Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other, more suitable and much
wider, spectrum available way up the bands

Because the extant infrastructure is overly lossy at higher frequencies.

It IS extant infrastructure. Hard to argue that point, my friend.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the United
States.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)

73,
Chip N1IR

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other,
more suitable and much wider, spectrum available
way up the bands

"Fractenna"
Because the extant infrastructure is overly lossy at
higher frequencies.

I didn't say to use the power lines.

They could implement a low power system using the empty TV channels in each
location. Tons of bandwidth with no significant interference to anyone.

BPL is a stupid idea. It is probably a bad investment because it will likely
get eventually pulled off the market.

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.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates.
One of the few points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)

Only one is (apparently) a gentleman.

Hint - the one without the receiver taped to his back during the first
debate. Religion with morals is, well, that's Dubya.

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.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the United
States.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone


Freak me up Scotty!
As they say in Bush country - Bulsheeeeeet!

BUm

Is it universities that are screwing up brains?

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other, more suitable and much
wider, spectrum available way up the bands

Because the extant infrastructure is overly lossy at higher frequencies.

It IS extant infrastructure. Hard to argue that point, my friend.


Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.
They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work. The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology. After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.

I beg to differ. I used the word properly.

They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.


Minor logistical issues; part of doing business.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work.

Incremental.

The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


Speculation; asserted but not shown.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Obviously there will be market locations where the business case is compelling;
others where it will be not. Are you saying that they haven't done the business
case? I don't see evidence that your assertions come from such analyses.

The important point is that ham radio is not a factor in the business case, in
my opinion. Ham radio: 'we did you already, didn't we?' Why should we belabor a
point already dealt with, and deal with in great sensitivity and fairness?.


Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.


Yes, I agree. Except the 'doomed' case sounds like 20 sigma, to me.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology.

That is SO wrong. Senator Kerry--I know as a fact--is VERY cognizant in telecom
matters, which include BPL. His staff is superb. I cannot speak from experience
regarding President Bush, although I like what I hear.

After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Sure it is. Infrastructure is not the same as implementation.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


73,
Chip N1IR

(Fractenna) wrote in message ...
Actually calling it an extant infrastructure is a gross oversimplification.

I beg to differ. I used the word properly.

They have to add signal boosters every couple of miles plus bypasses to
every transformer. Where the lines are in the average condition for this
country (which equates to poor condition), they will have to upgrade the
lines themselves. Where there is noise on the lines, say due to industry
(welders for example really put a lot of noise across them), they'll have to
track it down and filter it out. Dry areas have a lot of static and they
may have to shield the lines for reliable data transfer. The plains states
have a lot of thunderstorms and once again they may have to shield the lines
to have reliable performance.


Minor logistical issues; part of doing business.

There's a lot of expense in implementing this and a lot of time consuming
work.

Incremental.

The rural areas will never get it as there simply aren't enough
customers per mile to break even. Besides by the time they get the rural
areas covered, if they ever do, these people will have gone to satellite or
WI-FI and there won't be a market.


Speculation; asserted but not shown.

BPL will be one of many options many folks will have, and in many cases it
will
be the only and/or best one. That is why it will be successful in the
United
States.


Not true. Small towns and larger already have dial up and many have DSL and
cable access. Some already have WI-FI and satellite. People outside of the
towns will NOT be served regardless of the marketing hype due to cost.
Customers per mile won't justify it.

Obviously there will be market locations where the business case is compelling;
others where it will be not. Are you saying that they haven't done the business
case? I don't see evidence that your assertions come from such analyses.

The important point is that ham radio is not a factor in the business case, in
my opinion. Ham radio: 'we did you already, didn't we?' Why should we belabor a
point already dealt with, and deal with in great sensitivity and fairness?.


Other options are bound to capture relevant market share as well. It's a
big
country and a huge market, easily amenable to several tech paths Everyone
wins! What a deal!


For BPL to capture and KEEP market share, it's going to have to be as cheap
as dial up and as fast and reliable as cable or DSL. Otherwise it may get
implemented in spots but is doomed to basically wither and die on the vine.


Yes, I agree. Except the 'doomed' case sounds like 20 sigma, to me.

That is why BPL is supported by both Presidential candidates. One of the
few
points both these gentlemen agree on.:-)


No they support it because of the marketing hype that has been done and the
fact that neither is really conversant with the technology.

That is SO wrong. Senator Kerry--I know as a fact--is VERY cognizant in telecom
matters, which include BPL. His staff is superb. I cannot speak from experience
regarding President Bush, although I like what I hear.

After all they
few it as having an infrastructure in place, which is in fact not true.

Sure it is. Infrastructure is not the same as implementation.

Nathan you silly thing she's 99% on the money. And you know it.

Remember the daze around here when you ran your brag tapes about how
well you did in some 10M contest or another with one of your fractal
quads and the JRC xcvr back then? I do. Now lay BPL over the 10M band
and try it again.

Whatever it takes to stir up a ****in' contest eh . . ?


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


73,
Chip N1IR

Love as usual,

Brian w3rv