On 18 Oct 2004 05:59:20 -0700, (k4wge) wrote:
What spectrum is to be shared? The BPL advocates are asking the FCC to
relax radiation limits. How is that sharing?

We have access to every OTHER Hertz in bandwidth across the spectrum.
Half for us, half for them. Just don't expect all (or significant
portion) of your half in any one place - that just wouldn't be fair
now, would it?

Keep in mind, this is the kinder, gentler compassion we've been
promised and by all CIA investigations into the matter, they've been
overwhelmingly successful (please don't ask for documentation).

So why did the FCC comment system reject (multiple times) my comments and these
questions about bpl?

If you look at the bpl test areas, none of them are in rural areas. Come out
to where I live and you will found rural on top of a 6200 foot mountain with a
10 percent grade to go up and down.

Randy ka4nma

Fractenna wrote:


Fractenna wrote:


Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why

this

was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we have
final resolution;

Final resolution? Not even close. Part 15 still needs to be rewritten.


2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'

is

not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum

with

BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

It isn't all about the amateurs.

There is money to be made. Equipment to build, systems to map out and
fiber to run. And in the end, when BPL fails, there will be class action
lawsuits. But in the interim, there was money to be made.

We don't have to worry about gloating, or Hams or whatever. Too much of


the existing infrastructure will interfere with BPL. The power companies
will have to repair this infrastructure, which many are loathe to do
(see F.C.C. enforcement actions) Too many places that will support BPL
at a profit are already served by faster and more reliable systems. And
the rural areas, which BPL was supposed to service admirably, don't have
the population density to run that fiber to.

It isn't the Hams, it is poor technology coupled with a bad business

model.

Now if someone wanted to run fiber past my house, and allow me access
to it at what I'm paying now for cable.... *then* I'd be interested!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Hi Mike,

Although I disagree with you, it's nice to see thoughtful arguments, as opposed
to 'let's kill the technology' diatribes.

Yeah, some of the arguments are a heavy on emotion and short on facts.
And I don't mind discussions with those who disagree with me. Helps to
make up one's mind.

- mike KB3EIA -

In message , Roger
writes
On 15 Oct 2004 22:57:29 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

BPL is simply a poor technical solution, and is an interim communications
step that should be bypassed.

Why wait? People have things to say and see right now.

Ultimately, all telecom systems transition. BPL has the good fortune of having
an infrastructure and a need right now; tomorrow; and for some time to come.

Seize the day! Solve a pressing problem. BPL looks very promising.

That is not exactly what the Technology News has to say
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html
They basically say it doesn't look promising as a business model and
the infrastructure isn't in place to use it yet, except for a few test
sites. It's inefficient, expensive to install, and is least likely to
serve the sparsely settled rural areas for which it's being touted.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

73,
Chip N1IR


It seems incongruous that the FCC should be supporting BPL.
They should be renamed the FLOCC (Federal LACK OF Communication
Commission).
Ian.
--

"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...
sideband wrote in message
I'll be the first to admit I have things to learn, and I'm no expert
in any one area. I do know what I've experienced with BPL, and it's
not been pleasant. Just ask the folks around the Orlando, Florida
area... Their BPL tests can be heard all the way across the state in
Titusville, and so greatly that it interferes with communications.


Money talks, and common sense and real world reports take a walk. In
most cases anyway. Some companies have already tried and discarded
BPL. Problems o-plenty. Maybe others will see the light. The dark side
has won a major battle, and Darth Chipster gloateth o-plenty, but the
day is not lost yet. My R2 unit, "henry 2k console model", is jumping
around beeping and squeaking just itching to join the battle. If they
attack locally, I will give them sporadic shots of my BPL death beam
via my various elevated radiating devices. I'll have them locking up
like a J38 model speedsters hitting a canyon wall. The F.C.C brass
should be flogged with leather whips for the obvious disregard of the
currents users of the HF spectrum. It's all about money...Nothing
else. All the reports of problems with the systems were ignored.
"Except by some owners, who dropped out of the BPL testing"
Also, many claims are pretty hokey...IE: they claim that they can null
out problem frequencies, IE:, aircraft, etc, etc. But I hear of
problems doing this. I hear it's not really that feasable if they want
to maintain proper operation, and I also hear it doesn't really cure
the problem, as the "nulling device" is not far from the user.
Take just aircraft alone...We are talking nulling say 2-3 mhz, 6 mhz,
8 mhz, 10 mhz, 11 mhz, 13 mhz, 17 mhz, 21 mhz, 27 mhz, just for a
few...I may have missed some military bands, etc...
I have heard of no notching plans for amateur bands, so I guess we
have to go to rf noise hell...
I bet the system will work great with all those notched
holes...Not....

They still will be radiating those freq's on the main lines I would
think. It's the biggest money grubbing farce I've ever heard of. Heck,
with my radios and antennas, they could probably be blocks or even
miles away, and I could still hear it. The Florida experience backs me
up on this. I'm not just barking at the moon. Bye bye weak DX....Bye
bye weak aircraft signals. Bye bye any rf weaklings...QRp will be
extra fun being half the country will probably soon have their ears
plugged with digital spew.
But, I bet they will hear me too, if the leakage is that bad... It
will be a bad day for the empire if my R2 unit joins the fray. I'll
keep those BPL techs a hopping all over the neighborhood. Remember,
most of the speculation is about damage to the hams, etc... But don't
ignore the damage all the 1000's of hams and other rf emitting device
owners will likely cause them. CB's will have to deal with them also,
and you know how nasty signaled some cb'ers can get. I hear some 4-5
mhz wide as it is... I don't think they have really fully taken this
into account yet. MK

I WISH I had a CBer that narrow. My 'good buddy' puts out a S9 plus from
14 to 50 MHz.

Dan/W4NTI

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On 16 Oct 2004 20:31:55 -0700, (Mark Keith) wrote:

|sideband wrote in message
| I'll be the first to admit I have things to learn, and I'm no expert
| in any one area. I do know what I've experienced with BPL, and it's
| not been pleasant. Just ask the folks around the Orlando, Florida
| area... Their BPL tests can be heard all the way across the state in
| Titusville, and so greatly that it interferes with communications.
|
|
|Money talks, and common sense and real world reports take a walk. In
|most cases anyway. Some companies have already tried and discarded
|BPL. Problems o-plenty. Maybe others will see the light. The dark side
|has won a major battle, and Darth Chipster gloateth o-plenty, but the
|day is not lost yet. My R2 unit, "henry 2k console model", is jumping
|around beeping and squeaking just itching to join the battle. If they
|attack locally, I will give them sporadic shots of my BPL death beam
|via my various elevated radiating devices. I'll have them locking up
|like a J38 model speedsters hitting a canyon wall. The F.C.C brass
|should be flogged with leather whips for the obvious disregard of the
|currents users of the HF spectrum. It's all about money...Nothing
|else. All the reports of problems with the systems were ignored.
|"Except by some owners, who dropped out of the BPL testing"
|Also, many claims are pretty hokey...IE: they claim that they can null
|out problem frequencies, IE:, aircraft, etc, etc. But I hear of
|problems doing this. I hear it's not really that feasable if they want
|to maintain proper operation, and I also hear it doesn't really cure
|the problem, as the "nulling device" is not far from the user.
|Take just aircraft alone...We are talking nulling say 2-3 mhz, 6 mhz,
|8 mhz, 10 mhz, 11 mhz, 13 mhz, 17 mhz, 21 mhz, 27 mhz, just for a
|few...I may have missed some military bands, etc...
|I have heard of no notching plans for amateur bands, so I guess we
|have to go to rf noise hell...
|I bet the system will work great with all those notched
|holes...Not....
|
|They still will be radiating those freq's on the main lines I would
|think. It's the biggest money grubbing farce I've ever heard of. Heck,
|with my radios and antennas, they could probably be blocks or even
|miles away, and I could still hear it. The Florida experience backs me
|up on this. I'm not just barking at the moon. Bye bye weak DX....Bye
|bye weak aircraft signals. Bye bye any rf weaklings...QRp will be
|extra fun being half the country will probably soon have their ears
|plugged with digital spew.
|But, I bet they will hear me too, if the leakage is that bad... It
|will be a bad day for the empire if my R2 unit joins the fray. I'll
|keep those BPL techs a hopping all over the neighborhood. Remember,
|most of the speculation is about damage to the hams, etc... But don't
|ignore the damage all the 1000's of hams and other rf emitting device
|owners will likely cause them. CB's will have to deal with them also,
|and you know how nasty signaled some cb'ers can get. I hear some 4-5
|mhz wide as it is... I don't think they have really fully taken this
|into account yet. MK

Exactly.

I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned much of the following before but
just in case...

My power company is a rural cooperative. It serves 29,000 customers
spread over three counties. (one of these counties is larger than a
few states.) It has 2900 miles of line (and I don't think that covers
the 600' of underground feeder from the pole to my house). They serve
from the river bottom land near Tucson to the top of a 9800' mountain
and a community on the Mexican border. The company is also my ISP.

A few years ago I was fighting powerline noise and not getting a lot
of help from the company. It wasn't for lack of interest on their
part, they just didn't have the resources or trained personnel to
isolate the problem(s). I basically wound up instructing their
linemen about what to try.

During this time I wound up in contact with the company VP in charge
of new technology. We had an interesting one-engineer-to-another
conversation wherein he told me that they had experimented with a
system to read customers' meters remotely using "common-carrier"
signals on the lines. Sending guys around the service area in pickup
trucks once a month to read meters was a big expense so they had a
compelling motive to pull this off. They failed.

Even with very narrow-band, low-speed signaling, they couldn't even
read a meter once a month. They finally went to meters with
transmitters in them that can be read without the guy having to get
out of his truck and walk around with the rattlesnakes.

And they're going to supply me with high speed Internet over the same
wires?

And don't forget the power line noise will tear this digital trash a new
one. Here in Alabama it will be a toss up of which is worse. The BPL or
the PL Noise. I bet on the PL noise winning. If not then perhaps my KW
beacon on all bands will.

Dan/W4NTI