From: John Smith on Thurs 11 Aug 2005 11:04

Jim:

W1RFI? The arrl hitman against BPL? That guy? Krist, look at his call!
The guy has RFI on the brain, probably thinks alien spacecraft is causing
a lot of interference on the band too! Oh yeah, sounds like a real
unbiased guy to be giving advice alright...

Get real!

Another history lesson, John. Ed Hare (W1RFI) is a lead
spokesperson for the ARRL on radio interference matters
affecting radio amateurs. He got enthused about that job
(he gets paid for what he does) enough that he got a vanity
call to reflect his work.

In truth, Ed Hare doesn't have much experience in metrology
anywhere else but at the ARRL "laboratory." He does possess
enough smarts to analyze data and find sources of information
from those WITH experience in metrology. FOR the ARRL he
appears to be doing a good job.

However, the ARRL is not the be-all and end-all of any BPL
problems' information. ARRL has actually hired a commercial
firm to do RFI measurements at one Market Test location.
ARRL website used to have a link to download that report,
may still be there (haven't looked myself). The ARRL has
(or had at any rate) several links to other sites which DO
have quantitative data on RFI problems.

A REAL source of information on BPL is in the Comments to the
FCC from 2003 to 2004 on the FCC's NOI (Notice of Inquiry)
into "industry suggestions on measurement methods of RFI in
the field." That alone touched off a tirade, a flood of
angst by radio amateurs against BPL's very existance...without
a whole lot of "suggestions on measurement methods."

Lost to the majority of Commenters is the FACT that the FCC
COULD NOT FORBID the existance of BPL. All the FCC could do
is to determine if RFI exceeded a regulatory-set power level
and regulate the service-provider aspect of BPL providers.
The FCC has since done that and is refining some of its
regulations. The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
is handling Access BPL.


On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:

If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen
links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards
(apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago
(perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's
work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL.
Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands.

Slight correction, Jim. Ed Hare didn't find out all this
"tremendous
amount of interference" all by himself. OTHERS found it and
reported
it. Government agencies have made quantitative measurements to a
high metrology accuracy and documented that...such is publicly
available. Ed Hare pointed to the sources of information. The
ARRL itself did very little but publicize the matter. Certain
localities (a club organization in Iowa) have done far more in
their own area in terms of effort and maintaining high metrology
standards as well as reporting it.

"Tremendous amount" is a very subjective statement. Subjective
statements aren't good for regulation law. The law should state
some exact limit levels on that interference, including the
general method (peak v. average, measurement bandwidth, comparison
against known physical standards, etc). Some of those exact limit
levels will be argued and they may be arbitrary...but they will be
far more correct that using the subjective "tremendous amount."


A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting
worse.

True, but irrelevant to the subject thread... :-)


You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was
demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact
that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that
it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned
channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can
affect).

Those radio services (including broadcasting) have been noted
and explained by industry/business groups involved in those HF
and low-VHF services on the FCC NOI. It isn't the job of the
ARRL to safeguard anything but the wishes of its membership.


It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging
in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean
that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if
BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services).

"Trolling" seems to be the essence of many folks' participation
in here...including some of your own postings! :-)

Insofar as "some folks" are concerned, it's NOT everyone's job
(or goal in life) to placate them, to commisserate, to capitulate
to their mighty opinions. [especially true about the PCTA extras
in here] If you don't like controversy, newsgroups are NOT for
you!

On the same token, postings should have some semblance of civility
which is often thrown aside by some. John posts provocatively
but he is also civil (as much as possible) to his 'opponents,'
most of whom have NOT bothered with much civility in denigrating
him. I give John credit for talking back to these other anony-
mousies (and identifiables) who have increased the intolerable
noise level in this newsgroup.

bpl rfi