In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

You would think so, but that's not how it works.

Take cell phones. How many "average people" really know the most basic things
about how they work? I'm not talking about CDMA or even analog vs. digital, but
just the idea that they are little radio transceivers? Look at the people
opposing cell towers as "sources of radiation" - yet demanding perfect
coverage, and holding the dern things next to their heads for many minutes per
day. Note how the solutions that have evolved have included disguised sites,
and the use of more cells with reduced coverage. "Inverse square law"?
Puhleeze!

Why do you think the 'phone folks revived the term "wireless"?

73 de Jim, N2EY