For those who don't know it yet, the FCC approved modifications to Part 15
regarding BPL.

This is an extraordinary example of the FCC being both responsive to the
--need-for new technologies and innovative spectrum use, while invoking new
guidelines and requirements to assure dual use between licensed and unlicensed
users.

I agree with Mr. Powell's assessment that it was a "banner day". The FCC did a
spectacular job!

But, if you've followed my comments, you knew that this was my prediction for
some time...

73,
Chip N1IR

But for someone who comes on an amateur radio forum to gloat over
the probable destruction of the HF radio spectrum, I'll make an exception.

Will someone please tell me how to "killfile" this F***ING STUPID
TROLL? I haven't quite figured out how to do it in OE6. (That will
also save me from feeding this Troll, which I'm afraid I just did.)

Thanks...

"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
For those who don't know it yet, the FCC approved modifications to Part 15
regarding BPL.

This is an extraordinary example of the FCC being both responsive to the
--need-for new technologies and innovative spectrum use, while invoking
new
guidelines and requirements to assure dual use between licensed and
unlicensed
users.

I agree with Mr. Powell's assessment that it was a "banner day". The FCC
did a
spectacular job!

But, if you've followed my comments, you knew that this was my prediction
for
some time...

73,
Chip N1IR

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;
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.

Wishing you the best,

Chip N1IR

(nt)

"Fractenna"
...regarding BPL.

BPL sucks.

Why use HF spectrum when there is so much other, more suitable and much
wider, spectrum available way up the bands? Between improved DSL (higher
speed, much farther, as being implemented in the UK), Cable, WildBlue
(satellite), and soon Wi-Max (35km, 56Mbps), BPL will be nothing more than a
footnote.

In the future, some of those HF users being bothered by BPL might stoop to
doing a quick 'sweep' across the bands. This would cause the BPL DSP
algorithms to think that all frequencies are in local use thus lock-out ALL
the frequency bins and effectively shut down the link for several minutes.

BPL is a REALLY stupid concept. Obviously the HF signal is going to leak
out (and other HF is going to leak in). Dumb. Power lines aren't exactly
twisted pair (close, but no cigar).

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas

I couldn't agree more.

73,
Chip N1IR

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

BPL has about as much future as Fractal Antennas (none).

"Fractenna"
I couldn't agree more.

Yes, "none".

I'm glad that we agree on this point.

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