Hams are not the only users of the affected spectrum. They may be the
most vocal, but perhaps the easiest to discredit or deflect.

What about the other users of the HF-thru-VHF spectrum? Police, Fire,
EMS, Federal Government, Business, Utilities (the power companies
themselves), Military, Aviation, etc., etc.?

Do they not have consultants who are in touch with industry affairs?

Does APCO (and other industry communications associations) not have
knowledge about BPL and a position on it?

What is the ARRL doing to join forces with other affected spectrum
users, perhaps forming a task force to promote common interests?
Lobbying senators and congressmen, the Commission, NTIA, etc.?

If the utilities' strategy is to divide and conquer, it appears they
are being very effective.

73
Dan (K0DAN)



On 14 Oct 2003 14:03:08 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

W1RFI wrote:

You raise an interesting question, Carl. How exactly should the
average ham go about proving that the RFI is indeed BPL, when the BPL
people say
"That's not us!'??


In the case in Emmaus, the PPL rep told a reporter that Carl had misidentified
a "neon sign" (in a residential neighborhood) as BPL. First, Carl is
professionally adept with spread spectrum, so he knows what an SS signal sounds
like. The signal was heard only in the trial area and when I was in Emmaus, I
worked with a local in the trial area who downloaded files for me. When the
download started, the noise started; when it stopped, the noise stopped.

What really proves it to be not a neon sign, however, is that the time-domain
(oscilloscope) signature of the received signal does not have a pronounced
120-Hz signature. Had the PPL representative actually looked at the signal, he
would have known that his "explanation" was pretty transparent.

I have extended by email a very cordial inviation for the PPL folks to attend a
local club talk I gave; they did not respond. I then emailed a cordial
invitation to work with them on interference issues; they did not respond. This
boggles the mind, because if I were about to invest millions of dollars of my
company's money and a national organization came to me and told me that there
was a serious problem with the technology, and offered to drive over 200 miles
just to show it to me, I think I would spend the hour or two and take a look.



It's beyond obvious that the BPL people are adamantly intent on
stonewealling and bypassing ham radio and anything else that tries to
get in the way.
They're aware that many of the impacted spectrum users are so widely
scattered that much of the interference caused by BPL even when it
becomes widely implemented they won't be noticed due to their limited
exposure caused by lack of adequately close proximity.

Hams, which *are* pretty well scattered throughout the population,
should be ignored and their complaints deflected by such incorrect
assertions as the above "neon sign" explanation. Make it so that there
is so much question as to hams' competance to make such a call they can
be portrayed to be wrong, whatever the facts. It's obvious obfuscation
and an end-run around us, and whatever other protesters weigh in that
can be similarily deflected. They hope that the "serious" users of that
part of the spectrum will prove to be so few and widely scattered that
their protests will be few and managable.

And once BPL installations are widespread, they know it would demand
a clearly demonstrated, very serious interference problem to csuse its
abandonment, and they don't think that will happen. They maybe right.
If so many users sign on that the sheer numbers of BPL users overwhelm
all the protests of spectrum pollution and damage to communications
sheer numbers and politics will prevail in their favor, they believe.
All they really need to do is get it approved and "out there" in large
amounts in most populated areas, then the situation will take care of
itself, they think.

If allowed to proceed, BPL will forever change usability of the HF and
Low VHF part of the spectrum.