BPL - impact on radio communications
As tests and any sort of technical common sense would make obvious,
broadband transmissions on miles of unshielded power lines will create havoc
with the reception of micro-volt level radio communication signals. The
concept is pure nonsense to anyone with a technical background. My BSEE
(with communications specialization) and top FCC commercial and amateur
radio licenses does not make me a great expert, but anyone with a
comprehension of radio transmission and reception knows that the BPL concept
does not work, unless basic MF & HF radio is sacrificed. BPL is a poorly
thought out concept, with the unlikely potential for profit driving this
otherwise unfathomable concept. Please get some honest technical input
before allowing this BPL debacle to continue.
Sincerely, AK

"yea right" wrote in message
news
If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi


If you can't think of any thing to type or wish to make this as painless
as possible, you can cut-n-paste the comment I typed below.

Thanks for the info & the FCC link. AK



Play devil's advocate: how do we, as 'hams' convince others that increased QRM
and QRN --prevents-- our use of licensed privileges.

To wit: consider HF mobile. Why should anyone care if a roving 'ham' gets
blasted by QRM when driving underneath a power line? The emergency comm
argument has limited viability: most emergency comm happens at VHF or UHF these
days, especially mobile.

Provide a compelling answer and you've certainly made it difficult to justify
BPL. Don't make a case and you've thrown the focus on the necessity of certain
HF 'ham' activities in a broader context.

Hope this helps.

73,
Chip N1IR

AK wrote:

BPL - impact on radio communications
As tests and any sort of technical common sense would make obvious,
broadband transmissions on miles of unshielded power lines will create havoc
with the reception of micro-volt level radio communication signals. The
concept is pure nonsense to anyone with a technical background. My BSEE
(with communications specialization) and top FCC commercial and amateur
radio licenses does not make me a great expert, but anyone with a
comprehension of radio transmission and reception knows that the BPL concept
does not work, unless basic MF & HF radio is sacrificed. BPL is a poorly
thought out concept, with the unlikely potential for profit driving this
otherwise unfathomable concept. Please get some honest technical input
before allowing this BPL debacle to continue.
Sincerely, AK

Unfortunately the folks at the FCC that are pushing BPL have zero
comprehension of radio transmission or reception, in fact have zero
comprehension of anything technical. They are a bunch of lawyers who
only comprehend money. Chairman Powell wouldn't know a transistor from a
doorknob, I doubt he can turn on a tv without help. He will probably
leave the FCC after BPL gets rolling for some cushy outrageous paying
position at some BPL intenty as his reward for helping to push this
debacle down everyone's throats.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...

Nice letter, but it will fall on deaf ears -- FCC head Michael Powell
is a cheerleader for BPL.

Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.
My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge of.

AK

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:06:30 GMT, "AK" wrote:


"Bob Miller" wrote in message
.. .

Nice letter, but it will fall on deaf ears -- FCC head Michael Powell
is a cheerleader for BPL.

Sadly, I am aware of that. Either he's been paid off, or the people pulling
his strings have been paid off by the power company special interest reps.

When Powell travels to industry functions/conventions, his hotel
room/suite is usually paid for by broadcast reps. He hangs out with
them, parties with them. As an attorney, he used to represent media
conglomerates. His preferences are well known.

Bob
k5qwg


My "but anyone with a comprehension of radio transmission and reception
knows that the BPL concept does not work" and "unfathomable concept"
comments were certainly directed Powell's way. Oh for the good ol' days when
at least one or two of the FCC Commissioners were ex-FCC field engineers who
understood something about the medium they were supposed to be in charge of.

AK

Bob,

I have to give that a very big "but we don't know that".

As a non-attorney, guess what I'd like to say.

tom
K0TAR

Bob Miller wrote:


When Powell travels to industry functions/conventions, his hotel
room/suite is usually paid for by broadcast reps. He hangs out with
them, parties with them. As an attorney, he used to represent media
conglomerates. His preferences are well known.

Bob
k5qwg

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:25:56 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Bob,

I have to give that a very big "but we don't know that".

Tom, no we don't know that for sure, but it was reported in various
news stories, around the time Powell was pushing to increase the
number of media outlets a conglomerate could own.

Bob
k5qwg



As a non-attorney, guess what I'd like to say.

tom
K0TAR

Bob Miller wrote:


When Powell travels to industry functions/conventions, his hotel
room/suite is usually paid for by broadcast reps. He hangs out with
them, parties with them. As an attorney, he used to represent media
conglomerates. His preferences are well known.

Bob
k5qwg

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:39:39 +0000, Fractenna wrote:

Working together with BPL is the best course for ham radio.

Unfortunately, everybody knows that BPL will hinder HF. There is no
argument here as all testing shows this. The question is really how much
is acceptable. 5db/m increase in noise floor at 500M nor 9uV/m at 10M of
interference is not acceptably to me on any HF freq. Goodbye QRP,
especially if you live in the sticks! You may never hear distant shortwave
broadcast again unless you live miles from a powerline.

Testing in the united states has not been truthful, utilizing Shoody test
techniques and deception. They even picked a test community with
underground power lines and no nearby amateurs. I'm willing to bet that
all the people are on cable/DBS TV and nobody had a shortwave radio.

BPL is bad and the FCC knows it. So does FEMA, the military and the
coastguard. That is why they have provisions in the regulations for them
(and them only) to restrict BPL away from their facilities. Hams will not
have this protection. Both the British and Germans pulled BPL when field
test revealed the true nature of the interference.

Why wait until it's too late to do anything about. If you wait, you lose.
The WSJ (Wall Street Journal)is there to promote business. BPL is business
and amateur radio is not. I will let others painfully expand about these
politics on many vectors. ;-)

Please, if you value radio, it only takes a few minutes to fill out a FCC
comment.... better safe than sorry.

www.vambo.org/a

Glad you did something on this! I sent mine in (added to yours some);

I recommend that the FCC ask for a technical showing that BPL will
not interfere with other existing communications in these bands
before establishing Rules and Regulations. I also recommend that
the FCC ask for a technical showing signal losses (of BPL) on
distribution grids in a city. These losses are substantial, and can
indicate that BPL works in only very limited cases, making it
basically unusable in urban and suburban areas.


Existing Emergency communications will be hindered to levels
directly responsible for the loss of life, because of a raised
noise floor or excessive leakage in various locations.

There are many technologies that make BPL unnecessary. BPL will
never be able to carry the high bandwidth demands for mass
distribution of video much less the up-and-coming HDTV.


Please do not destroy the foundation of radio communications below
50 MHz for a unproven technology that is suspected of causing
widespread interference.

In Writing, I wish to persuade the FCC from allowing BPL to be
implemented. The destruction or at the least, deterioration of the
shortwave bands is not only a violation of ITU laws that protect
international broadcasters from interference and jamming, it will
be destroying many people's life hobby. Amateur radio will be
reduced to users with high-power amplifiers and large antennas.

Thank you.

"yea right" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:39:39 +0000, Fractenna wrote:

Working together with BPL is the best course for ham radio.

Unfortunately, everybody knows that BPL will hinder HF. There is no
argument here as all testing shows this. The question is really how much
is acceptable. 5db/m increase in noise floor at 500M nor 9uV/m at 10M of
interference is not acceptably to me on any HF freq. Goodbye QRP,
especially if you live in the sticks! You may never hear distant shortwave
broadcast again unless you live miles from a powerline.

Testing in the united states has not been truthful, utilizing Shoody test
techniques and deception. They even picked a test community with
underground power lines and no nearby amateurs. I'm willing to bet that
all the people are on cable/DBS TV and nobody had a shortwave radio.

BPL is bad and the FCC knows it. So does FEMA, the military and the
coastguard. That is why they have provisions in the regulations for them
(and them only) to restrict BPL away from their facilities. Hams will not
have this protection. Both the British and Germans pulled BPL when field
test revealed the true nature of the interference.

Why wait until it's too late to do anything about. If you wait, you lose.
The WSJ (Wall Street Journal)is there to promote business. BPL is business
and amateur radio is not. I will let others painfully expand about these
politics on many vectors. ;-)

Please, if you value radio, it only takes a few minutes to fill out a FCC
comment.... better safe than sorry.

www.vambo.org/a

Chip -

I respectfully suggest you think again about emergency comm's...
this time slightly outside the most literal "box."

Amateur radio already suffers from an aging base of licensees, and
recruiting new ones is difficult. A very high percentage of the "fun"
involved in amateur radio is HF operation. Providing VHF/UHF
emergency comm's is more like work... our payback for spectrum use.

If the Government says "To Hell with amateur radio--use their HF
spectrum for flaky and redundant ISP service," then many amateurs
will quit--AND leave their VHF/UHF emergency service as well.
I'm likely to be one of them.

And what would the recruiting line be then? "Become an Amateur
Radio operator, and you can spend your time working bicycle
races, and hope to get a cross-town emergency gig some day?"
Whoop-de-do, what fun!

I doubt the FCC will have to hire more staff to process Amateur
applications, with exciting prospects like that driving what's left
of the hobby.

73,

Ed, W6LOL

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
snip
To wit: consider HF mobile. Why should anyone care if a roving 'ham' gets
blasted by QRM when driving underneath a power line? The emergency comm
argument has limited viability: most emergency comm happens at VHF or UHF
these days, especially mobile.

Provide a compelling answer and you've certainly made it difficult to
justify BPL. Don't make a case and you've thrown the focus on the
necessity
of certain HF 'ham' activities in a broader context.

Hope this helps.

73,
Chip N1IR

yea right wrote:
Unfortunately, everybody knows that BPL will hinder HF.

Will it hinder coherent CW and PACTOR II?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----