July 9th 03, 02:07 PM
|
|
|
(N2EY) wrote in message
Basically they come down to two ideas:
1) spectrum masking, which consists of not allowing the BPL systems to
use frequencies in the ham bands. Which is fine until something
nonlinear in the system causes intermodulation products, harmonics or
other spurious signals to fall in the ham bands. This method was used
to stop HomePlug and other in-building systems from tearing up 80
meters - AFTER our own W1RFI and other ARRL folks got the manufacturer
to recognize the problem.
2) "improved modes and modulations", which permit the use of lower
signal levels and hence lower signal leakage. Supposedly.
The BIG problem is obvious to anyone who actually goes out and looks
at a typical aerial distribution system. Lots of nice, long wires, way
up in the air, running all over everyone's neighborhood. Put a little
RF in them and watch it radiate.
Heck, one of the biggest problems in access BPL is that the lines are
"lossy" at RF. They're "lossy" because they radiate!
You can read the comments of others and leave your own at the FCC
website, via the ECFS system. Check out what the ARRL is saying and
doing at the ARRL website.
Where is the NTIA in all this? They sure got their knickers in a twist
about hams having broad access to 60M because of the potential
interference to vital gummint HF comms from us. BPL is not the same
kind of threat to the gummint itself than it is to us? Hams are not
the only users of HF, in fact we're close to being bit players
overall. What about the SWL's? All the gummint time & frequency
standards stations? All the HF military comms we don't know about? The
commercial PACTOR users?
Question for Phil: At what point can opponents of BPL take it out of
the hands of the FCC and into the Federal courts? I'm thinking in
terms of the ARRL taking it to the wall and laying on the expert
witnesses Powell Jr. can't brush off like he can at this stage.
73 de Jim, N2EY
w3rv
|