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
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

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