Radio Flyer wrote:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for
74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC
and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should
SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.

TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times
higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

Well of course. Why would one want a HF antenna to be shielded?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

You may want it to be shielded when BPL is nationwide


That may not help. BPL will interfere with SW and TV signals BEFORE they
get to the antenna. I don't think BPL will cause "snow" as we know it,
from all descriptions the interference is a bunch of clicking and
buzzing noises. Try watching TV while the picture is cutting in and out
because of BPL. I think that once BPL is shown to affect TV (as I
believe it will) the networks will be falling all over themselves to
protest.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---