FCC Approves BPL Despite Interference Concerns [Archive]

k7fd

10-18-2004, 04:31 AM

No, it wasn't a wise decision by the FCC. It was a stupid decision, one on a topic that should have never even seen the light of day. BPL is pollution, plain and simple. Just like dumping sewage in a lake. Like the bumper stick says 'Earth First...we'll screw up the other planets later'. And that's just what BPL is, another scar.

The FCC's patronizing attitude towards Amateur Radio is obvious. They are bureaucrats carrying out orders, period. If there are casualties, oh well, that's life. Doing things in the name of 'all Americans' means the average rank and file citizen will never see benefit one from it.

The only hope now is BPL dies a quick death because it threw a party and nobody showed up. BPL is a turd in a tuxedo; you can sugar coat it all you want, but it's a bad idea. Just because 'one can' doesn't necessarily mean 'one should'. Apparently this is already happening in several test areas, with several systems shutting down already. So keep your fingers crossed!

Amateur Radio and all users of HF got sold down the river on this one; don't fool yourself. And all the tea in China wouldn't have changed the outcome. The ARRL's effort was valiant and I applaud them for fighting the fight...but I'm afraid we never had a chance.

73 John K7FD

W9GRN

10-18-2004, 05:04 AM

Quote[/b] (k7fd @ Oct. 17 2004,21:31)]The only hope now is BPL dies a quick death because it threw a party and nobody showed up.

73 John K7FD
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif Agree completely! They will not get any of my money any way. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

KE4MOB

10-18-2004, 06:43 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,20:09)]"Despite the histrionics and singular point of view expressed by a very few vocal hams, #and a non -profit organization representing a minority of licensed US amateurs" #

Quit beating around the bush, Chip. #You're talking about the ARRL here, aren't you?

n3khi

10-18-2004, 07:29 AM

Well, a few old hams and some police depts that didn't fall for the trunked systems mess cannot stand in the way of what the $$$$ people want!! Their ultimate goal is to read the products that you bring home with a new generation of "smart" products then sell the database. Don't blame the FCC, they are just folowing the mandates of the current regime. Remember this on election day.

de N3KHI

WA4RYW

10-18-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote[/b] (n3khi @ Oct. 18 2004,03:29)]Well, a few old hams and some police depts that didn't fall for the trunked systems mess cannot stand in the way of what the $$$$ people want!! Their ultimate goal is to read the products that you bring home with a new generation of "smart" products then sell the database. Don't blame the FCC, they are just folowing the mandates of the current regime. Remember this on election day.

de #N3KHI
Amen, brother. I hear you.

KT0DD

10-18-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,20:09)]The FCC has acted wisely in navigating part 15, so that new technologies may exist on spectrum of extant licensed users.

Despite the histrionics and singular point of view expressed by a very few vocal hams, #and a non -profit organization representing a minority of licensed US amateurs, #the FCC did a wonderful balancing act where everyone benefits.

Now that the 'battle' is over, it's time for us, as hams, to work within Part 15, and work with BPL providers, to assure a viable coexistence. Let me remind us all that it's happened many times before, most notibly with the advent #and growth of broadcast TV more than 50 years ago.

The faster we embrace #and accept new technologies, the more secure will be our future as a viable service.

Best 73,

Chip N1IR
Are You Kidding? Do you have stock in UPLC? Ths was just a powerplay by Michael Powell & the BPL industry to control communications by making the HF spectrum less useful to people who don't pay for airtime. Corporate America won't stop until there's an Oxygen meter attached to your teeth to measure how much air you breathe so they can charge for that too.

BPL=RF spectrum pollution PERIOD! If you think the R&O was a fair balancing act, just wait until YOU have BPL problems and then try to get someone to actually listen and do something about your complaint. It won't happen, It's the government, Stupid! You're not supposed to use your SS card for Identification either, but everyone's requiring it for ID, and the Govt isn't suing anyone over it.

It's now time to focus on angles for lawsuits against the BPL companies. The minute they show one inkling of non-cooperation, (which shouldn't take too long) Haul them into court! 73.

w1yw

10-18-2004, 11:09 AM

"Quit beating around the bush, Chip. You're talking about the ARRL here, aren't you?"

No; I don't see anything in my comment focuses on a non-profit that does not represent the majority of hams in the U.S.

Happy to express my opinion on that though, which is the ARRL has identified a small segment of amateurs for which it can solicit funds above and beyond dues.

Soliciting funds is a big focus of non-profits. The question is: is it well-spent in terms of the overall result and impact? I would say that answer was a solid 'no; in this circumstance. The ARRL appears to have had little impact in stopping BPL; again, all comments my opinion.

W1RFI

10-18-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 16 2004,21:09)]Despite the histrionics and singular point of view expressed by a very few vocal hams, #* * *
Yeah, Chip, those "histrionic" hams are the ones that actually saw BPL interference at S9+ levels firsthand. On the rec.radio.antenna fora, you are an expert, so surely you underestand the physics involved in radiated field and capture area well enough to know that 29.54 dBuV/m = S9+ level signals locally. From there, the BPL industry is capable of achieving about 30 dB of attenuation -- do the math.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

w1yw

10-18-2004, 11:12 AM

Quote[/b] (KT0DD @ Oct. 18 2004,04:05)]Are You Kidding? Do you have stock in UPLC? Ths was just a powerplay by Michael Powell & the BPL industry to control communications by making the HF spectrum less useful to people who don't pay for airtime.
No; No.

I see no evidence that Michael Powell has done what you state.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

10-18-2004, 11:16 AM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,04:09)][
Yeah, Chip, those "histrionic" hams are the ones that actually saw BPL interference at S9+ levels firsthand. On the rec.radio.antenna fora, you are an expert, so surely you underestand the physics involved in radiated field and capture area well enough to know that 29.54 dBuV/m = S9+ level signals locally. #From there, the BPL industry is capable of achieving about 30 dB of attenuation -- do the math.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed, who the heck cares about some beat up ride mobiling under power lines (for example)? Why SHOULD anyone care? The issue is fixed station, active HF hams.

Sure, there will be isolated cases where interference occurs. So what? Part 15 spells out those remedies and responsibilities.

You grew up in the TV era. Did hams kill broadcast TV because of TVI and RFI complaints?

So why are we trying to kill BPL? There's something far beyond Part 15 here at work Ed.

W1RFI

10-18-2004, 11:27 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,05:09)]"Quit beating around the bush, Chip. #You're talking about the ARRL here, aren't you?"

No; I don't see anything in my comment #focuses on a non-profit that does not represent the majority of hams in the U.S.

Cute. :-) #That reminds me of the little boy saying, "Who, me?"

Quote[/b] ]Happy to express my opinion on that though, which is the ARRL has identified a small segment of amateurs for which it can solicit funds above and beyond dues.
ARRL raised about $300,000 in its BPL campaign. The work it has done has gone well over and above that. #This included staff time writing the numerous techncial reports; travel to BPL areas; working with local amateurs on BPL; its legal fees for filing; its travel to industry meetings; its travel to meet with legislators and the FCC and its hiring of an EMC consulting firm to make independent measurements of BPL emissions.

Quote[/b] ]Soliciting funds is a big focus of non-profits. The question is: is it well-spent in terms of the overall result and impact? I would say that answer was a solid 'no; in this circumstance. The ARRL appears to have had little impact in stopping BPL; again, all comments my opinion.

I don't think it was possible to stop BPL, although that would have been the correct technical decision. #To do so, the FCC would have to have made a rules change that would have outlawed something that was legal under its present rules. But the FCC started the Notice of Inquiry by making statements that said they thought they thought they could remove most restrictions on BPL. #The end result removed not a single restriction, but added requirements that do not exist for any other unlicensed emitter. Interference issues are now center stage, and at the IEEE meeting last week, several BPL companies and their organizations approached ARRL, looking to work together on interference issues, on the premise that they will not cause harmful interfernce and that they want information on what they have to do to get there.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

w1yw

10-18-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,04:27)]ARRL raised about $300,000 in its BPL campaign. The work it has done has gone well over and above that. #This included staff time writing the numerous techncial reports; travel to BPL areas; working with local amateurs on BPL; its legal fees for filing; its travel to industry meetings; its travel to meet with legislators and the FCC and its hiring of an EMC consulting firm to make independent measurements of BPL emissions.

Quote[/b] ]Soliciting funds is a big focus of non-profits. The question is: is it well-spent in terms of the overall result and impact? I would say that answer was a solid 'no; in this circumstance. The ARRL appears to have had little impact in stopping BPL; again, all comments my opinion.

I don't think it was possible to stop BPL, although that would have been the correct technical decision. #To do so, the FCC would have to have made a rules change that would have outlawed something that was legal under its present rules. But the FCC started the Notice of Inquiry by making statements that said they thought they thought they could remove most restrictions on BPL. #The end result removed not a single restriction, but added requirements that do not exist for any other unlicensed emitter. Interference issues are now center stage, and at the IEEE meeting last week, several BPL companies and their organizations approached ARRL, looking to work together on interference issues, on the premise that they will not cause harmful interfernce and that they want information on what they have to do to get there.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
Well Ed,

$300K is a lot of money for trying to (apparently) kill a technology. I don't think it was well-spent, in the sense that you would have had the same outcome if you had spent nothing.

The solicitation boast 'More than just BPL!..."
Such as....?

I think the BPL industry is being damn reasonable to talk with an organization that clearly stated that industry must die (correct me here if I am wrong). Only points out the fact they are good people, IMO.

Now: use the opening to 'make nice' and solve problems. Please suggest to your CEO that trying to kill an industry is not in your non-profit's mission.

Seize the day and make it work Ed. Take that attitude and maybe I'll re-join the ARRL, and you'll win a LOT more friends, IMO.

73,
Chip N1IR

W1RFI

10-18-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,05:16)]Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,04:09)][
Yeah, Chip, those "histrionic" hams are the ones that actually saw BPL interference at S9+ levels firsthand. On the rec.radio.antenna fora, you are an expert, so surely you underestand the physics involved in radiated field and capture area well enough to know that 29.54 dBuV/m = S9+ level signals locally. #From there, the BPL industry is capable of achieving about 30 dB of attenuation -- do the math.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed, who the heck cares about some beat up ride #mobiling under power lines (for example)? Why SHOULD anyone care? The issue is fixed station, active HF hams.
I think you are capable of doing the math, Chip, but if not, I will gladly do it for you.

You are probably not aware that most of these BPL areas are small, and there are no home stations involved in most of them. In that case, the 2nd-best approach is used, and a station is brougth to the BPL test area. #If you were being scientific instead of emotional, you would recognize that to be an good predictor of what will happen when that BPL system is expanded to include home stations, with better antennas and a somewhat quieter native environment. #

Mobile HF is an important part of many radio services, Chip; I would have thought you would know that. Can you point to the component in the rules on which you base your statement that BPL is an issue for "fixed station, active hams?"
Quote[/b] ]Sure, there will be isolated cases where interference occurs. So what? Part 15 spells out those remedies and responsibilities.
If they can get their emissions levels down to the point where interference is truly isolated, then it would be practical to addess interference on a case-by-case basis. #But in the BPL areas seen so far, with isolated *exceptions* interference to HF amateur spectrum has been far from isolated. And even in those systems that are notched to protect amateur spectrum, the levels on other spectrum are S9+ across several MHz along entire lengths of power line. #Just how much more than that does inteference have to be before you won't post that you think it is "isolated?"

Quote[/b] ]You grew up in the TV era. Did hams kill broadcast TV because of TVI and RFI complaints?
No, it didn't, Chip, because instead of whining about "isolated" interference, hams acted responsibly and did whatever they had to do to reduce their emissions in the TV spectrum below the levels that would cause interference.
Quote[/b] ]So why are we trying to kill BPL? There's something far beyond Part 15 here at work Ed.
What do you think that might be, Chip, and on what basis do you make that pronouncement?

I am not trying to stop BPL, although any system that operates at Part-15 emissions limits over tens of MHz of spectrum over entire lengths of power lines (or over entire electrical utility systems) continuously with time probably should be stopped. #Any spectrum that BPL uses at the FCC emissions limits is degraded seriously locally. But it is not BPL that is the issue -- it is the interference it causes:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html#reports

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

KT0DD

10-18-2004, 11:43 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,04:12)]Quote[/b] (KT0DD @ Oct. 18 2004,04:05)]Are You Kidding? Do you have stock in UPLC? Ths was just a powerplay by Michael Powell & the BPL industry to control communications by making the HF spectrum less useful to people who don't pay for airtime.
No; No.

I see no evidence that Michael Powell has done what you state.

73,
Chip N1IR
Of course you won't see evidence outright. It's called a "Hidden Agenda" The UPLC won't come right out and say, "we want RF users to have to pay for airtime" as they would catch news media hell.

It's the same principal as all those "Special interest" parties thrown for congressmen during the campaign conventions. They say it's just a party, but it's really there to "buy favors" from the congresmen they're throwing the party for. 73.

KT0DD

10-18-2004, 11:50 AM

Oops, I forgot to add that "Part 15 " is a joke anyway. Corporations dont test all their items before releasing them. I'm sure Ed-W1RFI has had his share of complaints at the ARRL from members having trouble with dirty nearby Part 15 radiators all the time.

The most testing most companies do is to make sure the glue on the Part 15 sticker will stick to their products.
I've got 3-4 things in my neighborhood tearing me up occasionally, but rather than start a war with the neighbors, I'm waiting until I can move out of the city. 73.

W1RFI

10-18-2004, 11:55 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,05:38)]I think the BPL industry is being damn reasonable to talk with an organization that clearly stated that industry must die (correct me here if I am wrong). Only points out the fact they are good people, IMO.

You are wrong, Chip, but you will have to do your own research. Good scientific principle dicates that the research be done before the proclamations, though. :-)
ARRL is not against BPL, and if it could be done without interference, hams wouldn't care one way or the other.

To quote Dave Sumner:

"As radio amateurs, our concern about BPL is that it pollutes the radio spectrum. Were it not for this unfortunate side effect, BPL could be left to succeed or fail on its economic #merits. We are not opposed to BPL; we are opposed to the interference it causes. "

Quote[/b] ]Now: use the opening to 'make nice' and solve problems. Please suggest to your CEO that trying to kill an industry is not in your non-profit's mission.
If you want to suggest something to Dave, you will have do so yourself. I do suggest that you be better informed about BPL if you do, however, if you want to have any effect in convincing ARRL to promote BPL for you.

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

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

W1RFI

10-18-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote[/b] (KT0DD @ Oct. 17 2004,05:43)]Of course you won't see evidence outright. It's called a "Hidden Agenda" The UPLC won't come right out and say, "we want RF users to have to pay for airtime" as they would catch news media hell.
Chip doesn't believe in hidden agendas, except the ones he presumes about ARRL, of course. :-)

Although I do believe that he is right; the FCC is not intentionally trying to destroy HF. They truly believe that the rules that they have put into place will work. They will -- IF the FCC enforces its own rule that if harmful interference occurs, they will require the industry to address it responsibly. At many steps along the way, they did not, making ridiculous statements that said that said that interference from BPL was being caused by a neon sign.

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

But there is some light at the end of the tunnel, with this industry finally figuring out that the interference issue is real and that it can't be solved by proclamation. As I said many months ago while talking with one of the BPL companies, I still have doubts that this can be made to work without interference, but I will continue to work with them to help them prove me wrong. #If they can make a system work on a large scale without interference to amateur radio, I will be pleased.

I will still mourn the loss of the spectrum they don't protect, though. #CB or international shortwave broadcast have been affected at very strong levels in all of the systems I have seen.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

ae6df

10-18-2004, 12:09 PM

Remember this fellow hams. interference works BOTH ways.. HI HI.. We will see what happens from here on in.. If they interfere with HF, doesnt that mean that our transmissions will also do the same to the them? We will see.. 73 AE6DF..

w1yw

10-18-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,04:55)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,05:38)]I think the BPL industry is being damn reasonable to talk with an organization that clearly stated that industry must die (correct me here if I am wrong). Only points out the fact they are good people, IMO.

You are wrong, Chip, but you will have to do your own research. Good scientific principle dicates that the research be done before the proclamations, though. :-)
ARRL is not against BPL, and if it could be done without interference, hams wouldn't care one way or the other.

To quote Dave Sumner:

"As radio amateurs, our concern about BPL is that it pollutes the radio spectrum. Were it not for this unfortunate side effect, BPL could be left to succeed or fail on its economic #merits. We are not opposed to BPL; we are opposed to the interference it causes. "

Quote[/b] ]Now: use the opening to 'make nice' and solve problems. Please suggest to your CEO that trying to kill an industry is not in your non-profit's mission.
If you want to suggest something to Dave, you will have do so yourself. I do suggest that you be better informed about BPL if you do, however, if you want to have any effect in convincing ARRL to promote BPL for you.

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

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Hi Ed,

Well, I can see that you are acting as 'bridge builder'. (Not.) Posing me as not being scientific is adding an irrelevancy to the issue that seeks to defame, IMO. It is also wrong.

That clarification is what your CEO needed to say given his past comments., IMO. Thank you for providing it. Use it. Use it again. Say it L-O-U-D-L-Y.

Now: implement that statement. Show that you are not trying to kill BPL. Work with the industry. Actions speak L-O-U-D-L-Y.

I'm happy to see what happens. And happy to comment should such efforts not be efficacious.

73,
Chip N1IR

KT0DD

10-18-2004, 12:18 PM

"Chip doesn't believe in hidden agendas, except the ones he presumes about ARRL, of course. :-)"

Hello Ed, and Thanks again for all you do! I wish I could go back to the Naieve (sp?) days of my youth Hi Hi.

I'm very familiar with the gobpl.com site, and am also concerned that I haven't seen an updated post from the site since mid-July. I fear he may have been threatened with litigation, as there is nothing I can find on the Verde Valley AZ incidents or anything after the Iowa & New York shuttdowns. I hope they're OK. 73. Todd

w1yw

10-18-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,04:42)][quote=W1RFI,Oct. 18 2004,04:09][
Yeah, Chip, those "histrionic" hams are the ones that actually saw BPL interference at S9+ levels firsthand. On the rec.radio.antenna fora, you are an expert, so surely you underestand the physics involved in radiated field and capture area well enough to know that 29.54 dBuV/m = S9+ level signals locally. #From there, the BPL industry is capable of achieving about 30 dB of attenuation -- do the math.

You are probably not aware that most of these BPL areas ... there are no home stations involved in most of them....#

Mobile HF is an important part of many radio services, Chip; I would have thought you would know that. Can you point to the component in the rules on which you base your statement that BPL is an issue for "fixed station, active hams?"
[QUOTE=Quote ]Sure, there will be isolated cases where interference occurs. So what? Part 15 spells out those remedies and responsibilities.
If they can get their emissions levels down to the point where interference is truly isolated, then it would be practical to addess interference on a case-by-case basis. #But in the BPL areas seen so far, with isolated *exceptions* interference to HF amateur spectrum has been far from isolated. And even in those systems that are notched to protect amateur spectrum, the levels on other spectrum are S9+ across several MHz along entire lengths of power line. #Just how much more than that does inteference have to be before you won't post that you think it is "isolated?"

Quote[/b] ]You grew up in the TV era. Did hams kill broadcast TV because of TVI and RFI complaints?
No, it didn't, Chip, because instead of whining about "isolated" interference, hams acted responsibly and did whatever they had to do to reduce their emissions in the TV spectrum below the levels that would cause interference.

I am not trying to stop BPL, although any system that operates at Part-15 emissions limits over tens of MHz of spectrum over entire lengths of power lines (or over entire electrical utility systems) continuously with time probably should be stopped. #Any spectrum that BPL uses at the FCC emissions limits is degraded seriously locally. But it is not BPL that is the issue -- it is the interference it causes...

Ed Hare, W1RFI
Hi Ed,

Mobile measurements are irrelevant, for the very reason you just mentioned: if there is NO active HF 'ham' affected, then what, exactly is the problem? The mobile is bogusly sampling a data point that's not there.

Do you have 'scientific' geusstimates of how many --active HF--hams at fixed stations will be affected with interference if BPL deploys as envisioned?

How many: 1?;10? 100? 1000? 10,000?

How many active HF amateurs are there in BPL deployable areas? Do you know this answer?

And what are acceptable levels? 30 over S-9 in the shack? (Probably not.) S-4 in the shack?(Probably yes.)

The point: for interference to be a problem, there has to be a problem that exists. Driving around and parking under power lines is a very poor way of estimating the magnitude of the problem and the number of those affected.

Sorry; I don't buy into the 'mobile interference' argument at all. I think you should turn off the radio and put both hands on the wheel. Or drive a few streets away if you need to.

Again: what is the ESTIMATED number of fixed station ham stations that are actively on HF that one could envision as affected by BPL interference?

73,
Chip N1IR

kc2nlm

10-18-2004, 12:58 PM

I think we need to stop trying to kill BPL by explaining tech theory and start proving ourselves as a good hobby... most people and I am still in High school think that we are just a bunch of people who sit around on the radio doing nothing.... my techer sometimes i believe is encluded ( btw hes a computer kind of guy and is for bpl from what I can tell) lets start showing the community and public that we are worth haveing around, not just a wast of antenna space as some see us.... If they feel we are worth haveing around and more hams are volenteering then they will start concidering our thoughts... again I am in high school and not too many people know what ham radio is or have heard or it... get the word out... believe me... I am an AG right now (just passed the code) with two days on Hf I really dont wanna see it go...

73'

kc2kgm/ag

w1yw

10-18-2004, 01:16 PM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,05:02)]interference occurs, they will require the industry to address it responsibly. At many steps along the way, they did not, making ridiculous statements that said that said that interference from BPL was being caused by a neon sign.

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

Ed Hare, W1RFI
I find this site, IMO, offensive and a blatant piece of propaganda. I find it incredible that you would refer to this as an information source.

What the heck does a picture of Mr. Powell with a TV character have to do with BPL, other than posing the objective of trying to make him look non-credible? It is totally out of context, along with many other statements there.

Basd, bad suggestion IMO.

73,
Chip N1IR

KT0DD

10-18-2004, 02:24 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,06:16)]Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,05:02)]interference occurs, they will require the industry to address it responsibly. At many steps along the way, they did not, making ridiculous statements that said that said that interference from BPL was being caused by a neon sign.

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

Ed Hare, W1RFI
I find this site, IMO, offensive and a blatant piece of propaganda. I find it incredible that you would refer to this as an information source.

What the heck does a picture of Mr. Powell with a TV character have to do with BPL, other than posing the objective of trying to make him look non-credible? It is totally out of context, along with many other statements there.

Basd, bad suggestion IMO.

73,
Chip N1IR
I am very concerned about N1IR's stance on BPL. This is the 21st Century, and we are no longer in a Republic, or Democratic society. We are now strictly a Capitalistic country where money talks and we all know what walks.

Chip, I really think you're deluding yourself in believing a cooperative co-existence with BPL is a functional idea. I am hopeful that the capitalistic marketplace will see the true fallacy in BPL and that Wi-Fi and fiber is the future. Then BPL will die it's own death. But once again, we are dependent upon capitalism (and not sound engineering or common sense) to make or break something.

As far as WWW.gobpl.com is concerned, i think it is one of the bravest sites out there for showing the truth about BPL, and not mixing words, but rather getting in there and showing just where the truth starts and the B.S. stops. 73.

k0iz

10-18-2004, 03:08 PM

I sure hope that economic/technology factors make BPL non-competitive, since the alternative looks to be a continuing battle of interference claims. #Unfortunately hams are a distinct minority compared with the potential users of BPL, and Might sometimes does make Right.

My station is located in the mountains of Colorado, and my noise level is basically zero. #No power lines, neighbors, etc. #My friend's QTH is in a suburb of Kansas City, and his noise level is sometimes S3 and sometimes as much as S9. #Obviously I can hear many stations that he can't.

So I view the potential of BPL interference as one more layer of noise. # #I probably shouldn't worry about BPL since I doubt I will be personally affected (remote mountain location). #Also higher noise for others makes it easier for me to hear and work the DX.

But I feel part of the greater ham community and therefore contributed to ARRL last year to help fight the fight.

BPL might be controllable (really good notches or Ghz frequencies rather than HF). #But solutions cost money, and BPL suppliers won't do it without continuing pressure on them and the FCC.

If anyone personally complained to a BPL supplier or the FCC, then hats off to you. #However I didn't complain and I doubt you did either. # #For those who constantly disparage the ARRL, please take note of the recognition by the FCC of the concerns by the ARRL and some others.

AD5PE

10-18-2004, 04:08 PM

Guys,

Leave the politics out of this argument. There are bigger fish to fry (like the war, and the fact that Social Security won't exist by the time I retire).

First, not that BPL is ALREADY LEGAL. The FCC is restricting it (albeit not as much as we'd like) to BELOW existing Part 15 rules, and adding addtional restrictions (the provider database, etc.). The key is, will the FCC enforce the rules, as they exist now and/or as they are updated. If they do, BPL will either fail for the technical reasons, or kill us, or they'll figure out how to make a long wire not radiate (that will be a neat trick!)

Second, the Republican position (based on their platform) would be that BPL should be allowed to survive or fail based on its economic viability. This is GOOD NEWS, because BPL will not be a viable economic option as new technology removes/reduces limits on DSL (distance) and cable penetrates more markets. Also, breakthroughs in wireless will hurt all three existing solutions (BPL, Cable and DSL) forcing prices down and cutting into margins.

On the other hand, IF (big if, but possible) the Dems get the idea that BPL is viable (and not financially, money is no object for them, because it's not their money they spend) then the problem won't be big business, but rather that they'll try to proclaim "cheap broadband" as a right. That means the economics goes out the window, and BPL gets subsidized by either tax revenues or surcharges added to electric bills.

This is the issue to watch: In my state, the power utilities are regulated by the Corporation Commission. And we just had one of the commission members resign, at the last minute, to avoid impeachment (he also faces serious felony criminal charges). Point is, it's in their power (the CC) to decide that it's okay for the power company to charge you (a non-BPL user), through your bill for electricity, to pay for hardware and service for others who do use BPL. Now, politically, that's more likely to come from a Dem, but either party might do it if they think it is "for the public's good".

You may end up paying for SOMEONE ELSE'S BPL, whether you want to or not, AND propping up a fiscal failure to boot. Keep an eye on your utility regulators, and lobby them if necessary. Not to "stop" BPL (as you won't be able to, it is legal) but to MAKE SURE you don't end up paying for it.

BPL WILL die a painful economic death, but only if it isn't allowed to be artificially propped up.

KF7CG

10-18-2004, 04:12 PM

Interesting thing that I did not see mentioned in the rules for BPL providers was an enhanced disclaimer for interference. The necessity of tolerating interference generated by the LAWFUL actions of licensed radio services to the internet service provided to the BPL users needed to be an item that is signed off on by the BPL user.

The User of BPL should be informed up front that his internet access is subject to curtailment by the normal, customary, and legal actions of licensed radio operators in the area.

This missing piece will be the cause for much "internet" rage, and other pieces of trouble not directly connected to the technical aspects of BPL or licensed radio services.

KF7CG

W9WHE

10-18-2004, 04:26 PM

Yup....chalk up ANOTHER BIG FAILURE for ARRL! #Your dues $$ at work.

W9WHE

W1RFI

10-18-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,07:16)][URL=http://www.gobpl.com/sharkbites.html]

I find this site, IMO, offensive and a blatant piece of propaganda. I find it incredible that you would refer to this as an information source.

What the heck does a picture of Mr. Powell with a TV character have to do with BPL, other than posing the objective of trying to make him look non-credible? It is totally out of context, along with many other statements there.
I agree about the site, Chip, but I find the statements made by the BPL industry to have been more offensive. I found some of what they had to say to be blatant propaganda and I find it incredible that you didn't see that as the most significant thing to be seen on that site.

We each have our own point of view, I guess, and your is pretty clearly to promote BPL.

Hold some ABTG stock you are trying to pump? :-)

73,
Ed

W1RFI

10-18-2004, 04:42 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 17 2004,10:26)]Yup....chalk up ANOTHER BIG FAILURE for ARRL! #Your dues $$ at work.

W9WHE
If you are trying to paint as a failure going from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which Commissioners were quoted as saying they wanted to remove restrictions on BPL to a final rulemaking that clearly recognized interference as a major issue, made promises to address it firmly and put restrictions into place that do not exist for any other unlicensed device, your agenda is pretty thin.

I am glad you recognized that the dues that you don't pay have done some good work.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

WD8OQX

10-18-2004, 04:54 PM

Here is another thing to think about - just because you live in an area that isn't affected doesn't mean YOU won't be. If you are trying to communicate with someone who IS in one of the affected areas & he can't hear you, YOUR affected. Remember, to communicate it takes at least two. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

I also have to wonder - when our interference gets into the power lines (& I believe it will with BPL) what problems it will cause to things on the line besides the BPL devices. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

n4zou

10-18-2004, 05:40 PM

I have always wanted to put up a 10-meter beacon but never really had a good reason to do it. Now I do! With the beacon antenna mounted as close to the power lines and still be on my property it will wipe out BPL service on that line. This should be great fun!

w4fwl

10-18-2004, 06:41 PM

Folks,

One wonders what interests in BPL, vested or otherwise, Chip (N1IR) has. #Chip’s bio on QRZ indicates his obvious arrogance and conceit. # What work does Chip do that is “…outside the scope of this forum.”? #Since Chip has already achieved “#1 Honor Roll DXCC” and “… (t)hese days … (is) … not frequently on the air”, I suppose harmful interference is not a big concern of his. #Perhaps in his spare time Chip can do more “real engineering” by perfecting those reduced-sized fractal antennas for us HF mobile operators out here.

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

ke4pjw

10-18-2004, 06:44 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,06:35)]And what are acceptable levels? 30 over S-9 in the shack? (Probably not.) S-4 in the shack?(Probably yes.)
No, 4 S-units is not acceptable. We should receive no interference from this technology.

W0GI

10-18-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,20:09)]The FCC has acted wisely in navigating part 15, so that new technologies may exist on spectrum of extant licensed users.

Despite the histrionics and singular point of view expressed by a very few vocal hams, #and a non -profit organization representing a minority of licensed US amateurs, #the FCC did a wonderful balancing act where everyone benefits.

Now that the 'battle' is over, it's time for us, as hams, to work within Part 15, and work with BPL providers, to assure a viable coexistence. Let me remind us all that it's happened many times before, most notibly with the advent #and growth of broadcast TV more than 50 years ago.

The faster we embrace #and accept new technologies, the more secure will be our future as a viable service.

Best 73,

Chip N1IR
Hi Chip,

I don't know what hams you talk too, but to say that there are very few hams against BPL, is #very strange to say the least.

Fact is, you are the first ham supporting BPL that I have run across, after hearing and reading hundreds of comments.

And, by the way, the battle has just started. #IF the FCC does not meet it obligation to do it's job properly, then the courts and congress will do their job to see that the FCC complies with it's responsibilities.

I'm not even going to get into a debate with you about how we should embrace and accept new technologies.

BPL is a technology joke, that is really about some folks making $$$ off of investers that are not very bright.

Wireless is going to be the real technology that is still around long after BPL is gone.

I'd buy stock in a seaside resort in Arizona, before I would buy into BPL. #I see more of a chance of California falling into the ocean, then BPL surviving.

A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. #A lot of the power companies have already found what a bad investment BPL is, and have thrown the idea into the waste basket, where it belongs.

Sell that stock while you can.

W6NJ

kd4mxe

10-18-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 18 2004,10:40)]I have always wanted to put up a 10-meter beacon but never really had a good reason to do it. Now I do! With the beacon antenna mounted as close to the power lines and still be on my property it will wipe out BPL service on that line. This should be great fun!
n4zou #I wish you would do that #and let me know how long it takes for you to get a notice from the fcc , you and I cant do what they do we dont have the money or at least #i dont anyway #73 Bill

K4JF

10-18-2004, 09:31 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,05:35)]Mobile measurements are irrelevant, for the very reason you just mentioned: if there is NO active HF 'ham' affected, then what, exactly is the problem? The mobile is bogusly sampling a data point that's not there.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! Mobile stations have exactly the same right to operate as fixed stations. To limit the objection to interference to fixed stations is not valid.

I have a license that allows mobile operation, I will operate mobile whenever and wherever I please, and if I detect BPL interference, I will file complaints as necessary. The battle is not over.

And remember, we are talking HF here, where one watt can reach worldwide, and they are using kilowatts.

w6em

10-18-2004, 10:17 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,05:35)]Mobile measurements are irrelevant, for the very reason you just mentioned: if there is NO active HF 'ham' affected, then what, exactly is the problem? The mobile is bogusly sampling a data point that's not there.

The point: for interference to be a problem, there has to be a problem that exists. Driving around and parking under power lines is a very poor way of estimating the magnitude of the problem and the number of those affected.

Sorry; I don't buy into the 'mobile interference' argument at all. I think you should turn off the radio and put both hands on the wheel. Or drive a few streets away if you need to.

73,
Chip N1IR
Chip: #Well, here you are again, trolling for controversy.

Perhaps your vivid emeritus physics mind missed a simple example provided in commentary to the Commission by the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers:

Police officers, firemen, and paramedics who just happen to use the 30-50MHz band for communications while mobile just might not be able to send a life saving message (or receive one) since overhead power lines run parallel to most roads at about a 10 foot set back. #And, of course, I haven't said anything about HF equipped mobile stations providing communications in emergency situations (where the power still is on, by chance).

So, experimental measurements at the side of the road are irrelevant, especially in a beat up old mobile? #Why don't you suggest to some of the small, all volunteer fire agencies or paramedic groups that their well-used, second hand low band VHF equipment is beat up mobile gear?

Have you donned your "cap or beret", hood and gown and conducted your own field strength measurements with some 'emeritus' gear?

Sorry, but you're a better fit for quantum mechanics. #Get real.

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

w1yw

10-18-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,09:39)]We each have our own point of view, I guess, and your is pretty clearly to promote BPL.

Hold some ABTG stock you are trying to pump? :-)

73,
Ed
Hi Ed,

Have you noticed that since you made this insinuation, others, taking your example, took it as fact that I own stock in BPL companies and/ or are affiliated with them in some way.

That is not the case. I am a disinterested party.

Please keep your comments in a veign that does not lead others towards personal attacks. I thank you for that.

I feel that you have not answered the key question I have asked, and I will ask it again:

WHAT IS your estimate--or the estimate made by the ARRL-- of the number of bona fide interference cases to active HF amateurs upon BPL deployment?

73,
Chip N1IR

NY7Q

10-18-2004, 11:03 PM

Well it happened on the Bush watch, and Powell works for Bush. Just another reason to vote out big money, big business, in our government. In my view, most lobby folks are guilty of treason against our people. Sadly I think its gonna get worse, and be "more of the same" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

w1yw

10-18-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 18 2004,09:42)]If you are trying to paint as a failure going from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which Commissioners were quoted as saying they wanted to remove restrictions on BPL to a final rulemaking that clearly recognized interference as a major issue, made promises to address it firmly and put restrictions into place that do not exist for any other unlicensed device, your agenda is pretty thin.

I am glad you recognized that the dues that you don't pay have done some good work.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
Hi Ed,

What is the evidence that the ARRL role had any bearing on the content of Docket 4-37 (i.e. modifications to Part 15 with respect to BPL)? Is there any reason to believe that there would never have been these implemented changes if the 'BPL Fund' had not been initiated? How do you measure that impact, and what is it, exactly? Is it presumptuous to assume that the ARRL, which is a non-profit representing only a small percentage of licensed US amateurs, could have driven this rather obvious revision of Part 15, and decision?

Are you saying that NTIA, for example, had no impact or little in comparison to those efforts of the ARRL?

How do you know there was any impact?

Would really like to give you this opportunity to showcase the answer. Educate us please.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

10-18-2004, 11:15 PM

Quote[/b] (k4srb @ Oct. 18 2004,11:41)]Folks,

One wonders what interests in BPL, vested or otherwise, Chip (N1IR) has. #Chip’s bio on QRZ indicates his obvious arrogance and conceit. # What work does Chip do that is “…outside the scope of this forum.”? #Since Chip has already achieved “#1 Honor Roll DXCC” and “… (t)hese days … (is) … not frequently on the air”, I suppose harmful interference is not a big concern of his. #Perhaps in his spare time Chip can do more “real engineering” by perfecting those reduced-sized fractal antennas for us HF mobile operators out here.

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Ed has apparently guided you into thinking that I have a stock or job interest in BPL. I do not.

I am a disinterested party.

I do get on the air, on HF and MF. I have a JRC-245; an SB220; and various wideband fractal antennas, I am not on a daily basis.

My activities in a professional sense are beyond the scope of this forum, other than to say they have nothing to do with either BPL or ham radio.

I know quite a bit about "harmful interference".

I do real engineering everyday.

I have done what you said some time ago-- but not for hams.

Please keep your comments pertinent to the topic, not personal attacks on the messenger. Thank you.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

10-18-2004, 11:29 PM

Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 18 2004,12:49)].....

Despite the histrionics and singular point of view expressed by a very few vocal hams, #and a non -profit organization representing a minority of licensed US amateurs, #the FCC did a wonderful balancing act where everyone benefits.
............

Best 73,

Chip N1IR
Hi Chip,

I don't know what hams you talk too, but to say that there are very few hams against BPL, is #very strange to say the least.

Fact is, you are the first ham supporting BPL that I have run across, after hearing and reading hundreds of comments.

.........

Sell that stock while you can.

W6NJ[/QUOTE]
It's even stranger, because I never said:"there are very few hams against BPL..." Read again, please.

There are obviously other hams that disagree with you; in fact some of them work at the FCC; BPL companies; and so on. Considering the abuse that is dumped on the messenger, are you at all surprised that they choose not to discuss it with you?

I am a disinterested party, which puts me in a less compromising spot.

That means, I do not have BPL stock; and I don't wish to short any stock: I did enough trading in stock 20 years ago, thank you.

73,
Chip N1IR

W0GI

10-19-2004, 12:11 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,16:29)]Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 18 2004,12:49)].....

Despite the histrionics and singular point of view expressed by a very few vocal hams, #and a non -profit organization representing a minority of licensed US amateurs, #the FCC did a wonderful balancing act where everyone benefits.
............

Best 73,

Chip N1IR
Hi Chip,

I don't know what hams you talk too, but to say that there are very few hams against BPL, is #very strange to say the least.

Fact is, you are the first ham supporting BPL that I have run across, after hearing and reading hundreds of comments.

.........

Sell that stock while you can.

W6NJ
It's even stranger, because I never said:"there are very few hams against BPL..." Read again, please.

There are obviously other hams that disagree with you; in fact some of them work at the FCC; BPL companies; and so on. Considering the abuse that is dumped on the messenger, are you at all surprised that they choose not to discuss it with you?

I am a disinterested party, which puts me in a less compromising spot.

That means, I do not have BPL stock; and I don't wish to short any stock: I did enough trading in stock 20 years ago, thank you.

73,
Chip N1IR[/QUOTE]
Chip,

The abuse comes down on you, because you play little word games, and come across, like everyone other then yourself, is a total idiot.

Have a nice day.

W6NJ

w1yw

10-19-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 18 2004,17:11)]Chip,

......

Have a nice day.

W6NJ
And a pleasant tomorrow to you, OM!

73,
Chip N1IR

w6em

10-19-2004, 12:51 AM

"CHIP" 2150, where are you? #Did you copy? #Do you need assistance? #What's the situation?

Headquarters bye.

Perhaps a "Broderick Crawford-era" example is a bit dated, but the California Highway Patrol, and I understand also the Missouri Highway Patrol operate at 42MHz. Simplex, and mobile to mobile.

A sad scenario if BPL is deployed on suburban and rural overhead lines. #Especially with "notching" only required to protect federal frequencies by the FCC. #Ignoring the need to proactively protect the 30-50MHz state, local and regional public safety band is deplorable. #I guess they plan on waiting for the first example of aggravated injury or worse to happen (and then act like they did with Janet Jackson's appearance!!!).

Of course, no one was physically harmed or killed in that case. #Just Commissioner embarrassment and reluctance to challenge W.

73 from Chadland,

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

w6em

10-19-2004, 01:06 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,06:16)]http://www.gobpl.com/sharkbites.html

I find this site, IMO, offensive and a blatant piece of propaganda. I find it incredible that you would refer to this as an information source.

What the heck does a picture of Mr. Powell with a TV character have to do with BPL, other than posing the objective of trying to make him look non-credible? It is totally out of context, along with many other statements there.

Basd, bad suggestion IMO.

73,
Chip N1IR
Perhaps more relevance with a TV character than you think.

On October 12, the Honorable Mr. Powell appeared to cheerlead a BPL installation at Manassas, VA. #To "show it off" to someone else in government. #What a great thing BPL is!!!! #This event happened approximately 48 hours before an open Commission meeting to consider revisions to Part 15 to address BPL.

The ARRL, thank goodness, was alerted to his intended visit and filed an Emergency Motion for Recusal of Mr. Powell in the October 14 open meeting. #Since, according to the ARRL, Mr. Powell's visit was almost certainly a violation of the "Sunshine Law" (which restricts the minimum time before participation in formal proceedings to at least a week or two if the government official has communicated with ex parte and/or expressed his position publicly on the agenda. emphasis added.) #I'll provide the Commission CFR cites, if anyone is interested.

I haven't looked at his picture with the TV character, but I will. #And, I think any that come to mind would be appropriate. #Especially any of the Disney characters. #The best being Mickey Mouse ™ or perhaps, Goofy™.

73s from former Chadland,

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

ke4pjw

10-19-2004, 02:35 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,17:07)]How do you know there was any impact?
The word you are looking for is "affect" not "impact".

And yes, I am being nit-picky.

KC0OFZ

10-19-2004, 02:50 AM

Anyone else besides Chip gong to stick his head in the sand leaving his back side up to be kicked?
Well, most here are in your kind words "disinterested" in your insight as some may have issues that are real. Ask the ham in Cedar Rapids IA if the issue is real. Oh thats right you are "disinterested" and don't care because he does not count in that field trial.
"I do real engineering everyday." and this is ment to impress us how?

w4fwl

10-19-2004, 03:22 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,16:15)]Quote[/b] (k4srb @ Oct. 18 2004,11:41)]Folks,

One wonders what interests in BPL, vested or otherwise, Chip (N1IR) has. #Chip’s bio on QRZ indicates his obvious arrogance and conceit. # What work does Chip do that is “…outside the scope of this forum.”? #Since Chip has already achieved “#1 Honor Roll DXCC” and “… (t)hese days … (is) … not frequently on the air”, I suppose harmful interference is not a big concern of his. #Perhaps in his spare time Chip can do more “real engineering” by perfecting those reduced-sized fractal antennas for us HF mobile operators out here.

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Ed has apparently guided you into thinking that I have a stock or job interest in BPL. I do not.

I am a disinterested party.

I do get on the air, on HF and MF. I have a JRC-245; an SB220; and various wideband fractal antennas, #I am not on a daily basis.

My activities in a professional sense are beyond the scope of this forum, other than to say they have nothing to do with either BPL or ham radio.

I know quite a bit about "harmful interference".

I do real engineering everyday.

I have done what you said some time ago-- but not for hams.

Please keep your comments pertinent to the topic, not personal attacks on the messenger. Thank you.

73,
Chip N1IR

Chip,

Well, you fell in the trap. #I was just wondering what your interests or disinterests were. #You answered a queston that I did not ask. #Perhaps thou doth protest too much.

I do not know Ed, but I do not think that his feelings are hurt when I say that I do not let him (or anyone else) guide my thinking. #Pssst, your "intellectual arrogance" is showing again.

Your reasoning in these matters is patently selective and flawed. #This is unfortunate for someone who holds a PhD, has experience as a college professor, and does "real engineering."

Ivan Cook, K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
[QUOTE] http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

W1RFI

10-19-2004, 08:29 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,16:59)]Have you noticed that since you made this insinuation, others, taking your example, took it as fact that I own stock in BPL companies and/ or are affiliated with them in some way.

That is not the case. I am a disinterested party.

Please keep your comments in a veign that does not lead others towards personal attacks. I thank you for that.

You are saying the same things as the BPL industry, Chip; it is an honest mistake to think that you are aligned with them. They haven't actually listened to BPL interference on a receiver either, as a rule, but they pronounce that it is not really interference. They have their financial interests at heart, and if you are not financially tied to this industry, you have other reasons for posting here. Setting in your armchair, speculating that those who have experienced BPL intererence firsthand are wrong about it is an action that will lead to all sorts of speculation about your motives, Chip.

Oh, and perhaps you are not familiar with Internet conventions, but those punctuation marks at the end of a sentence, ":-)", are intented to convey humor. You may need to develop a better sense of that.

As to what I post, others are free to draw whatever conclusions they want from your posts or mine, and they are responsible for their conclusions, not you or me. And I hate to break the news to you, but someone believing that you may own stock in the BPL industry is not a personal attack by the definition any reasonable person would use for the word "attack."

Quote[/b] ]I feel that you have not answered the key question I have asked, and I will ask it again:

WHAT IS your estimate--or the estimate made by the ARRL-- of the number of bona fide interference cases to active HF amateurs upon BPL deployment?

I will answer it again:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html#reports

Now, can you answer the question that you didn't answer for me and tell me what part of the FCC rules supports your contention that mobile operation does not merit protection from harmful interference?

Ed

W1RFI

10-19-2004, 08:52 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 17 2004,06:35)]Mobile measurements are irrelevant, for the very reason you just mentioned: if there is NO active HF 'ham' affected, then what, exactly is the problem? The mobile is bogusly sampling a data point that's not there.
There are many actiive mobile amateurs, CBers and low VHF operators, Chip. The FCC has even told amateurs that are seeking relief from antenna CC&Rs that they should operate mobile. #You dodged the question and didn't tell me what FCC rule supports your contention that interference to mobile operation somehow doesn't count.

The drive-away premise may hold true for a small BPL trial. In that case, if BPL signals fill an entire band for a mile along a power line, then it is possible to drive away. Of course, if they actually build the system, how many miles away do you think that primary licensed users should have to drive to allow unlicensed secondary users to usurp the licensed spectrum at S9+ levels?

The test equipment used for the testing sure didn't think the sample was "bogus," Chip. #Is that a scientific word, or more speculation?

Quote[/b] ]And what are acceptable levels? 30 over S-9 in the shack? (Probably not.) S-4 in the shack?(Probably yes.)
S9+30 dB is "probably" not acceptable? #I don't think many of your congregation here will buy that one, Chip. #I don't think that will buy S4, either, btw. My own home QTH is much quieter than that, at a meausured +5 dBuV/m on 3.5 MHz and -5 dBuV/m on 28 MHz. #My antenna is located about 20 meters from the power line, and BPL on my street at the FCC limits would translate to 40 dBuV/m the way they extrapolate their test results vs distance (40 log distance ratio).

At these levels, they would have to achieve about 40-50 dB of "notching" to protect amateur radio. And what is acceptable is found in the Part 15 rule that defines harmful interference in this context as the repeated disruption of licensed communication. If BPL noise is covering up or seriously degrading signals that could otherwise be heard, then it is harmful interference.

There is no armchair arbitrary musing that S4 noise is "probably" okay. Can you point to the FCC rule that you think supports your premise that S4 noise is acceptable?

Quote[/b] ]The point: for interference to be a problem, there has to be a problem that exists. Driving around and parking under power lines is a very poor way of estimating the magnitude of the problem and the number of those affected.

Sorry; I don't buy into the 'mobile interference' argument at all. I think you should turn off the radio and put both hands on the wheel. Or drive a few streets away if you need to.
If BPL noise were a few dB above the noise floor for a short distance away from the injection point, your premise would hold up; however, the test data show that BPL is not a "park under the power lines" phenomenon. #In the sites I have tested, it has been measured at strong levels along lengths of power line, then at strong levels on the next street... until we run out of streets in these small trial areas.

I have been to a number of BPL test areas, Chip, and on any spectrum BPL is using, I have seen exactly the levels that capture area formulae would predict -- or more for systems that were exceeding the limits by about 30 dB. (The legal limit is bad enough, with 30 uV/m translating to over S9 to typical HF antennas.) #I base my conclusions on what has been observed, measured and reported.

Ed

KT0DD

10-19-2004, 10:29 AM

Don't let it get to you guys, W9WHE & N1IR are just trolling because they are bored and have nothing better to do. Just ignore them. 73.

w1yw

10-19-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 19 2004,01:29)]Quote[/b] ]I feel that you have not answered the key question I have asked, and I will ask it again:

WHAT IS your estimate--or the estimate made by the ARRL-- of the number of bona fide interference cases to active HF amateurs upon BPL deployment?

I will answer it again:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html#reports
Ed. You are not answering the question, now posed for a third time. It is a simple question and requires a numerical answer, or a range of numbers for the answer:

WHAT IS your estimate--or the estimate made by the ARRL-- of the number of bona fide interference cases to active HF amateurs upon BPL deployment?

73,
Chip N1IR

W1RFI

10-19-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,05:17)]Ed. You are not answering the question, now posed for a third time. It is a simple question and requires a numerical answer, or a range of numbers for the answer:

WHAT IS your estimate--or the estimate made by the ARRL-- of the number of bona fide interference cases to active HF amateurs upon BPL deployment?
I have never estimated the numbers, Chip, but if it important to you, I urge you to do your own research. #But it is not a simple answer, so you may have to put a bit of thought into it instead of just armchair engineeing.

To help you do that, I will offer my views. #

I do know that whereever BPL is deployed locally, any spectrum it uses at Part 15 levels will be seriously trashed in the environ of the BPL. I and others have done measurements in BPL test areas that show strong interference for about a kilometer of overhead power lines carrying BPL, with about 10-15 dB of degradation of spectrum about a mile away. #In areas of underground electrical wiring, so far, the emissions seem lower, but if they crank up the power to get to Part-15 limits to more economically send BPL along lossy underground lines, they could crank it up until it is at the limits from the emissions from transformers and houses connected to the BPL system, then the emissions will be at Part-15 levels from areas of underground wiring and at distances cited in the first example, some BPL interference will occur on spectrum it is using.

This is complicated more by the fact that according to measurements made in Briarcliff Manor, NY and Cottonwood, AZ, the BPL equipment is capable of operating as much as 30 dB over the FCC limits, and was "inadvertently" installed at that level. #So if each installation is not carefully tested, but continues to be installed on a wing and hope that it meet the limits somehow, the areas around BPL for which interference will occur will #be even larger in some cases.

The noise levels at most amateur stations are intentionally low, and from all indications, 40 to 50 dB of what the BPL industry calls "notching" is necessary to prevent interference. In several cities, amateurs have measured about 15 dB of degradation to supposedly "notched" spectrum, and by any reasonable interpretation, raising the noise floor locally by 15 dB on entire bands is harmful interference, as it completely covers up signals that could otherwise be easily copied -- and often are.

The answer to the question depends on a number of factors: #Will they notch amateur spectrum by 30 dB, or 50 dB, or "N" dB? #Will they build the system to encompass an entire community, or continue to build small trials that cover only a few streets? How far is it reasonable to expect a licensed mobile station to drive to avoid harmful interference before it is decided that the mobile station actually experienced interference? The bottom line is that if BPL were built to operate on amateur spectrum at the FCC emissions limits (and that is the most economical level for them to use), and built on the street in front of every active amateur, then every active amateur near overhead power lines will have strong interference and every active amateur relatively near a ground-mounted transformer or other house carrying BPL will have interference. #

How many hams that will entail depends on how many BPL systems are built the way that BPL systems have been built to date. #If you can get an estimate of the actual number from all that, Chip, you are welcome to speculate about it to your heart's content.

Now, approaching it from another direction, NTIA indicates a 100% risk of harmful interference from BPL to distances of about 400 meters from BPL sources. The number you are looking for is directly related to how many parts of BPL systems will ultimately be built within 400 meters of active hams. #The 10th percentile risk distance was quite a bit larger, so you can do some statistical analyses if you like. #If you want to postulate that BPL will be successful, you will get a different answer than it you want to postulate that it will be a dismal failure.

Of course, statistics aside, each ham that has the BPL interference near HIS or HER house will see it a bit differerntly #than a cursory glimpse at "estimates" of the number of cases.

And you were wrong, Chip. The correct response to that question was not numerical at all. #But thanks for asking it; it provided a good springboard from which to offer more information about why BPL poses a serious risk to HF and low VHF spectrum.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

w1yw

10-19-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 19 2004,01:52)]The drive-away premise may hold true for a small BPL trial. In that case, if BPL signals fill an entire band for a mile along a power line, then it is possible to drive away. Of course, if they actually build the system, how many miles away do you think that primary licensed users should have to drive to allow unlicensed secondary users to usurp the licensed spectrum at S9+ levels?

The test equipment used for the testing sure didn't think the sample was "bogus," Chip. #Is that a scientific word, or more speculation?

Quote[/b] ]And what are acceptable levels? 30 over S-9 in the shack? (Probably not.) S-4 in the shack?(Probably yes.)
S9+30 dB is "probably" not acceptable? #I don't think many of your congregation here will buy that one, Chip. #I don't think that will buy S4, either, btw. My own home QTH is much quieter than that, at a meausured +5 dBuV/m on 3.5 MHz and -5 dBuV/m on 28 MHz. #My antenna is located about 20 meters from the power line, and BPL on my street at the FCC limits would translate to 40 dBuV/m the way they extrapolate their test results vs distance (40 log distance ratio).

At these levels, they would have to achieve about 40-50 dB of "notching" to protect amateur radio. #And what is acceptable is found in the Part 15 rule that defines harmful interference in this context as the repeated disruption of licensed communication. #If BPL noise is covering up or seriously degrading signals that could otherwise be heard, then it is harmful interference.

There is no armchair arbitrary musing that S4 noise is "probably" okay. #Can you point to the FCC rule that you think supports your premise that S4 noise is acceptable?

Quote[/b] ]The point: for interference to be a problem, there has to be a problem that exists. Driving around and parking under power lines is a very poor way of estimating the magnitude of the problem and the number of those affected.

Sorry; I don't buy into the 'mobile interference' argument at all. I think you should turn off the radio and put both hands on the wheel. Or drive a few streets away if you need to.
If BPL noise were a few dB above the noise floor for a short distance away from the injection point, your premise would hold up; however, the test data show that BPL is not a "park under the power lines" phenomenon. #In the sites I have tested, it has been measured at strong levels along lengths of power line, then at strong levels on the next street... until we run out of streets in these small trial areas.

I have been to a number of BPL test areas, Chip, and on any spectrum BPL is using, I have seen exactly the levels that capture area formulae would predict -- or more for systems that were exceeding the limits by about 30 dB. (The legal limit is bad enough, with 30 uV/m translating to over S9 to typical HF antennas.) #I base my conclusions on what has been observed, measured and reported.

Ed
Ed.

Why do you even bother talking with the BPL guys? You apparently have no capacity to understand how to fix this problem, IMO. That means you have to work with others to solve it, if the problem even exists.

What you have is the capacity to insist that a 1 sigma issue has the same importance as a 50 sigma issue, IMO.

I do indeed insist that mobile 'ham' HF is not a valid data point. Just drive away, Ed. People don't take kindly to strangers driving into their neighborhoods and cruising the streets under power lines. Why the heck should they?

I suppose that some 'geek convoy' will try to make a point of driving into areas with BPL deployment, and insisting that their rights are being violated because they can't talk to London while cruising down Elm Street in Middletown USA...

All that will lead to is a rescinding of said 'rights' IMO: face 'quiet hours' equivalents in HF ham mobile.

HF ham mobile had its time and place. Now its a fun piece of nostalgia which, IMO, should be be used in emergency communications when the emergency has caused BPL to be off the air, and VHF ham radio is out (unlikely).

BTW, what evidence do YOU have that BPL would prevent emergency communications by hams --on HF mobile --on the RARE circumstances in which it is needed?

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

10-19-2004, 12:17 PM

Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 19 2004,05:01)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 18 2004,05:17)]Ed. You are not answering the question, now posed for a third time. It is a simple question and requires a numerical answer, or a range of numbers for the answer:

WHAT IS your estimate--or the estimate made by the ARRL-- of the number of bona fide interference cases to active HF amateurs upon BPL deployment?
I have never estimated the numbers, Chip
Ed,

You should go under the premise that I'm helping you out.

If you don't have a viable estimate of the number of potential cases, then no one will plan to fix it.

Why should they?

The problem is ill-posed. And, it makes it look like the ARRL indeed is insisting on 'kill BPL'. because it says the problem is so huge as to be inderminate.

Someone whose paying, for example, to filter ham bands, will have to know the magnitude of the potential problem to fix.

Please: ham radio has taken a huge PR hit from BPL, and particularly from ARRL's stance on this (You still haven't shown how there is measurable impact by the BPL fund on the actual Docket 4-37).

PLEASE get your act together. The BPL industry obviously is going the extra mile, as is the FCC. Saying, to paraphrase, 'it's your problem, and no, I can't tell you how many cases there will be' is unprofessional, IMO, and will only close the case with respect to ham radio. That is, case closed.

Do yourself a favor: do a sensitivity analysis.

73,
Chip N1IR

W0LC

10-19-2004, 12:26 PM

Was there ever any doubt about the FCC's position? Powell made it clear months ago. He prostituted himself in front of the ARRL and the Amateur Community when he brushed aside the Interference issues, evidence, demonstrations, documentation, etc.

He is in bed with BPL and isn't about to go back on it down. Whether it works or not, it is just the same situation as normal utility industry. Full of RFI, abuse and kick backs to the FCC.

W0LC

10-19-2004, 12:30 PM

Personally, if BPL wipes out my receive capability, I will have to resort to tossing 10 foot of metal chain up and over the power lines to short the system out, or else shoot holes in the BPL boxes. That kind of crap spewing out into the environment is unacceptable.

To think we were imposed all these RF level tests, RFI resolutions issues, etc., and then throw some crappy "technology" that doesn't work on a system that already is plagued with EMI/EMC issues is a joke. BPL is nothing anyone needs. BPL will be an RFI issue put onto the backs of amateurs to deal with and we won't have a voice or support with the FCC to be sure.

kc0suz

10-19-2004, 01:26 PM

You know what I really like about the whole thing is when the FCC chairman was saying how big of an opportunity this was, you could barely see the power company's rep's lips moving. Amazing. If it weren't for his hand in Powell's back I wouldn't have believed he was a puppet at all. Move over Jim Henson!

w4fwl

10-19-2004, 01:37 PM

Chip,

Wow! You are really reaching here:

"HF ham mobile had its time and place. Now it’s a fun piece of nostalgia..." What evidence do you have that HF ham mobile has had its time and place? Besides, who are you to make such judgments?

HF mobile operation is alive and kicking. For example, I invite you to tune into South Cars any day on 7251 kHz between 8 am and 10:00 am and noon to 2:00 pm (Eastern Time) and listen to the mobile check-ins. There are many other nets and frequencies just on 40 meters that include many mobile HF operators.

I operate mobile on the 75, 40, 20, 17, 15, and 10 meter bands. I also operate mobile on the 6 meter band. There are no differences in the importance, relevance or standing of mobile, fixed, or portable operation.

The limb you have climbed out on is giving way. What were you thinking, Chip?!

Ivan Cook K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida

W0GI

10-19-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote[/b] (KT0DD @ Oct. 19 2004,03:29)]Don't let it get to you guys, W9WHE & N1IR are just trolling because they are bored and have nothing better to do. Just ignore them. 73.
Amen...

Whoops. Better not say that word, or I will get a lecture on how God is a superstition.

I can hear it now:

"I'm an engineer, so I know." " Praying in your beat up mobile, proves it." "If God existed, he would paint your car."

Some of the BPL lover comments are too funny to take serious.

Any oldtimers remember that word "LID" :>)

What a hoot.........

W6NJ

W0GI

10-19-2004, 03:10 PM

Check this out on cnn.com

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/10/18/wireless.city/index.html

Gee wiz, whole cities putting up Wireless hot spots, using technology that doesn't interfere with HF. Can it be true.

Of coarse it is. And there is no reason that it can't be done anywhere that BPL is proposed, at a lower cost.

I don't think we should be that worried. BPL technology is a joke. It has been proven to be bad technology in other parts of the world, and abandoned.

It is just too bad, that the FCC was duped by the lobby.

In the end, a lot of people will see extra charges on their electric bills for this stupid idea. Someone will pay for the investment in this failed technology. As usual, it will be the rate payers.

I have no pity for the dim-wit investers that lose their shirts.

As I said earlier, the battle has just begun. And I have no doubt that BPL will be gone sooner then we think.

Just think how the court will rule in an interference case, where the defendent had other technology available, that would not have caused the interference in the first place.

The Commission should know better, but now they will have to live with the decision.

In the end, the public will have to pay for what we have tried to prevent. Trial by fire. And the firestorm is just starting. Too bad.

I'm just glad we are in the Sunspot low. BPL will be long gone by the next peak.

73, W6NJ

W9WHE

10-19-2004, 03:35 PM

Now that ARRL has failed to stop BPL, look for them to claim that they somehow positively influenced the outcome. Let the backstroking and "nuance-ing" begin!

W9WHE

w6em

10-19-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 19 2004,08:35)]Now that ARRL has failed to stop BPL, look for them to claim that they somehow positively influenced the outcome. Let the backstroking and "nuance-ing" begin!

W9WHE
Please take your incessant League bashing diatribe some place else. It is not the subject of this thread.

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

W1RFI

10-19-2004, 07:36 PM

You should go under the premise that I'm helping you out.[;quote]
That is might hard to accept in context, Chip. It truly is.

[QUOTE=Quote ]If you don't have a viable estimate of the number of potential cases, then no one will plan to fix it.
The estimate of the number of cases of interference cannot be started until one knows the percentage of the country that BPL intends to blanket. One needs to know the frequency use of BPL, the amount by which they intend to exceed or be under the limits; the spectrum they intend to notch and the degree to which the plan to notch it. Those balls are in their court, Chip, unless you can pull those figures out of a very dark place.

NTIA figures put the percentages of the likelihood of harmful inteference at 100% for distances that are within a few hundred meters of a power line carrying BPL.

Quote[/b] ]Why should they?
Because they have a responsibility under federal law to address harmful interference. That has not changed with the existing rules.

Quote[/b] ]PLEASE get your act together. The BPL industry obviously is going the extra mile, as is the FCC. Saying, to paraphrase, 'it's your problem, and no, I can't tell you how many cases there will be' is unprofessional, IMO, and will only close the case with respect to ham radio. That is, case closed.
I agree about the extra mile; that is about the length of power lines from each BPL device on which I observed strong interference levels on amateur spectrum.

Quote[/b] ]Do yourself a favor: do a sensitivity analysis.
Receivers typically have a sensitivity of around -170 dBW in 2000 Hz or so. The ambient noise levels range down to -10 dBuV/m at the road and about 10 dB better in backyards.

More detailed analyses were done the numerous ARRL filings. Take a look at:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html

and scroll down to the ARRL filigns. For filings over the past month, you will have to directly to the ECFS.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

W1RFI

10-19-2004, 07:39 PM

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 18 2004,10:11)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 19 2004,08:35)]Now that ARRL has failed to stop BPL, look for them to claim that they somehow positively influenced the outcome. Let the backstroking and "nuance-ing" begin!

W9WHE
Please take your incessant League bashing diatribe some place else. #It is not the subject of this thread.

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL
Naw, he will claim that the FCC could have gone frm "the FCC wants to remove most restrictions on BPL" to a rulemaking that addressed interference strongly (although its effectiveness is yet to be demonstrated) all by itself. He won't back it up, but he will claim it. :-)

The number of times that amateur radio and interference were mentioned by the Commissioners is all the indication I need that the hard work done by a lot of people was not for naught.

73, Ed
W1RFI

kg6amw

10-19-2004, 07:52 PM

Ed, I know you know this, but it’s not BPL that these hams want to argue, but rather their hang-ups with the ARRL. No amount of information, logic and cajoling will change their position. It’s strictly a baggage.

KG6AMW

KC0NIB

10-19-2004, 08:09 PM

Hmmm...

In reading the stuff I found up on the ARRL web site, the FCC stuff I could find, and comments... hither-there, I find that this spells the emminent death of amatuer radio. It will be most likely a slow death though. Looks like Mrs Abernathy might be the "pusher" in this from what it looked like.

First personal complaint off, is the rampant greed out there in the power generating community, and now we have a new venue with which to generate corporate greedies with even more. You can see the trouble coming when the electric companies all band together and hike prices,... then go to the PUC to ask for rate hikes. Cart before the horse thing.

I'm sorry but past history dictates that amatuer services complaints will go unheard simply because corporate profits, and stockholder earnings far outrank those of a frivolous radio amatuer's.

Your radio(s) now will begin to loose value, ultimately becoming completely worthless in a short spell. Much akin to what your atypical home television set will be worth after next year when they all must go digital... as mandated by our lovely FCC.

I smell something going on in this country especially, and I'm not likin' it too much either!

Looks like "some" of the VHF is all that's left... unless there's a problem there too..???!!!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

N9XK

10-19-2004, 08:11 PM

Since BPL can be "heard" outside of the wire, isn't it possible to demodulate the over the air signals in some way? Perhaps even giving the ability to hackers to gain some private information from the BPL user. Just how secure is the technology if it can be heard outside of the "pipe"? That would be a major concern to me.

People have been decoding public safety MDT data using a sound card and a scanner for a few years now. In theory couldn't something similar be done to intercept BPL signal data? I don't believe anyone has asked that question yet. Any ideas?

73,
Mark
N9XK

KG4ZEB

10-19-2004, 10:58 PM

BPL is not an Industry, it's a technology. While it might be termed an Industry solution, I would consider it a very poor practical solution, since HF radio operators must bear some degree of HF spectrum degradation. To fight BPL is not to suppress the Industry, that you Chip, seem curiously intent on defending. I’m guessing you also want to eliminate the code test as a high frequency requirement.

Power lines run a few hundred feet from my house. I'm already getting enough noise from the lines without additional pollution. Which is exactly what BPL is to me. K7FD said it in the 4th post and we can debate endlessly without any greater clarity in my opinion.

However I'd like to give you a chance. Of all the negative comments that have been posted, could you please illustrate one or two positive(and convicing) aspects of this technology. Without reusing the terms, “New” or “Progress”, could you be a little more technical. How is BPL really going to help anyone?? Besides all the money the power companies will make of course.

w1yw

10-19-2004, 11:10 PM

I think this round of comments (as compared to, say, July's) have been interesting.

My general sense is that there is a huge vacuum in effective and informed leadership in advocating for radio amateurs regarding the BPL issue. In addition, the huge lack of knowledge, and vast emotional component that have been placed into it by some hams, have done irrevocable damage to our reputation as a public service.

There are huge lessons that could have been learned from the events of this Summer and early Fall. It is unfortunate that this has not occured.

My sense is that ham radio is undergoing explosive trivialization and may be beyond revitalization. It is most sad, to see something so noble become obsessed with denial and wanton anger.

If effort was redirected towards new modes and technogies, we might have a chance. It just doesn't feel like that will happen.

I, like many others, will attempt to enjoy the waning years this service has left, in the form it has taken, with a bittersweet view of what it could have been.

73,
Chip N1IR

KG4ZEB

10-19-2004, 11:36 PM

I don’t know about using new technologies to preform a better public service that what we have now. Gee, it’s a shame that HF is old and trditional. Maybe thats what makes the service appear less useful than the internet.

I do know this much - when I QSO with a weak dx HF station, and I receive warmth and friendship from an operator in another country, I feel very good about it. I feel that’s something this world can use.

That’s one of my reasons to keep HF around for a long time.

Please Chip, help inform some of us still disillisioned by the emotional component of this subject. Go ahead and tell us one or two things BPL is good for.

kr4bd

10-20-2004, 12:35 AM

I think we amateurs can legally kill BPL just by having nightly HF schedules with cross-town friends. #With a BPL signal of 40 over S-9 coming in our shacks, we will have to use the minimum power to make the contact which means we will all have to fire up our KW amplifiers for local QSOs just to get through the BPL din. #At least WE will be LEGALLY licensed on our frequencies using the MINIMUM amount of power to get through... #I think the power companies will just love all the complaints from their BPL subscribers who can't stay connected when we are on the air... #

You know, IT IS A 2-WAY STREET!

I can't wait!!! #Now, I just gotta dust off that amplifier collecting dust in the corner and put it to GOOD use...

Tom, KR4BD
Lexington, KY

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

kg4llq

10-20-2004, 01:45 AM

I don't YET own an amp.; however I will soon. #Calling CQ in CW with 800 watts into my vertical withing 50 ft of the neighborhood power lines will allow me to make many fine contacts on 40 meters. #Since I work during the day, my activities will begin in the evenings, hopefully as neighbors fire up their computers and attempt to "log on" to their "BPL" service.
I love this hobby!
73,
Ken - KG4LLQ

W0GI

10-20-2004, 02:14 AM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 19 2004,16:10)]I think this round of comments (as compared to, say, July's) have been interesting.

My general sense is that there is a huge vacuum in effective and informed leadership in advocating for radio amateurs regarding the BPL issue. In addition, the huge lack of knowledge, and vast emotional component that have been placed into it by some hams, have done irrevocable damage to our reputation as a public service.

There are huge lessons that could have been learned from the events of this Summer and early Fall. It is unfortunate that this has not occured.

My sense is that ham radio is undergoing explosive trivialization and may be beyond revitalization. It is most sad, to see something so noble become obsessed with denial and wanton anger.

If effort was redirected towards new modes and technogies, we might have a chance. It just doesn't feel like that will happen.

I, like many others, will attempt to enjoy the waning years this service has left, in the form it has taken, with a bittersweet view of what it could have been.

73,
Chip N1IR
Chip,

I'll be sure to let the hams here in Orange County, California, that work with police, fire, and EMC, know how we, as you say, "have done irrevocable damage to our reputation as a public service", by trying to keep the airwaves clean.

I'm not so sure our agencies will agree with you on that. Actualy, they may want to ask you some other, more pointed questions about public safety. But what do they know? Just more idiots, right?

I will also let the California Highway Patrol know that they shouldn't, as you say, "become obsessed with denial and wanton anger", if they can't use their radios on 40-46Mhz because of BPL interference.

I quess a CHP officer shot during a traffic stop, isn't as important, as a kid playing online Doom on the internet.

Did you even think this through, Chip?

You talk all of this talk, but the reality you support will start to effect real lives. This goes beyond making fun of the station wagon used in the ARRL video.

Loss of human life isn't funny, and when you want to play expert on the subject, and support something like this, you better think about some lawyer down the road, using your quotes as evidence in a trial.

I hope we are wrong, for your sake, because you are standing on thin ice.

You talk about "our reputation as a public service". What community service do you give your free time to?

Please tell us. I really want to know?

You should think about that professor.

By the way, how's Mary Ann and Ginger doing these days? I hear Gilligan is in rehab???

W6NJ

w5hze

10-20-2004, 04:14 AM

This has been a most fascinating post. #Never before have I witnessed such skilled, eloquent- and clearly, effective- trolling. #Observe how a master of the art, through an apparent understanding of psychology and the clever use of language, successfully presses exactly the right buttons to draw impassioned responses from "fully clued" and "clueless" alike- without resorting to the crudity of ad homonim attacks or other brute force measures. #Truly impressive.

Regarding my own opinion on the subject at hand: #this was a win for Amateur Radio (and other incumbent HF/ VHF licensees) to the extent that Part 15 was not relaxed and that additional constraints were applied to Access BPL . . . which was about all that could be achieved within the limits <deliberately> set by the FCC's NPRM. #I regret, though, that the FCC didn't elect to impose a strict, on-site testing regimen that would be appropriate for most applications of this technology in the field. #Well, anyhow, we'll most likely see more BPL-related interference cases soon. #Now, THAT will be the real test of the FCC's dedication to their mandate (to manage our nation's spectrum)- if henceforth they fail to enforce their own regulations regarding harmful interference by Part 15 devices to licensed services then look out, there's gonna be an uproar heard throughout the halls of Congress . . . and it won't be raised by hams alone, I assure you.

73 . . . Ron WB5HZE

W0GI

10-20-2004, 04:51 AM

Quote[/b] (WB5HZE @ Oct. 19 2004,21:14)]This has been a most fascinating post. #Never before have I witnessed such skilled, eloquent- and clearly, effective- trolling. #Observe how a master of the art, through an apparent understanding of psychology and the clever use of language, successfully presses exactly the right buttons to draw impassioned responses from "fully clued" and "clueless" alike- without resorting to the crudity of ad homonim attacks or other brute force measures. #Truly impressive.

Regarding my own opinion on the subject at hand: #this was a win for Amateur Radio (and other incumbent HF/ VHF licensees) to the extent that Part 15 was not relaxed and that additional constraints were applied to Access BPL . . . which was about all that could be achieved within the limits <deliberately> set by the FCC's NPRM. #I regret, though, that the FCC didn't elect to impose a strict, on-site testing regimen that would be appropriate for most applications of this technology in the field. #Well, anyhow, we'll most likely see more BPL-related interference cases soon. #Now, THAT will be the real test of the FCC's dedication to their mandate (to manage our nation's spectrum)- if henceforth they fail to enforce their own regulations regarding harmful interference by Part 15 devices to licensed services then look out, there's gonna be an uproar heard throughout the halls of Congress . . . and it won't be raised by hams alone, I assure you.

73 . . . Ron WB5HZE
So well said.

Checking my buttons right now.

W6NJ

w1yw

10-20-2004, 07:06 AM

Quote[/b] (WB5HZE @ Oct. 19 2004,21:14)]This has been a most fascinating post. #Never before have I witnessed such skilled, eloquent- and clearly, effective- trolling. #Observe how a master of the art, through an apparent understanding of psychology and the clever use of language, successfully presses exactly the right buttons to draw impassioned responses from "fully clued" and "clueless" alike- without resorting to the crudity of ad homonim attacks or other brute force measures. #Truly impressive.
.....

73 . . . Ron WB5HZE
Hi Ron,

Thirty years (or more) ago, the activist element in ham radio --and there was very little of it--would not have had the capacity to do what we have seen here. It certainly did not have a loud voice within one if its non-profit organizations.

The propaganda; the incorrect knowledge; the profound desire to stifle opinions showing a wider view; the inability to make a cogent case; the expressed desire to break federal and/or local law, and so on, just wasn't part of ham radio back then.

No one did this when the CB service was introduced. Nor when TV came on line, nor when incentive licensing kicked in, and so on.

Yet, with a false premise that ham radio will cease if BPL is deployed, we now have this.

Very, very sad.

73,
Chip N1IR

w1yw

10-20-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote[/b] (W0LC @ Oct. 19 2004,05:30)]Personally, if BPL wipes out my receive capability, I will have to resort to tossing 10 foot of metal chain up and over the power lines to short the system out, or else shoot holes in the BPL boxes. #
This an expressed desire to break the law.

Your comment, IMO, emboldened others to then describe how they would use higher power than necessary for the deliberate intent of jamming.

I do not see how this discussion belongs on this forum, nor that it serves any useful purpose.

The BPL industry has expressly made overtures to work with ham radio and resolve issues.

These type of comments do not lead to resolutions, IMO.

How, pray would you work with your BPL provider if you experienced harmful interference--surely you have an idea that goes beyond destruction of infrastructure? Take this opportunity to reconsider your statement.

kd4mxe

10-20-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote[/b] (kg4llq @ Oct. 19 2004,18:45)]I don't YET own an amp.; however I will soon. #Calling CQ in CW with 800 watts into my vertical withing 50 ft of the neighborhood power lines will allow me to make many fine contacts on 40 meters. #Since I work during the day, my activities will begin in the evenings, hopefully as neighbors fire up their computers and attempt to "log on" to their "BPL" service.
I love this hobby!
73,
Ken - KG4LLQ
ken kg4llq do you Realy think that will work,if you do this Iwould like to know how many days it takes the fcc to get a notice in your mail Box , money talks and hams complain But in the end the money wins , hope you got alot of it ,Bill

k7fd

10-20-2004, 02:17 PM

The interference produced by BPL is well-documented; any ham that supports BPL should turn their license in and step aside. They've lost touch with what it's all about.

73 John K7FD

w6em

10-20-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 20 2004,00:06)]The propaganda; the incorrect knowledge; the profound desire to stifle opinions showing a wider view; the inability to make a cogent case; the expressed desire to break federal and/or local law, and so on, just wasn't part of ham radio back then.

No one did this when the CB service was introduced. Nor when TV came on line, nor when incentive licensing kicked in, and so on.

Yet, with a false premise that ham radio will cease if BPL is deployed, we now have this.

Very, very sad.

73,
Chip N1IR
Chip: #Since you haven't shared your vitae with this thread, I'll try best from memory to share it:

Emeritus professor of physics. #Institution, unknown.

Now, unless you spent your career with a focus on electomagnetics, you have NO expertise in what constitutes even part of this issue.

I can recall that my physics undergrad room mate who was also a ham, had no courses beyond electromagnetics, and was in the dark with respect to circuit design, digital systems, communication systems, and the like. #So, I would suggest that you fess up that your experience has been amateur, at best, and certainly can't speak with professed expertise on the subject of BPL as persons such as Mr. Ed Hare, who has invested not only in his Electrical Engineering education, but also has a great deal of time and experience with Electromagnetic Compatibility and differing communication modes.

All the while you were probably teaching quantum mechanics. #Not that quantum mechanics isn't important, just not worthy of you claiming yourself to have been (or still are) an electronics or radio engineer. #

Now, going beyond this, your attempts to deride factual information graciously offered by Mr. Hare and a few others were unscientific and way off the mark. #Way off the mark, especially for someone claiming to be or having been a professional scientist. #

I'm not a BPL expert and never claimed to be one. #However, I have about 30 years experience in medium and high voltage power systems beond my education in Electrical Engineering and would kindly dialog with anyone, the impracticalities, mis-statements and claims that power system control and operation with BPL will somehow improve; and some fairly serious safety concerns involving application of BPL equipment. #Some of these safety concerns are just now beginning to be addressed by the IEEE, but after devices have already been installed without insurance that devices have sufficient insulation to perform satisfactorily and not end up being a path to energizing homes at voltages from 4kV to 35kV!!!

While I certainly don't support anyone's expressed intentions to sabotage or in any way damage power system facilities, the amateur service, just like public safety users of the spectrum which BPL will occupy, is a licensed service. #And, those that desire to use the minimum power to communicate effectively, even if its the legal limit, will be operating within the law. #And, if necessary, I'm sure many will, rather than give up HF and low VHF operation.

The more you criticize the commenters here, with your all-but-singular opinion of BPL, the more you reveal either a surreptitious conflict of interest, or just a sincere desire to stir up controversy. #So, those that have worked to help defeat this daftly-created new technology, whether through diligent field or laboratory work, or observation and reporting of interference to their communications, can take pride in having done the right thing. #And, in so doing, helped save amateur radio, public safety services, aircraft communications, international short wave broadcasts, and even some government services such as WWV, from extermination.

The next step will be most likely to a court of law, if the FCC's already-demonstrated laxidazical enforcement of BPL interference is a valid predictor of what's to come.

It is my sincerest wish that no human lives will be lost nor serious injuries happen as a result of BPL interference before this menace to so many communications services is silenced.

Very Sincerely,

W. Lee McVey, P.E.
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

n4zou

10-20-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Oct. 18 2004,12:56)]Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 18 2004,10:40)]I have always wanted to put up a 10-meter beacon but never really had a good reason to do it. Now I do! With the beacon antenna mounted as close to the power lines and still be on my property it will wipe out BPL service on that line. This should be great fun!
n4zou #I wish you would do that #and let me know how long it takes for you to get a notice from the fcc , you and I cant do what they do we dont have the money or at least #i dont anyway #73 Bill
KD4MXE; when did it become illegal to put up a 10-meter beacon? I have not noticed that happening lately. According to the rules 10-meter beacons may be put up by anyone with a license that allows operation on 10 meters. The antenna will be on my property, which ends 2 feet from the power lines in the right of way. I wont even put it up high enough that it could fall into the lines. Just a nice little CB vertical cut for 10-meters. I also have an old CB to convert for use, which is very popular with 10-meter beacon operators. It will just be running 5 watts QRP so why would the FCC ever send me a letter? This will be plenty of power for an unshielded DATA conductor. I am a licensed operator where as the BPL provider is an unlicensed part 15 provider that must accept all interference without complaint. Can the BPL provider buy me off? Sure! Just provide me a new home fully furnished with a new transceiver, amplifier, and antenna system of my choice on property of my choice. Otherwise, just forget providing BPL service along that length of power line. The only reason I never put up a 10-meter beacon was because I enjoyed operating on 10-meters.

N2MWE

10-20-2004, 02:43 PM

I've said it on other message boards, and I'll say it here...the FCC is not concerned with anything that doesn't generate income, and except for vanity call signs, amateur operators do not generate income. Owners of BPL systems, however, do generate income for the government. Who do you think they're going to listen to?

n4zou

10-20-2004, 02:55 PM

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Oct. 20 2004,06:58)]Quote[/b] (kg4llq @ Oct. 19 2004,18:45)]I don't YET own an amp.; however I will soon. #Calling CQ in CW with 800 watts into my vertical withing 50 ft of the neighborhood power lines will allow me to make many fine contacts on 40 meters. #Since I work during the day, my activities will begin in the evenings, hopefully as neighbors fire up their computers and attempt to "log on" to their "BPL" service.
I love this hobby!
73,
Ken - KG4LLQ
ken kg4llq do you Realy think that will work,if you do this Iwould like to know how many days it takes the fcc to get a notice in your mail Box , money talks and hams complain But in the end the money wins , hope you got alot of it ,Bill
KD4MXE; Well, there you go again! You should read the FCC rules before you make comments about the FCC rules! It's obvious that you have never read them. Dig out your part 97 (it is a rule that you must have a copy of them) and actually read it. Also download part 15 rules and read them. Then if you want to accuse some one of illegal operation then you wont make everyone think you are some kind of troll.

w6em

10-20-2004, 03:10 PM

Quote[/b] (N2MWE @ Oct. 20 2004,07:43)]I've said it on other message boards, and I'll say it here...the FCC is not concerned with anything that doesn't generate income, and except for vanity call signs, amateur operators do not generate income. Owners of BPL systems, however, do generate income for the government. Who do you think they're going to listen to?
Sorry, but I don't quite understand how an unlicensed service would generate direct government income, unless, of course, for fees for type acceptance/certifcation of maybe a half dozen BPL prototype devices.

Or, are you infering something like government officials might be receiving from the likes of Halliburton or the Carlyle Group, but instead from the electric utility industry?

Lee
W6EM

kd4mxe

10-20-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 20 2004,07:42)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Oct. 18 2004,12:56)]Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 18 2004,10:40)]I have always wanted to put up a 10-meter beacon but never really had a good reason to do it. Now I do! With the beacon antenna mounted as close to the power lines and still be on my property it will wipe out BPL service on that line. This should be great fun!
n4zou #I wish you would do that #and let me know how long it takes for you to get a notice from the fcc , you and I cant do what they do we dont have the money or at least #i dont anyway #73 Bill
KD4MXE; when did it become illegal to put up a 10-meter beacon? I have not noticed that happening lately. According to the rules 10-meter beacons may be put up by anyone with a license that allows operation on 10 meters. The antenna will be on my property, which ends 2 feet from the power lines in the right of way. I wont even put it up high enough that it could fall into the lines. Just a nice little CB vertical cut for 10-meters. I also have an old CB to convert for use, which is very popular with 10-meter beacon operators. It will just be running 5 watts QRP so why would the FCC ever send me a letter? This will be plenty of power for an unshielded DATA conductor. #I am a licensed operator where as the BPL provider is an unlicensed part 15 provider that must accept all interference without complaint. Can the BPL provider buy me off? Sure! Just provide me a new home fully furnished with a new transceiver, amplifier, and antenna system of my choice on property of my choice. Otherwise, just forget providing BPL service along that length of power line. The only reason I never put up a 10-meter beacon was because I enjoyed operating on 10-meters.
n4zou sir you have ever Right to put up as many Beacons as you wish , But you know and i know that if you try to wipe out Bpl on that line you can Bet the fcc will stop your Beacon Before they stop Bpl , But Idont know you ,so you may have more money than Bpl #if so good luck with your Beacon , Bill

W0GI

10-20-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Oct. 20 2004,10:34)]Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 20 2004,07:42)]Quote[/b] (kd4mxe @ Oct. 18 2004,12:56)]Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 18 2004,10:40)]I have always wanted to put up a 10-meter beacon but never really had a good reason to do it. Now I do! With the beacon antenna mounted as close to the power lines and still be on my property it will wipe out BPL service on that line. This should be great fun!
n4zou #I wish you would do that #and let me know how long it takes for you to get a notice from the fcc , you and I cant do what they do we dont have the money or at least #i dont anyway #73 Bill
KD4MXE; when did it become illegal to put up a 10-meter beacon? I have not noticed that happening lately. According to the rules 10-meter beacons may be put up by anyone with a license that allows operation on 10 meters. The antenna will be on my property, which ends 2 feet from the power lines in the right of way. I wont even put it up high enough that it could fall into the lines. Just a nice little CB vertical cut for 10-meters. I also have an old CB to convert for use, which is very popular with 10-meter beacon operators. It will just be running 5 watts QRP so why would the FCC ever send me a letter? This will be plenty of po