|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
Dick Boley (N3HKN)
on
July 5, 2004
View comments about this article!
The Double-Edged Sword Of BPL
While the Amateur community, and their representative organizations, rail against the BPL industry a more ominous issue looms on the horizon. Currently most Hams are fearful that BPL will cause significant interference to their operations. A high probability exists that this will slowly become true as BPL is deployed. The utilities have obviously done some homework and used the FCC database to avoid neighborhoods that have a population of Hams. Thus we see an essentially benign service that offers competitive services to the public that here-to-fore have been at the mercy of the cable and phone companies.
The ominous element is that Amateur Radio operators can possibly interfere with the BPL services using a tribander and 1.5kw pointed at a power line. What do you think will happen? Well, the BPL folks will descend upon Washington with a private jet full of lawyers. They will demand that the FCC curtail the operations of interfering radio transmitters. Guess who that is!
So, while we worry about the reception of BPL signals (interference) it is very likely that we will be blind-sided when the FCC asks us to show cause as to why we should not cease operations that interfere with BPL. If the FCC refrains from a Cease and Desist order to stop transmitting they, in all probability, will allow BPL utilities to raise their power levels to overcome the interference and restore this much need service to the public. Gee, our original fear of interference to the reception of signals is now guaranteed. Thus the cycle will begin with only a black hole in sight.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KT0DD on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If BPL was the only way to access the Internet, I could see this as being a real threat. However there are several other ways people connect, and almost all are more efficient than BPL.(Except maybe dial-up.)
While I am in complete agreement that we need to keep informing the public of the fallacy of BPL, and to keep holding the FCC's feet to the enforcment "Fire" so to speak, I do believe that newer technologies will eventually render BPL obsolete. After all, COMPLETELY wireless is the wave of the future. Cell Phone access, 802.16 Wi-Fi / WiMax systems will eventually take over, and without subscribers, BPL collapses. 73
|
| |
|
POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK !!!!!!
|
|
|
by W0IW on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is a dirty technology...
It's a monster hissing and spitting and has little chance of being a clean useful beast... Hams have forever been a source of interference sometimes as well this is true.. sometimes not... but is the lesser of the two evils for sure.. Hams dont cause 24/7 out of band problems, and if they did would be shut down along time ago....
The problem with bpl is it will run 24/7 with all it's static, Hiss, noise, and popping.... 24/7...
Your ham would run only a couple hours a day and 1/2 of that maybe for just xmit time on the hams part...
So lets look at this for just one second judge...
The hams being interfered with for days/months and years bombarded with noise and hisss 24/7...by the bpl people.. our ham goes before as judge and says i have interference 24/7 judge... They claim a couple minutes a day i interfere with bpl.. I bet the lesser of two evils here...
Would make for good court tv...
Joe
KJØL
--
Evil only survives when Good Men step back and do nothing!
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AC0X on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll avoid the obvious epithet here, since I've been scolded for it. But a few (what should be obvious) comments.
1) BPL is a Part 15 application. By law, it HAS TO tolerate inteference from licensed services. Be they us, be they other commerical users, be they ANY licensed service. No matter HOW MANY lawyers the BPL folks send down to the FCC, they can't just "by edict" shut us down. Rules would have to be changed. Which would mean Notice of Proposed Rule Makings would have to be issued, time for comments to be filed would have to be allowed, etc. They can't just order any "Cease and Desist" order against us. We're not breaking any laws or rules.
2) Part 15 rules also don't allow BPL to raise power levels above what they are. The same procedure would have to happen for that to go on.
3) The FCC has NEVER issued a "Cease and Desist" order or any sort of limitation against Amateurs getting into other Part 15 devices (stereos, cell phones, powered speakers, and yes, Internet Cable Modems). Even "Quiet Times" (hams used to be limited to the interference they caused to radio and TV broadcasts) are a thing of the past. That is (again) because they are Part 15 devices and BY LAW have to tolerate inteference from licensed services.
Now, COULD the laws be changed against us? Of course they can. But this won't happen "overnight" and the only way we could be "blindsided" is if we have our eyes closed.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by N0RKX on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ACØX nailed it on the head.
By the time the FCC got around to changing the rules neccesary for them to protect BPL at the expense of any licensed service, the complaining customer will have dumped BPL for better or existing broadband access.
Nobody has yet to explain to me WHY everyone NEEDS broadband access. My Aunt and Uncle are farmers. They have dial-up. They do e-mail with the family the surf the web. Why do they NEED broadband?
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AC0X on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another comment:
What is up with these last few BPL articles? First we have one that promotes the DANGEROUS LIE that we can live with BPL, all we need to do is use special modes and digital filtering on our receivers, then another article that says ANOTHER DANGEROUS LIE that if BPL comes to town we had better shut down because if we transmit and intefere with them they'll shut down the whole Amateur Service! Is this Eham or the web site of the UPLC?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AC0X on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Nobody has yet to explain to me WHY everyone NEEDS
>broadband access.
Well, Farmer Brown also didn't have telephones for years, too, so, technically you don't need phones, either. But that's not the point. We don't want to deny ANYONE broadband service. There's just no reason that such a dirty, backward technology as BPL should be used. Farmer Brown's best hope for broadband is WIRELESS. BPL is like drilling in the the Alaskan Wilderness for oil - if we found out there was no oil there to drill for.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KC8YVE on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello all.
I Dont see the battle as being over just yet. Remember we have FEMA and a few other government agencys on our side. Personally I work the young people at the local coffee shop, Delta College, and the High Schools.
We talk about Ham radio operators roles in emergencys, 9/11 is an excellent example. Motarola has sold many of the emergency services in the country on there trunked systems, these systems are usless without the repeater up and running. there is no simplex. without a repeater the average HT for police and fire is useful as a hammer.
I know we have been there, even our general services radios are trunked, so Streets, Water and Sewer, Traffic Engineering, Facilitys Maintenance, and cemeterys is at the mercy of a repeater. There goes the backup radios if the 911 center goes down. and there is a massive power outage.
We had a brownout last summer, that would'nt let the backup generators take over and I had to manually overide the power line feed to get everyone back on line.
Lets Just Say That It Was A Very Harry Saturday!!!!!!
There are other non hams looking at the issue as well.
4 Sites that address all the BPL issues.
http://www.columbia.edu/~alan/bpl/
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid7_gci953137,00.html
http://www.gobpl.com/
http://www.w4ovh.net/bplinfo.htm
These Guys Only Care about the profits BPL will Generate.
http://www.davidroddy.com/pages/1/index.htm
http://www.fiberbridge.net/
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/45634
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfilings/2004/bpl/
I just belive education is the answer.
We dont need a long drawn out battle.
We need to let the end user know that BPL is going to hurt us all in a real emergency, That it will only make the power company a profit. and that there are thousands of ham radio operators that have invested Time, Energy and Money on equipment and training that will be wasted if BPL becomes a reality.
My 2 Pennys.
Tracy Albert.
Saginaw, Michigan. USA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by K2WH on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another comment:
What is up with these last few BPL articles? First we have one that promotes the DANGEROUS LIE that we can live with BPL, all we need to do is use special modes and digital filtering on our receivers, then another article that says ANOTHER DANGEROUS LIE that if BPL comes to town we had better shut down because if we transmit and intefere with them they'll shut down the whole Amateur Service! Is this Eham or the web site of the UPLC?"
Exactly! I believe the people who are posting this kind of nonsense are the ones who have not read part 15 and haven't a clue about how BPL works and will not take the time to read and learn about either.
K2WH
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think this has much of a chance of happening--after all, ham radio is only one of the many, many services that utilize the HF bands. There would have to be overwhelming interference from hams for the above scenario to actually become fact.
Then the utilities would have to go after the military, airlines, public safety agencies, other government agencies, other utilities, and finally THEMSELVES, for they too use the HF bands fon communications between their field units and base.
I can see that now, one of their divisions filing suit against another because their radio equipment is interfering with their internet service! That is about as likely to happen as BPL becoming the overwhelming choice for internet service in the US.
I myself will keep writing letters and providing the information that the ARRL and others have gathered concerning the interference that BPL is responcible for, but the day is coming when BPL will be gone--it will die because of the fallacy that it is.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by K3UD on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THere is at least one case on record where a ham had some transmitting privileges removed by the FCC because of widespread interference to consumer electronics. It happened in the early 60s in Pennsylvania and his call was K3IOP. He held a General class license.
It seems that IOP liked to use 6 meters but for some reason, which was never determined by either the FCC or consulting engineers who were contracted by the FCC, IOP got into over 50% of the TV sets in his town whenever he was on the band.
The FCC found that IOP's transmitter was clean and that he legally had no culpability in the matter.
The FCC spent months on the case and even brought in filters for the affected TVs, but nothing did any good. In the end, The FCC modified IOP's General calss license to prohibit operation on 6 meters. QST had a series of articles concerning this while it was happening in the early 60s. I think the final resolution was in 1964.
As far as BPL is concerned.... the ARRL was going to support W0SR's complaint against Alliant Energy and its BPL testing. Right after the ARRL started to take some action, Alliant shut down the test.
I wonder if the test was shut down because someone@somewhere did not want to see how the FCC would handle it, or possibly how a judge would handle it if the W0SR and the ARRL somehow got it into a court with the express purpose of clarifying the part 15 rules.
It might have been possible that a judge or the FCC itself may have been found in violation of it own regs regarding interference, which might have put the kibosh on BPL deployment in its present form.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> While the Amateur community, and their
> representative organizations, rail against the BPL
> industry a more ominous issue looms on the horizon.
> Currently most Hams are fearful that BPL will cause
> significant interference to their operations.
The possibility you raise is not "more ominous" than S9+ noise on several amateur bands in the entire areas where BPL is deployed. Instead of keyboard speculation, ask any of the dozens of hams that have actually been to BPL test areas...
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html#reports
> A high probability exists that this will slowly
> become true as BPL is deployed.
There has been nothing "slow" about is where BPL is deployed. In those areas, the noise levels are so high as to be almost unbelievable. Ask the hams in Cottonwood, AZ; Raleigh, NC or Cedar Rapids how slow that noise level went up when the BPL system was turned on.
> The utilities have obviously done some homework and
> used the FCC database to avoid neighborhoods that
> have a population of Hams.
Actually, no they haven't done such homeword and used the FCC database. The BPL system was installed near hams in several cities -- with the predicatable result of prompt interference complaints. The only reason that more of them don't have nearby hams is that most of these systems are small -- a few dozen homes, and statistically, it is not likely that amateurs will be found in a small group of homes.
> Thus we see an essentially benign service that
> offers competitive services to the public that here-> to-fore have been at the mercy of the cable and
> phone companies.
Benign? I just personally saw S9+30 dB on 80 meters across the entire band in Cottonwood, AZ. 20, 15 and 10 meters were less affected -- "only" S7 to S9. If you want to do an eham.net article about BPL, do a bit of "homework" yourself and contact the hams in the various test cities and find out what it is really like...
> The ominous element is that Amateur Radio operators
> can possibly interfere with the BPL services using a
> tribander and 1.5kw pointed at a power line. What do
> you think will happen?
The same thing that has happened when amateur radio interferes with all other Part-15 devices? And from the FCC point of view, that has been nothing. If the FCC wanted to undertake the actions you speculate may happen, they have had opportunities over decades.
> Well, the BPL folks will descend upon Washington
> with a private jet full of lawyers. They will demand
> that the FCC curtail the operations of interfering
> radio transmitters. Guess who that is!
First, these lawyers and the FCC have said very clearly in this proceeding that they understand that BPL must accept any interference caused to it.
With Part 15 being so clear on the fact that they must accept any interference caused to them from any source, on what basis do you think they would be successful in such a "demand?" What rules violation will they cite? They may ask that the rules be changed so that this unlicensed device doesn't have to add filtering to protect it against such interference, but the FCC has declined to do that for any other device and has declined to make any rules at all about immunity.
> So, while we worry about the reception of BPL
> signals (interference) it is very likely that we
> will be blind-sided when the FCC asks us to show
> cause as to why we should not cease operations that
> interfere with BPL.
We will not be blindsided at all, because I do not think that it is at all likely that it will happen. All of the present language and all of the precedent of prior FCC action says that you are wrong.
> If the FCC refrains from a Cease and Desist order to
> stop transmitting they, in all probability, will
> allow BPL utilities to raise their power levels to
> overcome the interference and restore this much need
> service to the public. Gee, our original fear of
> interference to the reception of signals is now
> guaranteed. Thus the cycle will begin with only a
> black hole in sight.
Let's do the math. The tests so far show that 5 watts and a mobile whip caused interference to BPL (Potomac, MD, as described in AMRAD's filing). 1500 watts to a tribander would be about 35 dB higher, so they would have to increase the present FCC limits by 35 dB to achieve what you describe. I just can't imagine the FCC being willing to do this, in the face of their present decision and NTIA's recommendation that the limits not be raised. Do you really think this is a possibility? There is a lot more at stake than amateur radio.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"They will demand that the FCC curtail the operations of interfering radio transmitters. Guess who that is!"
That would be us hams....and the Navy, and the Air Force, and the Coast Guard, a few US based SWBC stations and most organizations that still operate VHF low band. Not to mention all the other Federal allotments...
To think that hams will be the only group to interfere with BPL is taking a very narrow view.
I wonder what happens when a good lightning storm hits a BPL served area? I know that a good close lightning strike will temporarily blind everything well up into the VHF band.
Do you really think the BPL providers can ask the FCC to outlaw lightning, too?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by K3UD on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you have not personally experienced BPL interference, please take Ed at his word.
I have been to a test site to see for myself and I can assure you that Ed is not understating it. It is complete and utter decimation of the bands.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder if the interference will encroach upon the lowband vfh freqs that are stil being used by low band vhf emergency services?? And what about the lowband TV freqs? How hig up in freq will BPL cause toubles?
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by N3QT on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sir:
Thank you for your perspective. I have had similar concerns where Amateur Radio would become the interferrence and rendered illegal. To this end, it would be truly disapointing.
On the basis of technological facts, BPL has been proven to be more disruptive than beneficial. It is completely unknown as to why it is supported by Federal Agencies. Is there blind ignorance as to the ill effects that BPL will create or is there something else afoot?
> European Countries are promising every citizen an internet connection to each household. However, the network is complete state funded... and controlled.
> Several other countries have already examined BPL or BPL-like service provision and sought other means. (Japan, Germany)...
I am not encouraging blind paranoia or conspiracy theories , but I congratulate you on your creative thinking and your reverse perspective. It certainly raises an interesting point; such actions should NOT be discounted or discouraged.
John de N3QT
73
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AC0X on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Just what we need, another BPL thread.
Oh &&%$ing h&$l yes another BPL thread. The more we talk about it... the more we refute silly and WRONG WRONG WRONG ideas about it... the better.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by K0EWS on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Perhaps BPL will die all on it's own. The developments in Cedar Rapids last week are encouraging. In my area, the power company just happens to be the internet provider as well, and thank God that 5 years ago they invested in an all fiber-optic infrastructure in and around the Black Hills. However, there are places outside of the towns which do not get broadband. We are preparing to move out of town to the country where broadband is not available. My wife called the ISP to ask about broadband's availability, and was told that they are considering using wireless access for the hard to reach places. This is encouraging to hear. Three of the 5 FCC Commissioners were in Rapid City about a month ago holding public meetings, and the topic of internet access to the Indian Reservations was discussed, and from what I could gather, they are talking about wireless internet access. I think that wireless is the way of the future, and BPL is old dirty technology, and hopefully it will die out on its own.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by N6AJR on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember, If the city cops or hiway patrol need to use a different frequency, they need to call in a bunch of Techs to re-configure or change out their radios.
If we need to go to a different band/ mode we are already there. If our repeater goes down , we do simplex, if the power goes out we do batteries or mobile or generators. We have the ability to be flexible. That is our real advantage...
And we have Fan Dipoles..!!!
tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
BPL CB Radio - would Teamsters care?
|
|
|
by KG6TAG on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi everyone,
This is a cross post of my comments at: http://www.eham.net/articles/8753
I was enjoying "big city" July 4th activities yesterday when I noticed a Police car with a CB antenna on it. It then didn't take a large leap to realize that these frequencies could be affected too.
I do not have BPL in my area or the needed equipment, but perhaps the ham community should provide some clear interference data on 29 MHz and then forward that along to the Teamsters Union (http://www.teamster.org) , who I think everyone will agree have far bigger muscles than we amateurs -- in fact, it says they have 1.4 Million members.
73
KG6TAG
Dave
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by WN3R on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is an interesting article on Part 15 devices from July 5th Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28217-2004Jul4.html
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Im afraid I have to disagree with Dick on this one. BPL IS a part 15 device...so therefore..its at the mercy of whatever interference it receives. Unfortunatly, it also spews interference all over the spectrum...but how long is your neighbor going to tolerate being disconnected 25 times an hour when your on the air? Sure, its going to lousy trying to hear your contact through 20db over noise floor from this crap...but I doubt the qrm will last long when your neighbor has to reboot his BPL modem 100 times a day to reconnect to the internet when your HF signal wipes it out. My guess is that he/she will find another way to use the internet because BPL is useless in the presence of an HF station. Interference works two ways. Yes...BPL interference IS a double edged sword!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AA4A on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
God didn't give us Part 15 and it won't take an act of God to overturn it. We shouldn't count on hiding behind it.
The greater public good, also known as money, will win out every time.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KB7LYM on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why worry ? You wrote while WE WORRY. I for one is not
worried at all.There are much more worrysome things in the World ( US ) at this time and there are plenty of other bands were you can operate without the boogyman BPL. Some worry so much and with a flare of the dramatic that in most cases it will come to ulcers,headaches,cramps,jelousy,cold and hot sweat, clammy hands etc.
Let it ride... relax...smell the Flowers.. get a good night rest and a COLD shower in the morning.
LIFE is short and the Hearse drives SLOW
Good Luck !!
Frank
|
| |
|
TX power limit?
|
|
|
by AA6E on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's true that BPL, under present regs, falls under Part 15 / unlicensed service, and we hams are a licensed service taking priority. (In theory)
But with the scenario above -- 1.5 kW hams blowing out BPL service, there is another possibility... The FCC could lower the ham power limit to (say) 100 Watts out. Or worse, maybe 100 W ERP.
It's all politics, folks. And from what we've seen lately, hams don't carry such a big stick.
73, Martin, AA6E
(who has never run more than 100 W.)
|
| |
|
RE: TX power limit?
|
|
|
by K0RFD on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I haven't been a Ham all that long, but I *am* old enough to remember "quiet hours".
In fact, "quiet hours" are still on the books in the context of TVI (97.121). In 97.121 (b) the FCC can also require that amateur stations take "such steps as may be necessary to minimize interference to stations operating in other services" as well. I.e., they can shut us down.
Ed, I respect your expertise, but it would take no effort at all for the FCC to unilaterally include BPL in a working definition of "other services". Then individual Hams would end up in court trying to prove that the FCC acted improperly. Not a place I want to be, suing Uncle Sam. His pockets are deeper, and he can be sued only with his permission.
I think we'd pretty well better support Ed and the ARRL in their effort keep BPL inside Pandora's Box where it belongs. No telling what might happen if we let it out.
The scenario in the original post is NOT that far-fetched. All that's required is for a handful of bureaucrats and appointees to decide that people have a God-given right to receive spam and download porn at high speed, and that Hams are interfering with them. Part 15 and Part 97 aren't laws. They're regulations, promulgated by agencies, not Congress. They can be changed by people who DON'T stand for election.
I see hundreds of good comments in this and other forums posted by concerned, literate Hams. I hope you all posted to the FCC when you had the chance. It's nice to talk here, but much more important to include your views in the rulemaking process.
|
| |
|
RE: TX power limit?
|
|
|
by N3HKN on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe that K0RFD has correctly interpreted my intent. In a pure world, not corrupted by politics (read money) we are protected. However, it is pie-in-the-sky to believe that a Ham interfering with BPL will not have a visit from the FCC. The first visit my be from the utility which has two agendas. One is to see if the Ham can stop interfering. The other is to be certain that they have the right guy to put in their complaint to the FCC.
If Bush can toss people he deems a threat into the clink without recourse how can anyone believe that Part-15 will protect Hams.
If the interference is so bad in some cities why aren't there publicized steps by the FCC to protect the Part-15 violated Hams???? Money and votes speak. Hams are short on both.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by WA4CCH on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
i'll bet you that the bpl companys have not run any test's near any military base's what do you think ????
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by ASTROHAM on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Part 15 should afford some protection or at least delay, if only because it has a higher profile due to hype on BPL.
However, there are a number of other home automation devices that have made it "under the radar" in recent years that have brought me the unpleasant blanket of S9 interference at various random spots (some almost 1Mhz wide!) in the 10, 15, and 17 meter bands.
Just go to your friendly neighborhood home show and inspect the labels for everything wireless and you'll be surprised to see the stuff that's already popping up between 15 and 50 Mhz, all claiming to be obligated to accept interference under Part 15, but virtually impossible to pinpoint as a source in a new 400-home housing development.
All this leads me to believe that Part 15 is becoming a "do-what-you-want-but-don't-bug-me-if-someone-complains" caper licence.
It also almost means that this unfortunate situation will develop along the lines of cordless phones that eventually migrated to UHF/EHF, but only after the market indicated that it would refuse to buy anything less due to interference, poor range, and few features. Part 15 may simply become a market-driven safe-house where new technologies live or die before being forced to move somewhere else more logical or sustainable.
For folks like me who live in the HOA jungle, the battle for the noiseless HF spectrum has begun with every bit as much interference as BPL will create.
J
|
| |
|
RE: TX power limit?
|
|
|
by KC0SHZ on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a newbie, so I may be naive, but the argument that pursuades me that we will not wind up ground beneath the boot of the power companies is that BPL is a costly technology to implement. With internet access already flat, the best they can hope for is moving users from some other system to theirs. This costs marketing and service effort in an industry that they aren't good at, so the services are going to cost them. They will likely use the HAM interference as a way of justifying not getting in the game if we can play up the Emergency threat argument.
This argument goes something like this. Hurricanes happen with regularity and with regularity, they hit Florida. When the power goes out in Miami, and the only reliable communication in or out is an HF radio, and millions of swing voters are depending on the HF radio, does Politician X REALLY want to be the politician that signed off on BPL? No. Sign off on BPL means that BPL induced intereference ruins the HF ranges for new guys like me. We don't invest in HF rigs. We don't get good at HF EMCOMM, and we aren't at the other end of the HF signal (assuming there is one coming out of the area.)
Radio is like anything else, you have to practice to get good, if you don't practice, and showtime comes, you will not be any good. BPL means I don't spend money on HF. BPL means most people who have it, don't listen to it and either get good at it or stay good at it, and when millions of swing voters can't get word out on the downed cell phone towers, the land lines are jammed, and email is gone, they are going to be displeased. They are going to want some answers and some pay back.
We need to be sure that the politicians in Congress and in the WH understand this. None of them want to be on the ORelly factor or 60 minutes trying to explain that decision.
Bottom line, BPL is a losing game for a narrow margin industry. We need to concentrate on companies that aren't already doing it and start pursuading them of that economic reality.
|
| |
|
HAMS DON'T MATTER!
|
|
|
by HIGH on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HAMs don't necissarily matter that much in the greater scheme of things. We are a colobus monkey in the cage with a bunch of gorillas. Luckily, most of the majority of gorillas are on our side.
We, being the smart little guy are simply the first to notice the big nasty power gorilla beating his chest. The other gorillas are ignoring him, but when the power gorilla takes their food, they will be pissed off.</analogy>
BPL proponents can send all the lobbyists they want to the FCC to get them to overlook Part 15 or remove the rights of HAMs, but when the BPL system truly goes online around the nation, Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, airline industry, FEMA, and and all the other major commercial and governmental HF interests come beating down their FCC's doors, the wants of a single industry (power) will be reversed and BPL will die and the other ISP industries will laugh heartily. </runon_sentence>
Don't forget, that if the interference is loud enough with the whole US lit up with BPL, the FCC may have to cave to international treaty if we interfere with other countries. Congress will act on that. The other gorillas will happily outlobby the power industry in congress as well if the FCC won't play.
Breath deeply and repeat: THE SKY IS NOT FALLING
(just part of it and only for a little while)
|
| |
|
BPL likely violates international treaties
|
|
|
by NJ0E on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i believe BPL also likely violates international (ITU)
treates to which the USA is a signatory.
From the web site of the North American Shortwave
Association:
----------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
The FCC is required to observe the rights of other
nations to broadcast without interference to listeners
in the United States on frequencies allocated by the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
exclusively for this purpose. The United States is a
member of the ITU, an international organization
within the United Nations system.
ITU Radio Regulation 4.11 reads: "Member States
recognize that among frequencies which have
long-distance propagation characteristics, those
in the bands between 5 and 30 MHz are particularly
useful for long-distance communications; they agree
to make every possible effort to reserve these bands
for such communications. Whenever frequencies in
these bands are used for short-range or
medium-distance communications, the minimum power
necessary shall be employed."
ITU Radio Regulation 15.12 reads, "Administrations
shall take all practicable and necessary steps to
ensure that the operation of electrical apparatus
or installations of any kind, including power
and telecommunication distribution networks, but
excluding equipment used for industrial, scientific
and medical applications, does not cause harmful
interference to a radiocommunication service and,
in particular, to a radionavigation or any other
safety service operating in accordance with the
provisions of these Regulations."
ITU regulations allocate certain frequencies
between 2 and 26 megahertz for the exclusive use
of international broadcasters. Early experimental
testing shows BPL technology has shown some BPL
systems will interfere with international broadcast
transmissions if not protected by FCC regulations.
----------------------------------------------------
I think that Shortwave Listeners comprise useful
allies to Amateur Radio Operators in the BPL
matter, although they are not generally as tightly
organized as we are. Most SWLs are consumers who
purchase portable world band receivers, in many
cases to listen to broadcasts from their country
of origin or at least in their native tongue. (At
university, I knew several foreign students who
had world band radios to listen to BBC and VOA
Arabic Language Broadcasts, for example).
I wonder perhaps if we might be equally (or even
more) effective if we complained that BPL was
interfering (for example) with broadcasts from
HCJB, a very popular Christian missionary broadcast
station in Ecuador, that were targeted to North
American listeners, and therefore the BPL emissions
were a violation of the ITU accords?
73
scott nj0e
|
| |
|
RE: HAMS DON'T MATTER!
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KF4VGX says:
"BPL has now replaced No-Code verses Code . NCVC . yawn !"
You really don't want to revive that, do you? At least the fight against BPL is an issue we can all get behind, isn't it? ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: POSTS FROM FAKE IDs DON'T MATTER!
|
|
|
by K3ESE on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
omnipressive: were you forced to click on this thread, or did you come here especially to grace us with your wisdom? Please remain beneath your cowardly rock, thanks.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> i'll bet you that the bpl companys have not run any test's near any military base's what do you think ???? <<<
Last time I checked, BPL IS NOT, and WILL NOT be permitted to operate near AT or NEAR any military installations... Period!
..Why?
This is because there are these little radio call boxes that operate on 72 and 75 MHz frequencies that are used to request fire, police, ambulance, road service, and other emergency related assistance.
The most prevalent use of these radio call boxes as the general public knows it, entails roadside locations, often directly under, or at least in proximity to, utility poles bearing power lines.
In addition to these highway installation, radio call boxes are ALSO installed on MILITARY INSTALATIONS AT AIRPORTS (e.g., Chicago O’Hare), and also are connected to fire alarm control panel locations in protected buildings.
Radio call boxes protect billions of dollars of nationally owned MILITARY property throughout the nation.
Now, you do the math...
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Many years ago, a medical doctor (epidemiologist) who also happened to be a licensed ham published in a respected medical journal the results of some research he had been doing on the biological effects of AC power utility distribution. This led to interpretations, misinterpretations, real estate devaluations and lots of interesting things.
We need another article. This one should focus on the biohazards of BPL. After all, if 60 Hz radiation is hazardous without elevating tissue temperatures one iota, why isn't BPL radiation, with its attendant possibility of raising tissue temperatures however minutely, far more evil?
I vote for more articles. Scare the public to death, until nobody wants a BPL carrying line anywhere near where they live. If nobody buys the service, it will die by itself.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AC3P on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So what happens when the solar cycle up-swings and those 20 over S9 signals are rolling in on 20/15/10 meters from Europe?
The power companies and FCC will have a hard time tracking them down.
Remember "The Russian Woodpecker".
73
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by DJ7MGQ on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> European Countries are promising every citizen an
> internet connection to each household.
Not true - atleast not here in DL.
> However, the network is complete state funded...
Also not true.
> and controlled.
Here in Germany THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
> Several other countries have already examined
> BPL or BPL-like service provision and sought
> other means. (Japan, Germany)...
Again, this I hate to say, is false. I would suggest checking among others:
<http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/publiconsult/index_en.htm>
<http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/publiconsult/powerline_communications/documents/cocom03_32.pdf>
AFAIK, PLC (or BPL if you like) is being used in Mannheim (DL), Hameln (DL), Dresden (DL), Offenbach (DL), Hassfurt (DL) , Linz (OE), Budapest (HA, I'm not sure about this one) etc. etc.
|
| |
|
RE: TX power limit?
|
|
|
by AC0X on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>However, it is pie-in-the-sky to believe that a Ham
>interfering with BPL will not have a visit from the >FCC.
There are thousands of illegal RF users out there (out of band CB, pirate FM broadcasters, etc). The FCC isn't chasing after them as much as they want to because they don't have the time or money. They sure as hell don't have the time for chasing people who aren't even breaking any rules. And even if they did, what reason could they give? BPL IS A PART 15 DEVICE AND HAS NO PROTECTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE. The FCC can't call BPL an RF service, because if they did they'd have to admit it radiates RF.
>The first visit my be from the utility which has two
>agendas. One is to see if the Ham can stop >interfering.
If the power company comes to "visit" you because of interference you're causing to BPL, the first thing you should do is tell them to get the hell off your property, the second thing you should do is contact the ARRL. Believe you me, you would be their new "Poster Child" and FAST. The power company has NO RIGHT to say BOOOOO to you about your inteference. THEY ARE A PART 15 APPLICATION AND HAVE NO PROTECTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE.
>The other is to be certain that they have the right
>guy to put in their complaint to the FCC.
Again, complaint based on what? Say it again - THEY ARE A PART 15 APPLICATION AND HAVE NO PROTECTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE
>If Bush can toss people he deems a threat into the
>clink without recourse how can anyone believe that
>Part-15 will protect Hams.
For Bush to "toss people into the clink without recourse" required an act of Congress to pass a law that allowed him to do that. Unless the FCC changes their own rules (and, again, that's not a fast procedure) there is no rule they can use against us in a complaint from BPL providers. The FCC can't just say "stop transmitting, not because of any rule or law, but because we want you to"
>If the interference is so bad in some cities why
>aren't there publicized steps by the FCC to protect
>the Part-15 violated Hams????
Because the FCC doesn't have the money or the time, and they've chosen what they'll enforce and what they'll not. How can you think that that same FCC will spend those resources to enforce rules that don't even exist?
>Money and votes speak. Hams are short on both.
Horse hockey. This season is close election in MANY places. An issue that would give you even a few thousand votes is one any one of those politicians in ANY of those races would give their left Cheney for ;-)
This whole thread is nothing but scare tactics that distract from the real issue. The problem isn't the inteference we cause to BPL, it's the INTERFERENCE THEY CAUSE TO US. Try to remember that.
|
| |
|
RE: TX power limit?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> The power company has NO RIGHT to say BOOOOO to you about your inteference. THEY ARE A PART 15 APPLICATION AND HAVE NO PROTECTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE. <<<
It's not the power company that will do the complaining about your interference. It will be the guy that lives next door when he starts having trouble surfing the net.
Be sure to tell him that his TV set is also a part 15 device that offers him no protection too.
I can't wait for the response.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KE4DRN on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good info from W1FRI..
Even if they used my subdivision for BPL testing,
we are antenna restricted so no towers or any
amateur radio transmission/reception antenna allowed.
Local cell company just advertised broadband over the cell plans and bellsouth lowered the basic dsl fees.
Not sure if the power companies can't offer competitive service, speed and pricepoint in larger city how can they make a profit in rural areas ?
73 james
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AB2PN on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What amazes me that most hams don't realize how easy it would be for the government to sign ham radio as we know it right out of existence.
No more untraceable transmissions (Number stations, etc), Pirate radio would end, all those radicals on SW would not have an audience that was able to listen to them, etc.
And they will be able to track all communications so much easier (phone, internet, etc.),VHF/UHF is much easier to track than HF as well.
Hmmmmmmm, Kill ham radio citing national security.
Happened before, can happen again, and BPL will help keep it down.
Remember they write the rules, who do you think has the louder voice the general population who most of them could care less about hams or the hams?
Kinda makes you wonder...
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Bag of Wind Timewise
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have no threat as my rural coop is going wireless but I am sure happy to know 802.16 is coming soon. 4 bands to choose from & 2 of the 4 are license free. 3 of the 4 has current production equipment available. PCMCIA radios exist & there are light install AP's FOB.
As far as counter ECM, a certain set of freqs can render an Access Point useless... cake really. Even with part 15 equipment, easy to confuse
whoops there it is....
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Bag of Wind Timewise
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The best way to scare the pants off of a potential BPL customer?
Raise the invasion of privacy issue.
Just give it time and someone will be able to hack the BPL signal. Credit cards numbers being broadcast over the whole community courtesy of BPL!
All those sites that you don't think anybody knows you visit? Guess what? The 14 year old whiz kid down the street just cracked your IP log!!
Refrigerators that phone home to the manufacturer to let them know that someone opened the door at 3:14 AM last night. Coffee pots that are remotely controlled from a command bunker in Ottumwa, Iowa. DVD players that let the studio know you just watched "Porky's". Yes, all coming to you courtesy of BPL!!!
Ok, so it may be over the top, but after listening to Art Bell a couple of weeks, I'm convinced some people will believe anything...especially if it relates to their deepest, darkest, fears.
Remember, someone's watching you...or are they?
You don't know now, do you?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AB0WR on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There are lots of devices out there that put out interference in the ham bands all the way up to 2m and beyond. They are the soon to be ubiquitous 100mb ethernet switches put out by many vendors. I have tried at least eight different ones and they all have birdies on the 2m band at different locations. I have even noticed this in my car when parking by the local hardware store or grocery store.
|
| |
|
RE: POSTS FROM FAKE IDs DON'T MATTER!
|
|
|
by OMNIPRESSIVE on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by K3ESE on July 6, 2004
"omnipressive: were you forced to click on this thread, or did you come here especially to grace us with your wisdom? Please remain beneath your cowardly rock, thanks."
The later, sir. I came to grace you with my wisdom. As a matter of fact, I'll offer you some wisdom now. Asking me to REMAIN beneath my cowardly rock implies that I AM beneath said rock. If was under a rock, espicially a cowardly one, I couldn't have posted. The rock would have depressed all of the keys on my keyboard resulting in something like this "gsafdsfdsahgtagregreg". I believe what you meant to say is "Please RETURN to beneath my cowardly rock"; that would make more sense, hence why I am here to grace you with my wisdom- aparently, you're in need of some.
Thanks baldy.
kthxbye
|
| |
|
RE: BPL trial closed early
|
|
|
by KC0SHZ on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Alliant closed their BPL trial in Cedar Rapids, Iowa today citing loss in revenue and the inability to compete with cable and DSL. They are not going to pursue BPL any further. One down folks.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> We need another article. This one should focus on
> the biohazards of BPL. After all, if 60 Hz radiation
> is hazardous without elevating tissue temperatures
> one iota, why isn't BPL radiation, with its
> attendant possibility of raising tissue temperatures
> however minutely, far more evil?
The article can be a very short one:
"There is no biohazard effect at Part-15 emissions levels. At 30 meters distance, the Part 15 limit of 30 uV/m at 30 meters is a minimim of 88.8 dB lower than the limits for radio transmitters.
For any dB-challenged folks, that is a level that is about 758,000,000 times less that the levels that radio transmitters are permitted on their fundamental frequency.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by K0RGR on July 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think we want to go very far advertising the fact that ham radio can interfere with BPL.
For one thing, regardless of what FCC says, if my neighbor knows that I'm tearing up his new toy, I will probably end up imposing my own quiet hours. Life is too short for feuding with the neighbors. I pretty much restrict myself to 100 W or less using constant-carrier modes, in order to avoid phone calls from my neighbors. If I lived in a less crowded neighborhood, the linear would be turned on more often. Sadly, these weak signal modes will be the first casualty of BPL.
There are MANY things other than radio transmitters that should kill BPL in a given area. I have such a specimen in a drawer, in case I need to replicate lots of them.
Last year, I noticed that I suddenly had S9+20 dB QRM all the way up to 2 meters. I built a sniffer loop for my FT-817, and went hunting. It turned out to be a pair of powered computer speakers. Even when disconnected from the computer, as long as these ubiquitous nasties were plugged into the powerline, the result was bad QRM.
There must be millions of these out there. Best Buy sold them by the pallet-load, very cheap.
I strongly suspect that devices like this will interfere with BPL as much as anything will. And since I can hear similar noises from my neighbor's houses, I suspect one will wipe out BPL for many of my neighbors, too.
I've recently found that the little switching supply for my laptop does about the same thing. A brute force line filter will tame that, but not everybody has one of those. Indeed, the line filter removes a lot of the noise I hear. I'm sure it will also kill BPL, though.
So, I think we need to make the case that there are potentially many milions of cheap electical devices out there, from switching power supplies to electric motors that can wipe out BPL, so that the neighbors don't come visiting with torches alight and pitchforks when their porn fails to download properly!
You know that every time there's a BPL trouble call in your neighborhood, the friendly repair person will point at your antennas and say "...there's your problem...".
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KB9ZYA on July 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am waiting to see if city wide deployment of BPL causes interference to aircraft navaids ,ILS ( for landing in zero visibilty), & directional beacons, AM com channels ,etc. If this happens as some predict, then that will be the end of BPL. The FCC can't take a chance on a airliner crashing on landing in fog.
Mark
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on July 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Last time I was in an HF contest, I forewarned my neighbor (whose stereo had sometimes picked up my signal) of my operation, and when he reported the return of the interference I made an appointment, went to his home and spent an hour with him putting chokes on everything. He was grateful, and said he understood that I wasn't obligated to do that. I had previously explained to him that as long as I was Part 97 compliant, he had to accept the interference to his (Part 15) stereo. Before he asked how he could fix the problem, I said I would get the parts and work with him to defeat it. He is now a happy neighbor. BTW, all of the chokes came from Radio Shack. We put them on speaker lines and power cords. I left him a couple of extras.
No, I don't know how to shield a BPL line. ;-)
73TomAB5XZ
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword-Another Angle
|
|
|
by N3HKN on July 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Saw a msg about hacking BPL. Brought up a point that your personal information is being broadcast world-wide. While WE know that the total bandwidth is needed to properly decode BPL, and that bandwidth will not propagate equally, the unwashed politicians just might latch on to such a semi-bogus argument. Someone with a simple shortwave receiver and a laptop picking up private data anywhere in the world. Might give their voters concerns.
Dick
N3HKN
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AC5AA on July 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THis is exactly why I included suggestions to my senators, congressmen, and FCC that power companies refusing to respond to ham radio interference reports, or worse, blaming the local ham for *their* poor technogy issues should be reason for a hefty fine (in at least the hundreds of thousands of dollars for each occurrence.) This is a very ripe approach for abuse. With the industry groups already stooping to slander and lies, I think we have a pretty clear roadmap of where they intend to go over time.
73, Duane
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on July 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark writes:
"I am waiting to see if city wide deployment of BPL causes interference to aircraft navaids ,ILS ( for landing in zero visibilty), & directional beacons, AM com channels ,etc. If this happens as some predict, then that will be the end of BPL. The FCC can't take a chance on a airliner crashing on landing in fog."
What you will see is a reduction in the effective range of all of those systems. This is not too different (in result) from the 800 MHz mess we now have, with cellular mobile interleaved among public service channels. "Interference limited" might as well be "noise limited". It really doesn't matter where the noise comes from, if you increase the level, anybody trying to communicate (e.g. shout) over it is going to have reduced range.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AD5QP on July 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
First of all we need to sue these people on 1st amendment grounds. Also, if they put the repeaters around they can be "dissapeared". I'm not suggesting that we do anything illegal, but this is a matter of national security. Money is the key.... if you can win a class action suit for $100 million, they will stop this foolishness.....
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by WA6HYQ on July 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks lets take a step back and think how can we bring this back to the folks who caused it, the FCC. Each and every time you receive interference from BPL simply audio tape, write a letter, get the local ARRL (if your in the states) RFI team to assist and began a systematic documentation trail on the interference issues and cram the already overloaded FCC Offices with complaints of interference from BPL. The rule states they cannot cause interference to existing systems, hold their feet to the fire. We can complain on forums like this all we want but if you take no action with the folks who have regulatory control over the license and authorization of BPL, nothing will ever be accomplished.
Remember BPL is technically a Part 15 service, which places them in a specific category to not cause interference to other services. If they knowingly cause interference (following an investigation) they can then be sited by the FCC for $10,000 dollars per day per offense. What does that do generates money for the FCC. What really drives this train, money? Once the forfeitures exceed the subscriptions, bye bye BPL no longer viable..
Talking to Bush isn't going to help, he's not a HAM and doesn't know which end of a microphone to squeeze. But When the Commission becomes buried with cases from radio services complaining about interference from BPL they will listen, they have to, as it's their job. Each week the FCC Field Offices hold conference calls to discuss hot issues. As each office receives more and more complaints they will began to discuss the BPL problem and it will elevate to a National issue on the Commissions plate.
One other thing, don't forget the Commission still has monitoring sites across the nation on all spectrum, mainly up to 3 Ghz but more when needed. They have an extensive HF and VHF/UHF monitoring system for Fixed Sites and each field office has several Mobile Automatic Direction Finding (MADF) units that also reach up to 3Ghz. Those units will receive the same interference from BPL as our radio so they too will suffer with interference that then reaches into a National Security issue and interferes with their Home Land Security responsibilities.
KEEP THOSE LETTERS COMING AND CHECK WEEKLY FOR AN UPDATE, RESOLUTION AND CLOSURE OF THE CASE GENERATED BY YOUR COMPLAINT, ITS UP TO EACH OF US TO DO OUR PART!.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"get the local ARRL (if your in the states) RFI team to assist"
heh. yeah. first you have to get them to answer their email/phone.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by KB1KSO on July 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Excuse me if this has already been posted I didn't read all the responses. However, from someone who works in telecom everyday I can tell you that BPL is not the future. Fiber to the home is.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Excuse me if this has already been posted I didn't read all the responses. However, from someone who works in telecom everyday I can tell you that BPL is not the future. Fiber to the home is."
Well, for some far distant value of "the future", possibly. There are a lot of interesting economic mitigations against fiber to the home -- the same ones that lead to not using fiber for building area networks, except for in the backbone -- only more so.
|
| |
|
BPL -- Double Edged Sword
|
|
|
by K7AAB on August 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Please excuse my ignorance, but I cant see why more has not been done to railroad BPL , the amateur radio community is made up of many with different backgrounds, alot that are in positions of great persuassion in law, government, military comm, and fcc positions. With outright BPL banning in some countries that have already tested this and found no way around the interference caused. The amont of evidence in front of everyones face that this interferes way outside Part 15 regulations. Why in tarnation is soo little being done to stop this? I would think there would be lawsuits against corporations and the government. I would also think that in time for election season that people would be interested in just how much soft money is flying around from the power industry and Amperion to push BPL through. I cant fathom how such a dirty technology has made it as far as it has gotten. Oh well I guess this adds more fuel to the fire as to why the power industry should be a public utility rather than a "private for profit" one. Just cant trust those exec's ...
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
After The Dust Settles What's Left?
League Files Opposition to BPL Reconsideration Petitions:
Texas BPL Initiative Dead; Antenna Bill Exempts Amateur Radio:
IARU Eyes Global Coordination of Amateur Radio's BPL/EMC Response:
Public BPL Database Access Restrictions Removed:
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
|
|
|
