Response to NY Times BPL Article

eHam.net Home | FAQ | Log In Help | Please Subscribe

Welcome Anonymous Become a member or Login

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
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

Response to NY Times BPL Article

Dave Bernstein (AA6YQ) on July 25, 2004
View comments about this article!

The July 11 edition of the New York Times contained an article by James Fallows entitled "Is Broadband Out of a Wall Socket the Next Big Thing?"; you can view this article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/business/yourmoney/11tech.html

Here is my response to Mr. Fallows:

From: Dave Bernstein
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:51 PM
To: tfiles@nytimes.com
Subject: BPL is not the Next Big Thing

James, your article "Is Broadband Out of a Wall Socket the Next Big Thing?" begins by stating that HomePlug and BPL are the same; they are not! HomePlug is a means of distributing digital information among devices using power lines within a home. BPL is a means of distributing digital information to a home by routing such signals over the power grid. While both approaches involve the insertion of high-frequency signals onto power-carrying conductors, the two applications are independent and otherwise unrelated. HomePlug is a functional and economical solution for many homes, nicely complementing both existing and nascent technologies. BPL is an ill-conceived attempt by the power industry to extract more revenue from consumers at a time when that industry should instead be re-engineering their grid to reliably deliver electrical power. No matter how it is provided, internet access is not very useful during a power blackout.

BPL aspires to provide high-speed digital connections between homes and the internet. This approach directly competes with cable, DSL, satellite, and the forthcoming WiMAX. It is inaccurate to characterize BPL as a "last mile" solution because it does not convey signals directly to homes. An explanatory video provided by the United Power Line Council (UPLC) - an industry group advocating BPL - explains that BPL brings high-speed digital signals to a neighborhood power pole. Completing the path requires the installation of couplers to bypass power-pole transformers, or the installation of pole-mounted WiFi transceivers. Unless you live in a new neighborhood designed with BPL in mind, you can't instantly obtain high-speed internet service, as UPLC's breathless press releases would have you believe; from the consumer's perspective, lead-times are comparable to those of cable-based, satellite-based, or WiMAX-based high-speed internet. The aforementioned video is available via http://www.uplc.utc.org .

Besides this "small matter of infrastructure", BPL faces another serious challenge to its economics: it generates electromagnetic interference. Our power grid was designed to transport low-frequency alternating current, not radio-frequency signals. Inserting radio frequency signals onto tower-borne cables used to distribute power to our communities turns those cables into antennas. Many organizations have registered grave concerns over the impact of grid-radiated interference, notably the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the American Radio Relay League. While encouraging further exploration of BPL, a recent NTIA report said "The federal government has extensive operations that potentially could be affected by BPL systems. Indeed, federal government agencies have over eighteen thousand (18,000) frequency assignments in the 1.7 - 80 MHz spectrum in which BPL systems may unintentionally radiate". Alliant Energy recently cancelled its trial of BPL technology in Cedar Rapids after being unable to remedy an electromagnetic interference problem; the company has abandoned its plan to deploy BPL. Even with a lenient Federal Communications Commission, BPL providers face the serious engineering challenge of eliminating this interference if they are to avoid a continuous stream of lawsuits and injunctions by institutions and individuals alleging harmful impact. See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515292045 , http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfilings/2003/bplcomments_08132003.htm , http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/46964 , and http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/31652 for substantiation of these points.

Rather than BPL, the Next Big Thing in last mile connectivity will most likely be WiMAX (IEEE 802.16). It provides much higher bandwidth, goes right to the home, does not interfere with other services, and does not limit the consumer's choice to a single provider; one cannot underestimate the role of competition in both reducing costs and stimulating innovation. Intel, Motorola, and the more than 100 other telecommunications companies in http://www.wimaxforum.org are publicly committed to making WiMAX the ubiquitous analog to WiFi for last-mile connectivity; see, for example http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040121corp.htm and http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/pdf/wireless/intel/80216_wimax.pdf .

BPL is too little, too late, with too many problems. Please help your readers understand that while HomePlug is quite useful for in-home connectivity, BPL is most likely the Next Big Flop.

Dave Bernstein

Wayland, Massachusetts

Member Comments:

This article has expired. No more comments may be added.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KD4AC on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nice response. I think you should have also pointed out that other countries such as Japan and Europe have tried BPL and later banned it because of interference problems. It makes one wonder why the FCC keeps pushing for BPL when so many other places have tried it and failed. The fact that Japan, a highly technological country, couldn't get it to work right should say a lot right there.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KF7CG on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Please let us know what the reply is from the author and the New York Times. That paper has always gotten under my skin because of their attitude ever since they sued a company callled Infocom into changing the name of the games flyer from Gnu Zork Times.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W6VPS on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Yours is a measured and fact filled response with supporting information. You did a better job of reporting than the reporter. Your research is quite evident. The NY Times reporter did not do his homework thoroughly enough. ( So, what else is new? ). Nicely done sir. With the long recognized attitude of the NY TImes I would be amazed if you, 1- received a reply and 2- there was a follow-up piece with "the rest of the story." But just in case keep us posted.
73 - Paul/W6VPS

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by K0RFD on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

He'll get a reply if he hasn't already.

I emailed him in response to the same article and got a reply the next day. Fallows is a very professional reporter whether you agree with the slant in his piece or not (I don't, obviously). But you don't get to THAT newspaper without being at the top of your craft. Now if he was only RIGHT...

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N5KBP on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"But you don't get to THAT newspaper without being at the top of your craft" and have a very liberal slant to your reporting as well. Conservatives need not apply.

Marty
N5KBP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N4ZOU on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The NY Times has become nothing more than a checkout counter rag. I put no trust at all in what they print.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by K1CJS on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It seems that the NY Times is turning into another Weekly World News. Their writers just write their drivel for the he*l of it, too.

The NYT is good for one thing, however. If you have a puppy, you know what I mean! And no, I don't mean rolled up, I mean spread out flat.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KZ1X on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Yes, indeed, the NY Times is so much bird-cage liner. Sadly, for a lot of misguided and uninformed people, it is a newspaper-of-record.

'YQs corrections need to see print, as he did the REAL investigative reporting here. Alas, I don't expect the Times to do anything about pursuing real journalism, even after firing key staff recently because nobody asked the hard questions (such as, "can you back up that story?").

If, however, electric companies invest in BPL and then lose stockholder value because of it, you can bet the Times "reporters" will be there with a hue and cry about "evil, greedy corporations."

For balance: The Wall Street Journal isn't much better when it comes to BPL facts.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N8AUC on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I also emailed him a reply to his article about BPL being the "next big thing". I got a reply from him the day afterwards.

This guy (the writer) is not some random moron writing newspaper articles, and he's definitely not stupid. Not to make excuses for him, but he only got one side of the story given to him. After the many responses he got from the ham community, he gets it now.

I agree, the NY Times is kind of a worthless rag, as most newspapers seem to be these days. But for a LOT of people it is the newspaper of record.

73 de N8AUC
Eric

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Here is Mr. Fallows response to my message, and my followup. As you can see from the date, his response was timely.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

From: James Fallows [mailto:JFallows@theatlantic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:17 PM
To: photo@ambersoft.com
Subject: RE: BPL is not the Next Big Thing

Thanks for your note. I appreciate the careful explanation. I do understand (a) the HomePlug/BPL distinction -- that's why the word "variously" was plugged into that sentence, and (b) the ARRL point of view. I've seen postings there over the years -- and have received roughly one trillion emails from ARRL members in the last day to remind me..

Agree too about the importance of WiMax, which again is why I mentioned it as part of the next generation. The main point is, there is a lot to follow up later on.

Thanks for your note, Jim Fallows

From: Dave Bernstein [mailto:dave.bernstein@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:05 PM
To: JFallows@theatlantic.com
Cc: dave.bernstein@comcast.net
Subject: RE: BPL is not the Next Big Thing

Thanks for responding, Jim.

If BPL were truly a breakthrough technology for distributing high-speed digital data, the amateur radio community would be jumping though hoops to coexist with it. BPL is not a breakthrough technology; its a bad deal for power company investors, a bad deal for municipalities, and a bad deal for consumers that's being promoted through a combination of hype, misdirection, dishonesty, and political influence. It'd be one thing to lose high-frequency radio spectrum to a valuable new application; it'd be another to lose it to the technical and economic kludge that is BPL. That's why you've received a trillion or so emails from ARRL members.

If I can be of help with your follow on efforts, you have only to ask.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by RADIOBOB on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nicely done. Lots of info here for everyone.

Seems lots of hams read the NY Times.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by G7HEU on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

by KD4AC on July 25:

' Nice response. I think you should have also pointed out that other countries such as Japan and Europe have tried BPL ... '

Slightly off topic but please note that Europe is not a country.

Steve

M0HEU / G7HEU.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Thanks to all for the comments on my response to James Fallows. I'd like to point out two things about this response:

1. It barely mentions amateur radio

2. It directly attacks BPL, both in the technical domain and in the business domain

Before I go any further, let me state that I have been a member of the ARRL since the day I received my novice ticket in 1990. I've never participated in any formal League meeting or activity, but I always look forward to the next issues of QST and QEX; my general impression is that the League does good work on behalf of amateur radio. In the matter of BPL, however, I believe that efforts to date have been at best ineffective, and at worst counterproductive. The comments that follow are intended as constructive criticism. I am not suggesting that we start an independent anti-BPL effort -- that would be *really* counterproductive.

I strongly believe that

A. we must expose the fatal flaws in BPL before it achieves any substantial installed base

B. we must educate the amateur community so that individual hams can effectively lobby against BPL with local officials, politicians, reporters, and potential BPL subscribers

C. we must provide the country with a standby emergency HF/VHF/UHF network that can begin moving voice and email traffic within ~15 minutes of any outage, and is randomly tested each week to verify this capability

To date, our primary position has been "BPL will be fine as long as it doesn't generate interference that prevents hams from communicating via the ionospheric refraction of HF radio waves". There are two problems with this approach:

1. We are declaring that our self-interest (HF ham radio) is more important than the self-interest of others. We're certainly entitled to make this declaration, but someone else is equally entitled to declare that instant, cheap, high-speed internet is more important than HF ham radio. There are many more non-hams than hams. Instant, cheap, high-speed internet is a very attractive "deliverable" for many elected officials. And, there are alternatives to HF ionospheric refraction that hams could use to chat with their friends worldwide -- satellites with VHF/UHF uplinks and downlinks, for example. By leading with our self-interest, we create the opportunity for our opponents to prevail, simply because there are a lot more non-hams interested in high-speed internet than hams interested in HF communications. The good of the many prevailing over small losses to a few is a well-worn closing statement. We have placed ourselves on the wrong side of this argument.

2. BPL is in fact not fine, and we serve no one by pretending that it is. As I said in my message to Fallows, "its a bad deal for power company investors, a bad deal for municipalities, and a bad deal for consumers that's being promoted through a combination of hype, misdirection, dishonesty, and political influence." I am not suggesting that our representatives seek a formal appearance before Federal Power Regulators with a closed-form proof that BPL will never work and thus should be summarily prohibited. Whether or not such a proof could be assembled, our presentation would be suspect given presumed ulterior motives. Instead, I suggest that our objective be to publicly illuminate BPL's problems so that those considering the technology -- town officials, potential subscribers, reporters, power company investors -- are more likely to ask hard questions when considering a BPL opportunity. If BPL's deficiencies remain hidden until its attracted a significant installed base, the cost of retraction -- both financial and political -- will be insurmountable.

Which brings me to point B: engaging the amateur community in this effort, beyond just being a source of monetary donations. As hams, we continuously interact with members of our communities in both social and volunteer situations. Given our technical backgrounds, we are often asked for help or opinion. Though we are a small minority of the overall population, we have atypically large reach, and thus have the opportunity to exert significant influence. Whether its the Mayor at a local charity marathon with which your club is assisting, or the power company manager you know from church, or the reporter who calls your club president for his or her perspective -- there are countless opportunities to expose the flaws of BPL. After summarizing the key points, we should always close with "check it out for yourself", and then follow up with an email full of substantiating URLs. You'd be surprised at how often corporate board meetings run off management's rails when a board member begins asking hard questions based on an article his wife showed him in last Sunday's local paper. Power company boards have fiduciary responsibilities to their investors; the last thing they want to see is a big pile of money poured down a rat hole on their watch.

So, what are the key points one should mention when describing BPL's flaws? What's the compelling argument? What questions should you anticipate, and how should you deal with them? If you don't know, but want to educate yourself to help effectively combat BPL, where would you go for answer to these questions? Unfortunately, there is currently no web site or document that provides a brief, cogent articulation of BPL's flaws, the arguments in favor of superior alternatives (like WiMax), a list of frequently-asked questions, and the background material that substantiates these positions. In business, this sort of thing is referred to as an "elevator pitch" -- its the story you tell when you've got 3 minutes to convince your audience to learn more about whatever it is you're promoting. Assembling an honest, effective, compelling elevator pitch is always a challenge. Rather than leave this to every interested ham to do on his or her own, we should instead create a web site designed expressly for this purpose, actively disseminate it through ARRL infrastructure and local radio clubs, and keep it updated on a daily basis as events unfold. My email to Fallows would have been more effective, for example, had I been able to cite two examples of power companies that had withdrawn their plans to offer BPL because they couldn't mitigate its interference, rather than just one. I only discovered the second example a few days ago by reading through a long list of ARRL press releases. I believe that the ARRL should create and operate this web site.

Finally, we could both better serve our country and better defend our use of HF by establishing an Emergency National Network (ENN) capable of moving voice and email traffic within 15 minutes of any outage, and continuously verified with random tests each week. The design and implementation of this network will be non-trivial; recruiting and organizing the volunteers needed to assemble its nodes and provide 24x7 standby capability will be even more challenging. But besides us, who else can do this? There are already efforts underway that could accelerate our creation of such a system -- ARESCOM, for example. Even without the 9/11 Commission Report's grim forecast, such a system could save many lives and dramatically reduce chaos and confusion during emergencies - like power blackouts, to pick a random example. Secondarily, it might also help save our access to the HF spectrum.

Publicly expose BPL's flaws, engage all hams in the fight against BPL, and create an Emergency National Network -- three constructive things we can do to combat BPL's threat to HF communications. If you agree, please spread the word. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear your perspective and alternative recommendations.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KE7BJQ on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The real concern is the publics perception of BPL. Most times it is what the newspaper prints or the power companies hogwash that gets to the public ears or eyes. "The friendly local power company is only doing what is good for the public" while taking the public to the cleaners as per ENRON. It's not enough to gouge us while paying for power but will make us pay to louse up the HF bands as well. I don't know if the public is truly aware of what BPL is really going to do for them. It will cost them more for power because the power companies are not going to implement BPL out of the kindness of their hearts. It will be passed on to power customers nationwide. It will make the power companies as big a monopoly as Microsoft. Rather than give the consumers more choice it will force feed this stuff to our neighborhoods. Can you pronounce "RF rich environment" kiddies. Consumers with their inexpensive electronic equipment manufactured by underpaid workers in third world countries will get more interference. Of course it must be the guy with all the antennas in the neighborhood causing it. Yes people, we will be blamed for this too. As educated technically as we are we are in a better position to let the public truly see what this is. A boondogle to suck more money from consumers with little real benefit. Otherwise we can always wait for the sunspots and a local brownout for good DXing.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 25, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

re " I think you should have also pointed out that other countries such as Japan and Europe have tried BPL and later banned it because of interference problems. It makes one wonder why the FCC keeps pushing for BPL when so many other places have tried it and failed. The fact that Japan, a highly technological country, couldn't get it to work right should say a lot right there."

This question has come up in interviews that included both hams and BPL promoters. The BPL promoter response is "we have much better technology now; its no longer an issue".

Unfortunately, we failed to respond with "If that's true, then why did Alliant recently withdraw its plan to offer BPL in Cedar Rapids because they couldn't solve the interference problem?

Any ham going into a BPL interview without serious preparation risks doing more harm than good. The BPL guys are well-prepared, I assure you.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AA6YQ

I think you have done an excellent job at summing up the situation. I really enjoyed your responses that followed.

I think the notion of a website that provides the nitty-gritty details in a 3 minute read is REALLY needed. When you go to the ARRL website, the BPL links and cross-links have been morphing over the past many months and has become the exhaustive source of BPL knowledge on the web. Unfortunately, you would need at least 2 Sunday afternoons to just scratch the surface.

Contact your ARRL directors and let's get some action! This is one recommendation that, in my opinion, deserves immediate attention at the ARRL.

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Thanks, Ford.

You're right that the ARRL's BPL web page has grown large and unwieldy. However, it does not contain all of the ARRL's BPL information; there's more in http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc , but the directory itself is inaccessible so one can't determine what's available.

Given the importance of understanding and combatting BPL, it would also be helpful to provide a hyperlink to this BPL information from the ARRL site's main page; at present, navigating to the BPL site is a bit of a challenge unless you already know the URL.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KY1V on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave,

If your want to start a website and need a reliable hosting company to host the web site free...call me!

I just purchased the domain name BPLFacts.com.

That might be a good start. Now we need a ham/web designer with some extra time on their hands to design the site, select a couple of editors and we're off to a good start.

David KY1V
ASPwebhosting.com

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by DJ7MGQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I hate to say this, PLC (BPL, PLT or whatever you want to call it) has not been banned in Europe.

Among other places it is offered in Linz (OE), Mannheim (DL), Hameln (DL), Dresden (DL), Offenbach (DL), Hassfurt (DL), etc.

For more information about the situation in Europe check out the web sites of the RSGB, DARC, OEVSV etc. Also of interest are:

<http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/publiconsult/powerline_communications/index_en.htm>
<http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/enterprise/tcam/library?l=/emcsstandardisationsmand&vm=detailed&sb=Title>
<http://www.darc.de/aktuell/plc/pdf/cqdl0204_eng.pdf>

vy 73 de toby

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by GW7UNJ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"that other countries such as Japan and Europe"

...well, not just yet, anyway...

But thats another story

73

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> You're right that the ARRL's BPL web page has grown
> large and unwieldy. However, it does not contain all
> of the ARRL's BPL information; there's more in
> http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc , but the
> directory itself is inaccessible so one can't
> determine what's available.

The URL you cite is not accessible because it doesn't exist.

The ~ehare area on the ARRL web site is the area I use to share information with various working groups and committees. It is not intended to be public.

When you create another anti-BPL web site, please make sure that is doesn't contain such misinformation.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Labl

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

There are a few points made in the letter than are, IMHO, somewhat misleading.

First, at least one BPL system uses HomePlug equipment for its connection from the pole to the home, so saying that BPL is not HomePlug will be hotly countered by that company if your letter is published. If you were going to discuss HomePlug, you should have clarified that.

In most power outages I have experienced, my telephone and cable service was not affected. If DSL and cable modem service were also working, Internet access would continue to work during most power outages.

I agree with you that BPL is not nearly as Plug and Play as the industry marketing people imply, but it is no less so that any other IS technology. The term "last mile" does not imply that the technology doesn't use intermediate equipment. They all do, and "last mile" applies as much to BPL as it does any other broadband technology, perhaps more so. It literally is the last mile in most cases.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0RKX on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

<<In most power outages I have experienced, my telephone and cable service was not affected. If DSL and cable modem service were also working, Internet access would continue to work during most power outages.>>

Slightly off topic but couldn't resist pointing out that Cable and DSL modems everone with broadband access uses do need power. If the power goes out so does the internet whether using Cable/DSL or BPL.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AB0WR on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

If you have a battery to run your rig during power outages why can't you also power your cable modem? You would also need a laptop with a charged up battery. Loss of cable high speed internet is not a given during a power loss.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by K0RGR on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The comments from DJ7MGQ were interesting, as was the link regarding interference in Mannheim. The vendor conducting a BPL trial here claims to have 80,000 happy customers in one German city, with no complaints of interference, whatsoever. I don't remember which city he was referring to, unfortunately. I am curious about any other reports of interference from BPL (or PLC) in Germany.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3NL on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

There is an interesting comment in this topic:

"1. We are declaring that our self-interest (HF ham radio) is more important than the self-interest of others. We're certainly entitled to make this declaration, but someone else is equally entitled to declare that instant, cheap, high-speed internet is more important than HF ham radio. There are many more non-hams than hams. Instant, cheap, high-speed internet is a very attractive "deliverable" for many elected officials. And, there are alternatives to HF ionospheric refraction that hams could use to chat with their friends worldwide -- satellites with VHF/UHF uplinks and downlinks, for example. By leading with our self-interest, we create the opportunity for our opponents to prevail, simply because there are a lot more non-hams interested in high-speed internet than hams interested in HF communications. The good of the many prevailing over small losses to a few is a well-worn closing statement. We have placed ourselves on the wrong side of this argument."

This raises the interesting question: Why do BPL
providers have the right to interfere with
the use of the International resource of
the short wave spectrum? As an international
short wave broadcast listener I have a problem with
this and will raise the issue of protection of the
short wave broadcast bands if interference is
encountered.

73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KC8VWM on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>> I've seen postings there over the years -- and have received roughly one trillion emails from ARRL members in the last day to remind me.. <<<

Kinda reminds me of what happens when you throw a chunk of beef into a pool of piranahs. -lol.

At least we can say that we are not just sitting around on our duffs doing nothing about BPL.

Anyone suggesting that BPL is the "next big thing" obviously has been blind sided by the offering of expanding the internet without exploring any other considerations of the facts.

Well done. Nicely written and most informative response to the newspaper editor.

(bet he won't be publishing anything like that again anytime real soon - )

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KD4AC on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nice response. I think you should have also pointed out that other countries such as Japan and Europe have tried BPL ... '

Slightly off topic but please note that Europe is not a country.

Steve

Then why comment at all? Or do you ALWAYS point out small mistakes made by people?

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KC8VWM on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>> Why do BPL providers have the right to interfere with the use of the International resource of
the short wave spectrum? <<

Nickolaus, (and others)

As far as I am concerned, anytime someone "restricts" my access to a news service such as those heard on the SW bands (directly or indirectly) - then it becomes an issue of "denying" me what I am entitled to listen to.

Some might call BPL censorship, others might call it outright unconstitutional.

However one thing is very clear, BPL has been historically proven to severly limit one's ability to subscribe to these news services heard on SW bands.

Thanks for listening.

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KD4AC on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"Instant, cheap, high-speed internet is a very attractive "deliverable" for many elected officials."

How is BPL cheap? From what I've read, they're charging just as much as cable or DSL.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KG6AMW on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nice response Dave. One recommendation. In your response you write, "BPL is an ill-conceived attempt by the power industry to extract more revenue from consumers at a time when that industry should instead be re-engineering their grid to reliably deliver electrical power." While this may be factual, it is a diversion in your argument that takes the reader away from your main points, which are the problems and weaknesses of BPL.

KG6AMW

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

David, many thanks for your offer, and for your ongoing support of a DXLab mirror site.

I believe that our efforts to combat BPL in this country must be unified and coordinated. All of us must speak, but the messages we convey must be consistent. The ARRL is best positioned to lead this effort, and create/maintain the web site that supports it.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed, there are two errors in your statement "When you create another anti-BPL web site, please make sure that is doesn't contain such misinformation."

1. It implies that I have already created one anti-BPL web site, which is untrue. I have two web sites:

www.ambersoft.com - contains my photography and my XYL's paintings

www.qsl.net/dxlab - supports distribution of the DXLab Suite, 8 free applications for DXers and the web-accessible version of Pathfinder

I have never created an anti-BPL web site, and I have no intention of creating one. In my view, all efforts aimed at combatting BPL in the US must be lead by the ARRL. That includes the supporting web site.

2. The information I posted is accurate. The ARRL's BPL web page, which is publicly accessible, refers to a supporting antenna models document named bplant.zip located in http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc .

Your posts on the public BPL reflector have also mentioned useful URLs in http://www.arrl.org/~ehare -- for example

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPLandHamRadio/message/3799 , in which you say

" http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/homeplug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf describes the testing that was done a few years back. "

For those having difficulty finding it, the ARRL's main BPL page is located at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/ . Alternatively, visit the ARRL's home page at www.arrl.net, click the "Band Threats" link in the third navigation row, and then click the "Additional information about BPL and Amateur Radio on the ARRL Web site" link -- its the second link in the "Additional Resources" list.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Regarding "First, at least one BPL system uses HomePlug equipment for its connection from the pole to the home, so saying that BPL is not HomePlug will be hotly countered by that company if your letter is published. If you were going to discuss HomePlug, you should have clarified that. "

Some BPL installations use WiFi to move data from pole to the home. Does that mean that BPL is WiFi? Of course not.

The key point here is that the power industry cannot use HomePlug at its power generating facilities to insert high-speed data onto its grid which can then be directly extracted by consumers via a HomePlug modem. But this is picture BPL promoters want painted -- that of an instant, cheap path directly to the home, solving the "last mile" problem.

Regarding "In most power outages I have experienced, my telephone and cable service was not affected. If DSL and cable modem service were also working, Internet access would continue to work during most power outages. "

In a power outage, Ed, will pole-based WiFi transceivers continue to operate? Will HomePlug modems continue to operate? Will the PCs used to access the internet continue to operate?

My point is not that DSL or cable modem are more immune to power outages than DSL. My point is that the power grid is unreliable; rectifying this situation deserves the power industry's full attention.

Regarding "I agree with you that BPL is not nearly as Plug and Play as the industry marketing people imply, but it is no less so that any other IS technology."

The problem is that BPL promoters mislead their audiences to believe that their technology eliminates the last-mile problem by sending high-speed data directly through the power lines into consumer homes. We must actively counter this mis-information.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

In response to

"Instant, cheap, high-speed internet is a very attractive "deliverable" for many elected officials."

KD4AC wrote

"How is BPL cheap? From what I've read, they're charging just as much as cable or DSL."

BPL isn't cheap; from the studies I've read, its probably more expensive to operate than Cable, DSL, or WiMax even if there's no cost to mitigate the generated RFI. Being very late to the table in comparison to cable and DSL, effectively promoting BPL would require a massive marketing investment. In urban and suburban markets where BPL provides no significant advantage over the incumbent technologies, we can use the rule of thumb provided by Davidow in "Marketing High Technology": the cost of entering a market against a well-managed competitor with an undifferentiated product is 70% of the sales of the leader. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars annually just in marketing expense!

In rural markets where BPL does provide differential value over its competitors, its economics are challenged by lower utilization rates: pole-mounted equipment in rural areas will support far fewer homes than in urban or suburban areas.

But BPL's promoters ignore all this. They simply say "our breakthrough technology lets us send the data through pre-existing powerlines", implying that there's no up-front installation beyond plugging your PC into the wall, and little operational overhead. That's why its so appealing to politicians -- at every level.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KG6AMW wrote

"One recommendation. In your response you write, "BPL is an ill-conceived attempt by the power industry to extract more revenue from consumers at a time when that industry should instead be re-engineering their grid to reliably deliver electrical power." While this may be factual, it is a diversion in your argument that takes the reader away from your main points, which are the problems and weaknesses of BPL."

Good point. Its arguable that the power industry will be hard-pressed to address the problems and weaknesses of BPL when the infrastructure for which they are solely responsible is in disrepair, but allowing the audience to focus on a small number of key points is critical, as you suggest.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AA6YQ's comments about the ARRL website is a very important notion.

Going to the ARRL.ORG website, I defy you to find a link to assist in navigating towards any notion of an "Executive Summary." For those willing to spend considerable time digging for it, there is lots of good and valuable information for a technologically informed individual to formulate an opinion. However, most local elected officals would have difficulty operating a FAX machine and have little background in understanding the complexities of the www backbone. Any sort of grass-roots effort is going to have to be supported so that local hams can direct interested local government representatives to a website 'primer' of sorts.

This summary should contain a number of important links. E.g. describing how BPL, PLC, etc., is supposed to work; describing what works and what doesn't work; describing failed systems to date and the reasons for the failure; listing opponents and link to sources; describing the FCC's role in BPL, a FAQ would be great. The Executive Summary should provide the information in a way that would prove useful to a person who just discovered the notion of PBL yesterday. And they should be able to spend 15 minutes reading and get a good feel for what our position re:BPL means.

Since the ARRL has been taking the lead to date, in this author's opinion, only the ARRL will be able to provide an accurate and fair description of what we know to be true. Any misinformation presented will potentially be attacked by proponents as libel. Certainly, while other individuals are able to start their own websites, doing so without the help and support of ARRL Labs, ARRL Legal Counsel, ARRL membership $$, the independant effort would likely prove to be counter productive.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> Going to the ARRL.ORG website, I defy you to find a
> link to assist in navigating towards any notion of
> an "Executive Summary."

The first of the major links is to the executive summary. It is titled "BPL: Why Amateur Radio is Concerned About Its Deployment" instead of "Executive Summary," though.

I once did a report that had a great executive summary. My boss read it, and criticized it for not having an executive summary. I retitled the section called "Major Issues" as "Executive Summary" and resubmitted it. He let me know he thought it was now much better. :-)

Why Amateur Radio Is Concerned about Its Deployment
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/bpl-deployment.html

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Regarding "Broadband Over Power Line: Why Amateur Radio Is Concerned about Its Deployment" in

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/bpl-deployment.html

This article does not

- explain BPL's technical flaws

- explain BPL's business challenges

- mention any hard facts substantiating the above (e.g. the Alliant's withdrawal from BPL in Cedar Rapids due to their inability to mitigate the interference it generated, or the decision by PEPCO, operator of a test BPL site in Potomac MD, to not invest in BPL.)

- outline a simple but cogent argument for abandoning BPL that can be effectively used with non-technical audiences, with guidance for special cases (e.g. reporters, local politicians, etc.)

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>> Ed, there are two errors in your statement "When
>> you create another anti-BPL web site, please make
>> sure that is doesn't contain such misinformation."

> 1. It implies that I have already created one anti-BPL
> web site, which is untrue. I have two web sites:

Not at all. It implies that if you create a BPL site, it would be another anti-BPL site.

> 2. The information I posted is accurate. The ARRL's
> BPL web page, which is publicly accessible, refers
> to a supporting antenna models document named
> bplant.zip located in http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc .

You are correct; I did put one file into that directory. However, the only information that is there intended for outside use is the file whose full URL is:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/bplant.zip.

Cutting off part of a URL and then noting that you can't access it is pretty misleading, Dave.

> Your posts on the public BPL reflector have also
> mentioned useful URLs in http://www.arrl.org/~ehare

There are a few of them that I have put up on the ~ehare area of the ARRL web page, for a number of reasons. The majority of that site it intended for me to share with various working groups and committees on which I serve. I occasionally use the area to temporarily put up files in answer to questions, or to facilitate an on-line discussion. I do not have an index.html file there, so only those that have the full URLs can see all of the files on the ~ehare area. In most instances, the files there are not intended for permanent, public view.

> For those having difficulty finding it, the ARRL's
> main BPL page is located at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/ .

An easier one to remember is:

http://www.arrl.org/bpl

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed, your earlier post accused me of spreading misinformation, saying:

"The URL you cite is not accessible because it doesn't exist.

Now you're acknowledging that the the URL does exist, and contains public documents, but you accuse me of be misleading when I say

"The ARRL's BPL web page, which is publicly accessible, refers to a supporting antenna models document named bplant.zip located in http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc "

The file's publicly posted URL is http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/bplant.zip , so its entirely accurate to describe its location as I did above.

Rising up from these low-level details, my point is that there's a vast amount of useful information on the ARRL web site, but the lack of organization makes it effectively inaccessible to most hams, let alone non-hams seeking balanced and accurate information about BPL.

Thanks for providing the shorter URL to the ARRL BPL web page. It would be helpful to place this link prominently on the ARRL home page.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AB5XZ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Here is the approach that Japan's FCC-like agency is taking:

[To provide]"a system to permit the construction and use of equipment for research and development, or demonstration tests" MPHPT announced the overview of an experimental system for PLC in January 2004 as follows:

(1) Conditions for permission of PLC equipment for experiments. Equipment can be used to corroborate technology designed to reduce electromagnetic radiation leakage from power lines. The frequency range should be between 2 MHz and 30 MHz.

(2) Measures to prevent interference. Those entities planning to install experimental equipment should set targets for electromagnetic radiation leakage from power lines and provide technical reasoning that interference can be prevented. They should notify neighboring residents of experiment plans in advance. If interference occurs, they must suspend experiments immediately and find the causes, and must not resume experiments until they confirm that interference will never occur.

(3) Announcement of experiments Those entities planning to conduct experiments should release their names and contact address, place of installation and frequency ranges for use on the homepage of the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications.

In a press release dated March 10, 2004 headlined "Kyushu Electric Power Co. given the green light for high-speed power line carrier communications equipment, the first in Japan," the Kyushu Regional Bureau of Telecommunications announced that it gave experimental permission to the establishment of high-speed PLC equipment, effective the same day. A similar permission for PLC equipment was given to Mitsubishi Electric, Line Co. and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. by the Kinki Bureau on March 12 and 19; to Tokyo Electric Power Company by the Kanto Bureau; and to Mitsubishi Electric Corp. by the Hokkaido Bureau."

This is from www.jarl.or.jp, the web site of JARL, the Japan Amateur Radio League.

Note that the Ministry insists that any interfering operation be shut off until the cause of the interference can be determined and eliminated forever. Contrast that with the FCC's laissez-faire approach ("immediately" means in six or eight months or when they're ready).

73TomAB5XZ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed, your earlier post accused me of spreading misinformation, saying:

> "The URL you cite is not accessible because it
> doesn't exist.

> Now you're acknowledging that the the URL does
> exist, and contains public documents, but you accuse
> me of be misleading when I say

> "The ARRL's BPL web page, which is publicly
> accessible, refers to a supporting antenna models
> document named bplant.zip located in
> http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc "

>The file's publicly posted URL is http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc/bplant.zip ,
> so its entirely accurate to describe its location as
> I did above.

Of course it was misleading of you to say that. The full URL was provided in the FCC filing, as you admitted, but you had originally posted:

> You're right that the ARRL's BPL web page has grown
> large and unwieldy. However, it does not contain all
> of the ARRL's BPL information; there's more in
> http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/plc , but the
> directory itself is inaccessible so one can't
> determine what's available.

If you had the full URL of the file, posting part of it and saying that there is more information available there is misleading. It implies that ARRL had been hiding things from you, when you already had downloaded the information.

I have clarified what is available on the page, Dave, and explained the use of the ~ehare area. I believe that should be suffienct to wrap up this part of our discussion. The information I intend to be public has been made quite public, so just what is your concern with the ~ehare area on the ARRL web site?

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

< Regarding "Broadband Over Power Line: Why Amateur Radio Is Concerned about Its Deployment" in

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/bpl-deployment.html

This article does not

- explain BPL's technical flaws

- explain BPL's business challenges

- mention any hard facts substantiating the above (e.g. the Alliant's withdrawal from BPL in Cedar Rapids due to their inability to mitigate the interference it generated, or the decision by PEPCO, operator of a test BPL site in Potomac MD, to not invest in BPL.)

- outline a simple but cogent argument for abandoning BPL that can be effectively used with non-technical audiences, with guidance for special cases (e.g. reporters, local politicians, etc.)

73,

Dave, AA6YQ >

I will repeat some of what I said to you on the bplandhamradio list, Dave.

The summary is intended to be concise. For that reason, it is not possible to go into all detail about all aspects of BPL. It is intended to be exactly what you described at the end of your post. The level of technical detail appropriate to that use is that BPL that operates at the level permitted in Part 15 causes interference.

When you go past that, there are so many directions that a technical discussion can take that it is, IMHO, always going to be limiting to try to summarize many pages of technical material. Those that want to enter that arena should have the technical abilities to select those arguments from the many pages of technical material available and use them in a way that is appropriate to their technical venue. Yes, it may take a few hours time to do that, but that is a much better choice that someone using a technical summary written to no specific purpose at all and hoping that it will meet a need that has not been defined.

When most people want a technical summary, they are really looking for a technical summary that meets their own specific need.

I don't believe that ARRL should address the business-challenge aspects of BPL at all. Dave Sumner has done so, in one of his editorials, however.

But those of us who have been in this from the beginning have dealt with every spin the BPL industry has been using, and one of those spins is that Amateur Radio is wrong to oppose BPL. Those of us who have seen what effect such spin has had on the FCC know that the approach of addressing only interference is the correct organizational approach. What reason other than interfernce would ARRL have to want to oppose BPL?

By concentrating on interference, instead of bringing in unrelated matters such as BPL's business case, the door of communication with the BPL industry are left open instead of being slammed shut, and those relationships have been productive in the past and will continue to be so.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed-W1RFI:

You indicate that the first major link on the www.arrl.org website is available. And then proceed to provide a different, yet very private, link. I continue to contend that the home page for ARRL has no such link presented. I went to "Media" and find nothing. I went to "information" and find nothing. I went to "Band Threats" and find no link to BPL anything.

So providing the 18 people reading this thread with an apparently hidden link of www.arrl.org/bpl is quite ineffectual. There should be a method of people being directed to the ARRL to find the links, rather than needing to send a private email to you to obtain the link.

Start at the normal home page of www.arrl.org and using only your mouse, find the private link you presented. It's not there.

This is just a housekeeping detail. The real guts of what Dave and I are saying is that a document providing the uninitiated with dialogue that punches the message directly home, with reference links, still needs to be prepared. In all presentations I've seen on just about any topic, I've never seen a "Why we care" section, but without exception will find an "Executive Summary."

Yes, it may be as simple as calling it "BPL & PLC - An Executive Summary" instead of "why we care." Your story is quite cute. However, the reader is left thinking you wrote an (ed)itorial of opinion. What we need are hard facts and only the facts. People using the search engine to find that summary would never type in "Why we care..."

Speaking of search engines, you type in PLC on any search engine and you get a completely different set of links. If I were a BPL advocate, I would instruct my authors and proponents to avoid the "BPL" phrase and use PLC instead. Why? Because the ARRL doesn't use PLC except on rare occassions. So people doing a search on PLC don't see the ARRL's position come up in the list of 'hits.'

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3HKN on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

To W1RFI:

Let's leave the defensive bickering alone.

Your customers are the Ham community of which some find the organization of the ARRL site to be difficult to navigate for BPL info. Perhaps time would be better spent in determining if this is a majority opinion or just some people who individually have problems with the site.

BPL information (as most info) is precious. However, it is useless when it is not easily accessable. Given the gravity of the BPL issues I believe that all cogent information should be organized in a way to make it very visible. There MUST be a simple URL that would allow reporters to access a a BPL Information Site to gain insight into the "other side of the story". This has to be a professionally organized area - short and to the point with little mention of Amateur Radio.

Lobbying politicians is an uphill battle unless the ARRL can afford private jets to fly politicians to "informational conferences" in Hawaii. It is time to lobby the public via the media. Multiply our voices by getting the public at-large on our side.

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KY1V on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W1RFI wrote>>>

"In most power outages I have experienced, my telephone and cable service was not affected. If DSL and cable modem service were also working, Internet access would continue to work during most power outages."

While I respect Ed and his work for the league, I must say that nothing could bew further from the truth.

Sure, it is possible to have a battery backup system that keeps you computer, monitor and DSL/Cable modem up and running while there is a power outage, 99% of americans have no such equipment, and those few that buy commercially available battery backup power supplies made for SOHO (small office/home office) do not have the ability to keep the PC and monitor up and running for more than a few short minutes. I bought one of these supplies for my mother's Cisco PIX firewall so that power outages didn't cause it to lose the RSA Key necessary for remote SSH and this particular mid range supply could only keep the PIX and DSL modem up for ten minutes after a power outage. Imagine if the PC and Monitor were plugged in?

For the majority of the world...NO POWER = NO INTERNET and anyone whom implies that BPL is a solution for this is only fooling themselves.

I have an idea. We have thousands of licensed hams that have high powered mobile stations (1KW). We should organize a BPL motorcade in every test area in the country. Basically, all the mobile stations run around the BPL test area for a couple of weeks CQ'ing like crazy 24/7 during the initial test phases. Before the Electric company figures out why everyone's data transmissions are corrupt they may determine BPL is a failure and give up... LOL J/K guys, don't take me too seriously.

73,

David KY1V/ VP5X

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Regarding

"The summary is intended to be concise. For that reason, it is not possible to go into all detail about all aspects of BPL. It is intended to be exactly what you described at the end of your post. The level of technical detail appropriate to that use is that BPL that operates at the level permitted in Part 15 causes interference."

I am tempted to disect the ARRL summary line-by-line, but suspect this would not be received constructively no matter how I package it. Suffice it to say that a concise, compelling summary along the lines I have suggested is achievable.

You and I clearly disagree over strategy. I advocate directly attacking BP by exposing its technical and business flaws. My rationale for this approach is

1. the FCC is sympathetic towards BPL, and has been nurturing it despite strong evidence that part 15 compliance is technically and/or economically infeasible

2. BPL promoters are deceptive and dishonest in their claims regarding interference and economics

3. if BPL gains a significant installed base it will be financially and politically difficult to extract

4. our "attack the interference, not the technology" strategy has so far failed to diminish BPL's momentum, which is definitely on the increase

These are the reasons I believe the ARRL should lead us in directly attacking BPL.

You say

"But those of us who have been in this from the beginning have dealt with every spin the BPL industry has been using, and one of those spins is that Amateur Radio is wrong to oppose BPL. Those of us who have seen what effect such spin has had on the FCC know that the approach of addressing only interference is the correct organizational approach."

Given the FCC's predisposition towards BPL, there's no level playing field here. But I'd like to know exactly how the FCC reacted to BPL industry allegations that the ARRL opposes BPL. Please elaborate.

You also say

"By concentrating on interference, instead of bringing in unrelated matters such as BPL's business case, the door of communication with the BPL industry are left open instead of being slammed shut, and those relationships have been productive in the past and will continue to be so."

Exactly how have these productive relationships been helping us to combat BPL interference? Please cite some examples.

Given Dave Sumner's role, your comment "I don't believe that ARRL should address the business-challenge aspects of BPL at all. Dave Sumner has done so, in one of his editorials, however." implies that the ARRL itself is not of one mind with respect to its BPL strategy. Is that the case?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Article in the San Francisco Chronicle too

by AB8TM on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Here it is:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/18/BUGOJ7M9NS1.DTL

It is entitled "Ham radio operators squawk over BPL"- by
David Lazarus

Good reading

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Regarding

"If you had the full URL of the file, posting part of it and saying that there is more information available there is misleading. It implies that ARRL had been hiding things from you, when you already had downloaded the information.

I have clarified what is available on the page, Dave, and explained the use of the ~ehare area. I believe that should be suffienct to wrap up this part of our discussion. The information I intend to be public has been made quite public, so just what is your concern with the ~ehare area on the ARRL web site?"

I did not say, nor do I believe that the ARRL is intentionally hiding anything regarding BPL. My point, which I have already stated several times, is that the ARRL web site contains a lot of useful information, but that the lack of organization makes this information effectively inaccessible. My highlighting the presence of useful information in the ~ehare area was nothing more than a substantiation of this point.

Ed, you seem to feel that laying out lots of information is all that's required -- hams should figure out what information they need in their local situation, acquire it from the ARRL web site, and produce their own materials. I couldn't disagree more strongly, because the end result of your approach is that few hams will do anything; its just too hard. One set of foundation documents -- a compelling, cogent anti-BPL elevator pitch, a list of frequently-asked questions and answers, substantiating facts, and guidance for dealing with reporters and local politicans -- would empower the ham community while retaining a consistent message nationwide. Yes, needs will vary from location to location, but that can be accomodated by fine-tuning the foundation documents; it does not justify your "start from scratch" approach.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Article in the San Francisco Chronicle too

by AA6YQ on July 26, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Yes, the Lazarus interview is a perfect example of what happens when a well-meaning representive of the amateur community goes into an interview unprepared.

I analyzed this interview on the BPL reflector; for those who've not seen this analysis, its appended below. Based on earlier discussion here, I would not bring up the power grid reliability issue.

My comments are all prepended with +++

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

LAZARUS AT LARGE

Ham radio operators squawk over BPL

David Lazarus Sunday, July 18, 2004

Well, it sure was exciting when Michael Powell, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, joined execs from AT&T and PG&E in Menlo Park the other day for a test of newfangled technology to provide Internet access over ordinary power lines.

"I think this is critical technology," Powell said at an AT&T facility on the Peninsula. "This is something we want to see happen."

Mikel Lechner, a Silicon Valley software engineer who wasn't invited to the event, is a good deal less enthusiastic about the prospect of broadband over power lines, or BPL in techno-speak.

Lechner is president of the Foothills Amateur Radio Society, an organization of 75 or so local ham radio operators, and he's deeply worried that the new technology will all but obliterate his pastime.

+++ This positions the issue as being our self-interest (continuing pursuit our hobby) over the self-interest of others (cheap, quick access to high-speed internet). Since there are many more of them than us, and since there are alternatives to HF refraction for communication, this puts us in a fundamentally weak position.

+++ Instead, "If BPL were a great technology, we'd all be jumping through hoops to find ways to coexist with it. But its not -- its economics are terrible, and there are much better, cheaper alternatives, for example WiMAX." And then launch into the specifics of BPL's "not-really-a-last-mile-solution" problem, and its RFI problems (focusing more on the impact to public service and public safety applications than on ham radio). Close with "And shouldn't the power companies be focused on making the power grid deliver electricity reliably? Do you remember what happened in the NorthEast not too long ago?"

That's because BPL works by sending radio signals over electricity lines. The signals travel along the wires and through utility transformers and eventually arrive in people's homes, where they're funneled into home computers via special modems plugged into electrical outlets.

"The problem," Lechner told me, "is that power lines were not meant to carry radio signals. That means the signals will radiate from the wires. They'll escape. And that means anyone within a short distance will receive interference."

+++ Characterizing the problem as being limited to "within a short distance" is technically inaccurate, and weakens our argument.

The telecom and power industries say this problem has been licked. But Lechner isn't so sure.

+++ This was the perfect opportunity to discuss Alliant's recent withdrawal from BPL due to its inability to mitigate the RFI its pilot produced. It directly rebuts the "this problem has been licked" claim.

The radio antenna atop his Campbell home is about 20 feet from a power line. Lechner can easily imagine what would happen if that wire were crackling each day with millions of e-mails and Web pages.

"It would pretty much kill my hobby," he said. "Except for the strongest signals, I wouldn't be able to hear a thing."

BPL is one of those rock-your-world tech breakthroughs that has been percolating in telecom circles for years. But it's only been within the past few months that serious testing has begun throughout the country.

+++ Having this sort of BS not appear in an article requires one to steer the interview so that the specifics of BPL can be discussed. First its important to distinguish the distribution of high-speed data to a home (via BPL) from the distribution of high-speed data within a home (via HomePlug). The latter is convenient and economical, but is hardly revolutionary -- its been around (and improving) for years. But the major convenience benefits attributed to BPL -- namely the ability to get high-speed internet by plugging a PC into the wall -- is an attribute of HomePlug, not BPL! One can use HomePlug with cable or DSL today! In addition, its important to point out that BPL generally cannot bring signals directly into a home -- the distribution transformers block the signal. Thus the power company must install pole-mounted equipment -- either transformer bypasses, or WiFi transceivers -- to complete the circuit. This is no less expensive or time-consuming than making cable or DSL connections.

One of the most extensive projects has been undertaken in Cincinnati, where a local utility is spending about $10 million to make BPL available to 50,000 homes by the end of the year.

The advances have caught the attention of even President Bush, who observed last month that PL "seems to make sense if what you are looking for is avenues to the home. Electricity goes into the home."

+++ A perfect opportunity to point out that the politicians don't really understand that while electricity goes into the home, high-speed internet won't unless the utility installs additional equipment.

Good call. And that's what makes this technology so tantalizing. The notion that homes, businesses and schools can be wired for high-speed Net access with relatively little muss and fuss makes BPL a dream come true for a broadband-hungry world.

"The technology works right now," declared Bill Moroney, president of the United Telecom Council, a power-industry trade group. "And by next year you'll see better technology and the year after that even better technology."

Let's hope so. BPL may be functional in its present form, but it's still far from perfect. Not the least is no one really knows for sure what would happen to the nation's power grid if it had to do double duty as a major communications network.

+++ Our nation's power grid is in terrible shape, as illustrated by the recent NE blackout and information revealed in follow-up studies. Why is the power industry focused on BPL when the basic, critical infrastructure for which they are responsible is unreliable and getting worse by the day?

PG&E spokesman John Nelson said testing to date has shown that data transmitted via BPL move independently of electricity flowing through the lines. In theory, he said, that means the grid should stand up to the rigors of a tsunami of spam pushing Viagra and Nigerian investment opportunities.

+++ Nice to see that PG&E spokesmen understand superposition. Too bad we can't link BPL to Spam...

"The science doesn't change as you go to a larger scale," Nelson said.

Locally, up to 100 Menlo Park homes will fiddle with BPL for the next six months. PG&E and AT&T will use the results of the test to determine when and how BPL will be rolled out on a wider scale in the Bay Area.

For PG&E, the attraction of BPL isn't repositioning the formerly bankrupt utility as the next AOL. Rather, Nelson said, PG&E is keen on the idea that it can have an interactive link with customers, allowing the company to see where juice is flowing at any given time.

+++ This would have been a good entre' to "BPL locks subscribers into a single source of internet access; what's the power industry's track record for fair and effective pricing?"

+++ Is there truly economic synergy between BPL and realtime power monitoring? Pole-mounted transformer bypasses or WiFi transceivers won't automatically monitor and report power usage; adding these capabilities would increase both capital and installation costs.

Moreover, he said BPL would provide for more efficient use of power throughout Northern California. By being able to show customers the cost of electricity in real time, PG&E would allow people to choose the cheapest hour to do the laundry, say, or run the dishwasher.

"We don't have any plans to be an Internet service provider," Nelson said. He added, though, that "no business model has been worked out" for the utility's use of BPL.

+++ A huge red flag missed. What will happen if, when the business model is finally worked out, the economics are unattractive? Who will pay? The municipalities? The subscribers?

Irwin Gerszberg, AT&T's director of local network technology, acknowledged that BPL is still a work in progress. But the arrival of more- powerful chips and modems in coming months will solve most current difficulties, he said.

+++ Response: "Exactly what difficulties are you referring to, Mr. Gerszberg?"

One key improvement, Gerszberg stressed, is technology that allows BPL networks to recognize competing signals from ham-radio operators and, in effect, detour around the frequency.

"Interference really isn't an issue anymore," he said. "Earlier BPL systems were noisier. Now it's not a problem."

+++ Response: "Then why did Alliant recently terminate their BPL pilot in Cedar Rapids due to interference problems and decide to not pursue BPL?

The issue at this point, Gersz-berg observed, is how the heavily regulated telecom and power industries will work together on a potentially lucrative new revenue source. "It's like making two elephants dance," he said.

It's unclear whether PG&E would offer customers Internet access or whether the utility would lease its lines to one or more service providers.

All Gerszberg could say now is that the relatively inexpensive cost of hooking up to BPL -- a fraction of the price of wiring a home for cable, he said -- means that BPL will be competitively priced with other broadband systems.

+++ Here's the confusion between BPL and HomePlug being used to BPL's advantage, again.

"I'm pretty excited about it," he said.

Lechner, the ham-radio enthusiast, said he's looked at the improvements described by Gerszberg and there's still some question about their effectiveness.

+++ "...still some question..." is very weak.

For example, would a radio operator have to constantly broadcast his or her presence to the BPL system to gain access to the airwaves? Many operators prefer to listen to on-air chatter before piping up. Moreover, would the radio operator have to repeat the procedure on each and every frequency tuned in to?

+++ "Many operators prefer to listen to on-air chatter" - this won't generate a lot of sympathy preserving amateur radio.

"I'm taking a wait-and-see approach," Lechner said. "The industry can say what it wants. Nothing is clear yet."

+++ If we take a wait-and-see approach, we will lose.

David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He also can be seen regularly on KTVU's "Mornings on 2." Send tips or feedback to dlazarus@s...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Article in the San Francisco Chronicle too

by GW7UNJ on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

<<<Nice response. I think you should have also pointed out that other countries such as Japan and Europe have tried BPL ... '

Slightly off topic but please note that Europe is not a country.

Steve

Then why comment at all? Or do you ALWAYS point out small mistakes made by people? >>>>

I would say that mistaking a continent for a country is more than a "small" inaccuracy. Can you not see that it is social ignorances such as this that only serves to perpetuate the world feeling that most US citizens cannot see past their own back garden?
Most of the worlds population take an active interest in gaining knowledge and opinion on the other cultures out there. Most US visitors i have spoken to cannot even recognise the difference between the United Kingdom and England, and still have the arrogance to maintain that they are one and the same when the facts are spelt out to them.
You are not doing yourselves any favours people.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KE7AGI on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

As far as attacking BPL on its merits, has anyone looked at the security issues BPL faces? Seems to me that putting all those packets on an unshielded radiator is a ripe opportunity for some unsavory type in a van with some sensitive sniffer gear.

Whether or not it is encrypted is irrelevant as anyone who depended on WEP for security is (or should be) aware.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

While WEP is vulnerable, there are plenty of available encryption techniques that will provide sufficient protection until someone builds a 6 or 7 qubit quantum computer. WiMax and Satellites have the same exposure.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KC8VWM on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave says,

"4. our "attack the interference, not the technology" strategy has so far failed to diminish BPL's momentum, which is definitely on the increase"

I am not sure if I agree with this. I can cite several examples where investors "pulled the plug" on homeplug BPL.

Additionally, the investor retreat is not related to the technology causing interference per se, but rather BPL was in many cases viewed as a bad investment strategy when compared to other available technologies for the consumer.

The fact is that high speed internet connectivity in homes is on the decline. There has been fierce competition amongst internet providers in the consumer market.

It would be very difficult for "Homeplug" to anchor itself in this competitive and already established market segment alongside the big dogs like SBC, Yahoo DSL, WOW and others.

It's a matter of simple economics, not technology that will be the deciding factor for BPL.

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KT3K on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

A few short years ago we had a Major blackout in the North and NorthEast. The President himself said that our power lines and power companies were in dire need of an overhaul using old technologies, and that this would take many years. Now it's a good idea to put BPL on that same system a few years later?

That's quite a flip?

They're obviously grasping at straws to show how technologically oriented they are for the election year.

73
KT3K

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

In reaction to my saying

"4. our "attack the interference, not the technology" strategy has so far failed to diminish BPL's momentum, which is definitely on the increase"

Charles KC8VWM said

"I am not sure if I agree with this. I can cite several examples where investors "pulled the plug" on homeplug BPL."

To my knowledge there is one case where the power company "pulled the plug" because it couldn't eliminate interference to a ham -- Alliant in Cedar Rapids. This was accomplished via excellent work on the ground by local hams and the ARRL, and has produced the first objective substantiation of our "case". While I don't want to diminish the the importance of this achievement, overall, it has not put a dent in BPL's momentum. Frankly, shutting down a BPL pilot because of intererence with FEMA or local police communications would have 10 times the impact.

PEPCO in Manassas MD has also stepped out of BPL, but I can find no explanation as to why; it appears to be the result of a contract dispute rather than anything specifically involving BPL's technical or financial characteristics. If someone knows otherwise, please share it!

Charles KC8VWM said

"Additionally, the investor retreat is not related to the technology causing interference per se, but rather BPL was in many cases viewed as a bad investment strategy when compared to other available technologies for the consumer."

While I strongly agree with this assessment, I have yet to see signs of "investor retreat" beyond Alliant; can you point me at the evidence of this?

Charles KC8VWM said

"The fact is that high speed internet connectivity in homes is on the decline. There has been fierce competition amongst internet providers in the consumer market."

My impression is the opposite -- high speed internet connectivity is on the increase, and is in fact accelerating. WiFi and VOIP both have legs. Cellphone carriers like Verizon are rolling out 3G this year -- finally; while only 384kbps at this point, its a start. What leads you to believe that high-speed internet connectivity in homes is on the decline, Charles?

Charles KC8VWM said

"It would be very difficult for "Homeplug" to anchor itself in this competitive and already established market segment alongside the big dogs like SBC, Yahoo DSL, WOW and others."

You mean "BPL", not "Homeplug", don't you? Homeplug is a technology for distributing data within a home using its AC wiring, and can be use with any external source of high-speed data -- cable, DSL, or BOL. Near as I can tell from the ARRL's data, Homeplug is relatively benign from an RF perspective; the ARRL had a hand in making that the case.

You are absolutely right that BPL will have a tough time competing with cable and DSL in suburban and urban markets. It offers no advantages, and is very late to the party. The marketing investments required to drive revenues from those areas at this late date are huge. Rural areas, however, are another story. These are underserved by cable and DSL; at the moment, satellite and BPL are the only options. This is where BPL can most readily gain subscribers, though the thinner population density means pole-mounted equipment will have lower utilization factors. WiMax is, in my view, the "right" solution for this market, but its not really here yet. If we can accelerate WiMax and/or decelerate BPL, we will increase our chances of perserving HF communications.

Toward this end, I suggested on the BPL reflector that the ARRL coordinate a program in which hams volunteer free tower space to WiMax providers.

Charles KC8VWM said

"It's a matter of simple economics, not technology that will be the deciding factor for BPL. "

Since BPL's technical flaws -- its inability to provide a direct path to the home, and the RFI it generates -- both have a strong negative impact on its economics, I disagree.

73

Charles - KC8VWM

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3NL on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The idea of WiMax on ham towers is an interesting
one. However, before any hams make such an offer,
they should check with their lawyers. It seems to
me that a commercial service on your tower changes
the zoning, insurance, and liability situations.
Ham antennas are seen basically as a residential
item much like a TV antenna. Whereas having a
commercial wireless provider on your tower changes
everything. Since I am not a lawyer, I am suggesting
that people interested in this idea contact their
lawyers first.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Regarding

"The idea of WiMax on ham towers is an interesting
one. However, before any hams make such an offer,
they should check with their lawyers"

That's why I suggested that the ARRL coordinate the effort. Rather than have every ham consult an attorney, we might set up a program that is known to "work" is most areas. Locations requiring hams to setup individual legal groundwork could be flagged, allowing hams living in these areas to decide whether or not to proceed given the expense involved.

By the way, there's an article in this month's CQ making the same sort of recommendation, though the author goes one step further by suggesting that hams set up businesses. This might cause more problems on the zoning front, however.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by NN6EE on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave,

Thanks for your original post above for an explanation of BPL to that one editor of the NY Times, as it was very well done!!!

I'm still amazed how the REPUBLICAN administration is still "Gung-Ho" on this obviously flawed/archaic technology for NO other reason than $$$$ (hopefully to them)! The administration really does seem to be BLINDED by the "Almighty-Buck" instead of really doing their "homework" on the adverse consequences of implementing BPL nation-wide. So I guess to them "HOMELAND SECURITY" is a EMPTY/WORTHLESS promise!!!

73,

Jim/ee

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 27, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave, AA6YQ wrote:

"Rural areas, however, are another story. These are underserved by cable and DSL; at the moment, satellite and BPL are the only options. "

Dave, and others,

Wireless is clearly another option. I am 3.5 miles from the nearest small town. I use a wireless 2.4GHz connection to the water tower in the center of town and enjoy 24/7 connections. The company that is rolling this out is advertising up to 7 miles radius (but the tower must be visible). I can purchase access to the network at full T-1 speeds for an appropriate monthly fee. My DSL-like speed (35K downloads as compared to 3K on dial-up for $22/mo) is $39.95/month. Latency is about 21mS, whereas Satellites are what? Maybe 250mS?

This company is using farmer's silos in spots. At one time, they had the largest wireless network in the world. It covered the lower 1/2 of Minnesota and the northern tier of Iowa, from Sioux Falls SD into Wisconsin. Farmers are surfing the web from their tractors! Tower space and a population base that is at least 'literate' are the only limiting parameters to this technology.

The company was recently busted into four networks, so they no longer operate the largest network in the world, but they have a web page... www.xtratyme.com

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

For N0FP wrote

"Wireless is clearly another option."

You're right, of course. I keep forgetting that there have been fixed wireless connections available for years -- in fact, I used one offered by Sprint when I lived in Northern California a few years back. As you and Rick N6RK have both pointed out, WiFi gear can easily be used to provide high-speed connectivity in rural areas at low cost.

I am somewhat partial to WiMax given its 30-mile omnidirectional range, its high speed, its support for portable and mobile operation, and its high-profile backing from Intel, Motorola and others. However, its both inaccurate and counterproductive to characterize BPL as having an open field in rural areas until WiMax appears. I will amend my arguments accordingly. Thanks!

I wonder if the FCC is interested enough in stimulating comprehensive rural connectivity to waive the "no commercial content" restriction for ham-operated WiFi networks that are publicly accessible...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AE1X on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

"
I wonder if the FCC is interested enough in stimulating comprehensive rural connectivity to waive the "no commercial content" restriction for ham-operated WiFi networks that are publicly accessible...
"

Dave,

Great topic and terrific information.

The FCC is not that interested. There is no money in our systems. Why would they even entertain the idea?

Ofcourse, this would be a great opportunity for our service to provide a true PUBLIC SERVICE.

This certainly would be in the best interest of the public, but again there's no money for anyone important in it. We don't have any lucrative positions that a commissioner could move into once he/she is finished with wrecking the FCC and the chaos that they seem to be bent on creating.

Ken

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

In response to my

"I wonder if the FCC is interested enough in stimulating comprehensive rural connectivity to waive the "no commercial content" restriction for ham-operated WiFi networks that are publicly accessible..."

Ken AE1X responded

"The FCC is not that interested. There is no money in our systems. Why would they even entertain the idea?"

I guess it depends on their motivation for being so supportive of BPL. If its corruption, as you suggest, then they'd be uninterested. If their motivations are ideological (e.g. playing for votes from rural America) and/or pure, then they'd be interested.

It might be illuminating to float the idea just to see assess the FCC's reaction, but of course the reaction of lower levels of the organization may not truly reflect the reaction of the leadership -- in which case we wouldn't learn much.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AE1X on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave,

Isn't the whole problem money here?

The FCC has stated that efficient use of spectrum must be equated with the best use of spectrum for the economy, not what's best use of the spectrum. Many of the emergency uses that the spectrum is allocated for produces little in the way of economic activity.

The FCC is exploring ways to force sharing partners on all services. This would mean that frequencies generally allocated to services for emergency use that go unused for long periods could be allocated to another service on a secondary basis for everday applications. They have proposed something called noise temperature, which Ed Hare has pointed out is another name for Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).

I read where the NTIA is talking about using noise temperature to gage the actual usage of spectrum under their control as part of their spectrum efficiency studies. This would seem to be the same reason the FCC is interested because the WH has indicated the desire to have a coordinated cooperative effort at quantifying the spectral efficiency of all allocations.

Many amateur radio frequencies could fall into an arena where we would be characterized as under utilizing our allocations.. There is a case being made that we under utilize our allocations. For example, many 2mtr frequencies lie dormant during business hours. These frequencies could be ripe for sharing during business hours for low duty cycle narrow band operations (I'm advocating this stuff, please do not flame me). Another example would be the use of frequency space above the MUF which lie dormant during the lower portions of the Sunspot Cycle.

The real problem here is that there is significant pressure being placed on the limited electro-magnetic spectrum for space for new applications. How the FCC and NTIA meet this challenge will effect all spectrum users not just amateur radio. BPL is just one technology screaming for spectrum to operate in. Unfortuantely, this is one application that does not merit support, that has some very powerful cheer leaders.

Ken

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KB3KAQ on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

the ARRL website is very poorly conceived. i am an IT professional, have spent 1000's of hours using a multitude of websites for a multitude of reasons and products. if the goal of the ARRL is to hide information, then they have succeeded. everytime i try to find a concise, clear arguement regarding BPL, i never find the same page twice.

if BPL were such a threat, than the ARRL should create a separate website for the sole purpose of combating BPL. public image is everything and if there were a website devoted to BPL's problems, sponsored by the ARRL and others, it would give more weight to the message.

the ARRL falls down in the marketing to the general public - they are stuck in the ham radio and government purview.

the casual newspaper reader will not investigate the topic and believe the article as written to be valid and topical. if it's in print, it must be true. time for the ARRL to use this logic to it's advantage.

-steve
KB3KAQ

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KF6JZC on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nice article and comments here. However, I have another concern about BPL that should interest the potential consumer of this kluge. That is security. There is a nice article on BPL in the current (July) issue of Popular Communications which also addresses security. Perhaps in educating the public, this subject should also be included.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KB3KAQ on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

it took a friend to point out that www.arrl.org/bpl takes you to an exhaustive area of links. i only found it after 20 minutes looking. his comment was - the easiest page to find was the one to donate money - i still have no idea why i should care about BPL."

my friend is not into ham radio, but loves his broadband connection and thought BPL was a cool thing - thinks it could be used for home automation. so much for sending him to the ARRL site for an education.

-steve

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> it took a friend to point out that www.arrl.org/bpl
> takes you to an exhaustive area of links. i only
> found it after 20 minutes looking. his comment was -
> the easiest page to find was the one to donate
> money - i still have no idea why i should care about
> BPL."

> my friend is not into ham radio, but loves his
> broadband connection and thought BPL was a cool
> thing - thinks it could be used for home automation.
> so much for sending him to the ARRL site for an
> education.

If you are looking for something on the ARRL web page, I suggest you first look at the site index. BPL was listed there. The index list is a bit large, but it would take even a slow reader much less than 20 minutes to read the whole thing.

The ARRL search engine is not as good as the commercial search engines, such as google.com, etc. This is true of many sites, so the best searches of any site can often be done on sites like google.com. If you use the google advanced search function, type in BPL and search only http://www.arrl.org, the page you are looking for is the first on the list.

In this case, the ARRL search engine works well, too, though. I typed in BPL into the search box for the ARRL page and the first link it listed was the BPL page.

The page about donating money is to help ensure that ARRL can pay for the trips, testing, meeting and the like that has gone into its BPL work so far. Each year, ARRL funds significantly more than the contributions in various forms of spectrum advocacy.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> Nice article and comments here. However, I have
> another concern about BPL that should interest the
> potential consumer of this kluge. That is security.
> There is a nice article on BPL in the current (July)
> issue of Popular Communications which also addresses
> security. Perhaps in educating the public, this
> subject should also be included.

Security could be an issue, but not to the extent it is on 802.11. Unlike 802.11, there are no PC cards that can be plugged into a laptop nor software designed to seek out any nearby networks and connect to them. It would take a more sophisticated receiver to capture almost all of the transmitted energy and custom software to decode it.

It would be more difficult than eavesdropping on encrypted cell conversations, because there are no ready-made solutions that can be easily used. Capturing an entire signal from 5 to 25 MHz would not be trivial in and of itself.

If there were significant financial reasons to do such eavesdropping, such as learning a competitor's valuable trade secrets, it may be done, but it will be a rare bird indeed that is able to war drive BPL.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> So providing the 18 people reading this thread with
> an apparently hidden link of www.arrl.org/bpl is
> quite ineffectual. There should be a method of
> people being directed to the ARRL to find the links,
> rather than needing to send a private email to you
> to obtain the link.

They can type BPL in the search box on the ARRL site or can look for BPL in the site index. It is not necessary to send me email; it is only necessary to use the tools common on many web pages to find it.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W6TH on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

BPL on the move?

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit.

BPL? It's been hotter'n a goat's butt in a pepper patch.

Cool it and put a stop to BPL.

.:

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ken AE1X wrote

"Isn't the whole problem money here?"

The BPL advocates are certainly motivated by what they perceive to be an opportunity to garner more revenue from existing power customers. They also claim that BPL will allow both the industry and its consumers to more intelligently manage power usage, though I've yet to find anything published as to how or when they plan to do this, much less a business plan.

The current administration says its objective is universal broadband access. There are lots of noble reasons that would justify this goal, including education, awareness, participation, and communication. There is also Metcalfe's Law, which asserts that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number users; increasing the number of buyers with access to the web generates lots of revenue opportunities for lots of companies. And if you're trying to shift the economy into higher gear, consuming some of that unused network capacity that was deployed during the bubble is an obvious tactic.

Ken went on to say

"The real problem here is that there is significant pressure being placed on the limited electro-magnetic spectrum for space for new applications."

Agreed, and this is where things get rather unpleasent from the amateur perspective. Most of what we do with HF could be accurately described as "playing". Yes, we run emergency nets, but these are increasingly outdated and disconnected from real-world needs, as the ARRL acknowledged in its recent ARESCOM pronouncement; the ability to run such nets certainly doesn't require all the HF spectrum we currently occupy.

Do I therefore believe that we should roll over and let BPL have HF? No, for two reasons:

1. BPL is a bad technical and economic solution

2. Even if BPL were a reasonable technical and economic solution, there are equal or better alternatives that do not consume HF spectrum, e.g. WiFi, WiMax, and other terrestrial wireless schemes

If there were a far better use for the HF spectrum than what we hams do with it, I believe the FCC would be obligated to re-assign it accordingly. On another reflector, I used a fictitious, hypothetical "anti-cancer machine" to illustrate this point. Suppose some research group develops a $100K instrument that destroys every cancer cell in a human body without negative effect on that body's normal cells. Further suppose that this instrument uses high-intensity HF radiation -- to the point where HF communications are not possible within a 25 mile radius of any hospital in which the instrument has been deployed. Would we hams oppose efforts by the FCC and the Congress to reallocate spectrum to this device? I think not. Cruel tradeoffs are ... cruel, but that's life.

I don't mean to imply that universal broadband access would be as "valueable" as this fictitious anti-cancer machine. I mean to illustrate that basing our anti-BPL case on "by law, this spectrum is OURS!" leaves us highly vulnerable to a response of "you're right; we'll change that law".

Instead, we must convincingly demonstrate that BPL comes nowhere close to producing the kind of value that would justify reallocating spectrum. BPL's perceived value is high because its promoters make dishonest claims as to its capabilities and economics. We must directly attack these claims, illuminating BPL's technical and business flaws in a manner that non-technical audiences can clearly understand.

We're late, but we're not yet too late. There is still time to organize the entire US ham community to constructively engage in this mission -- and it will take every last one of us to expose BPL for what it is.

In my opinion, the ARRL is uniquely suited to lead this effort. If you agree, please spread the word; if you don't, constructive critique and better ideas are welcome.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W4PC on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

http://www.arrl.org/bpl

Can't get much simpler than that.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed W1RFI wrote

"If you are looking for something on the ARRL web page, I suggest you first look at the site index. BPL was listed there. The index list is a bit large, but it would take even a slow reader much less than 20 minutes to read the whole thing."

Site indices and search engines are for locating secondary material. Primary material -- and if BPL isn't primary, I don't know what is -- demands a hyperlink on the ARRL's main page.

From a communications perspective, the ARRL's BPL web page is the equivalent of connecting one's feedline to a ground rod. If you want to get out, connect it to an antenna! Create a well-organized, modern web site!

And please stop defending the ground rod; no matter how hard you try, it won't radiate.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AE1X on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave,

You hit the nail on the head. My fear, since the beginning, has been that the FCC would just change the law.

Concerning removing our allocations, these allocations are part of an international treaty. The FCC just can't remove amateur radio from these allocations without regard for the treaties. Anything allocated other than amateur radio would present an interference problem for other amateurs world wide. This clearly is another of the warts on this system.

I think the economics and technical warts are becoming apparent already. The Penn Yan NY system has been shut down as has the Cedar Rapids IA site. The Penn Yan community was only interested in the revenue potential and they are convinced that it just is not there. They are going to opt for a wireless solution instead. Harrah for them.

I still feel that BPL is really important only to the utility industry as a means to replace the narrow band PLC system they already have in place. That system will not support the remote control applications they would love to have to read meters and detect power outages. The whole thing has been a scheme to get someone else to foot the bill.

I agree that we would look very foolish if we were to fight something that would have the benefit you outline. The problem with BPL is that they are not trying to reallocate HF spectrum directly, but rather indirectly at the expense of all the licensed users. This is where in lies the error.

The process that would have to be followed to grant BPL true access to the required spectrum would require years to implement. The State Department would first have to arrange for modifications to international treaties to list BPL as a qualified service. Then the FCC would have remove the incombent users and finally proceed to spectrum allocation through the usual process and finally licensing of some sort. This technology can not wait for this process to be played out. It needs to implemented now.

I think we need to attack this techology on all fronts with every tactic that makes sense. No stone should be left unturned. It represents bad spectrum management policy and bad economics. At least one system has admitted that they have not considered a business model for their proposed system. This is terrible management. Someone is trying to get wealthy as quickly as possible.

Ken

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AE1X on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

One more thing. I sent Jim Fallows an e-mail this afternoon pointing out the fact that two (2) systems have already shutdown their trials and suggested that he should investigate them. I think a follow up article highlighting what went wrong with these trials would be good for everyone concerned.

Ken

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 28, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ken AE1X wrote:

"One more thing. I sent Jim Fallows an e-mail this afternoon pointing out the fact that two (2) systems have already shutdown their trials and suggested that he should investigate them. I think a follow up article highlighting what went wrong with these trials would be good for everyone concerned."

I strongly agree, Ken.

There are actually three "negative outcomes" among the BPL pilots:

1. PEPCO (Manassas, VA) -- contract dispute with town government; see http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/04/102/ .

2. Alliant (Cedar Rapids, IA) -- abandoning BPL after failing to eliminate RF interference to W0SR; see http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/

3. Data Ventures (Pen Yan, NY) - CEO says his company didn't feel BPL was "commercially deployable", and is switching to wireless broadband. See
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/07/28/5/?nc=1 for more details, though unfortunately no furhter elaboration on the rationale for abandoning BPL.

Together, these three situations provide an objective substantiation of our position, but they'd be stronger if we understood the definitive rationale for abandoning BPL for #1 and #3. Can anyone fill in these blanks?

The above information merits its own page (with the appropriate meta-tags) in a well-structured BPL web site.

Even better would be a BPL pilot that fails because of interference to a public safety or law enforcement communciations function. We should actively seek out hams serving in the communications departments of such services, looking especially for geographic matches with active BPL pilots.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

W4PC wrote:

"http://www.arrl.org/bpl

Can't get much simpler than that. "

Rick,

That is pretty simple. The problem is, it is also the best kept secret on the internet. A simple search on "BPL" at Alta-Vista brings up www.arrl.org website about #10 on the list behind BPL consultants (read advocates).

I cannot locate a link to the /bpl site anywhere on the home page @ ARRL. Burrow down about 6 layers into the TIS information pages and you will find some articles referenced. Even then, the articles tend to be oriented to educated and knowledgable hams. Any city administrator or public utility board member doing an attempt to identify on-line information on BPL would likely stumble into the ARRL website and find a whole host of interesting articles about FCC enforcement, recent SKs, but no reference to what Ed Hare contends is the Flagship of our response to BPL on the internet, www.ARRL.org/bpl Apparently, the non-ham individual must first know that this is considered a "Band Threat" and then burrow down into the /TIS pages. If they cannot find it in 30 seconds, they'll be gone to the next link on the search, which by the way is the Boston Public Library, then the Bangor Public Library, then of course, the United Power Line Council--a major advocate of BPL.

If Ed Hare flatly refuses to advocate for a better posture on the internet, then perhaps WE, the dues paying membership, can DEMAND from our ARRL Board representatives, that appropriate action is taken to fix this apparent problem.

To find out how to contact your board member, check out: http://www.arrl.org/divisions/

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AE1X on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave,

Follow this link:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/

It gives comments made by the project manager from Alliant Energy.

I had no problem finding this information on our website, but I knew what I was looking for, having read the article with it was published.

What do you think of the GoBPL website?

http://www.gobpl.com

They have a summary on the front page that reports the problems with the Penn Yan, etc.

Ken

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> Site indices and search engines are for locating
> secondary material. Primary material -- and if BPL
> isn't primary, I don't know what is -- demands a
> hyperlink on the ARRL's main page.

I don't know how I can explain it more simply, Dave, so I will try it in one sentence:

I do not make the decisions about what goes on ARRL's main page.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3NL on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hello,
One ham made the statement: "Most of what we do
with HF could be accurately described as "playing"."
I think that it would be more correct to say that
much of this activity is learning. Learning looks
a lot like playing but it produces a lot of
constructive results.
Some of us use the ham bands to develop new
inventions and approaches to technology. For
example you can see one of mine in the Tech Note
"A Lighthouse Protocol for Random Microwave
Contacts" in the July/August 2004 issue of QEX
(p. 60). I also have a patent application
pending based on my ham radio experience.
So I think that we can lighten up on this notion
of ham radio just being playing. Frankly, it is
just not correct.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett N3NL

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AE1X on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hi Nick,

I agree with you on your assessment, but I think Dave is relating the reaction of the uninitiated.

The general public knows little about what we do with our allocations and could care less in most instances. You and I know that much of what we do is self-learning and that is one of the primary goals of this service and is actually codified in Part 97 along with public service and providing a trained pool of communications and electronics personnel.

There is a general tendency to think that modern technology can should replace our older technology and in fact the FCC has stated the present system in place is 90 years old and should be overhauled. There intent is to change how spectrum is allocated. Ofcourse the problem is that the system is in place by international treaty and will need to be change through the ITU which will take years to accomplish.

Ken

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KC8VWM on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your replies to my comments. I would like to provide additional clarity to some of my statements that you may have disagreed with in my earlier post.

Of course, I observe the fact that you are first a gentleman, and second I recognize you as an intelligent individual.

Charles KC8VWM said

"The fact is that high speed internet connectivity in homes is on the decline. There has been fierce competition amongst internet providers in the consumer market."

Dave AA6YQ Replied:

"My impression is the opposite -- high speed internet connectivity is on the increase, and is in fact accelerating. WiFi and VOIP both have legs. Cellphone carriers like Verizon are rolling out 3G this year -- finally; while only 384kbps at this point, its a start. What leads you to believe that high-speed internet connectivity in homes is on the decline, Charles?"

Reply;

While you are correct suggesting that internet "technologies" are on the rise, actual consumer purchasing trends suggest that the majority of individuals are still subscribing to dial up internet access. The main reason for this is probobly the low cost of this service when compared to other braodband services currently offered.

Broadband companies like AOL, SBC, and WOW are struggling to be competetive in this area and have been agressively trying to offer lower costs to consumers in an attempt to transform them from dial up to broadband internet access.

However, current pie charts and market analysis information clearly indicate more people are using dial up than broadband.

It is particularly important as an investor to recognize this fact. The offering of broadband services has not been statistically proven to attracted any significant portion of Dial-Up users to switch over to Broadband services.

At the national level, only 36 percent of online users accessed the Web through a high-speed connection in the fourth quarter of 2003.

Comcast dominates the broadband market, providing access to approximately 19 percent of broadband users and 7 percent of all online users.

SBC, the country’s largest DSL provider, accounts for 11 percent of consumer broadband connections and 6 percent of total ISP subscriptions.

Not surprisingly, AOL continues to supply Internet access (narrowband and broadband) to more Americans than any other provider, with a 28 percent share.

Internet services are on the decline.

Parks Associates conducts market studies like this for potential investors. The market study concluded the following:

1)Demand for Dial Up users to switch to broadband services in the year 2001 = 34%

2)Demand for Dial Up users to switch to broadband services in the year 2002 = 49%

Here's where it all becomes very interesting....

2)Demand for Dial Up users to switch to broadband services in the year 2003 = 31%

Conclusion?

Nationwide demand for broadband services are currently 31% of the entire market share and it is on the decline.

Why bother to believe what I am saying? .. See this information for yourself here...

http://www.parksassociates.com/research/reports/tocs/2004/trends_broadband.htm

Dave AA6YQ Says,

"PEPCO in Manassas MD has also stepped out of BPL, but I can find no explanation as to why; it appears to be the result of a contract dispute rather than anything specifically involving BPL's technical or financial characteristics. If someone knows otherwise, please share it! "

My Reply;

The failure of the Pepco was because BPL would not prove to be the revenue generator the city first anticipated. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ called the failure of the Prospect Street-Manassas deal, "Just another example of a BPL deployment decision gone awry."

The contract dispute you are referring to was actually a franchise agreement.

Under the franchise agreement Manassas was to receive 10.5 percent of BPL revenue and was "supposed" to be responsible only for a relatively small cost of the equipment installation.

The failure of the franchise agreement was related to the idea that the city was left with equipment obligations that far exceeded revenues.

One could only conclude that this matter was related to a poor investment and lack of consumer participation, and not as a result of any contract dispute.

Money talks. Clearly, they could not even drum up enough of it to support the initial equipment installation let alone make profitable revenue from it.

Alan Shark, president of the Power Line Communications Association said this statement recently:

"I think there will be a stampede toward (broadband over power lines) in 2005"

I would have to conclude that based on recent facts documenting BPL as a poor consumer strategy, only serves to further support the fact that the only "Stampede" sounds will be the BPL investors running the other direction when public shares start crashing down on Wall Street.

Personally, I project that BPL will not make it in the marketplace.

Thanks for listening...

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ken wrote:

"There is a general tendency to think that modern technology can should replace our older technology and in fact the FCC has stated the present system in place is 90 years old and should be overhauled. "

I think the FCC needs to rethink this notion. After all, 90 years is just a blip in space-time. The physics involved with limiting spectrum use has been around since the 'big bang.' Until the physics change, altering the way we use it takes careful consideration. The current administration is hell bent on destruction of this wonderful natural resource.

May God help us all if they succeed.

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed W1RFI wrote:

"I do not make the decisions about what goes on ARRL's main page."

Understood, Ed. One does hope that you have some influence.

Who does make these decisions?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

In response to my comment

"Most of what we do with HF could be accurately described as 'playing' ",

Nickolaus N3NL wrote:

"I think that it would be more correct to say that much of this activity is learning. Learning looks a lot like playing but it produces a lot of constructive results."

If you tune around the HF bands, you're most likely hear DXing, Contesting, and Ragchewing. All of these activities require some skill, and so indeed some of what we hear is hams sharpening their skills in these endeavors -- learning. But the same could be said of bowling or video games.

"Some of us use the ham bands to develop new inventions and approaches to technology. For example you can see one of mine in the Tech Note "A Lighthouse Protocol for Random Microwave Contacts" in the July/August 2004 issue of QEX (p. 60)."

I agree that the HF bands host innovative activities. The development of protocols like PSK, MFSK, STREAM, and WSJT are all good examples, as is the SteppIR family of antennas. But there are maybe 1000 hams worldwide innovating in the HF part of the spectrum; the other 99% of us use the fruits of their work, which is the equivalent of playing a new video game. Nonetheless, its why I said

"Most of what we do with HF could be accurately described as 'playing' "

rather than

"All of what we do with HF could be accurately described as 'playing' "

I enjoyed reading about your LightHouse protocol, Nickolaus; it would be particularly interesting with an electronically steerable antenna. However, its application is to microwave QSOs, not HF.

While I think that we could do a much better job of using HF to provide a robust Emergency National Network -- and I sincerely hope that ARESCOM evolves in this direction -- I don't see anything wrong with our use of the HF spectrum. My point is simply that its mostly recreational, and will be assessed that way by those who allocate spectrum, If that's where the battle with BPL is fought, we are at a significant disavantage. Instead, we should move the battle to our point of advantage -- BPL's technical and economic flaws.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ken AE1X asked

"What do you think of the GoBPL website? http://www.gobpl.com "

There is lots of good information on that site, Ken, and its well-organized. Its positioning -- a direct attack on BPL's flaws -- is dead-on, from my perspective. However, I am uncomfortable with the site's underlying sarcastic attitude, as exemplified by the use of the Iraq's ex-Information Minister in http://www.gobpl.com/sharkbites.html . Its certainly amusing, but when combatting an opponent that uses misdirection, dishonesty, and hype, I believe we must be squeaky clean in the opposite direction when dealing with the public, the government, and the media.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

In response to my saying

"My impression is the opposite -- high speed internet connectivity is on the increase, and is in fact accelerating."

Charles KC8VWM wrote

<snip>

"However, current pie charts and market analysis information clearly indicate more people are using dial up than broadband."

<snip>

"At the national level, only 36 percent of online users accessed the Web through a high-speed connection in the fourth quarter of 2003.

<snip>

"1)Demand for Dial Up users to switch to broadband services in the year 2001 = 34%

2)Demand for Dial Up users to switch to broadband services in the year 2002 = 49%

Here's where it all becomes very interesting....

2)Demand for Dial Up users to switch to broadband services in the year 2003 = 31%

Conclusion?

Nationwide demand for broadband services are currently 31% of the entire market share and it is on the decline."

Point made, Charles. I am very surprised, but if broadband is only 36% penetrated and the upgrade rate is dropping from 49% to 31%, then broadband does indeed appear to be running out of steam. I don't have the population distribution numbers at hand, but it would be difficult to attribute this to saturation in urban and suburban markets.

It will be interesting to see whether VOIP rekindles an upsurge in broadband adoption.

Thanks for explaining the Manassas situation. Can you point me to the source of your information? I'd like to include it in future responses to pro-BPL articles.

My big fear with BPL is that it will gain an installed base before its flaws become manifestly obvious. Extracting it will be financially and politically difficult...

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KC8VWM on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>> Thanks for explaining the Manassas situation. Can you point me to the source of your information? <<

Sure Dave. BTW, I think your letter to the NYT was great.

Manassas failure can easily be determined by reading the following points from this report:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/37198

1)
"Residents of Manassas, Virginia will see speeds between 560 and 840kbps for $27.00 a month - via their electrical outlets."

Comment:

When compared to WOW, SBC, AOL or other high speed providers - consumers will clearly see these "low" internet transfer speeds as a "rip off" in comparison to what you can get elsewhere for the same money.

2)
"It's estimated that the city of Manassas could bring in $4.5 million over the life of the 10-year contract with Prospect Street Broadband, so the shift toward BPL hasn't seen many delays, interference or not."

Comment:
These figures are seriously flawed and are based on unrealistic purchasing projections. The current trend suggests less broadband services are being purchased by consumers.

3)
"The company indicates it should be able to obtain profitability if 10% of eligible households sign up for service."

Comment:
Ten Percent is a highly unlikely figure. Even the big dogs like SBC, Yahoo DSL, AOL etc. are having great difficulty fighting for even 31% of the entire national broadband market share divided amongst them.

It is highly unlikely that BPL will suddenly step in, walk all over SBC, AOL etc. and suddenly take over a huge 10% of the market share as they seem to be suggesting in thier report.

4)
"According to local officials, roughly four-hundred users have signed up for the service"

Comment: 400 subscribers hardly qualifies as anything significant. Simple math will tell you that 400 subscribers paying $27.00 a month will hardly pay to keep the lights on at the corporate office building.
-Investors Beware!

Here's what one users response was to the proposed BPL service:

" Wow !!
I was expecting they wouldnt even think of doing it for at least a couple more years.. But 840kbps??? "

Comment:
People are going to expect much higher data transfer rates for thier buck than what BPL can currently offer for the same money as what is already offered.

The Good News....?

We are definetly making ground and creating a BIG, BIG, stink in the broadband community right now!

BPL providers are giving up the fight folks!!!

Read this!

- THIS JUST IN, 4 HOURS AGO: -

The broadband community is now citing BPL technology as, ------- "NOT COMERCIALLY DEPLOYABLE."

Read this recent statement directly from this broadband community website for more information:

http://www.dslreports.com/?cat=BPL

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> There is lots of good information on that site, Ken,
> and its well-organized. Its positioning -- a direct
> attack on BPL's flaws -- is dead-on, from my
> perspective. However, I am uncomfortable with the
> site's underlying sarcastic attitude, as exemplified
> by the use of the Iraq's ex-Information Minister in
> http://www.gobpl.com/sharkbites.html . Its certainly
> amusing, but when combatting an opponent that uses
> misdirection, dishonesty, and hype, I believe we
> must be squeaky clean in the opposite direction when
> dealing with the public, the government, and the
> media.

That was my general impression, too. Although I don't think that the flaws it addresses are the right ones -- at least not ones that ARRL should address, I was prepared to link to the site from the ARRL site, but for the biting sarcasm. When I saw the BPL organization PLCA link to that site from its home page, and noted the way that the electric utility industry reps openly joked about it among themselves at the IEEE BPL meetings, I decided that it was not a site that should be widely promoted outside of amateur circles. I can only imagine how the FCC views it.

If the site is changed to a more appropriate presentation, I will add it as a link from the ARRL site.

One suggestion I offered them was to move the humor to its own area. They chose not to do so.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> "I do not make the decisions about what goes on
> ARRL's main page."

> Understood, Ed. One does hope that you have some
> influence.

> Who does make these decisions?

I would presume that Dave Sumner and John Bloom are the ones that determine what goes on the main page.

The League has held one or more BPL stories at the top of the page for over a year and a half. Most of those link to the ARRL BPL page. IMHO, that has a lot more value than a BPL button somewhere on the page. Look at the difficulties that some posted here about taking 20 minutes to try to find BPL when they couldn't locate the ARRL search box or the button link to the index. I sure don't see a reason not to link to BPL from the main page, but we field lots of questions about the page that are answered by telling them what main-page link to click. IMHO, the most valuable way of accessing the BPL information is to read the feature article held at the top of the page until the next one comes along.

Yes, I do have some influence, but I usually exert that influence on the basis of things that are directly brought to my attention. I know that some of the ARRL Board and even Jim Haynie occasionally read the posts on eham.net or qrz.com, but neither they nor I read every post. But if this is really important to you -- as it appears to be -- don't rely on posts on an eham web page to make your point with ARRL. Make it directly.

You and I got off to a real bad start here, Dave, but I gotta' admit that asking me on BPLandHamRadio to tell you what ARRL is doing about working with hams other than asking them for money was a pretty lousy start. Then publicly summarizing your feedback on ARRL's page by proclaiming it to be "lame" did not at all look to me like you wanted to do more than publicly proclaim it to be lame. Adding a personal email to me that you didn't care how many hours I worked, if I didn't want to accept your criticism, I was in the wrong job didn't help either. Especially since I had publicly agreed that the page needed work and told you that I was going to do it, I really didn't understand how you could mean anything other than the way I took it. Continuing this here without even mentioning that ARRL said that it was going to update the page wasn't very helpful either.

But I am sure you have a list of things you could cite, too, and I will again apologize to you and the folks here for my reaction to your approach. After 60 to 80 hours a week for a year, I am a bit testy at times, but there is no excuse for that.

I still disagree with you that amateur radio should try to address BPL on its business case. That is, IMHO, counterproductive and will undermine our real case -- interference. I don't have the time to write a long treatment of that, but at this point, I don't think I have any choice but to do so, so will take a few more hours away from some of the personal things I would rather be doing and write it.

I will give a brief summary of my concerns about the use of the business case. Those that bother to read it can decide how it should apply to ARRL and amateur radio as a whole.

ARRL has a charter in this instance to represent amateur radio with the FCC and with industry. It is doing so. A business case position has no standing with the FCC. The FCC deals with competitors having ulterior motives in their filings all the time. ARRL is operating under a different paradigm, and must be seen by the FCC as being above that, or its overall credibility is gone, and once gone, it is gone forever. Under that paradigm, though, ARRL has one standing: the interest of amateur radio spectrum. We have credibility to present information that fosters amateur access to spectrum and that protects it from interference.

If ARRL were to take a tack with the FCC that tried to undermine BPL, or were to be seen as trying to destroy BPL, that would not be in accordance with our standing. It would color the FCC's view of our motives and our reasons for existence. The FCC wouldn't care about the issues raised, nor would they believe them, and credibility in all areas would be hurt, now and for the future. ARRL should not take that approach with the FCC.

A few analogies may help. If you wanted to tile your roof with bright orange shingles, and your neighbor thought that doing so was not legal under zoning laws, and took you before the zoning board, you may not agree with that neighbor, but at least you would understand that he was operating under the reasonable premise that he wanted to get the government to decide whether your roof should be orange. But if in addition to that, he ran around the neighborhood telling everyone and you that he was going to run you out of the neighborhood win or lose, you would not accept that. Even more, even if he really didn't like your roof, his approach would color the entire proceeding, and you could describe his actions to the zoning board -- and right or wrong -- cast doubt on whether he really cared about the color of your roof at all. His real motive was obviously to run you out of the neighborhood.

It happens all the time. I have seen amateurs and FCC staff take the tack that ARRL must be being financed by the other broadband folks, and that ARRL is only using BPL to raise big money. Your own post even started out on that premise, or at least part of it, so it is easy to attribute motives to win a point. They will do it too, and the only approach with the FCC is to address the protection of amateur spectrum and base that on the very real interference threat.

ARRL also has ongoing relationships with other agencies. It is not a good idea to shove those into bright lights, but an example is:

ARRL Sponsors BPL Gathering for Communications Professionals
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/11/14/101/

Other meetings and sharing of information has taken place, but ARRL is not orchestrating the responses of these other concerned parties, but is providing them with information. But if that were to be promoted as heavily enough to prevent some people from just assuming that ARRL is not doing such work, that promotion would serve as ammunition for those that want to discredit any and all opposition to BPL, so they would blame it all ARRL's agenda. I have seen this tried in a number of the comments and reply comments, so it is a very real concern.

But in those dealings, ARRL cannot and should not attack BPL. If we were openly opposed to BPL, many of these agencies could not even talk to us. They can talk to ARRL about interference, though, in spite of their upper-level mandate to promote BPL. The approach ARRL is choosing is the one that does not slam the door on any communication with government entities.

Now, let's get on to the BPL industry and utilities in general? Are they really the enemy? In one sense, of course, because there is an open, adversarial proceeding. We have adversarial positions them, not over whether BPL can exist, because from a rules point of view it is legal right now, but over interference. The controls we feel are necessary to prevent BPL interference are more than they think are necessary.

But many of those differences are due to a misunderstanding on their part, and perhaps on our part, too. I am in contact with BPL manufacturers, their associations and electric utilities. If ARRL were to take an anti-BPL position and start trying to undermine their business, that contact would disappear and never be initiated again. But our anti-BPL-interference position, as firm as hardened steel, is not inappropriate, and forms the basis of our cooperative discussions. So far, that contact has been productive on both ends. From our end, we now better understand some of the reasons for the misunderstandings and are addressing them to one degree or another. Rather than going head to head with Ameren in filings, I am now explaining to their engineers how ARRL has determined that power lines are not point sources. Several utilities and BPL manufacturers are working directly with ARRL staff or local hams. I won't go into the dozens of examples I could provide, but they are there and each one was worth doing.

But three examples are:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/homeplug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf
http://www.plca.net/StrategicSummitPreliminaryProgram.pdf
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/05/18/1/

Would ARRL be invited to a seat at the table in the IEEE BPL standards process if its agenda were to destroy BPL? Would ARRL be invited to present its interference case to the industry at one if its conference if it were being done to destroy BPL? Would groups like HomePlug, now a player in the BPL industry, approach me at the IEEE meeting and ask to do more testing if our approach had been to destroy HomePlug when it was a threat? It really does go around and come around, and if ARRL does not address some of these things as head on as you are suggesting, look to the results for the reason.

Now what about ham radio in general? All of the factors I cited above apply equally to hams on the local level. In every case I have helped hams deal with so far, their most important step is to establish a productive relationship with their local utility and involved BPL provider. If that relationship were based on the premise that they were going to destroy BPL, there is no way that they could even get started. The local hams actually doing the doing avoid that like the plague, for good reason. They often have to overcome distrust and fear, and the tool to do that is to concentrate on interference. It works. What is the end result? Utilities show them where BPL is and ask for honest reports. Because those reports are based only on interference, they are accepted. In those few cases where hams have taken a stronger approach, distrust raised its ugly head and only by returning to the original premise were things put back on track.

The end result? Cedar Rapids. Rochester, NY. Penn Yan, NY. There are a number of other examples, but the point is that in all cases where amateur radio has successfully convinced a utility not to undertake BPL, interference has been the deciding factor, not claims by amateurs that the business model is flawed. And if the premise were to attack the business model, the cooperation would not have happened from the getgo. So the approach is the correct one at the local level, too.

Now, is the business model flawed? I don't know; do you? Who among us has the skills to prepare the kind of business analyses that the BPL industry has put together. The only public model I have seen is the Tongia case, and although the author has the skills, I am not sure he included all the factors. The link to that study was featured in one of Dave's editorials, although it has since changed, so I posted it here.

I will address that in Part II of this message. I don't want to overflow any limits set by eham.net.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W2NJS on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

With regard to PEPCO and the Manassas BPL system, there is no connection between them. The City of Manassas is running the BPL system, for better or worse, on a trial basis. I don't know for sure even if PEPCO is the power company in Manassas, but in any event PEPCO made the decision not to "do" BPL at this time as a system-wide matter. Whether this represents that, in our view, PEPCO is just smart, or whether they're sitting back, waiting to see how the whole matter shakes out, I don't think any one knows at this point.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W2NJS on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Further to my post, a quick Google check of the subject indicates that the City of Manassas operates its own electric utility company and has given the BPL project implementation job to a contractor, so PEPCO does not figure at all in the Manassas story, and vice-versa.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Part II

Now, is the business model flawed? I don't know; do you? Who among us has the skills to prepare the kind of business analyses that the BPL industry has put together. The only public model I have seen is the Tongia case, and although the author has the skills, I am not sure he included all the factors. The link to that study was featured in one of Dave's editorials, although the link has since changed, so I posted it here.

Without interference and regulatory issues, BPL may or may not be marginally economically viable. All broadband requires equipment and BPL is no exception. The industry has claimed that a trained MV team can put up two boxes an hour, so if there were 500 miles of line in a town, about 1000 boxes would cover it. Is that any less economically viable than cable TV, that had to be build out from scratch. I don't know, but the industry has developed business models that are apparently persuading utilities to take a look.

Can we do better? I sure haven't seen it. If we were to address BPL on a business-case basis, we would have to prepare a better argument than the industry. I haven't seen it, because their associations are charging about $10,000 for it, but it must be good at that price, right?

So, put yourself in the mindset of the electric utility. They are ultimately the ones that have to decide whether to buy it, so we can write letters to the editor all day, if the utilities don't buy it, it wasn't the right approach. They are given two sets of information about BPL -- from the BPL manufacturer, or from the hams that are hypothetically trying to address BPL from a business model perspective. Who the more compelling argument? Nothing I have seen from amateurs -- the gobpl site included -- touches even the press releases I have seen from the industry. Even if you are right about the business model, I don't see how amateur radio could prepare the material to win that fight, never mind the reasons in my last post that we shouldn't.

They will do their own cost vs benefit analysis and either buy into it, or not. Some pretty big utilities have bought into it, and I would think they put more into cost analysis than you or I could, so the picture cannot be totally bleak. Others have not bought into it, for economic reasons, so it can't be totally rosy. So let's first look at this without interference and regulatory issues factored in.

There are more factors at work than might be apparent. Let name just a few. I normally wouldn't do so, but the BPL salesmen are pitching these points hard, so we darn well should understand them.

Automated meter reading: Although the technology exists to automate meter reading, it requires the purchase and installation of equipment and adding it to the system. It can also be done with BPL, and if they put in a BPL system for other reasons, and it even loses a bit of money, the loss will be offset by the savings meter reading.

Time of day meter reading: This could also let the utility offer time-related discounts, to encourage customers to do their laundry after 10 PM, when the useage drops off. While this may look like a loss to them, in reality, it can save them a lot of build out money. As new homes are added to parts of town, sooner or later the capability must be upgraded, at quite a cost. If the peak demand can be spread out over time, they may not have to do that upgrade.

Other factors: I won't analyze each one, but things like power-outage monitoring are easy with BPL. They can also do a lot of non-critical control with BPL, and can even program traffic light patterns and the like.

I have not seen any business models that include these factors, although I bet the $10,000 one does.

If we try to fight that fight, IMHO, we lose. And if we try to fight that fight and are wrong, we have undermined our effectiveness and credibility in the areas where we can present a compelling case, and undermined all credibility in areas past BPL for decades to come.

But note that this premise was without interference and regulatory issues. What happens when we add them in? I can't add it up, so it can't be directly subtracted in the business model. But there is no doubt that dealing with a few serious interference reports from a small trial area has given the utility a good idea of what it will cost to deal with them as the system builds out. Some have decided from the reports they had to deal with that it was not ecomomically viable for them to undertake BPL. Interference was very much a part of that decision, because they said so.

It is the big unknown, and unknowns tend to make the industry nervous. If they were told they had to go head to head with ARRL, or the hams of the gobpl site, over business cases, they would probably feel comfortable in doing so. Their guys are bigger than our guys, and they have companies like AT&T and Earthlink behind them. But they know they will have to go head to head with Amateur Radio over interference, and things like ARRL's filings, its Metavox consultant's reports and the filings of the hams in Cedar Rapid are not something they can counter with tools they have. Ameren tried, and ARRL's filings on interference took their filings apart. They know that ARRL will be firm in its insistence that the FCC rules be upheld and harmful interference must be addressed. Of course that comes at a price, and those that have figured that price out for themselves have reached the right decisions.

None of that would have happened on the basis of amateur-provided business model information. And most of the interference issues would not have been foremost on the table if ARRL were to have been involved in undermining the industry financially. What little has been done by hams has actually gotten in my way, as I have in several cases had to convince the industry that ARRL was going to address only interference issues after they had dealt with some aspect of those within ham radio that are addressing business issues.

What is the end result? The industry started by claiming there would be no interference from their systems. That changed to their claim that it could be easily fixed. That changed to having their lawyers say that it wasn't interference at all. That changed to their addressing interference as one of the important issues at industry meetings and an approach that essentially says it can be addressed but that it is going to take work. ARRL was invited to participate on an industry panel, discussing the interference aspects of the business of BPL. I think it is working rather well under the circumstances.

How much of this would not have happened if ARRL had also applied the kind of pressure you are suggesting? I think that we would have a worse mess on our hands than we have right now. I think that the industry would NOT be considering interference. One participant at the Denver IEEE meeting said clearly that he felt that if the BPL industry did not address interference, nothing else it does will matter. That was not amateur radio speaking, but a player in the BPL industry. Where did his awareness come from? Would he have given the information on interference credibility if it were mixed with messages that claimed that the BPL business model was flawed, when his own analysis said it wasn not?

If it were not addressing interference, and only interference, ARRL would not have a seat at the table at the industry level, at the government level and I would not have contacts throughout the industry that are willing to help ARRL address interference. ARRL would lose credibility that extends into other areas and other committees, and decades of hard work would be washed away, to no real net end effect.

I know that ARRL is on the right track. I believe that amateurs should follow suit, and take the track that has decades of proven results. You may disagree, but I will not undermine what you may believe is in the best interest of amateur radio. Please do not undermine the work I am doing, because there is no doubt at all in my mind that it is the course I must take. There is no doubt at all in my mind that it is the course ARRL must take. I cannot see how anything positive could come from any other League actions, Dave.

Are there ways to help the industry reach its own conclusion? Sure are. The ARRL Letter version of the Penn Yan story will amplify on what was just published on the page. We don’t have to provide the business analysis, Dave. It was done for us. In that story, we quote DVI on the reasons for their choice, and also note another alternative without interference – a wireless wired town in Michigan. ARRL should continue to do just that, Dave, and continue to bring factual information to the front without the fanfare, because fanfare will only get in the way of the industry reaching its own conclusion about whether the economics of BPL will work for them.

I will close with an analogy, Dave. If someone is on one of the boards and is acting like an idiot, telling him that he is an iditor will not change him. But saying those things that make everyone say to themselves that he was being an idiot is the best way to make your point. And those few cases where you can say words that makes him realize he was wrong are priceless.

Okay, my two extra hours are up now. Time to go home and listen to my wife getting testy because it has been another long day at the office. :-)

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> With regard to PEPCO and the Manassas BPL system,
> there is no connection between them. The City of
> Manassas is running the BPL system, for better or
> worse, on a trial basis.

PEPCO is in Maryland. They are involved in the Potomac BPL trial. They are not associated with the City of Manassas, which runs a municipal owned utility.

> I don't know for sure even if PEPCO is the power
> company in Manassas, but in any event PEPCO made the
> decision not to "do" BPL at this time as a system
> wide matter. Whether this represents that, in our
> view, PEPCO is just smart, or whether they're
> sitting back, waiting to see how the whole matter
> shakes out, I don't think any one knows at this
> point.

I am sure that if the technical and regulatory arena changes, decisions to back away from BPL could change, too. PEPCO essentially decided not to invest its own money into BPL, but that they would probably lease their lines if someone else wanted to give them money.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> While I think that we could do a much better job of
> using HF to provide a robust Emergency National
> Network -- and I sincerely hope that ARESCOM
> evolves in this direction -- I don't see anything
> wrong with our use of the HF spectrum. My point is
> simply that its mostly recreational, and will be
> assessed that way by those who allocate spectrum,
> If that's where the battle with BPL is fought, we
> are at a significant disavantage. Instead, we should
> move the battle to our point of advantage -- BPL's
> technical and economic flaws.

Don't discount the value of amateur radio, Dave. It can be added to the mix without undermining credibility. Here is a URL that explains its worth rather nicely:

http://www.gobpl.com/emcomms.html

Don't discount the value of the hobby aspects either, Dave. In the first place, that forms the reasons that many amateurs build the effective stations that are discussed in the above URL. How many would build those stations if all they did was emergency communications?

And although I don't think the point applies to our BPL defense, don't discount the value of amateur radio, either. Lets assume conservatively that there are 200,000 active hams. Let's assume conservatively that the value of their equipment, their antennas, feed lines, accessories, mobile stations, components, tools, books and such are $5000 per station on average. Now do the math: that is a collective investment of $1,000,000,000.00. Not exactly chump change. Amateurs have personally invested more than am billion dollars to do those things discussed in the URL above. All of the BPL in the country doesn't come close to that at this stage of the game. I have been told by those in the know that amateur radio and the League are seen as the big gorillas in this game.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Thanks for identifying who decides what goes on the ARRL's main web page, Ed.

When there is a significant new story regarding BPL, I agree that it should be promoted and directly accessible from the ARRL's main page. But we cannot not assume the readers will use this a a path to the BPL portion of the site. If a such a story remains for a week, those who have already read it will ignore it until it changes. A separate BPL link, particularly one that includes the words "New Info!" whenever the BPL portion of the site has been updated, will result in much more timely dissemination of information to readers.

With respect to our "lousy start", I certainly agree. Unfortunately, your post includes excerpts from posts on other reflectors to which readers here may not have access, and excerpts from private email messages. Let me simply say that my comments in all of these venues were intended to be constructive, with the only goal being elimination of BPL's threat to HF radio. My critique and characterizations targetted positions and documents, not the people who produced them; the motivation and competence of ARRL staff was never in question.

Since you mentioned my private "wrong job" comment, I'll explain that I expect engineers to not just be receptive to constructive criticism, but to actively solicit it. People willing to review one's work and suggest improvements are a valueable resource, even though they won't always be right, and will consume your time. Reacting defensively shuts down the communication path; it must therefore be avoided at all costs. My remark was a variation of Truman's "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". I hold myself to this same standard, but none of us are perfect, and "testy" would be a polite description of my reaction on more than one occasion over my 32 years as an engineer.

Your explanation of how good relations with the BPL providers was an important component of the recent "victories" in Cedar Rapids and Penn Yan is compelling. If I was confident that the BPL issue would be resolved by the FCC's reviewing these pilots and making a fair assessment, I'd amend my position to focus exclusively on interference, as you've suggested.

However, the political environment could easily induce the FCC to conclude that these failing pilots prove that the current RFI rules are inappropriately stringent, and for the greater good must be relaxed. The ARRL's recent establishment of a grass roots BPL lobbying organization indicates that I'm not alone in my concern that the ultimate BPL decision will be made politically, not technically.

That's why I strongly believe that we must broadly illuminate BPL's technical and financial flaws. We don't need to assemble and present complex financial models to do this -- we need only arm the decision-makers with enough solid facts and knowledge so that *they* can ask the tough questions, rather than be snowed by the hype and misinformation flowing from BPL marketeers. We already have the information required to do this. As many here have commented, BPL will sink itself -- but only if its true characteristics are revealed before its widely deployed.

I do not advocate a reduction in our focus on BPL's interference generation -- instead, I advocate a different application of its results. Rather than "this RFI impedes amateur HF communication and thus must be eliminated", our message should be "this RFI impedes a wide range of public safety and law enforcement communication; mitigating it will make BPL economics even more challenging and unpredictable". As I've said several times, substantiating this point with a demonstration of actual interference to police or FEMA frequencies would be supremely effective. In the absence of that, demonstrating interference to amateur communications is the best we've got, but we should at least revise our materials to demonstrate interference to amateurs conducting public safety or emergency operations, rather than attempting a net check-in or listening to Radio Nederland as is seen in the current video.

Who are the decision-makers we must influence? Potential BPL subscribers, members of local town governments, members of local public safety and law enforcement agencies, power company investors, and even power company board members. As hams, we encounter many of these people in our work, volunteer efforts, and social lives. We also read articles in local papers, in national papers, or on the web that propagate the BPL party line. We should all be armed to convey the key questions and substantiating facts to the decision-makers and influencers we encounter, and to politely but firmly correct the mistruths we see in print or online.

If I've been hammering hard on the need for a well-structured BPL web site, its because there is no other way to rapidly provide the US ham community with the information they need to effectively accomplish this mission. There is lots of useful information on the ARRL's BPL web page, but it covers a broad spectrum of topics at a wide range of technical sophistication. Boiling this all down to a set of key facts and compelling logic comprehensible to non-technical audiences, with a supporting list of "frequently asked questions" and special guidance for handling reporters is a serious piece of work that should be implemented by someone skilled in the art, kept current on a daily basis, and made easily accessible to every ham who wants to help.

Ed, I know this isn't your decision to make. You recently wondered why I've posted my BPL comments on reflectors rather than converse 1:1 via email. There are two reasons:

1. ideas posted here are reviewed and critiqued by many, and are thus improved by the process, as anyone whose followed this rather lengthy thread can attest

2. readers who agree can propagate their sentiments - in this case, to the ARRL leadership than can make the decision

It is the latter point that is particulary relevant here.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed W1RFI wrote:

"Don't discount the value of amateur radio, Dave. It can be added to the mix without undermining credibility. Here is a URL that explains its worth rather nicely:

http://www.gobpl.com/emcomms.html"

I agree that Amateur emergency communications are an asset in our "case", but these could be preserved with much less HF bandwidth than we currently occupy. If saving BPL devolves to the allocation of a few scarce HF notches, we could well find ourselves painted into this corner.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed W1RFI wrote:

"And although I don't think the point applies to our BPL defense, don't discount the value of amateur radio, either. Lets assume conservatively that there are 200,000 active hams. Let's assume conservatively that the value of their equipment, their antennas, feed lines, accessories, mobile stations, components, tools, books and such are $5000 per station on average. Now do the math: that is a collective investment of $1,000,000,000.00."

Unfortunately, that's not the calculation that either politicians or financial analysts will perform.

1. Politicans will think about votes -- what they gain vs. what they lose. There are a lot more non-hams interested in instant, cheap broadband access -- the "BPL promise" -- than hams. The age distribution of each population is also relevant.

2. Financial analysts will apply depreciation, which will produce a much lower number; they will also argue that only a fraction of the population will completely lose HF access.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed-W1RFI

Thank you for your well-placed and considered response to Dave-AA6YQ's criticism of the ARRL's approach. I agree whole heartedly that the ARRL needs to stay out of the business side of BPL. I believe the reason emotions run deep is that the ARRL does not have a good reputation for explaining its position on issues. Rather, it chooses decide for us and to wait until the membership is all up-an-arms to explain why. In this case, we have to go to eHam to find out. Go figure...

Dave is correct however, the business side of this political football is what is going to ultimately decide BPL's fate. We just need to figure out a better forum to promulgate the "news."

As an accountant, I have represented ISPs and am familiar with the inner-workings of the ISP equation. Looking at the $30/month per subscriber does make an interesting cash flow. 1000 subscribers is $360K/year. This is a drop in the bucket compared to behind the scene costs, like paying the upstream provider for access to the WWW. And the 24/7 customer service equation is horrendous. Couple this with the need for the ISP to involve the power utility maintenance people, and you have a business equation ripe for a complete disaster! The only bail-out is the electric utility being able to assess electrical customers for the red-ink.

I have not seen the actual cost of an individual 'pole box' or the cost of other back-room equipment needed to make the BPL system operate, but if you are saying that a typical installation using 500 miles of power line would require 1000 boxes, take a guess--maybe $2K per box (installed)? Geez that's $2MM. A $22K payment (6% interest) per month for 10 years ought to cover that nicely. But 10 years? $22K x 12 = $266K/year. So 74% of the projected annual gross receipts at 1000 customers are consumed by the capital expenditure. And 1000 users is not an easy hoop to jump. A community of 10,000 people may have as many as 2000 connections to the internet. Roughly 10% of those want broadband. That's only 200 people. So you need a community of 50,000 to cover the costs. Hardly a "last mile solution!"

I do agree with Dave that it is the business model that will cause BPL to eventually disappear. But I agree with Ed that it should not be the ARRL spreading that news. Now to find an appropriate venue to wake up a few people.

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KC8VWM on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>> Now to find an appropriate venue to wake up a few people. <<

I think you found it.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KC8VWM wrote:

>> Now to find an appropriate venue to wake up a few people. <<

I think you found it.

eHam is a wonderful place to chat, and vent some much needed hot air on various subjects. But it is hardly the venue of choice for waking up a few BPL people.

I seriously doubt any BPL wannabees are reading this. Hams are reading and discussing this topic, which is kinda-like preachin' to the choir.

I've notice several Hams posting on BPL threads on various reflectors. This is an excellent way to get people aware of the complete lack of business accumen on the part of BPL advocates.

I would love it if the FCC were to shoot down BPL on its merits. I would love to see a fireball and mushroom cloud over the notion of BPL ground zero. However, the FCC Board is in much the same boat as the ARRL in terms of telling people they are nuts for trying. It's not the government's place to advocate one-way-or-another. It is government's place to properly maintain a orderly marketplace and safe streets. Thus protecting each of us from each other.

I just received a copy of July 2004 "High Frequency Electronics." Gary Breed (K9AY) is the editor. An excellent editorial on EMC and the FCC. Gary strikes directly at the throat of the FCC without involving hams whatsoever. Forgive me Gary for not asking permission, but here is the last few paragraphs of that editorial:

July 2004 High Frequency Electronics, pp 6-7

EMC and the FCC (an excerpt from Gary Breed's editorial)
You would think that the level of protection would be stiffened to minimize the effects of these additional sources of interference...

However, the process of determining these levels of protection is both technical and political. While it is technically possible to keep equipment 'quiet,' it also adds to the cost. In the past two decades, electronic technology of all types--especially wireless telecommunications--has been a growth industry, and has the rapt attention of our political leaders.

Recently, the FCC has moved toward reducing the present interference limits, and is exploring concepts that would result in further reductions of protection from interference. I feel that this is a short-sighted approach to the problem. Sure, it will encourage continued development of new wireless technologies and products--but it may be too much of a good thing in the future, if the total noise level finally becomes overwhelming and nothing works any more. There are already trouble spots where intereference is a problem. These problems may be subtle--excessive dropped cell phone calls, 'sparkels' on a TV picture or deduced range on a cordless phone. They can be obvious too. Any public safety officer will have a story about troublesome interference to his or her radio.

Before things get any worse, I hope the FCC and other regulatory bodies around the world realize that the electromagnetic spectrum is worth protecting for future generations. Manage it wisely and it will continue to be a valuable resource. We don't want it to become the next over-fished ocean or clear-cut forest.
(end of Gary's editorial)

This is a completely 'secular' (i.e. non-ham-radio) approach to combating BPL. There may be more on the rag's website: www.highfrequencyelectronics.com

My point is that taking advantage of opportunities to point out the shortcomings of BPL in non-ham-radio fashion is excellent. We should not and cannot expect the ARRL to confront this alone. For reasons that Ed Hare pointed out above, the approach must be taken to the streets and let the ARRL confront the technical challenge of 'proving' BPL be-bad!

I do think that Dave's notion of a BPL portion of the ARRL website would be appropriate--complete with an actual link from the home page as well. And I do think it more than appropriate for the ARRL to describe the business side of 'fixing a broken BPL site.' It is apparently labor intensive (read expensive) and would be appropriate for the ARRL to describe the mitigation techniques just to scare the heck out of any would be BPL wanna-bee Utility.

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>I seriously doubt any BPL wannabees are reading this.

The folks in the BPL industry do pay attenation to what is said here. I have seen them say things that they could have only learned from the ham radio BPL lists.

I have also seen the Ambient investors mention articles from this site on their bulletin board.

This may be a good place to shape our ideas, but it is a public venue and it must be treated as such. Do not say things here that you don't want discussed at the next UPLC strategy meeting. :-)

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

KC8VWM wrote:

"However, the FCC Board is in much the same boat as the ARRL in terms of telling people they are nuts for trying. It's not the government's place to advocate one-way-or-another. It is government's place to properly maintain a orderly marketplace and safe streets. Thus protecting each of us from each other."

If the FCC were reliably neutral, then the ARRL's strategy of focusing on BPL's interference would be entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, the FCC is not neutral; its leadership very much wants BPL succeed.

Why?

If you take the FCC Chairman at his word, its because he wants more broadband alternatives, particularly for rural citizens. Having more alternatives increases competition, which stimulates more innovation and puts downward pressure on prices.

At the other end of the spectrum, this is a presidential election year, and the current administration will leave no straw ungrasped in its search for votes, particularly in rural areas. Instant, cheap broadband -- the BPL story, not the BPL reality -- is an attractive deliverable for any politician. Campaign contributions from BPL proponents are another possibility, but I've not run this one to ground.

As usual, the truth probably lies between the above extremes. Whatever the rationale, there's a real danger that the FCC will react to the the recent BPL pilot failures by declaring a more lenient set of interference rules "for the good of the country".

That's why I strongly believe that the ARRL must arm the ham community to publicly illuminate BPL's technical and financial flaws.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave--AA6YQ, you quoted the incorrect source. It was me who said "It is government's place to properly maintain a orderly marketplace and safe streets. Thus protecting each of us from each other."

But Ed's point is well placed. The flawed economics of BPL is not properly exposed by the ARRL, for valid reasons cited. The ARRL can hardly be viewed as an expert on the economics of running an ISP. For the ARRL to jump in with cash flow analysis would expose the League to ridicule.

So how do we find an appropriate venue to illustrate the flawed economics?

And Ed, if you are correct that the BPL industry is listening to eHam, then I'd like to make a statement.

Mr. BPL Utility board member: Have you done your due diligence regarding the cash flows of the BPL plan, or did you simply accept the claims of the consultant attempting to foist this on your community? Have you interviewed ISPs in general to ascertain the extreme levels of customer service required? Is your utility prepared to hire an entire staff trained to handle the load? Have you investigated the challenge of on-going maintenance? Have you visited with or requested the financial results of the trials to date? Until your "consultant" can demonstrate a viable business, you are dealing with a unproven business model. Quite the contrary, a model, which to date, has been proven to be a spectacular failure a number of times and for a number of reasons. To expose your company and your stakeholders to the violent economic ramifications of your decision to roll out BPL will likely expose you, Mr. BPL Utility Board member, to serious charges of personal negligence in the conduct of your duties as trustee.

I hope they are listening. The last thing I want is higher electric rates due to some ill-informed and negligent board member rolling the dice on a clearly flawed technology!

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

You're right Ford, I was quoting text from your message. I misread the header; sorry about that.

I doubt that many utility company board members are reading this thread unless they happen to be hams. They are likely, however, to read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Sunday Times.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AB2MH on July 30, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>It makes one wonder why the FCC keeps pushing for BPL when so many other places have tried it and failed. The fact that Japan, a highly technological country, couldn't get it to work right should say a lot right there.<<

It's political, really. Fits in nicely with President Bush's election year promise of "broadband for all", at least on the surface.

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> So how do we find an appropriate venue to illustrate
> the flawed economics?

What if those economics are not flawed? With the other factors I brought up -- and those are but a small subset of the way this is being promoted by the BPL salesfolks --that issue is so clouded I can't tell you which way is up. And the real risk to basing this on ecocomics, other than the very valid "ridicule" factor, is that if those economics are really tipped the other way, all of the negative aspects of an economic attack are brought into play, and the point is still lost.

If one were to undertake that approach, I will stick a finger in the wind and estimate that the studies the industry have prepared probably cost about $300,000 each to prepare. Could amateur radio match it? I think not, and even if we did, it would be one word against another. I cannot believe that Ameren, AT&T and others have not had their economic folks take a look at this first. The ones that have not are the smaller municipals.

So with all of the factors considered, a heads-on approach on that front is, IMHO, a monumentally bad idea. We lack the expertise and "standing" to make that argument, and if we did, the first question is "what business is it of yours whether BPL is an economic success." It would have no more credibility than the neighbor who doesn't like the tower complaining about RF safety to get you to move that antenna closer to his house by lowering it. (And I love it when they make that argument, because it is easily refuted by offering to address the concern by amending the application for a higher tower.)

What about the technical flaws of BPL? Those are on the table nicely. It works, at least to a point. I have seen it work, and we would be hard pressed to offer anything concrete to refute it; we have no data and no good way to develop credible data. If it does indeed work, when utilities try it, it will work. If there are problems with its technical performance, that will become apparent, and the utility involved will back away.

In many cases, the best approach is subtle. For example, from the ARRL Letter story about Penn Yan:

"The Finger Lakes Times report quotes Burling as saying that his company didn't feel BPL was "commercially deployable." He also cited issues with the BPL trial including security concerns and interference--which will not be an issue with the wireless system."

As this happens again and again -- and it will -- reporting it in a neutral fashion will have an effect. But it is not the thrust of our concerns, because if BPL were a financial goldmine, the very real concerns about interference would still be there.

ARRL has touched on these issues in many of its articles and releases. Just as one example:

http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2004/07/01/1/

But note that the discussion of the economics is made in the context of legitimate concerns. That is the only context in which we have credibility.

There are other subtle messages:

"ARRL also has learned that Energy East--a cooperative of New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas & Electric--decided against deploying BPL in their Western New York service area. Energy East based its decision in large part on the high levels of radio frequency interference an engineer and company officials observed during a visit to the Penn Yan field trial.

"On July 29, Grand Haven, Michigan, announced that it had become the first community in the US to deploy a WiFi network <http://www.ottawawireless.net/about-us/press-room.html> that blankets the city and up to 15 miles off shore in Lake Michigan with broadband Internet access."

And those legitimate concerns have an economic impact too. I can't put a number on them, but they are very real costs nonetheless. Dealing with the regulatory issues and interference reports has been costly for the utilities involved. It is a big unknown, and there is one thing that the financial folks don't like -- unknowns. I have no doubt that this played a strong role in Alliant's decision. I would imagine that what a utility envisions those costs to be are more than I could document them to be, but look at the numbers: even small systems like Raleigh have generated a number of complaints. How many more will they have to deal with if they expand that system? I think the real costs of dealing with interference may be more than even they can imagine.

At the IEEE meeting in Denver, two of the participants made public statements that said that if the industry did not deal effectively with the interference issue, nothing else they do would matter. That is, IMHO, where the amateur emphasis belongs.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3NL on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hello,

I agree with Ed that interference from BPL is our
basic concern. If a BPL system could be built
without interference to ham radio, shortwave
broadcast listening, public service communications,
marine and aviation HF communications, and radio
astronomy, I would have no objection to BPL at all.
Perhaps the people at Corridor Systems have
invented a BPL that is interference free. (Their
system is a 5 GHz G-Line technology.) If this is
the case, it would be a fine invention indeed.
However, a BPL design that causes interference
to the many users of HF is not acceptable.
Similarly, a BPL that jams the 5 GHz spectrum is
also not acceptable.
INTERFERENCE is the name of the game.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed, the major portion of your last message attacks a strategy that no one on this thread has proposed or advocated; no one has suggested anything that requires $3,000 for "studies", much less $300,000.

What I've recommended is that we highlight BPL's flaws so that the decision-makers -- from potential BPL subscribers to municipal governments to power company board members -- look beyond the BPL marketing smokescreen and begin asking tough questions. We already have the ammunition to accomplish this; what we haven't done is effectively distribute this ammunition to the troops - the US amateur community - and train them in its effective use. Assembling the material, establishing a well-organized web site, and rolling it out through the ARRL section infrastructure will certainly demand much time and energy, but little in the way of expense.

If we had additional money to spend on combatting BPL, I'd hire a PR firm to immediately inform us of every pro-BPL article placement, online or hardcopy; we can't counter them if we don't know about them.

What I would very much like to understand, Ed, is how you'll respond if the FCC decides to relax the interference limits so that BPL can proceed. Given the political situation, such a declaration could come at any time, could it not?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3NL on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Hello,

I think that the ARRL feels that it is busy
enough with the engineering issue of interference.
This technical issue area is their strong point and
they are going to play that hand.
Business analysts and MBAs are free to establish
their own web sites discussing the business benefits
and problems of BPL projects.
Just raising the interference thresholds will not
solve the problems for the BPL providers. Higher
interference thresholds will cause higher levels of
actual interference. Even other Part 15 devices
could be impacted. Higher levels of interference
will also cause problems with international treaties
that the U.S. is signatory to. For example,
international treaties require the governments to
protect international shortwave broadcast listening
from interference. All the other various users of HF
are not likely to go away either. Harmonic emissions
may also bother domestic broadcasting services.
My own view is that many people will continue to
attempt to use the international resource of the
short wave spectrum and they will raise a continued
political rumpus about any intense interference.
Please be advised that technology politics issues
can persist at high intensity for years. For
example, it took ten years or more of high powered
work by thousands of people to get the new Sport
Pilot rules enacted at the FAA. My own efforts on
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) warfare threats have
been under way for twenty years. It also took many
years to establish the rules for the new Low Power
FM (LPFM) broadcasting service. Politics about
nuclear power safety have gone on for decades
with a resulting stall in new nuclear plant
construction (which may be a big mistake).
Technology politics tends to be long term and
continuing politics. The short wave spectrum is
a very appealing international resource that will
motivate people to have a continuing interest in it.
It is rather like beautiful landscapes motivating
the environmentalists for decade after decade.
Also many people, such as myself, enjoy the
political process and would enjoy taking the
BPL interference issue to the international level
if that proves necessary. Our basic motivation
is that the little guy should count for something
beyond merely being a consumer of products.
So look forward to decades of interesting political
activity if the RF noise standards are relaxed.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nickolaus N3NL wrote:

"Just raising the interference thresholds will not
solve the problems for the BPL providers."

If your local BPL installation wipes out 20m but is demonstrably in compliance with the (upwardly-revised) limits set by the FCC, what recourse would you have, Nickolaus? It seems to me that such an action on the FCC's part would dramatically improve the BPL industry's prospects:

1. they need no longer divert resources to battling the ARRL and ham community

2. they can divert fewer technical resources to monitoring and/or mitigating the interference they generate

3. a major contributor of uncertainty to their business model is eliminated (specifically, how long will it take to mitigate the interference and how much will it cost to do so?)

Politicians at all levels are already on record as stating that regulations must be changed to enable BPL deployment. As an example,

"Power lines were for electricity; power lines can be used for broadband technology," Bush said. "So the technical standards need to be changed to encourage that."

In the current calculus of US politics, protests from international shortwave broadcasters over the impact of BPL interference on their North American audiences would be completely ignored. The ITU may require some soothing, but a quid pro quo could likely be arranged. The BPL guys are likely playing this game several moves ahead, and have already already laid the groundwork.

Don't get me wrong, nothing would make me happier than an FCC decision to enforce the current regulations without modification. But basing our efforts on this expectation seems like very wishful thinking.

Hope is not a strategy.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3NL on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Greetings. Please be advised politics on this issue
will not stop despite an unfavorable decision on the
Part 15 standards by the FCC. One does not have to
have formal power to be effective. Look for example
at the activists stopping the nuclear power industry.
Or many other environmental battles. Welcome to the
continuous struggle that we call politics.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
Master of Arts in Political Science

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

While hunting up the Bush quote for my response to Nicklaus, I came across the following:

"Once deployed," the president declared, "BPL has the potential to turn every electrical outlet into a broadband pipeline." Bush also suggested that BPL could supply broadband services to rural dwellers, a prospect that the League and others claim is not economically feasible.

"BPL is sometimes touted as a solution for rural areas," said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ. "It is not." Sumner explained that BPL signals carry only a few thousand feet down a power line and then must be repeated. "This requires a lot of hardware and will not be economical in areas with low population densities."

K1ZZ's response is dead on. Did he have to spend $300,000 on a study before he felt confident making that statement? Did he divert the ARRL staff from their focus on BPL interference in order to build a foundation for that remark? Of course not.

K1ZZ's point is one of four or five which, lashed together with compelling logic and backed with substantiating URLs, would raise serious questions in the minds of potential subscribers, deployers, and investors, as well as reporters. We have the ammunition...

Perhaps I'm making too much of one comment from one person, but he is the ARRL's CEO.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Nickolaus N3NL wrote:

"Please be advised politics on this issue will not stop despite an unfavorable decision on the Part 15 standards by the FCC".

That's true. But while the political process plays out, BPL will be deployed and the interference it generates will prevent many of us from HF operation. The BPL installed base will grow, dramatically increasing the financial and political cost of later retracting it.

It may not be our only chance, but without question our best chance for defeating BPL is here and now. If we leave this to the FCC's good graces, we are taking an enormous risk -- and our contingency plan is weak at best.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on July 31, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave, AA6YQ wrote:

"K1ZZ's point is one of four or five which, lashed together with compelling logic and backed with substantiating URLs, would raise serious questions in the minds of potential subscribers, deployers, and investors, as well as reporters. We have the ammunition...

Perhaps I'm making too much of one comment from one person, but he is the ARRL's CEO. "

You are correct. We do have the tools. But we, as a community, are doing a poor job at expressing our message in a way the uninformed masses can understand. The web is a powerful tool. I do think the notion of refocusing the ARRL website regarding BPL would be appropriate. You also mentioned a PR firm. A one day a week PR person can work wonders in the course of months.

As others have mentioned, this is a political game. It is also very political on our side because there is money involved. I would encourage all ARRL members to have a conversation or drop an email to your director. Believe it or not, they do listen.

Ford-N0FP

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on August 1, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Dave, AA6YQ; Ed-W1RFI, and others

I just received a link to a German webpage that describes the frustration of BPL in Germany.

The first link is to an English translation of an article in EMC.

http://www.darc.de/aktuell/plc/pdf/cqdl0204_eng.pdf

The second link, although in German, describes the conditions under which we will all labor if BPL gets rolled out.

Sound clips can be found at:

http://www.darc.de/aktuell/plc/index.html
(look for Hörbeispiele)

If you find the section for Horbeispiele, the following links are to sound clips of the short wave bands.

Ford-N0FP
ford@cmgate.com

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by DJ7MGQ on August 2, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

More clips (audio and video) of PLC/BPL/PLT in central Europe can be found at:

<http://www.oe5.oevsv.at/diverses/plc/plc.htm>

<http://www.powerline-plc.info/downloads_en.html>

<http://www.darc.de/referate/emv/download/PLC_Video_Fulpmes.WMV>
(download 2,6 MB)

<http://www.darc.de/referate/emv/download/plc_vide.rm>
(download 4,8 MB)

I believe that some of these are also on the ARRL site.

vy 73

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on August 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> "BPL is sometimes touted as a solution for rural
> areas," said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ. "It is
> not." Sumner explained that BPL signals carry only a
> few thousand feet down a power line and then must be
> repeated. "This requires a lot of hardware and will
> not be economical in areas with low population
> densities."

> K1ZZ's response is dead on. Did he have to spend
> $300,000 on a study before he felt confident making
> that statement? Did he divert the ARRL staff from
> their focus on BPL interference in order to build a
> foundation for that remark? Of course not.

No, he did not. I also don't believe that his remark will hold a candle to things like:

http://www.utc.org/?p=152#BPL

> K1ZZ's point is one of four or five which, lashed
> together with compelling logic and backed with
> substantiating URLs, would raise serious questions
> in the minds of potential subscribers, deployers,
> and investors, as well as reporters. We have the
> ammunition...

We do not have the ammunition to win that fight, and trying to fight it that way will put an almost instantaneous end to most of the other work that ARRL is able to do. I say this from the vantage point of one who has worked with this industry; one who has doors of communication open with the industry, its standards bodies and with many of the organizations that are our natural allies. Knowing the people involved and the difficulties I have had from some of the things that have been said in this area, it is my judgement that any such communication would come to a screeching halt if ARRL were to give as much emphasis on this issue as you believe it should.

It is somewhat ironic that you criticize ARRL for not making statements about the business aspects of BPL, then cite the instances where ARRL has made those statements to prove your point, Dave.

If it is your belief that ARRL should make statements about the business aspects of BPL, that has been done. If it is your belief that ARRL should develop those supporting URLs that you say are what are needed to complete this process, we are right back to my $300,000 estimate that you say is not needed.

Although some of the smaller utilities may not have taken the time to do the reseach, the big ones have, and they are well aware of what equipment is needed; how many repeaters are needed per mile of line, etc. From that, they have done their own cost analysis that will have more meaning to them than editorials by ARRL's CEO.

I will say it again; the best thrust for ARRL's position is based on our standing to speak against interference. ARRL handwaving about the financial aspects of BPL is no more effective than the industry's initial claims that BPL would not cause interfernce. We had the ammunition to prove that claim to be wrong and they have more ammunition than we can develop to address the business case.

The way to address any financial aspects of BPL is to allow the industry to reach its own conclusions, and give publicity to those. That is exactly what ARRL did wrt the Penn Yan and Cedar Rapids decisions. That gets the point across better than Dave's editorial and does so in a way that does not undermine credibility in any other area.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on August 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed W1RFI wrote

"It is somewhat ironic that you criticize ARRL for not making statements about the business aspects of BPL, then cite the instances where ARRL has made those statements to prove your point, Dave."

Ed, my strong suggestion is that the ARRL take the lead in assembling the key facts and compelling logic that illustrate BPL's technical and financial shortcomings, provide a supportive FAQ and substantiating URLs, place all of this information in a well-structured, accessible web site, and proceed to roll it out to the US ham community via the ARRL insfrastructure.

The K1ZZ statement I cited is consistent with this suggestion, but stops well short of what's badly needed.

I cited K1ZZ's statement because it directly contradicts all of the rationale you've provided for not proceeding as I've suggested! If publicly attacking BPL's shortcomings will seriously damage our credibility and relationships with regulatory agencies etc. as you've been saying, then why is the ARRL's CEO publicly attacking BPL's shortcomings?

You have yet to respond to the points I've made regarding Cedar Rapids and Penn Yan. Yes, its great that our credibility and effective working relationships facilitated good outcomes in these pilots. However, if the FCC reacts to these "pilot failures" by declaring a relaxed set of interference rules for BPL justified by the need to encourage its deployment, then we will have won the battles and lost the war. If this happens, what's your next move?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on August 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> Ed, my strong suggestion is that the ARRL take the
> lead in assembling the key facts and compelling
> logic that illustrate BPL's technical and financial
> shortcomings, provide a supportive FAQ and
> substantiating URLs, place all of this information
> in a well-structured, accessible web site, and
> proceed to roll it out to the US ham community via
> the ARRL insfrastructure.

We are starting to repeat ourselves, Dave. I have agreed in principle with all of that except the thrust on BPL's financial shortcomings.

I believe that doing so on the basis of its financial shortcomings would be a monumental mistake. I am not even 100% comfortable with some of what Dave has had to say, but that is, IMHO, as far as that approach should be allowed to run.

Dave has not asked me to take that approach in my technical work and I don't get to tell him what to say in his editorials.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on August 3, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed W1RFI said "We are starting to repeat ourselves, Dave."

I only repeated my suggestion because you said "If it is your belief that ARRL should make statements about the business aspects of BPL, that has been done."

K1ZZ's statement falls far short of what I believe we must do, but is more consistent with the strategy I propose than the one you've been executing.

In my previous post, I asked you "If publicly attacking BPL's shortcomings will seriously damage our credibility and relationships with regulatory agencies etc. as you've been saying, then why is the ARRL's CEO publicly attacking BPL's shortcomings?"

Your response, "I don't get to tell him what to say in his editorials" implies that your concerns about the consequences are either overblown, or are being ignored by ARRL leadership. Either way, the ARRL CEO's actions seriously undermine the arguments you've been making against the strategy I propose.

I have also asked you -- twice -- "If the FCC reacts to these pilot failures by declaring a relaxed set of interference rules for BPL, what will be our next move?"

Twice, you have not responded.

Your lack of response, Ed, makes the answer all too obvious.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by W1RFI on August 4, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> I have also asked you -- twice -- "If the FCC reacts
> to these pilot failures by declaring a relaxed set
> of interference rules for BPL, what will be our next
> move?"

> Twice, you have not responded.

> Your lack of response, Ed, makes the answer all too
> obvious.

Not at all, Dave. The nice thing about reading into what is not said is that you can proclaim words that are not said to mean anything that you want them to mean. That is not communication, Dave; it is no more than soapbox preaching. It is manipulative and is another example of the way this discussion always seems to end up, with your twisting the meaning of nearly everything that is said to you, trying to make it appear as if something else was what was really said or meant.

Some of the things you ask of me require time to answer, Dave, and the time I have spent repeating the same things to you in response to your public challenges have taken me away from things I should be doing instead. This means that I cannot always give you an answer fast enough to prevent you from preaching to all what must be "obvious."

I was going to find some time to respond to that, but from now on, when you issue these public challenges, I will give you fast answers, rather that more complete ones. Perhaps that will alleviate some of the anxiety that leads you do jump to incorrect conclusions about what my silence "really" means. Most interpretations of silence are self-servicing, and rarely are right.

The NPRM has not put any increase in the emissions limits on the plate, Dave. In fact, the Commissioners have specificially stated that they are choosing not to change the limits. For that reason, I think that any increase in those limits is unlikely, and if the rules as finalized were so dramatically different that what was proposed, in an area where the FCC was clear that they were not seeking to change the rules, this could be sucessfully challenged.

The FCC was also clear that it was not going to change the rules that require that Part 15 devices not cause harmful interference. For that reason, I think that any change to those rules are not ikely, and if the rules as finalized were so dramatically different that what was proposed, in an area where the FCC was clear that they were not seeking to change the rules, this could be sucessfully challenged.

The FCC also has a Notice of Inquiry open about "interference temperature, and I think it unlikely that they would jump the gun and set an interference temperature for HF prior to the overall aspects of interference temperature being addressed through that process.

That leaves enforcement, and I will not repeat the post where I answered that question about what ARRL might do by pointing to the URL on the ARRL web page that showed what the ARRL actually did in response to what we believe to be an incorrect approach that the FCC used in Raleigh.

Now, you asked me what I would do if this all doesn't work as I envision it will. I will do that the ARRL management and policymakers decide is the best thing for me to do to support the decisions they will make about it, Dave.

I can tell you what I will not do, now or or if the FCC were to reach what I believe to be the wrong decision wrt BPL. I will not start trying to undermine the business case of BPL, because even then, I do not feel that doing so would be the best approach to take. By the time it gets that far, the true success or failure of BPL ecomically will have been determined by market forces, and it it is a financial success, nothing I can develop to the contrary would be effective to counter actual success or failure.

And for ARRL to try to undermine the business case of BPL now would be equally ineffective, IMHO, because if we accept the contraint you have agreed to that trying to develop expensive economic studies to counter the industry's expensive economic studies is not in the cards, all we have are allegations, inuendo and vague suggestions, and those may or may not be technically correct.

Even worse, Dave, taking that approach would undermine much of the things that ARRL is accomplishing right now. That would be as ill-conceived an approach I can think of using and it would be a mistake of monumental proportions.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N3NL on August 4, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Let us lighten up on the ARRL. They are doing a good
job for ham radio and they are worth the dues
charged.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by N0FP on August 4, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed,

I think you have more than adequately made your point about attacking the business side of BPL/PLC. It is not the ARRL's place to do so. Any attempt, including Sumner's statements, could undermine our efforts. Frankly, any more comments re:this topic are nothing more than trolling.

Dave's only remaining 'bitch' then is that there remains a need for a FAQ on the ARRL website re:BPL. Or a similar approach that would guide the uninformed reporter or community leader into understanding what is clearly a complex issue. I tend to agree with Dave on this note as the ARRL's website has morphed into a complex web of links and quotes to stories and endless facts. Nobody planned it this way, it simply developed over time. I don't think you disagree, but it sounds like you are at a loss as to how to fix it due to time/money/resource constraints imposed by other departments outside your cubical.

Is there any appoach you can envision that may facilitate this need? Perhaps Dave and others could assist by generating a list of FAQs to which you can respond? Once written, it's a small matter for the web gurus to spin a few more needed links and pointers to tidy things up a bit.

Ford-N0FP

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by AA6YQ on August 4, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed W1RFI wrote:

"It is manipulative and is another example of the way this discussion always seems to end up, with your twisting the meaning of nearly everything that is said to you, trying to make it appear as if something else was what was really said or meant."

I simply noted that you'd declined to answer a direct question twice. I did not say "this must mean X", so on what basis do you accuse me of manipulating or twisting something?

If you're in a situation where you don't have the time to properly respond to a question, all you need say is "I don't have the time to address this question right now, but will come back to it in a a couple of days".

You still haven't answered the question!

I asked "If the FCC reacts to these pilot failures by declaring a relaxed set of interference rules for BPL, what will be our next move?"

In your last post, you responded in two ways:

1. by explaining why you don't think the FCC will declare a relaxed set of interference rules for BPL

2. by telling us what you won't do if the FCC declares a relaxed set of interference rules for BPL

I asked you what we will do, not what we won't do.

President Bush said "Power lines were for electricity; power lines can be used for broadband technology, so the technical standards need to be changed to encourage that."

When you get some time, Ed, please answer the question I asked.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by WA3KYY on August 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>It makes one wonder why the FCC keeps pushing for BPL when so many other places have tried it and failed. The fact that Japan, a highly technological country, couldn't get it to work right should say a lot right there.

>It's political, really. Fits in nicely with President Bush's election year promise of "broadband for all", at least on the surface.

Two points.

1) From an NTIA engineer who did many of the field measurements and works for the primary author of the Phase 1 report: "increased broadband access has been an explicit Dept of Commerce goal since the Clinton administration" thus it is not just a Bush election year promise. (NTIA is under DOC)

2) Japan is continuing to authorize experiments in BPL technology PROVIDED they do not cause interference. If interfernce is reported, they MUST shut down until the interference is permanently eliminated.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

RE: Response to NY Times BPL Article

by KG6AMW on August 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

BPL will creep along with some successes, some failures and many (hmmms?) by undecided utilities until something better comes along. Unfortunately the overtaking may require some time. Lets hope there are many hmmms? followed by inaction.

KG6AMW

eWeek Opinion Article

by AA9KK on August 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Read the following opinion article appearing in eWeek, August 2, 2004, page 48.

The link is: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1628438,00.asp

I e-mailed the editor, Peter Coffee, a note of congratulations.

In addition, has anyone at the FCC or those promoting BPL ever given any thought to the interference ramifications to other world geographic areas when ionospheric HF propagation is favorable to BPL signals? Just imagine the complaints flooding in from other countries!

RE: eWeek Opinion Article

by AB5XZ on August 5, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AA9KK,

The NTIA part II (preliminary) report says that they don't think the propagated effects of BPL will be very significant. They don't show any numbers.

I have been asking that question since my first comments on BPL. No rational response yet, but it's encouraging to know that at least NTIA has that question on its list.

73TomAB5XZ

RE: eWeek Opinion Article

by WA3KYY on August 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AB5XZ,

I've seen one of the figures that may end up in the final Phase II report. It was based upon a model with BPL devices centered in each county in the lower 48 states with the number of devices per county based upon population density from the 2000 census. They used 23MHz and modeled under a number of different sunspot and propagation conditions. I showed aggregate noise levels throughout the US. The worst case (peak of next sunspot cycle) was not pretty. There were sections of the country that could experience noise levels of -9dB and most areas would expect noise figures of greater than -60dB if I recall the scale used correctlty.

I only saw the figure briefly and none of the uderlying data but I do believe it shows there will be a significant problem if BPL is deployed universally.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles

Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:

Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:

New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:

Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!

Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio: