ARRL REBUTS DENIAL OF INTERFERENCE FROM BPL TRIAL

It is IT OM; it is it.

IT just BE.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I don't think the ARRL has done that. The FCC has sided with the BPL industry to allow broad pollution of HF bandwidth because of political pressure. The ARRL is pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

BPL is probably impossible to stop, but I applaud the ARRL's efforts to soften the blow.

 

NOT.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

My point is that just because a company makes RFID antennas doesn't mean that they desire to have ham radio be beleaguered by interference from RFID devices, or visa versa; nor does such interference exist.

Given that there IS no such interference--and the two services have co-existed now for some time-- your argument is specious.

It is another one of those "scare tactics" referred to earlier.

A pool of words to rile up and confuse, IMO.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

We all realize that you can't operate everywhere, but with widespread adoption of BPL, it may be a challenge to operate anywhere!

 

The Ad-Hominen attack word "insane" coupled with the "IMO" sounds exactly like the guy who calls himself "Chip". The rest of your commentary is well-written, intelligent and challenging -- and thank you for that BTW.

FWIW, the staff of the ARRL is not "insane", yet.

 

Thanks for sharing the info about those bills.

I agree wholeheartedly that we don't want to be marginalized. Unfortunately, we already are, and it is not the ARRL's fault.

 

There is absolutely nothing that supports this statement. It is, IMO, a "scare tactic".

73,
Chip N1IR

 

No one is attacking the personal integrity of the ARRL staff. It is the present position that, IMO, is rife with issues that will not lead to positive resolution.

For example, I think Jim Haynie is an honest man who gets things done. The disagreement is what is getting done and how to best pursue it.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

If government doesn't follow its own rules, we will have chaos. No wait! Didn't that happen to 11 meters?

You make an excellent point about working *now* for language in the congressional bills that would preempt a similar fight down the line with another technology. I miss Barry Goldwater.

73,
Dave/al2i

 

Oh OK, "Chip", I'll notice you. I will amend the statement to read that with widespread adoption of BPL, it may be a challenge to operate on any planet where there is electrical power or an RF-refractive ionosphere.

 

If you are unconcerned about BPL as you seem, why do you care about the ARRL's tactics. You sure post a lot of high-handed attacks on the ARRL for being so unconcerned.

What exactly is your connection to RF-polluting technologies?

 

More "us versus them"; IMO a "scare tactic".

What exactly would the claims be in the complaint?

Briarcliff (sic) has an alleged complaint from a mobiler who apparently drove into the BPL service area, and alleges "harmful interference".

If I take my rig, and deliberately place it next to your --oh so noisy-- computer, can I force you to shut your computer down because of "harmful interference from a Part 15 device"? Can I force Compaq and Sony, and Hitachi, and HP and Dell and everyone else to shut down the lap top computer industry because my efforts led to the alleged interference?

The BPL industry has a potential problem, and they are trying to fix it. Manufacturing a specious case, IMO, of 'harmful interference' to a  mobile hamster is likely to reverse the focus.

Imagine what will happen if the press picks this up...

What are the penalties for filing false claims of interference?

Part 15 interference issues are not new, and ultimately get resolved positively. We've been living in a world of a billion Part 15 devices for years.

If bona fide interference results from BPL deployment, then they have a very big problem. They don't have a problem from the ARRL's recent effort, IMO. All they have from that, IMO,  is an excuse not to deal with the hostile hams.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Happy to answer.

On occasion, I am asked to solve antenna problems to help meet Part 15 Type acceptance. Last week I cut down the harmonic emission by a clever fix on the antenna, saving a customer's neck, and allowing implementation of a new technology that will save millions of people money--and meet Type acceptance, a stringent and thoughtful process to help prevent interference.

Sure, I work on Part 15 devices. There are, perhaps, thousands of hams that get their pay from that industry.

I have nothing to do with BPL. If asked to get involved from a development end, I would decline.

Part 15 business is a small slice of the overall pie in which I am involved.

Fancy that!

Why don't you be a little more direct and ask what my 'agenda' is? If you ask, I will be delighted to tell you.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Honest, objective research is never a bad thing.

To place preconditions on what forms of technology should and shouldn't qualify for government support is contrary to everyone's best interests.

Especially, since such research, if properly conducted objectively, could identify a means to provide broadband service, especially wireless broadband service, at much greater rates than HF BPL.  And, with the soon-to-be abandonment of most of what is now the VHF and UHF TV spectrum, obviously, there will be lots of room for high bandwidth services.

If we were to lobby to place anti-BPL contstraints on such legislation, we would run the risk of discrediting ourselves immensely.  And, perhaps deserve the label of being archaic armchair technologists.

Just my two cents.

Lee
W6EM