... When I said that the telephone companies have made high speed internet work on their twisted pairs, I was refering to the fact that they can do it without causing harmful interference (at east none that I've ever heard of). So the power companies have a baseline to compare with -- that is, good performance without causing interference, if they implement BPL.
I hope the phone and cable companies make a point of this if it becomes a problem. They have to abide by the rules, so BPL must as well.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KG6TCJ on June 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One over looked area in this thread is that BPL will be at every electric outlet in a home or business. This will allow smart chips to be added to every electrical device connected to these outlets. Now companies can tell every time you open your refrigerator, turn on your microwave, what TV channel you are watching, what radio station you listen to, what time you set your alarm to wake up, the information gathering possibilities are endless. Call me period but if money can be made it will happen.
KG6TCJ
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TCJ,
Agreed!!!
And they're also working on many devices to keep track of all of our "bodily-functions" as well!!! :-))) (tongue-in-cheek of course!) But it's not out of the realm of possibiliity is it???
Has'nt the "CONSTITUTION" been trampled enough on???
When are AMERICAN's going to tell John Ashcroft and his "BOY" Bush "NO MORE!!!"???
Vote either Republican/Democratic/ or Green, we the "PEOPLE" will still get screwed!!!
JIM/ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> One over looked area in this thread is that BPL will
> be at every electric outlet in a home or business.
> This will allow smart chips to be added to every
> electrical device connected to these outlets. Now
> companies can tell every time you open your
> refrigerator, turn on your microwave, what TV
> channel you are watching, what radio station you
> listen to, what time you set your alarm to wake up,
> the information gathering possibilities are endless.
So why doesn't my telephone have a smart chip built in that reports all of the credit card numbers I punch in when I order things via automated ordering systems? Why doesn't my computer have a smart chip that reports all of the credit card numbers that I use to order things on line? These "possibilities" have existed for years, yet they haven't happened.
I suggest that this issue is best solved with fact, not far-fetched speculation. There is still plenty of real issues that can be put on the plate; we should concentrate our efforts there. Leave the far-fetched speculation to the BPL industry so they can continue to say that a spread-spectrum professional must have misidentifed a neon sign as their spread-spectrum BPL system.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by KG6TCJ on June 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed I agree with you fully we need to be professional in how we argue BPL and yes we need to know the difference between RFI from a neon sign compared to BPL. I apologize I was being a bit satirical in my post.
But I do need to point out that Intel did put a smart chip of sorts in PC’s it was benign in its purpose but it created a public turmoil. Every web site you visit is recorded in a computer log or unannounced to you a sniffing software is downloaded to your PC which relays all of the sites you visit to its owner (just download a program called Ad-aware and run it www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/), every phone call you make is logged every credit card transaction is recorded and all of these can be mineded and are for data that can be used to create a profile which is used for marketing products. BPL will be no different in how it is used to gather information then the communication technologies we use today if a buck can be made some yahoo will try it.
|
| |
|
BPL: Thinking Outside the Box
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on June 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought of a simple analogy that might give laymen an idea of the threat from BPL:
Suppose there's a huge market for insecticides, and somebody thinks of a nifty way to deliver all the insecticides you need right to your home. His method includes putting a teeny tube through the water mains to your house. He promises that the leakage from the tube won't be much at all. His insecticide is very concentrated, and highly toxic to humans and animals. He tests it, and says there haven't been any complaints (but there are - unsubstantiated - reports of a few deaths). He complains that the water-lovers are just too sensitive about the taste of their water - maybe they should not drink so much water, or boil what they drink. The best part of this is that you don't have any more insects around. The worst is that you can't drink the water.
73TomAB5XZ
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi,
BPL will not be at every outlet. There will be outlets with no BPL because no one on that particular LV segment is a customer. The MV lines will have the back-bone distribution, but this will be terminated by the transformer that steps the MV to LV.
I don't think the BPL providers are going to put BPL on LV segments with no customers for cost reasons. It will be on every outlet that is on a segment with a paying customer though.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> BPL will not be at every outlet. There will be
> outlets with no BPL because no one on that
> particular LV segment is a customer. The MV lines
> will have the back-bone distribution, but this will
> be terminated by the transformer that steps the MV
> to LV.
Main.net runs enough power on the LV side to bulldoze through the transformer and get to the HV side. I will guesstimate that the transformer has about 20 dB of attenuation at most of RF. That means that the BPL at the outlets of people not bypassed around that transformer with a coupler will be about 20 dB higher than the conducted noise level permitted to most Part-15 devices.
> I don't think the BPL providers are going to put BPL
> on LV segments with no customers for cost reasons.
> It will be on every outlet that is on a segment with
> a paying customer though.
And unattenuated on each outlet in any other buildings on the same secondary LV side as a paying customer.
And the couplers around the transformers will conduct the BPL signal -- and any other noise generated in that building -- onto the overhead lines, forming a fairly large noise pool that is now limited by the transformers. With those couplers, noise that is now radiated only by building wiring and the devices connected to it will be coupled on to overhead wiring, partially radiated, and coupled via couplers to other buildings on different transformers.
Of course, the effect of increasing the conducted noise level by a factor of 100 to 10,000 hasn't been proven yet, though I can hardly imagine it to be good.
And the real issue is still radiated emissions at S9+ levels near BPL systems on any spectrum they are using.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote from W1RFI:
"And the couplers around the transformers will conduct the BPL signal -- and any other noise generated in that building -- onto the overhead lines, forming a fairly large noise pool that is now limited by the transformers. With those couplers, noise that is now radiated only by building wiring and the devices connected to it will be coupled on to overhead wiring, partially radiated, and coupled via couplers to other buildings on different transformers.
Of course, the effect of increasing the conducted noise level by a factor of 100 to 10,000 hasn't been proven yet, though I can hardly imagine it to be good."
Ed: Not a difficult exercise for someone with lab gear and some space to perform a simple noise test. Simply acquire a couple of 5 kVA surplus distribution transformers and connect their HV windings together. And, via the secondary side on one, energize the pair. Using a small single phase variable frequency motor drive and motor on the source transformer secondary, you could simulate what the presence or absence of BPL HV-LV couplers does to high order harmonic noise available on the secondary of the second transformer by adding couplers to one, then both transformers. A bit crude, but a useful, before and after test. A UPS would probably be interesting to observe as well, along with an assortment of larger switching power supplies.
So, the NTIA thinks that just the traditional insulation tracking and arcing from loose hardware needs to be eliminated (to make BPL viable)? With the addition of transformer bypass couplers, the noise problems will undoubtedly get much worse before they get better. And, not without vastly increased levels of line maintenance, including insulator washing, hardware replacement, etc., to quiet the traditional sources.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL: Thinking Outside the (Potato or Rice) Box
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on June 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG6CTJ said "...Now companies can tell every time you open your refrigerator, turn on your microwave, what TV channel you are watching, what radio station you listen to, what time you set your alarm to wake up, the information gathering possibilities are endless."
Good point, and I agree.
Not to mention when we are out of the house (say, by activating a garage door opener, or alarm system, etc), leaving it unattended, the internet could be told that too.....
If our society accepts this blatant intrusion into our daily lives, (and I suspect it will), then our privacy and security will evaporate.
So much for "homeland security" !
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
What is FCC Docket 03-104 Asking?
Invite Your Congressman or Congresswoman to Field Day!
Response to NY Times BPL Article
New Restrictions on BPL in Australia:
An Opportunity to Gain Co-Sponsors for H.R. 691
Other Editorial Articles
My First Memory
The SB Project
Hamming It Up, The Early Years
A Hobby from a Hobby
Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales
|
