Do you have any logical rebuttal to the bit about the BPL leaking out and
ruining the HF spectrum (especially for SWLs, even more than Hams)?
-ANSWER THIS.

My pleasure.

The FCC has, in it's changes announced yesterday, recognized that an
occassional --bona fide-- RFI issue will arise. It has assumed that such cases
will, in some circumstances, occur,and made it the onus of the BPL providers to
provide for appropriate action and mitigation.

There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that the low level of RF produced
in BPL will propagate to bona fide interference levels, in the very or mid
far-field.

That means that few active fixed-location radio amateurs will be affected in
an adverse way: for example, most HF hams are inactive; and a vast majority of
hams are VHF only these days. A simple sensitivity analysis suggests potential
cases will be a few hundred in the worst, case, a few dozen in the best case.

You may hear BPL; the issue is whether it constitutes true interference. In a
vast, vast majority of cases the answer is, and will be, 'no'.

Thus cases will be rare rather than common. Certainly less common than, say,
TVI issues in the early years of television. (We all seem to forget that many
predicted the downfall of ham radio when tv came into common usage.)

As for SWL'ing, I am not sure, given the redundancy of bands and the internet,
that the broadcasts will be compromised. Is there evidence for this? Why is
this important? For example: other than some indescribable indulgence, is it
critical to hear Radio Tuva on the 30M band? Is the 40M band good enough ?

Would you be so kind as to ID? This screen you hide behind seems rather
compromising, and unnecessary.

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna"
Would you be so kind as to ID? This screen you
hide behind seems rather compromising, and
unnecessary.

Sure thing.

"Fractenna"
Would you be so kind as to ID? This screen you
hide behind seems rather compromising, and
unnecessary.

Sure thing.

"Fractenna"
There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that the
low level of RF produced in BPL will propagate to
bona fide interference levels, in the very or mid
far-field.

See ? There's the bit your not getting.

I listen to SW. My neighbor signs-up for BPL. We share a pole-mounted
transformer. The AC in MY house, under my desk, will be infested with BPL.

Eventually someone might drop by and install some ferrite onto my power line
drop and that might reduce the noise by a few dB at certain frequencies.

The whole thing is a kludge.

By the way, there are plenty of reports of interference in other countries
and in the US trials. Start with ARRL.org and read.

See ? There's the bit your not getting.

I listen to SW. My neighbor signs-up for BPL. We share a pole-mounted
transformer. The AC in MY house, under my desk, will be infested with BPL.

I confess I don't get it.

SWLing may be fun, but is it necessary--in the sense that many and maybe most
major foreign broadcasters already have web cast?

Genuinely--please correct my lack of knowledge on this: what is the value of SW
BCB in an era of web cast?

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna"
...what is the value of SW
BCB in an era of web cast?

There ya go.

If you're willing to trade-off the HF spectrum against YAIP (yet another
Internet Provider), and a sucky one at that, then BPL is a 'worthwhile'
(sic) technology. We'll mark you down as firmly pro-BPL, anti-amateur radio,
since you can spend your nights annoying people on the 'net rather than on
the air.

If you don't understand the ultimate utility of the HF spectrum then rolls
eyes... SWL includes a whole world more than just broadcasting. Your
ignorance, or at least a very poor assumption, is showing. And BCB is the
wrong acronym and the wrong band. Again, YIIS.

You've picked an argument and lost (badly).

If you don't understand the ultimate utility of the HF spectrum then rolls
eyes... SWL includes a whole world more than just broadcasting. Your
ignorance, or at least a very poor assumption, is showing. And BCB...

Thanks for your opinion.

Firsty, I am not the FCC. This issue was duly considered and carefully thought
through, so please don't use me as a proxy: they know more about the SW BCB
than me.

Second, I asked you to educate me: not because I'm clueless, but because I
wanted to give you the benefit of perhaps mentioning an aspect of this, that is
(allegedly) beyond the extant solutions and prescribed remedies of Part 15.

If you think its worthwhile then its worthwhile to you: I'm glad you enjoy it.
The issues a1) what is preventing you from getting the info in the multitude
of ways available; 2) what steps have you taken to mitigate the interference
(if it exists); 3) can you cite cases where --bona fide- broadcasts to North
America were uncopyable from all locations (with extant filtering methods) of a
residence because of BPL ?

As for non- BC SWL'ing, may we presume that the intended transmissions were not
made for your information nor benefit? If so, then how is one to presume that
eavesdropping from a residence as a form of entertainment needs to be assured
under all times and conditions?

It would be unfortunate to presume this is my argument: remedies have already
been prescribed due to these arguments being prevuiously made to the FCC. So,
why aren't they sufficient?

Please: some substance. Let's learn together--no malice intended nor sought.

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna"
Thanks for your opinion.
As for non- BC SWL'ing, may we presume
that the intended transmissions were not
made for your information nor benefit? If so,
then how is one to presume that eavesdropping
from a residence as a form of entertainment...

You're one of those brainwashed, Orwellian-fans.

You're living down to your well-established reputation as an idiot.

It is apparent that you'll not be convinced, so it is a waste of perfectly
good bits to argue further.

Oh, you ask me to cite references, I did.

You big fat jerk.

"Fractenna"
Thanks for your opinion.
As for non- BC SWL'ing, may we presume
that the intended transmissions were not
made for your information nor benefit? If so,
then how is one to presume that eavesdropping
from a residence as a form of entertainment...

You're one of those brainwashed, Orwellian-fans.

You're living down to your well-established reputation as an idiot.

It is apparent that you'll not be convinced, so it is a waste of perfectly
good bits to argue further.

Oh, you ask me to cite references, I did.

You big fat jerk.

My dear friend,

This is not a personal issue; I have faith that you can transcend your tone
here and say something that could be helpful in making your point compelling.

If the point is compelling, then it certainly would make your case , which
would undoubtedly be carefully echoed in the BPL issue.

Emotional gut reactions and name calling aren't the way to convince those who
make the decisions.

I tried; I am sorry I cannot help you unless you help yourself.

Best wishes,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
If you don't understand the ultimate utility of the HF spectrum then
rolls
eyes... SWL includes a whole world more than just broadcasting. Your
ignorance, or at least a very poor assumption, is showing. And BCB...

Thanks for your opinion.

Firsty, I am not the FCC. This issue was duly considered and carefully
thought
through, so please don't use me as a proxy: they know more about the SW
BCB
than me.

Second, I asked you to educate me: not because I'm clueless, but because I
wanted to give you the benefit of perhaps mentioning an aspect of this,
that is
(allegedly) beyond the extant solutions and prescribed remedies of Part
15.


Because the "extant solutions" will not work in the real world.

Why, we could save a lot of money and trouble if the product emission
requirements of Part 15 were eliminated. Then, the general population could
deal with interference problems on a "case-by-case" basis; if you were
experiencing an interference problem, all you would have to do is locate the
source and invoke the general "shall not cause degradation to licensed
services" clause, and the offending source would be quickly technically
fixed or permanently shut down.

Anybody who thinks this is practical must have a mental age of about 7 (and
pardon me if I'm insulting 7-year-olds).


Ed
wb6wsn