View Full Version : NPR puff piece on BPL
NPR's "Day to Day" broadcast a piece about Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology today (25 October 2004) that was completely one-sided. #The supposed advantages of BPL were presented uncritically and not a word was said about the technology's interference potential or the numerous groups that oppose it’s deployment. #Whether the FCC has been abrogating its responsibility to protect and administer spectrum for the public good by unabashedly supporting BPL technology was similarly not addressed. #There is a link to a stream of the broadcast on this page:
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4125137
You can tell NPR and the reporter, Xeni Jardin, what you think of the piece at:
daytoday@npr.org
xeni at xeni dot net
ombudsman@npr.org
Quote[/b] (K3CW @ Oct. 25 2004,15:22)]NPR's "Day to Day" broadcast a piece about Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology today (25 October 2004) that was completely one-sided. #The supposed advantages of BPL were presented uncritically and not a word was said about the technology's interference potential or the numerous groups that oppose it’s deployment. #Whether the FCC has been abrogating its responsibility to protect and administer spectrum for the public good by unabashedly supporting BPL technology was similarly not addressed. #There is a link to a stream of the broadcast on this page:
http://www.npr.org/rundown....rgId=17 (http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=25-Oct-2004&prgId=17)
You can tell NPR and the reporter, Xeni Jardin, what you think of the piece at:
daytoday@npr.org
xeni at xeni dot net
ombudsman@npr.org
I thought it was a nice piece. Thoughtful.
I'm sorry we disagree.
Use it as a calibration on how the people see BPL, and think about the best way to APPEAR TO THE WORLD if you want to sit at the table.
Make nice; problems get solved that way.
73,
Chip N1IR
> I thought it was a nice piece. Thoughtful.
It was nice - to BPL!
But I don't know how you could consider it "thoughtful" when the reporter clearly didn't do any research beyond just reading and repeating the claims of the BPL industry.
> Use it as a calibration on how the people see BPL
> and think about the best way to APPEAR TO THE
> WORLD if you want to sit at the table.
> Make nice; problems get solved that way.
Agreed, but "making nice" doesn't mean keeping quiet. We need to politely let this reporter (and any others blindly acting as cheerleaders for a vested interest) know that there is another side to the story.
As long as the general public only hears about how wonderful BPL is, then of course that is the way they will see it. It's our job as technologists (amateur and professional) to explain the subtleties and point out potential downsides of new technologies. #Hopefully the public will listen, but first we need to get heard.
Let me see here ... NPR ... one-sided ...
OK. Got it.
Makes sense to me.
NPR: broadcast in stereo, with two Left channels.
Quote[/b] (K3CW @ Oct. 26 2004,16:42)]> I thought it was a nice piece. Thoughtful.
It was nice - to BPL!
But I don't know how you could consider it "thoughtful" when the reporter clearly didn't do any research beyond just reading and repeating the claims of the BPL industry.
> Use it as a calibration on how the people see BPL
> and think about the best way to APPEAR TO THE
> WORLD if you want to sit at the table.
> Make nice; problems get solved that way.
Agreed, but "making nice" doesn't mean keeping quiet. We need to politely let this reporter (and any others blindly acting as cheerleaders for a vested interest) know that there is another side to the story.
As long as the general public only hears about how wonderful BPL is, then of course that is the way they will see it. It's our job as technologists (amateur and professional) to explain the subtleties and point out potential downsides of new technologies. #Hopefully the public will listen, but first we need to get heard.
How do you answer the following reporter's questions:
1) If you're having problems when you drive around, can't you just drive away? (P.S. they will have BS detectors on full-blast if the answer includes silliness such as 'one BPL site wipes out ham radio for hundreds of square miles'.
2) Isn't the BPL industry trying to work with hams to help filter out any harmful interference? (P.S. Better have the latest info on that. The BPL industry sure will.)
3) Isn't this an old technology-- new technology issue? Why do you need ham radio these days when people can talk across the world on a picture-cell phone or WiFi? (P.S. Better be ready for a 'what have you done for us lately?' if you want to say how ham radio was an historical place where things were first tried out.)
4) Ham radio still does good public service work. Can't you do this on the higher frequencies (VHF?) (P.S. better site exact and numerous RECENT circumstances where HF specifically saved lives and was the ONLY means of communication.)
5) Most hams don't even use the shortwaves anymore. What's the magic? (P.S. They might get 'hunting DX', but the esoterica of county hunting, islands on the air, morse code, traffic nets, and so on will just look mighty peculiar to them.)
6) Can't you do this on CB? (P.S. Even though this is a painful question, better be ready for it.)
&) Why can't ham radio and BPL co-exist? (P.S. If you say they can't, they will totally write your opinion off.)
Prepare, or else we'll look like village idiots like we did in the Wall Street Journal. Front page village idiots.
I'm not a village idiot; neither are you. And BPL and ham radio can indeed co-exist.
73,
Chip N1IR
w5rfi
10-27-2004, 12:44 AM
I think Chip N1IR needs to do some more research on what the hf bands have done for such events as the earthquake in the S.F. area some years ago, the work that was done for the earthquake victims in Mecico City, and just recently the health and welfare messages handled on behalf of loved ones trying to find out if their friends and relatives were allright after the recent hurricanes in Florida. Mayhap Chip has more than a passing interest in the BPL industry? All in all his opinions seem to be very shallow and not well thought out.
ke4pjw
10-27-2004, 01:10 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 25 2004,18:01)]How do you answer the following reporter's questions:
1) If you're having problems when you drive around, can't you just drive away? (P.S. they will have BS detectors on full-blast if the answer includes silliness such as 'one BPL site wipes out ham radio for hundreds of square miles'.
2) Isn't the BPL industry trying to work with hams to help filter out any harmful interference? (P.S. Better have the latest info on that. The BPL industry sure will.)
3) Isn't this an old technology-- new technology issue? Why do you need ham radio these days when people can talk across the world on a picture-cell phone or WiFi? (P.S. Better be ready for a 'what have you done for us lately?' if you want to say how ham radio was an historical place where things were first tried out.)
4) Ham radio still does good public service work. Can't you do this on the higher frequencies (VHF?) (P.S. better site exact and numerous RECENT circumstances where HF specifically saved lives and was the ONLY means of communication.)
5) Most hams don't even use the shortwaves anymore. What's the magic? (P.S. They might get 'hunting DX', but the esoterica of county hunting, islands on the air, morse code, traffic nets, and so on will just look mighty peculiar to them.)
6) Can't you do this on CB? (P.S. Even though this is a painful question, better be ready for it.)
&) Why can't ham radio and BPL co-exist? (P.S. If you say they can't, they will totally write your opinion off.)
Prepare, or else we'll look like village idiots like we did in the Wall Street Journal. Front page village idiots.
I'm not a village idiot; neither are you. And BPL and ham radio can indeed co-exist.
73,
Chip N1IR
1) When BPL is deployed everywhere, the BPL signals will be radiating right in your home. Unless I am operating mobile, there will be no way to get away from it. If I am operating mobile, most likely I will have to leave the BPL service area. If the entire city is wired for Access BPL, I might have to drive many many miles.
2) Not that I am aware of. There has been anecdotal cooperation with some providers. Those providers have realized how bad the situation is and have terminated their BPL trial implementations. The lobbying efforts by BPL proponents at the FCC show that they do not wish to mitigate interference that they deem not worthy of such effort.
3) Amateur Radio is only one of the services affected by Access BPL. Widespread use of BPL will affect shortwave broadcast radio, many state patrol radio systems and aircraft HF communications just to name a few. This is not battle of new/old technology. It is a battle to preserve a natural resource, the HF radio spectrum.
4) When the infrastructure is not working properly, HF radio communications is the only type of radio propagation that allows for over the horizon communications.
5) I don't know where you got that information. Most Radio Amateurs do operate HF.
6) No, C.B. does not allow for radio experimentation and is primarily used for business purposes in the trucking and travel industry. Access BPL will also adversely affect CB.
Access BPL can co-exist with Amateur Radio, but only if the Access BPL industry filters out our frequency allocations. By the time all of the services that are affected by BPL are filtered out, Access BPL will not work.
Quote[/b] (w5rfi @ Oct. 26 2004,17:44)]I think Chip N1IR needs to do some more research on what the hf bands have done for such events as the earthquake in the S.F. area some years ago, the work that was done for the earthquake victims in Mecico City, and just recently the health and welfare messages handled on behalf of loved ones trying to find out if their friends and relatives were allright after the recent hurricanes in Florida. Mayhap Chip has more than a passing interest in the BPL industry? All in all his opinions seem to be very shallow and not well thought out.
Ah, that my opinions weren't thought out!
Someday you will thank me for being so helpful.
I am a dinsinterested party. I have no involvement with BPL.
73,
Chip N1IR
P.S. I have a public service award for conducting just such emergency communications. And I have had to deliver traffic on deaths. I am familiar with the value here; my point is you better be able to articulate it with examples--recent ones.
Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 26 2004,18:10)]5) I don't know where you got that information. Most Radio Amateurs do operate HF.
O-U-C-H !
BE prepared.
BE accurate!
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (K3CW @ Oct. 26 2004,16:42)]> I thought it was a nice piece. Thoughtful.
It was nice - to BPL!
But I don't know how you could consider it "thoughtful" when the reporter clearly didn't do any research beyond just reading and repeating the claims of the BPL industry.
> Use it as a calibration on how the people see BPL
> and think about the best way to APPEAR TO THE
> WORLD if you want to sit at the table.
> Make nice; problems get solved that way.
Agreed, but "making nice" doesn't mean keeping quiet. We need to politely let this reporter (and any others blindly acting as cheerleaders for a vested interest) know that there is another side to the story.
As long as the general public only hears about how wonderful BPL is, then of course that is the way they will see it. It's our job as technologists (amateur and professional) to explain the subtleties and point out potential downsides of new technologies. #Hopefully the public will listen, but first we need to get heard.
Same old propaganda.
"It will allow internet access in the country where the phone company is too far away."
Of course they don't mention "how" they are going to get the internet backbone to the BPL injection point in the country? #
Guess what, if is isn't economical for the phone company, then it isn't economical for the BPL provider. #
The same old, "The internet on every AC socket in America" scam. #Political BS. #
Same BS as when AL Gore invented the internet. #Gee, I was working with Unix boxes, TCP/IP and the pre www internet long before I ever heard of Al Gore. #I don't remember him being involved?
New Technology? #I was setting up Novel networks with 10baseT on RG-58u 20 years ago, that were faster then BPL.
Now at work, we use 1GigaBit twisted Cat 5 to each PC, and the whole campus has wireless access for visitors.
Our new Cisco switches have 437 GigaBit backplanes.
I backup my company's core business systems from Buena Park Corporate to an SBC IDC bunker site in Irvine 24x7 through GigaBit fiber, in realtime. #If an earthquake wipes out Yamaha, we will lose no more then 5 minutes of data.
Besides the obvious interference issues, BPL is so low tech, it is a laugh to any professional that works with networking. #I have Adelphia PowerLink at home, and get over 2000 Kbps at all times. #I've been using it for years.
And, I can turn on the Henry amp, transmit on HF at 1500 watts pep, and it still works fine.
BPL will do "what" for me?
I should be excited about BPL? #Please....About as exciting as those Radio Shack intercoms that you plug into your AC sockets.
BPL is snake oil. #The utilities want a piece of the action, but they will get murdered by cable, telcom, and new business that will use wireless to connect rural America. #
Wireless will connect rural America. #A business that I may take up after I retire.
Once the FCC starts really caring about rural internet access, and frees up some microwave spectrum, rural America WILL see broadband internet connections. #With BPL they never will.
Lets see, it is too expensive to run internet backbone wires to rural areas.
#
What is the answer?
Could it be Wireless? #DUH.....Open up the spectrum, and it will happen.
I can't believe any ham would get behind a stupid technology that uses wires, pollutes the HF band, and then say that we should move ahead with this exciting new technology.
Hello, using wires is not what hams do.... #The telegraph's replacement, is what hams worked on. Replacing wires, is what hams do. #It's called RADIO....
Using wires is not new technology, it is old technology. #That shouldn't be that hard to understand? #
I just wish we could avoid the hell that we will go through, before this plays out and BPL is gone for good.
Anyone that says BPL is a new exciting technology, is completely out of touch as to what has gone on with networking in the last three decades, and what is going on now.
They flat out don't know much about networking, or where it is going.
And that is a FACT.
73, #W6NJ
ke4pjw
10-27-2004, 01:41 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 25 2004,19:25)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 26 2004,18:10)]5) I don't know where you got that information. Most Radio Amateurs do operate HF.
O-U-C-H !
BE prepared.
BE accurate!
73,
Chip N1IR
There are 408770 US licensees that have HF allocations.
There are 264040 US licensees that don't.
If you want to get into the nebulas area of who is active or not, please present statistical *FACTS*, not YAGs.
Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 26 2004,18:41)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 25 2004,19:25)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 26 2004,18:10)]5) I don't know where you got that information. Most Radio Amateurs do operate HF.
O-U-C-H !
BE prepared.
BE accurate!
73,
Chip N1IR
There are 352929 US licensees that have HF allocations.
There are 264040 US licensees that don't.
If you want to get into the nebulas area of who is active or not, please present statistical *FACTS*, not YAGs.
What does it matter.
If a Part 15 device interferes with a licensed station, it must be shut down.
This isn't about how many licensed stations are effected.
It is about the rules that state that no (0) licensed stations can be subject to interference from Part 15 devices.
You can shoot those statistics out a blow hole, because the rules are the rules.
Part 15 devices cannot interfere with any, not one, even my licensed station (PERIOD).
What part of the law is confusing?
I am so sick of hearing all of the side talk. #All of the opinion. #Opinions aren't the law. #If you don't like the law, then try and change it. #But, don't tell me that I am wrong for obeying the law.
The bottom line, is that Part 15 devices cannot interfere with my licensed station. #I don't have to worry about my transmissions interfering with Part 15 devices.
W6NJ
ke4pjw
10-27-2004, 02:12 AM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 25 2004,20:03)]What does it matter.
If a Part 15 device interferes with a licensed station, it must be shut down.
This isn't about how many licensed stations are effected.
It is about the rules that state that no (0) licensed stations can be subject to interference from Part 15 devices.
You can shoot the statistics out a blow hole, because the rules are the rules.
Part 15 devices cannot interfere with any, not one, even my licensed station (PERIOD).
What part of that is confusing?
W6NJ
Agreed. However, Chip is trolling, so I don't mind taking the bait and pulling him under water.
N0MLR
10-27-2004, 02:17 AM
What can you expect from the people at the National PMS Radio. They are all so far to the left one would be a fool to think they even know what fair reporting from both sides looks like.
BPL is indeed snake oil. But it will make a grate reason for the Electric company to raise their Rates. Once it is a proven failure in real world daily use the consumer will be the one who picks up the tab.
73
Greg Dunn / N0MLR
kc8ypa
10-27-2004, 02:27 AM
BPL as a low cost substitute for the internet? #Reminds me of the "cable will become cheaper" argument. #Funny how cable companies with local competition somehow manage to lower their price to match the municipal system. #It's hogwash, as usual.
ke4pjw
10-27-2004, 02:38 AM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 25 2004,20:30)]I learned a long time ago, that reality always wins. #Reality is, that BPL is a joke. #A big JOKE. #Take out how hams feel about interference, and it still is a BIG JOKE.
The reality of BPL is nothing but a short time of grief to hams. #It will be history. SOON....
The entertainment is good. #The technology is bad.
I'm just glad that it is the sunspot downtime. #BPL will be gone before the next peak.
And, we will have wonderful memories of our more educated friends that made us look so STUPID...:>)
Yup, BPL is a joke. There is no way it can compete with offerings like this. (http://www22.verizon.com/FiosForHome/channels/Fios/HighSpeedInternetForHome.asp?promotion_code=&variant=)
Just in case someone missed it, that is 15Mbps not 1.5Mbps like BPL.
Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 26 2004,18:41)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 25 2004,19:25)]Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 26 2004,18:10)]5) I don't know where you got that information. Most Radio Amateurs do operate HF.
O-U-C-H !
BE prepared.
BE accurate!
73,
Chip N1IR
There are 408770 US licensees that have HF allocations.
There are 264040 US licensees that don't.
If you want to get into the nebulas area of who is active or not, please present statistical *FACTS*, not YAGs.
O-U-C-H!
Be prepared.
BE accurate!
A LICENSE TO OPERATE IS NOT OPERATION!
:-)
ke4pjw
10-27-2004, 03:00 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 25 2004,20:52)]O-U-C-H!
Be prepared.
BE accurate!
A LICENSE TO OPERATE IS NOT OPERATION!
:-)
Please site real statistics that more hams do not operate HF than those that do. You are simply making wild guesses.
You need to be prepared and be accurate. Your unsubstantiated assertion that more amateurs operate has been rebutted with actual numbers.
Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 26 2004,20:00)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 25 2004,20:52)]O-U-C-H!
Be prepared.
BE accurate!
A LICENSE TO OPERATE IS NOT OPERATION!
:-)
Please site real statistics that more hams do not operate HF than those that do. You are simply making wild guesses.
You need to be prepared and be accurate. Your unsubstantiated assertion that more amateurs operate has been rebutted with actual numbers.
It just never stops.......
The numbers, and statistics?
It doesn't matter..Let me REPEAT.... It doesn't matter.
If all hams but me, go SK tomorrow, I am still protected as a ham from Part 15 BPL garbage. #That is LAW.
There is nothing in Part 15 that says that the rules only apply if you have a lot of other hams close by.
This is so tiresome....Laughing again....Trolls are so boring....
How can some people be so diluted with reality?
Unreal is an understatement....
Did you complete your HF log? #I'm going to be worst then Nancy Regan on this one. Do you log. #Have proof as to HF before BPL. #Please....
We will win. #BPL (Just say NO)......
W6NJ
k4kyv
10-27-2004, 04:39 AM
Quote[/b] (N0MLR @ Oct. 26 2004,19:17)]What can you expect from the people at the National PMS Radio. They are all so far to the left one would be a fool to think they even know what fair reporting from both sides looks like.
What does "left" have to to with it? I thought the "left" was supposed to be the subversive communist pot smoking hippie environmentalist movement that seeks to sink our economy by sending the corporations into bankruptsy, causing all the jobs to go away and turning the USA into a third-world nation like China, forcing our children into prostitution to avoid starvation.
It looks to me like this time NPR is siding with the GOP's puppets in the FCC along with the big money corporate interests who are perfectly willing to pollute the HF spectrum to pursue their agenda of greed.
Fortunately, the laws of physics are on our side.
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 26 2004,20:29)]:-)
Please site real statistics that more hams do not operate HF than those that do. You are simply making wild guesses.
You need to be prepared and be accurate. Your unsubstantiated assertion that more amateurs operate has been rebutted with actual numbers.[/quote]
It just never stops.......
The numbers, and statistics?
It doesn't matter..Let me REPEAT.... It doesn't matter.
If all hams but me, go SK tomorrow, I am still protected as a ham from Part 15 BPL garbage. #That is LAW.
There is nothing in Part 15 that says that the rules only apply if you have a lot of other hams close by.
This is so tiresome....Laughing again....Trolls are so boring....
How can some people be so diluted with reality?
Unreal is an understatement....
Did you complete your HF log? #I'm going to be worst then Nancy Regan on this one. Do you log. #Have proof as to HF before BPL. #Please....
We will win. #BPL (Just say NO)......
W6NJ[/QUOTE]
Gentlemen,
I have tried to have you see the perspective from a less parochial point of view.
I regret that this is not converging on some.
Outside my window is a view of a major highway in MA. There are millions and millions of licensed drivers in MA, all with the 'right' to drive past my window right now. And yet there is a car every twenty seconds or so.
There are hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs who can get on 04/64 (2M FM repeater) right now. And yet the repeater is quiet; on a busy day maybe a hundred will be on.
You cannot use the number of US hams with HF privileges as an indicator of how many will experience harmful interference. If you try, then you will not be viewed credibly by those whose interaction is necessary. That may be the BPL providers; the FCC; and/or the court system.
Argue this if you wish, but it is fatuous to do so with someone who is pointing out the opposing viewpoint for your betterment.
To take such a viewpoint will only lead to a brushoff of any potential problem top hams.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 27 2004,02:35)]
Gentlemen,
I have tried to have you see the perspective from a less parochial point of view.
I regret that this is not converging on some.
Outside my window is a view of a major highway in MA. There are millions and millions of licensed drivers in MA, all with the 'right' to drive past my window right now. And yet there is a car every twenty seconds or so.
There are hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs who can get on 04/64 (2M FM repeater) right now. And yet the repeater is quiet; on a busy day maybe a hundred will be on.
You cannot use the number of US hams with HF privileges as an indicator of how many will experience harmful interference. If you try, then you will not be viewed credibly by those whose interaction is necessary. That may be the BPL providers; the FCC; and/or the court system.
Argue this if you wish, but it is fatuous to do so with someone who is pointing out the opposing viewpoint for your betterment.
To take such a viewpoint will only lead to a brushoff of any potential problem top hams.
73,
Chip N1IR[/QUOTE]
BPL has been approved.
We will now see who gets interference. #Speculation on how many, means nothing at this point.
If I get interference, I will fight it. #And I won't tell the judge that x number of hams also get interference. #My station is protected, even if it is the only one with interference.
Just because a repeater doesn't have traffic, doesn't mean it has no value.
I don't have any crime on my street, but I don't want to get rid of the police.
You don't only get to vote if your town has more then x amount of people.
Your idea that there has to be a certain number of hams that have interference before there is a problem is just not what the law says or common sense.
That is like saying a criminal has to commit a minimum number of crimes before we worry about it.
One case of interference is one too many.
W6NJ
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 27 2004,05:12)]Your idea that there has to be a certain number of hams that have interference before there is a problem is just not what the law says or common sense.
Dear OM,
Please do not misrepresent my statements.
The issue is how many potential cases of harmful inteference might be expected.
If you can get a handle on the number, then it allows you to enumerate the options to fix the problem, and estimate the resources needed to fix it--pre-emptively.
If you pretend that the number is in the hundreds of thousands, then the folks who could work to prevent/fix the problem will think hams can just be ignored. Can you blame them?
73,
Chip N1IR
ad4mg
10-27-2004, 12:32 PM
Although I don't pretend to understand N1IR's position, you have to respect that he has one ... and sticks to it. #However, I am in disagreement with wholesale acceptance of BPL.
Facts are facts ... and the law is the law, and there is no "wiggle room" in Part 15 regarding this type of radiator. #Numbers of amateurs affected by BPL is NOT mentioned in Part 15. #Plain and simple. #If ONE amateur experiences interference from BPL, then remedies provided by current law MUST be applied.
If there is a possibility that BPL and amateur radio can co-exist, then fine ... no problem. #Unfortunately for the BPL folks, they apparently continue to struggle with interference to multiple licensed services.
Yes, I will respond politely to the reporter that wrote the article of topic here with my opinions.
I still don't get the push for BPL ... DSL seems to be a viable alternative for broadband access. #Speeds are nearly identical to those claimed by BPL providers, without the potential for interference, and unless I'm mistaken, a good part of the infrastructure is already in place. #For those on the "last mile", or in rual areas, two-way satellite internet providers can offer an attractive option. #I have used this service at a previous employer, and it was fast and dependable. #As is my new DSL installation.
None of these methods will work at every location, but I have a difficult time envisioning a location where either cable, DSL, or satellite service cannot provide broadband internet access.
For the record, I just left dial-up service after 10 years to join the ranks of those with broadband. #The faster service is very nice, but most certainly not required.
73,
Luke
aa1mn
10-27-2004, 01:54 PM
[B]Wanna talk about one sided, do ya?
Why hasn't anyone posted anything about the benefits of BPL here then?
Or isn't that being one sided?
Chuck, AA1MN[B]
ONE SIDED is what National People's Radio does best. And it's your tax money to boot.
KD5PSH
ke4pjw
10-27-2004, 03:27 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 26 2004,03:35)]Gentlemen,
I have tried to have you see the perspective from a less parochial point of view.
I regret that this is not converging on some.
Outside my window is a view of a major highway in MA. There are millions and millions of licensed drivers in MA, all with the 'right' to drive past my window right now. And yet there is a car every twenty seconds or so.
There are hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs who can get on 04/64 (2M FM repeater) right now. And yet the repeater is quiet; on a busy day maybe a hundred will be on.
That's anecdotal non-sense. Please quit pulling numbers out of thin air. You are just making stuff up Chip.
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 26 2004,03:35)]You cannot use the number of US hams with HF privileges as an indicator of how many will experience harmful interference. If you try, then you will not be viewed credibly by those whose interaction is necessary. That may be the BPL providers; the FCC; and/or the court system.
For the purposes of this discussion, I can. You have provided no real statistics to counter my accretion.
Does the DOT use the number of licensed drivers with the DMV in a particular area to calculate traffic congestion? Why yes they do Chip. Those types of statistics are used in court and other venues for zoning variances of construction projects all the time.
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 26 2004,03:35)]
Argue this if you wish, but it is fatuous to do so with someone who is pointing out the opposing viewpoint for your betterment.
To take such a viewpoint will only lead to a brushoff of any potential problem top hams.
73,
Chip N1IR
Can anyone translate that last sentence in to English? What is a "top hams"?
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 27 2004,05:29)]Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 27 2004,05:12)]Your idea that there has to be a certain number of hams that have interference before there is a problem is just not what the law says or common sense.
Dear OM,
Please do not misrepresent my statements.
The issue is how many potential cases of harmful inteference might be expected.
If you can get a handle on the number, then it allows you to enumerate the options to fix the problem, and estimate the resources needed to fix it--pre-emptively.
If you pretend that the number is in the hundreds of thousands, then the folks who could work to prevent/fix the problem will think hams can just be ignored. Can you blame them?
73,
Chip N1IR
I see what your getting at, but estimating it here is pointless.
It is very easy for them to figure out. They look at the FCC database, and it tells them what hams are in the coverage area.
As far as just ignoring us, well that's their choice, and it is my choice to make sure the rules are enforced through the FCC or the courts if needed.
Why do you keep making this our problem to solve? We don't have to do anything for the BPL industry.
We are licensed stations, and have no responsibilty to fix or tolerate faulty Part 15 equipment.
73, W6NJ
w4fwl
10-27-2004, 07:32 PM
N3HGB says: "The only thing standing in their way is a slight possibility that a few old cranks who practice an obscure hobby involving ancient technology might get a little inconvenienced."
Joe,
First let me say that I do take the threat of BPL interference seriously, but I do not lose sleep over it. Indeed, it is entertaining and inspiring to banter here on this thread, but the bottom line is that we do have to kill BPL. It's a joke.
Having said that, I do not view myself as an "old crank" in an "obscure hobby" "using ancient technology." Perhaps there are some out there who think that is how other peoiple view us, but these are just imaginings and suppositions that are easily dispelled.
*Objective* data, hard evidence, and the rule of law will resolve this issue. Everything else is just ... banter.
Ivan Cook, K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
Quote[/b] (N3HGB @ Oct. 27 2004,12:12)]Chip is usually full of Bravo Sierra on the BPL issue, but he is exactly right this time. To the general public the issue looks like this: Millions of people who can’t get broadband will be able to get it for cheap. The only thing standing in their way is a slight possibility that a few old cranks who practice an obscure hobby involving ancient technology might get a little inconvenienced. Kind of like banning cars from city streets because they might frighten the horses. The way to fight this is to convincingly disprove all of the above false assumptions AND to pursue individual Part 15 remedies. BTW, if BPL ever did become widespread and it is as easy to knock off the air with HF transmissions as I think it will be, don’t expect Part 15 to hold up too long. We need to kill this thing now!
Your analogy has a few flaws. #First, we aren't the only old horses on the street. #BPL has been acknowledged by the FCC as an immediate threat to public safety in their mandated notching for federal frequencies and for BPL-free zones around land-based aircraft HF communications facilities.
But, there are holes in their logic. #They forgot about all of the public safety agencies that use 30-50MHz. #Those weren't selected for protection. #A gaping hole, for sure.
And, as some have pointed out, another 'horse': International shortwave broadcasting. #Sanctified by treaty. #Of course, present arrogance displayed on the part of those expected to follow such agreements may render them useless.
Naw, I think you have it backwards. #Here's a new, daft technology, driven by its creators and manufacturers using glad hand currency and goodness knows what else, to enter an otherwise competitive environment. #And, with effective and creative modes like UHF TV channel WiFi being rolled out, competition for dependable, truly high speed broadband will leave this "buzz-sucker" in the dust.
And, by the way, there is/was a motivation for all of the trolling after all.
73,
Lee
W6EM
W2DUG
10-27-2004, 08:08 PM
Rather than bashing NPR for being one-sided, perhaps they just need to be informed about the other side. #They have done "ham friendly" pieces in the past, so there is no reason to believe they are ignoring the ham viewpoint. #Heck, they might even like the controversial aspect of it--most media outlets love controversy, don't they? #Rather than using this one situation as another reason to spew out baseless and meaningless anti-liberal rhetoric, a more constructive approach might be to send them material they could use to do a piece on the risks associated with BPL deployment.
ke4pjw
10-27-2004, 08:21 PM
After reading though some of the /. comments, it looks like computer geeks "get it". (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125750&cid=10534681)
Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 27 2004,13:21)]After reading though some of the /. comments, it looks like computer geeks "get it". (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125750&cid=10534681)
Them Geeks aren't so bad after all.
They don't want no stinking BPL. They want real speed.
AJ5TT
10-28-2004, 12:16 AM
I am not coming to the defense of Chip (N1IR), he does well on his own. #I would like to point out that many of his comments are meant to provoke thinking. #I think that Chip is pro amateur radio but if you are going to rally against BPL, you better have the facts that backs up your claim or you look like a fool.
We see it every day, politicians place a spin on information or statistics are presented in a manner that looks great but really hide the true meaning of the facts.
Also what puts us in a bad light is information that gives amateur radio a perception of potential criminals or anti-social misfits.
Some items roughly quoted
· “resort to tossing 10 foot of metal chain up and over”
· “I don't YET own an amp.; however I will soon.”
· “kill BPL just by having nightly HF schedules”
# and countless other remarks.
This really should stop. #Look from the outside and decide what you would think if you heard this from a group that you may not agree with. #Try to put it in a parallel context outside of amateur radio
I think that many on this forum see Chip picking on Ed Hare. #On the contraire, I think Chip is refining Ed to tackle the “Sharks”. #I really think that Chip would like to see Ed succeed! #One of my favorite comments is:
Quote (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,05:15)
The time Ed, is now. You are the 'man of the moment', so to speak, according to your statements about the BPL folks approaching you. It is likely, IMO, that the actions you take may result in either resolutions for both sides, or create a huge legal setback for some in the amateur radio community.
How this is so important to us all. #Ed has been a major force in showing the effects of BPL. #Ed has been one of the most visible persons who refute the virtues of BPL. #His failure to articulate and present the facts will be devastating. #Refuting the “statistics” that BPL proponents have put forth on the table has to be articulated accurately. #Ed cannot afford tunnel vision and look at BPL on one angle. #He has to look at all angles and be able to present his information in a manner that when challenged he answers in a professional and accurate manner void of emotion.
Examples are evident that if you present facts and figures, you need to backup the information. #Guessing or “I think” makes you a target to be proven wrong. If you are wrong you can be easily be shown as incompetent. #If you are incompetent then any statement you make should be disregarded.
Is Chip arrogant? #Sure he is. He does not want you to sit back and present information without empirical proof to backup your statement. #Kudos to ke4pjw, for researching the facts on number of hams who do not have HF privileges. # If you think that the above quote is unkind then you can see how easy it will be to tear apart any information we present to the public, politicians, spin-doctors or BPL proponents.
Personally, I would like to see alternative Broadband systems developed and BPL fail.
73 - John
Quote[/b] (k4srb @ Oct. 27 2004,09:39)]Folks,
Here are some interesting links about Chip, N1IR:
To see where Chip has a vested interest in using existing amateur radio bands for his personal interests, visit these sites:
....
Compare this with the established 33cm amateur radio band:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#33cm
...
Chip and his kind take the position that if something can generate wealth (& power and prestige), then ramrod it through, ignoring those that will obviously be harmed by such ventures. #“Our wealth and stature outweigh the costs of those who are trampled.” #“We’ll be wealthy to handle the lawsuits.”
Ivan Cook, K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florifa
Hi Ivan,
Appreciating that I am a nice guy, you will understand that I do not wish to have you make false statements about me. You have made several here, that include , but are not limited to, quotations of things I did not say, and have never, ever thought. They are demonstrably false.
Your remaining comments are off-topic, but I did want to point out that there is an RFID post you might wish to move over to.
As amateurs aren't involved with RFID, I don't find it relevant, but you may feel differently.
Just so you know, I have no "vested interest in using existing amateur radio bands for personal interests..." I use the amateur bands for amateur radio activities.
You are misinformed about the "33cm" band. 902-928 MHz is allocated as a secondary use for radio amateurs. The primary is radiolocation. One of the 'ISM' bands also falls within 902-928 MHz, and RFID is used in that context for low powers with very limited range. I have never used, nor caused to use, any of my innovations beyond their Part 15 limits. Hence I see no reason nor basis why you would make this false claim.
Radio amateurs have co-existed with users on this band for well over a decade, with a comfortable co-existence. That assumption is one I make as we move into the future. Indeed, one might argue that coexistence has its precedents here in this frequency allocations. See? We can all get along...BPL AND ham.
Wishing you best wishes for the land of the (Ruth) curse-breakers.
73,
Chip N1IR
ke4pjw
10-28-2004, 12:47 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 26 2004,18:20)]We can all get along...BPL AND ham.
Sure we can. Just make BPL a radio silent technology and we will get along just fine http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
n7spy
10-28-2004, 12:58 AM
It's funny that the BPL Lobby swears that this "technology" is for the rural parts of the country... where, mind you, those who want to can already connect to the Internet using their modems... and yet, the tests are being taken place in urban areas. And the Power Company in NYC is already talking about wiring NYC within 2 years. That'd work just fine: when NYPD and FDNY start complaining about not being able to hear themselves (or each other) because of all the BPL interference, THEN the people of this country will notice.
And I agree that the two technology COULD POSSIBLY CO-EXIST.. but the kinds of technologies that would enable that to happen make the whole BPL adventure non-profitable.
Going into the subject, I agree with W2DUG's comment: if NPR needs to be educated about the risks attached to BPL, we should expect neither the FCC nor the BPL Lobby to provide that information. To do that, go to http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/story.html and tell them to make a story about the problems with BPL... and PLEASE do some of their homework for them: after all, BPL Interference IS a technical issue and they might need some help understanding it.
To KZ1X, N0MLR, KD5PSH, and the rest of you out there to "know" that NPR leans to one side or the other... tell them yourselves at http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/commentary.html and give them SPECIFIC EXAMPLES on what constitutes (in your opinion) leftist coverage (and while you're at it send me a CC: of that because I'm just DYING to find ONE PERSON who can PROVE to me IN THEIR OWN WORDS why NPR is leftist). Otherwise you'll just be like Lemmings following your leader's lead without questioning it.
AA1MN: What ARE the benefits of BPL? That is, other than providing the Power Companies with yet ANOTHER source of income. Do YOU know about ANY benefits from BPL that you've not shared with us?
Or is this yet ANOTHER ONE of your "making an empty point" moments?
Quote[/b] (AJ5TT @ Oct. 27 2004,17:16)]I think that many on this forum see Chip picking on Ed Hare. #On the contraire, I think Chip is refining Ed to tackle the “Sharks”. #I really think that Chip would like to see Ed succeed! #One of my favorite comments is:
Quote (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,05:15)
The time Ed, is now. You are the 'man of the moment', so to speak, according to your statements about the BPL folks approaching you. It is likely, IMO, that the actions you take may result in either resolutions for both sides, or create a huge legal setback for some in the amateur radio community.
...
73 - John
Yes John;
I am dropping some obvious hints on how it may be viewed. These are mighty good hints...a personal opinion.
I think that HR and BPL can co-exist; I appreciate that many others disagree. But either way, if efforts aren't made to come together with the BPL industry, we will not be in any position to move forward; IMO.
If Ed has a good idea of what the BPL folks have to say, he will be in a better position to convince them that efforts should and can be made on our behalf.
73,
Chip N1IR
VA7AA
10-28-2004, 05:17 AM
Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 26 2004,18:35)]Quote[/b] (K3CW @ Oct. 26 2004,16:42)]> I thought it was a nice piece. Thoughtful.
It was nice - to BPL!
But I don't know how you could consider it "thoughtful" when the reporter clearly didn't do any research beyond just reading and repeating the claims of the BPL industry.
> Use it as a calibration on how the people see BPL
> and think about the best way to APPEAR TO THE
> WORLD if you want to sit at the table.
> Make nice; problems get solved that way.
Agreed, but "making nice" doesn't mean keeping quiet. We need to politely let this reporter (and any others blindly acting as cheerleaders for a vested interest) know that there is another side to the story.
As long as the general public only hears about how wonderful BPL is, then of course that is the way they will see it. It's our job as technologists (amateur and professional) to explain the subtleties and point out potential downsides of new technologies. Hopefully the public will listen, but first we need to get heard.
Same old propaganda.
"It will allow internet access in the country where the phone company is too far away."
Of course they don't mention "how" they are going to get the internet backbone to the BPL injection point in the country?
Guess what, if is isn't economical for the phone company, then it isn't economical for the BPL provider.
The same old, "The internet on every AC socket in America" scam. Political BS.
Same BS as when AL Gore invented the internet. Gee, I was working with Unix boxes, TCP/IP and the pre www internet long before I ever heard of Al Gore. I don't remember him being involved?
New Technology? I was setting up Novel networks with 10baseT on RG-58u 20 years ago, that were faster then BPL.
Now at work, we use 1GigaBit twisted Cat 5 to each PC, and the whole campus has wireless access for visitors.
Our new Cisco switches have 437 GigaBit backplanes.
I backup my company's core business systems from Buena Park Corporate to an SBC IDC bunker site in Irvine 24x7 through GigaBit fiber, in realtime. If an earthquake wipes out Yamaha, we will lose no more then 5 minutes of data.
Besides the obvious interference issues, BPL is so low tech, it is a laugh to any professional that works with networking. I have Adelphia PowerLink at home, and get over 2000 Kbps at all times. I've been using it for years.
And, I can turn on the Henry amp, transmit on HF at 1500 watts pep, and it still works fine.
BPL will do "what" for me?
I should be excited about BPL? Please....About as exciting as those Radio Shack intercoms that you plug into your AC sockets.
BPL is snake oil. The utilities want a piece of the action, but they will get murdered by cable, telcom, and new business that will use wireless to connect rural America.
Wireless will connect rural America. A business that I may take up after I retire.
Once the FCC starts really caring about rural internet access, and frees up some microwave spectrum, rural America WILL see broadband internet connections. With BPL they never will.
Lets see, it is too expensive to run internet backbone wires to rural areas.
What is the answer?
Could it be Wireless? DUH.....Open up the spectrum, and it will happen.
I can't believe any ham would get behind a stupid technology that uses wires, pollutes the HF band, and then say that we should move ahead with this exciting new technology.
Hello, using wires is not what hams do.... The telegraph's replacement, is what hams worked on. Replacing wires, is what hams do. It's called RADIO....
Using wires is not new technology, it is old technology. That shouldn't be that hard to understand?
I just wish we could avoid the hell that we will go through, before this plays out and BPL is gone for good.
Anyone that says BPL is a new exciting technology, is completely out of touch as to what has gone on with networking in the last three decades, and what is going on now.
They flat out don't know much about networking, or where it is going.
And that is a FACT.
73, W6NJ
it's almost frightening that the loony tunes at the FCC cant see through that fact that no business model for BPL has been proven... and considering the potential fallout for the existing users of the spectrum, it's difficult to believe that the FCC are in their right minds... they have no clue. Considering the fallout from another bit of stupidity... the 800mhz first responder interference issue and the subsequent Nextel re-banding fiasco, one might have thought that the FCC would have learned a thing or two and tread carefully before diving into another potential hornets nest.
Here in Canada the touted solution for rural distribution is 3gig hubs and 26gig drops... microwave, probably using existing cell towers... it's a no brainer.... you got bandwidth galore... and you don't bug the hell out of your neighbors... what a brilliant concept.
BPL is nothing but a slick pump and dump investment scheme that's sucked in the regulators (remember Enron, they were supposed to be regulated) ...and it will fall flat on its face, with a lot of people losing their shirts.
BPL is being sold to the regulators as a rural distribution system…where the last mile connection is difficult or expensive for the DSL and cable operators. But it appears that that they are really focused on distribution in the urban areas, where the population density might be enough for them to try to make a go of it… naaah this pitch is just a new Burger King trying to sell the same burger crap as Mickey D’s …or the lunacy of 4 gas stations on the same intersection with exactly the same prices advertised on their garish signs…(I never did figure out how to buy .9c worth of gas) Pemex in Mexico got it right 1 station in each town… who really needs more, and so it should be with broadband… 2 operators in each city DSL and Cable…. BPL a better mousetrap…err burger??
I don’t think so…
Richard
VA7AA
N3HGB
10-28-2004, 10:40 AM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 27 2004,12:43)]Your analogy has a few flaws. #First, we aren't the only old horses on the street. #BPL has been acknowledged by the FCC as an immediate threat to public safety in their mandated notching for federal frequencies and for BPL-free zones around land-based aircraft HF communications facilities.
But, there are holes in their logic. #They forgot about all of the public safety agencies that use 30-50MHz. #Those weren't selected for protection. #A gaping hole, for sure.
And, as some have pointed out, another 'horse': International shortwave broadcasting. #Sanctified by treaty. #Of course, present arrogance displayed on the part of those expected to follow such agreements may render them useless.
Naw, I think you have it backwards. #Here's a new, daft technology, driven by its creators and manufacturers using glad hand currency and goodness knows what else, to enter an otherwise competitive environment. #And, with effective and creative modes like UHF TV channel WiFi being rolled out, competition for dependable, truly high speed broadband will leave this "buzz-sucker" in the dust.
And, by the way, there is/was a motivation for all of the trolling after all.
73,
Lee
W6EM
I *KNOW* my analogy has flaws. I am trying to point out what the general public sees. The general public also has no idea about maritime and aeronautical uses of HF/SSB.
Quote[/b] (N3HGB @ Oct. 28 2004,03:40)]I *KNOW* my analogy has flaws. I am trying to point out what the general public sees. The general public also has no idea about maritime and aeronautical uses of HF/SSB.
This is true. #Although, the media could be used to educate the public about such legitimate, licensed spectrum uses, and how BPL would likely interefere with them. #I think we all can speculate as to why that it hasn't been. #At least so far.
Not every horse is a horse, of course. #I fully expect to see the ARRL's forthcoming Petition for Reconsideration denied by the FCC. #As they almost always do with such submittals. #And, they will probably take their own sweet time, usually at least 6 months, to decide to do so. #Under the circumstances, however, with the potential public safety implications of BPL interference, the petition should be considered an emergency appeal.....
The ultimate BPL arena will be the United States Court of Appeal, which will decide once and for all if BPL interference to communications violates Part 15. #And, it will hopefully be asked to rule on the FCC's already-demonstrated reluctance to enforce its provisions. #Hopefully, with some form of injunction, to get the commission back on track. #That is, IF the ARRL and other affected licensed user representatives take it there.
Lee
W6EM
aa1mn
10-28-2004, 11:57 AM
Quote[/b] ]Sure we can. Just make BPL a radio silent technology and we will get along just fine
Hey, someone who actually acknowledges this for what it is.
Almost, that is.
Amateur radio is more than just a "silent technology" it is, in fact, a passe technology having been replaced by computers many years ago.
It's surprising how many licensed amateurs are in denial and unable (notice unable and not unwilling) to accept this.
Bye bye hams, bye bye ...
Chuck, AA1MN
KF7CG
10-28-2004, 01:04 PM
NPR responded on the air to e-mails from Amateur Radio Operators and acknowledged on the air that there were interference problems to broadcast radio and that they may just have problems from it.
The message got through.
W6EM:
"This is true. Although, the media could be used to educate the public about such legitimate, licensed spectrum uses, and how BPL would likely interefere with them."
I doubt the general public even knows, understands, comprehends or even cares what "Interference" is, and how it will affect the communication systems of ham radio operators. If it doesn't affect their lifestyle, they couldn't care less - unfortunately.
If BPL becomes the norm or a true alternative to other current internet provider services then the general public will flock to it - and love it.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Oct. 28 2004,04:57)]Quote[/b] ]Sure we can. Just make BPL a radio silent technology and we will get along just fine #
Hey, someone who actually acknowledges this for what it is.
Almost, that is.
Amateur radio is more than just a "silent technology" it is, in fact, a passe technology having been replaced by computers many years ago.
It's surprising how many licensed amateurs are in denial and unable (notice unable and not unwilling) to accept this.
Bye bye hams, bye bye ...
Chuck, AA1MN
Chuck,
You forgot to add cellphones, family radio, and tin cans hooked together with new computer designed synthetic string.
In 1950, a telephone provided more reliable long distance communication then HF.
What exactly is your point?
I have a feeling that some folks in Florida, after the Hurricanes blew in, might not agree with your feeling that AR has no value.
Please be sure to contact the BPL lobby, so they can have a ham help them show the public how worthless Amateur Radio is.
Gee after AR is gone, you can find chatrooms that are just like Echolink. #So no problem.
W6NJ
Quote[/b] (VA7AA @ Oct. 27 2004,22:17)]
it's almost frightening that the loony tunes at the FCC cant see through that fact that no business model for
Here in Canada the touted solution for rural distribution is 3gig hubs and 26gig drops... microwave, probably using existing cell towers... it's a no brainer.... #
Richard
VA7AA[/QUOTE]
No brainer is the key.
The brain is not the main stimulater for some of those people, it is the wallet.
After all of the BPL tests worldwide, and the rejection of BLP from those tests, this is just amazing.
To me, it can only be explained by greed.
I do have to add something to correct where I was in error. BPL is both wired and wireless, the best of both worlds.. :>)
Of course the wireless part only tears up HF. Like a dog lifting it's leg and marking his territory.
It is so obvious.
73, W6NJ
aa1mn
10-28-2004, 04:08 PM
Quote[/b] ]You forgot to add cellphones, family radio, and tin cans hooked together with new computer designed synthetic string.
In 1950, a telephone provided more reliable long distance communication then HF.
With exactly is your point?
Didn't you just make the point?
With all the listed above what do you need amateur radio for? The world got along fine without before and will get along fine without after it's gone.
I wouldn't be surprised that it becomes an unlicensed mode of communications some years down the road just like CB is ... and this will be for the better because then the hams who think they're better than CBers won't be able to do so.
Chuck, AA1MN
Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Oct. 28 2004,09:08)]Quote[/b] ]You forgot to add cellphones, family radio, and tin cans hooked together with new computer designed synthetic string.
In 1950, a telephone provided more reliable long distance communication then HF.
With exactly is your point?
Didn't you just make the point?
With all the listed above what do you need amateur radio for? #The world got along fine without before and will get along fine without after it's gone.
I wouldn't be surprised that it becomes an unlicensed mode of communications some years down the road just like CB is ... and this will be for the better because then the hams who think they're better than CBers won't be able to do so.
Chuck, AA1MN
Ok Good buddy,
Got your point.
73 & a big 10-4
W6NJ
ke4pjw
10-28-2004, 07:47 PM
Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Oct. 27 2004,10:08)]Didn't you just make the point?
With all the listed above what do you need amateur radio for? #The world got along fine without before and will get along fine without after it's gone.
Chuck, I thought you would know what the purpose of amateur radio is. It's a radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations. There is no other radio service that allows you to do that.
n7spy
10-28-2004, 08:07 PM
Quote[/b] (KF7CG @ Oct. 28 2004,06:04)]NPR responded on the air to e-mails from Amateur Radio Operators and acknowledged on the air that there were interference problems to broadcast radio and that they may just have problems from it.
The message got through.
Cool!!!
I knew that NPR would come through #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif They were willing to do what almost no news organization out there is willing to do: admit that they didn't have the whole story.
Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Oct. 28 2004,09:08)]Didn't you just make the point?
With all the listed above what do you need amateur radio for? #The world got along fine without before and will get along fine without after it's gone.
I wouldn't be surprised that it becomes an unlicensed mode of communications some years down the road just like CB is ... and this will be for the better because then the hams who think they're better than CBers won't be able to do so.
Chuck, AA1MN
Chuck,
What if I DO like a challenge of HF radio communication as an Amateur Radio Operator? I did passed the test and want FCC to protect my earned right to use frequencies allocation! Not giving somebody else the right to dump interferance garbage onto Bands.
What do we need Amateur Radio for? Just because I want to use it! It's more than enough. If one citizen wants it- it should not even raise the question of necessity. And I am not the only one. If my opinion making a hole in someone's pocket- I don't care! I will do my best to make that hole bigger...
Don't forget... without HAMs they would still use LW frequencies.
Dmitri
k4kyv
10-28-2004, 10:24 PM
Quote[/b] (kc8ypa @ Oct. 26 2004,19:27)]BPL as a low cost substitute for the internet? Reminds me of the "cable will become cheaper" argument. Funny how cable companies with local competition somehow manage to lower their price to match the municipal system. It's hogwash, as usual.
Reminds me of nuclear energy propaganda in the 1950's that promised electricity "too cheap to meter."
kd5scf
10-29-2004, 08:18 AM
BPL may be thrusting forward, but, it will be laid to rest soon enough. When promises made about the technology fail to come to light, it will pass. Fttp(fiber to the premises),Dsl,Cable,WiMax, these will live on.
It costs less to put up a tower and transmit a signal on it's INTENDED frequeny, than trying to strap a new technology on old wires. It may cause a bit of noise at first, but I think the customer base will dwindle to nothing when the customer finds out what they get for the money. I just hope grandma's pacemaker doesn't pick up BPL.
Quote[/b] (AJ5TT @ Oct. 27 2004,17:16)]Is Chip arrogant? #Sure he is.
73 - John
John,
I am not aware of anything said on qrz.com that in any way presents evidence that I am arrogant. It is improper to state this. You appear to be confusing strength of presentation of a point of view with arrogance. I am distressed that you have presented this as factual.
Kindly confined your comments to those outside of personal defamations, as opposed to opinion based on facts. In any case, personal statements of (false) fact are not the topic of this thread.
Otherwise, I found your statements helpful in your post.
Thanks, and have a pleasant day.
73,
Chip N1IR
WA3KYY
10-29-2004, 04:09 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 27 2004,05:29)]Quote[/b] (W6NJ @ Oct. 27 2004,05:12)]Your idea that there has to be a certain number of hams that have interference before there is a problem is just not what the law says or common sense.
Dear OM,
Please do not misrepresent my statements.
The issue is how many potential cases of harmful inteference might be expected.
If you can get a handle on the number, then it allows you to enumerate the options to fix the problem, and estimate the resources needed to fix it--pre-emptively.
If you pretend that the number is in the hundreds of thousands, then the folks who could work to prevent/fix the problem will think hams can just be ignored. Can you blame them?
73,
Chip N1IR
What is you reasoning that the number is not in the hundreds of thousands? You have not presented even one shred of data to support anything less than 100% of amateurs who use HF. That is the starting point because the BPL industry wants to be everywhere.
The only way this will not be the case is if BPL is deployed far enough from any amateur fixed location so that there is no interference. The odds of that happening are vanishingly small. That does not address the interference to mobile stations along their daily routes of travel. Why should any amateur have to give up mobile HF opreations on their daily commute due to BPL interference?
aa1mn
10-29-2004, 04:34 PM
Quote[/b] ]I did passed the test and want FCC to protect my earned right to use frequencies allocation!
Unfortunately, you have forgotten not to trust authority, which is what the FCC is, and they don't have anyone's best interest at heart except their own.
Quote ]If my opinion making a hole in someone's pocket- I don't care! I will do my best to make that hole bigger...
What makes your damn opinion so special? The only one who has a hole in a pocket is you. Newsflash, Dmitri, no once cares about your opinion. With an attitude like that no is likely to either.
Chuck, AA1MN[/b]
Quote[/b] (K3CW @ Oct. 25 2004,15:22)]NPR's "Day to Day" broadcast a piece about Broadband over Power Line (BPL) technology today (25 October 2004) that was completely one-sided. #The supposed advantages of BPL were presented uncritically and not a word was said about the technology's interference potential or the numerous groups that oppose it’s deployment. #Whether the FCC has been abrogating its responsibility to protect and administer spectrum for the public good by unabashedly supporting BPL technology was similarly not addressed. #There is a link to a stream of the broadcast on this page:
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4125137
You can tell NPR and the reporter, Xeni Jardin, what you think of the piece at:
daytoday@npr.org
xeni at xeni dot net
ombudsman@npr.org
The FCC released, yesterday, the R&O regarding Access BPL. Go to:
http://www.fcc.gov
Then go to the 10/28 headlines and click for the document.
I have read it twice so far, and find it a thoughtful, thorough, and fair document.
It appears that the radio amateur comments--which include ARRL and CQ comments- although mentioned, were not deemed as indicative of data which registered specific impact, above and beyond those also relevant in other contexts.
In comparison, certain aero frequencies, and fixed station locations were targeted for exclusion from Access BPL, based upon compelling data so provided.
It is apparent to me that the FCC does not regard ham radio activities as a 'right' (nor should it) beyond certain emergency communications , for which it sees the need for the amateur radio service. Hence hobby-type and/or routine communications were considered but were not given overriding importance. This is appropriate, given the reason for the amateur radio service.
This document seems rather definitive on the matter and I doubt that anything beyond cooperation will prove productive in any future Access BPL matters. There may be those who choose to 'fight' this beyond this point, but I don't believe there is a reason to do so. Thus my opinions.
73,
Chip N1IR
AE4TM
10-29-2004, 11:37 PM
If BPL ever becomes widely deployed, it will not only interfere with amateurs but military aircraft. The power grid is only capable to transmitting long wavelengths such as 60Hz (~3100 mile wavelength) without standing waves and these standing waves will radiate HF interference which will interfere with all HF users. Boeing is against BPL because it will force them to resort to VHF, UHF, and microwave frequencies for our AF fighters and this defeats the purpose of putting VHF/UHF/radar absorbing paints on these jets. If this is not bad enough, hospitals will also complain when they learn that their sensitive electronics such as MRI, EEG, and ICU telemetry units cannot tolerate the interference coming directly into their power supplies. Scarry and the electrical engineers who designed the BPL modems will be the ones financially responsible for any adverse results.
Ed
The FCC's Report and Order is out for all to see at #www.fcc.gov
Amateur radio lost, bigtime, I'm afraid. Even more importantly, so have public safety agencies.
In fact, it will be even be up to the public safety agencies to find any areas where BPL interferes with their radio communications. #Not the same for federal agencies, though. #Even for those feds that aren't public safety related. #A sad situation for our law enforcement, fire and paramedic services.
I'll remember all of the above, come November 2.
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 29 2004,21:01)]The FCC's Report and Order is out for all to see at #www.fcc.gov
Amateur radio lost, bigtime, I'm afraid. Even more importantly, so have public safety agencies.
In fact, it will be even be up to the public safety agencies to find any areas where BPL interferes with their radio communications. #Not the same for federal agencies, though. #Even for those feds that aren't public safety related. #A sad situation for our law enforcement, fire and paramedic services.
I'll remember all of the above, come November 2.
Lee
W6EM
After reading the report, it is obvious that this is going to the courts.
What a bunch of double talk. They basicaly say that they don't see that it will interfere, but interference must be resolved, but in the end it is too bad if it does.
Right.
I'm just glad that the technology is so bad that it won't survive. For now, get ready for the firestorm.
W6NJ
N0MLR
10-30-2004, 03:47 PM
Well with all the information I have seen on Eham and QRZ about BPL I have to wonder........ #Why does the BPL folks HAVE to operate in the HF Spectrum??? The Power Companies have controled the Sub Stations with VLF signals for over 50 years. Why can't they operate BPL down there?? They are abandoning that technology for VOIP based systems so they could if they wanted. Just last week I saw the phone company and the power company working like Ants at the Sub Station down the road. So why do they have to use Our Bands?
Just wondering how about you?
W2DUG
10-30-2004, 05:32 PM
Quote[/b] (N0MLR @ Oct. 30 2004,10:47)]Why does the BPL folks HAVE to operate in the HF Spectrum??? The Power Companies have controled the Sub Stations with VLF signals for over 50 years. Why can't they operate BPL down there??
Because the "B" in BPL stands for "broadband". #Using a VLF carrier, you wouldn't be able to achieve the baseband signal bandwidth that you would need to support broadband Internet traffic. #Consider that DSL typically runs at 1.5 Mbps and cable runs 5 times that rate or more. #To be competitive, I would think that BPL would need to at least match DSL, which could then easily get you into the HF range when you consider the harmonics generated with all the signal switching.
Quote[/b] (N0MLR @ Oct. 30 2004,08:47)]The Power Companies have controled the Sub Stations with VLF signals for over 50 years. Why can't they operate BPL down there?? They are abandoning that technology for VOIP based systems so they could if they wanted.
Some utilities yet use VLF PLC for control and protective relaying of transmission lines to and from substations. #It is extremely simplistically utilized, however. #Most use a keyed carrier or a continuous carrier with a shift in frequency (guard/shift) operation for this. #Essentially one "on or off" command per channel. #Archaic for sure.
It is used on the transmission side, not the distribution side as is their intent for BPL.
Why not? #They simply can't get the information throughput by modulating a narrow bandwidth VLF signal.
Also, VLF #PLC is transmitted terminal to terminal and is isolated from interruption, loss or serious attenuation from power system circuit breakers and transformers via large series inductors, coupling capacitors and wave traps at the substation line termination points. #Owing to the geometry, a few Watts is adequate for distances in the neighborhood of 50 miles or so. #Not so, of course, with BPL. #BPL will be stopped by open switches, reclosers or circuit breakers that trip open. #It is ludicrous what some utilities claimed (and the commission bought) that BPL could be used for control and operation. #When the conductors carrying the BPL signal are opened or shorted, guess what? #No more BPL signal. #Its as simple as that. #Not only will power be out, but switching won't be able to take place to restore power if BPL is the communication medium to power system equipment. #Present Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems in use on distribution systems where BPL will be are either spread spectrum or packet radio-modem or telco leased line connected. #That way, when power is out, control and status is still there irrespective of line condition between the substation and the customer in most all cases.
The users of VLF PLC were scared to death that the FCC would place BPL radiation limits on them, and lobbied profusely for an exclusion from the Rulemaking, which they were granted. #Also of concern, was making their frequency information available to the public. #As I argued in an FCC Petition two years ago, such a simplistic concept has no place in today's world with the possiblities that a terrorist could easily cause misoperation or outages to entire substations still controlled or protected via simplistic 'on/off' PLC carriers.
And, as we all might suspect, visual clues of a large series inductor would invite monitoring to determine PLC frequency, etc.
Many utilities have abandoned VLF PLC for all but non-essential protection and control for the above reason and other concerns. #The one I worked for, Pacific Gas and Electric, did so many years ago, and all critical control, monitoring and protection is conveyed by either microwave or fiber optic paths. #Also, redundancy is employed so that any one communication path failure won't cause an interruption or loss of control. #PLC is used by them only to stop secondary back-up tripping of distant circuit breakers. #And, the wave traps were not that dependable and frequently detuned themselves, causing PLC failure. #The result of PLC failure at PGandE: #No effect seen by the customer.
I hope this long winded answer helped.
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.
N0MLR
10-30-2004, 09:15 PM
Thanks Guys for some insite to my earlier question. However.........
Why #should the users of HF be interested in the power companies piddly ass problems? They sure dont care about our problems!
Well it will all work out since we all know the Business Model won't support it... But that will be recognized when they have spent a LOT of money on it and they want the Electric Company CUSTOMERS to pay for their attempt to make a Silk Purse our of a Sow's Ear. If enough companies get in trouble it will be the Taxpayer who ends up bailing them out.
Looks like Law Suits will be the only thing that will stop this. We need to take a lesson from the Dems and Repubs and take em to court.
Something else we can do, in my opinion, is to start sending letters to our own power companies, telling them we do not want them to buy into this flawed technology, and that we will not tolerate interference. Thousands of letters to each company just might get their attention. Especially when we remind them that, as the nation's premier emergency communications service (confirmed by no less than the Department of Homeland Security), we cannot and will not accept ongoing interference.
I've already written my power company. Of course, if you are on a co-op, don't bother.
w4amp
11-02-2004, 12:53 AM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 30 2004,13:54)]Quote[/b] (N0MLR @ Oct. 30 2004,08:47)]The Power Companies have controled the Sub Stations with VLF signals for over 50 years. Why can't they operate BPL down there?? They are abandoning that technology for VOIP based systems so they could if they wanted.
Some utilities yet use VLF PLC for control and protective relaying of transmission lines to and from substations. It is extremely simplistically utilized, however. Most use a keyed carrier or a continuous carrier with a shift in frequency (guard/shift) operation for this. Essentially one "on or off" command per channel. Archaic for sure.
It is used on the transmission side, not the distribution side as is their intent for BPL.
Why not? They simply can't get the information throughput by modulating a narrow bandwidth VLF signal.
Also, VLF PLC is transmitted terminal to terminal and is isolated from interruption, loss or serious attenuation from power system circuit breakers and transformers via large series inductors, coupling capacitors and wave traps at the substation line termination points. Owing to the geometry, a few Watts is adequate for distances in the neighborhood of 50 miles or so. Not so, of course, with BPL. BPL will be stopped by open switches, reclosers or circuit breakers that trip open. It is ludicrous what some utilities claimed (and the commission bought) that BPL could be used for control and operation. When the conductors carrying the BPL signal are opened or shorted, guess what? No more BPL signal. Its as simple as that. Not only will power be out, but switching won't be able to take place to restore power if BPL is the communication medium to power system equipment. Present Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems in use on distribution systems where BPL will be are either spread spectrum or packet radio-modem or telco leased line connected. That way, when power is out, control and status is still there irrespective of line condition between the substation and the customer in most all cases.
The users of VLF PLC were scared to death that the FCC would place BPL radiation limits on them, and lobbied profusely for an exclusion from the Rulemaking, which they were granted. Also of concern, was making their frequency information available to the public. As I argued in an FCC Petition two years ago, such a simplistic concept has no place in today's world with the possiblities that a terrorist could easily cause misoperation or outages to entire substations still controlled or protected via simplistic 'on/off' PLC carriers.
And, as we all might suspect, visual clues of a large series inductor would invite monitoring to determine PLC frequency, etc.
Many utilities have abandoned VLF PLC for all but non-essential protection and control for the above reason and other concerns. The one I worked for, Pacific Gas and Electric, did so many years ago, and all critical control, monitoring and protection is conveyed by either microwave or fiber optic paths. Also, redundancy is employed so that any one communication path failure won't cause an interruption or loss of control. PLC is used by them only to stop secondary back-up tripping of distant circuit breakers. And, the wave traps were not that dependable and frequently detuned themselves, causing PLC failure. The result of PLC failure at PGandE: No effect seen by the customer.
I hope this long winded answer helped.
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.
http://www.digitalend.com/pics/surveystfu.jpg
W2NJS
11-03-2004, 01:30 AM
Give BPL some time and before too long one of the power companies will shoot itself in the foot, so to speak, in some high-profile manner that will make the point once and for all that the premise in actual practice is completely bogus.
It might go like this:
1. Complaint arises from a govt. agency using HF comms, due to BPL interference.
2. Power company blows off the complaint because they are riding high/stupid/insensitive (take your pick).
3. Complaining agency goes to DHS (not FCC) and makes it a homeland security issue.
4. Power company "gets religion" real fast and maybe is even forced to discontinue its BPL service.
Too much to hope for? Maybe not. Remember, we're dealing with some people here who can be pretty dense, insensitive, and (their big problem), non-techie, which is probably the fastest way to put your foot in your mouth in the politics of this situation.
Just watch. It'll happen, and we hams won't have to lift a finger, because the power companies that mess with the Feds HF radio systems are in for a really rude shock.
n7spy
11-03-2004, 09:19 PM
W2NJS:
That's a good scenario... except that this Administration has proven back-and-forth and left-and-right nd all-around that their allegiance is to money... therefore, it is perfectly possible (I sure-as-hell hope not) that they ask the Nets to move to where they don't interfere with BPL.
I guess what scares me is (with few exceptions) power companies do not seem take any effort to do what is good for the public. Power Plan Constructed Next to Neighborhood (http://www.stopaquila.org)
If we have so much fun correcting harmful interference from existing, unmaintained power lines, or fighting battles to keep them from building peaking facilities next to high dollar developments, what makes anyone think they are going to work with us to resole a BPL interference complaint.
I hope I'm wrong. "Show ME!"
WA4KFZ
11-28-2004, 06:32 PM
For what it's worth, the day after I replied to a call-in program on WAMU, a NPR affiliate, regarding Wi-Fi and BPL technology. The director of the Rural Broadband Coalition spoke "glowingly" about having witnessed a BPL demonstration in Manassas, VA. I called into the program and pointed out what a complete disaster BPL is for amateur radio operators and how we are able to completely stop BPL traffic when transmitting from mobile rigs. The link to the radio show is shown below. My comments appear near the last few minutes of the program.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/kn/04/10/26.php
There are news organizations out there that simply regurgitate whatever they are told, without critically examing the issues. It 's our job to make sure that they see the other side of the coin. Hopefully enough potential BPL investors will realize that this technology is flawed, frail and offers so little revenue-generating potential that they'll look for other ways to deliver broadband service.
Fight the good fight!
73,
Mark Braunstein, WA4KFZWAMU Kojo Nnamdi Show 10/26/04 (http://www.wamu.org/programs/kn/04/10/26.php)