(Jim Nye) wrote in message ...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL.

No, it's a real issue. Have you seen the video? Have you conducted
tests on the BPL demo areas?

That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Every organization needs to justify its existence.

Are you saying we don't need the ARRL, NAACP, or NOW? How about the
NRA?

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD.

You admit, then, that BPL emits noise.

But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the
receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most
current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed
equipment to deal with any BPL "interference." The ARRL reports have
conveniently omitted any mention of the coherency issue, and their
measurements are therefore flawed, because they don't reflect real
world situations.

Have you actually done this? Where is your 120 page report and demo
video?

Are the BPL folks going to buy me a new transceiver if my existing one
doesn't have these alleged noise-cancelling features?

Let's get down to basics on this.

What you're saying is:

1) BPL does radiate lots of noise
2) Rather than the unlicensed BPL folks not radiating the noise, it
should be up to the licensed users to filter out the noise using
techniques you have not demonstrated.
3) If an amateur does not have the technology to filter out the noise,
he/she is out of luck.

Let's do an analogy, shall we?

Imagine the RF spectrum as a river that is used by many different
people for many different purposes - transportation, recreation,
fishing, irrigation, energy generation, drinking water, etc. All are
licensed and have their uses balanced against each other. Nobody is
allowed to just dump trash in the river.

Along comes a group that wants to use an existing bridge over the
river for transport. But the vehicles they want to use on the bridge
leak and spill their contents, some of which falls into the river.
They claim that:

- the spillage is harmless
- proof of harm is up to the other users
- anybody who doesn't like the spillage should simply equip themselves
with filters to strain it out, rather than requiring the transport
company to seal up their vehicles and not spill in the first place.

Here's another: Perhaps we should remove all air pollution devices,
and simply have everyone go around wearing gas masks.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading.

What about the inaccuracies YOU are spreading?

Instead, do some reading on your own
by going to non-ARRL web pages such as http://www.uplc.utc.org, and
http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm before accepting the ARRL
claims at face value.

I did. I saw nothing about "coherent noise". I did see a lot of
boosterism for a polluting technology.

DSL and cable modems don't pollute the RF spectrum. Why should BPL be
allowed to do so?

N2EY