"Jack" wrote in message
...


It was much easier to clean up Cable TV distribution systems. They are
already shielded, and it was mostly a matter of pressuring the cable
operators to devote the rersources to porperly maintain the cable
plant. Meaning tightening loose connectors, applying more and proper
grounding, etc. BPL is an inherently unshielded medium, as has been
noted here many times. What goes in, leaks out, all over the place.

Unless we're all prepared to bear the cost and hassle of changing
power transmission lines to a shielded medium, I don't see it being
practical.

Its new and not very widespread at present. It doesn't yet adversely
affect as many influential commercial users as it eventually will, and
I think the whipped up commotion that the nation needs broadband at
all costs has clouded potential complainants minds. I think that once
instituted on a wider scale, the FCC will start to see the damage BPL
will do to communications on a much broader scale, as the influential
interests who presently sit the fence are affected and complain of
interference. My question is that, by then, will it be too late to
turn back?

-Jack-

Well, the BPL folk say their scheme won't radiate much. I think they ought
to be held to it. I don't know exactly how much not much is, but clearly,
it's less than the ARRL monitors are recieving at the demo sites. And BPL
is on it's best behavior for the demos.

I don't know nearly enough to know what will happen with BPL in the future.
But they are wrong about a fundimental issue such as interference. Are they
wrong about other things as well? Might they have a incompletely thought
out plan, and hope to fix it up with alot of engineering on the fly? Dunno,
but I still think BPL is goofy.

It's looking like the customers will be given the final decision. And they
just want good performance at a low price. If I were a customer, I'd stick
with proven technology.

Frank Dresser