Mike Coslo wrote:
I'm not sure which group you're posting from Steve, so I didn't trim the
groups. Once I know, I'll trim 'em out. cb and shortwave don't need all
this stuff (though shortwave listeners should be VERY concerned about
BPL.

Steveo wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

ITU treaty is goofed up too?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone
hear how good or bad it is to HF comms?

Updates?

FEMA has expressed "grave concerns"

DERA has noted:

"DERA concludes that serious interference to and disruption of critical
emergency communications systems in several licensed services throughout
North America would almost certainly result from BPL implementation as
currently proposed," DERA's comments said. Endorsing FEMA's earlier
remarks, DERA said proposed BPL systems don't just pose a risk of
interference, they've already been shown to "actually cause harmful
interference to licensed radio services."

AMRAD has provided data that suggests that a Operating Ham within a half
mile radius will likely knock out BPL. The service is simply too
susceptable to interference.

from ARRL site:
AMRAD found that at a distance of just over one-half mile, data transfer
ceased in the face of a 100-W signal on 3980 kHz from a mobile
transmitter. Adjacent to the test property, AMRAD said data transfer
ceased in all but one instance at a transmitter power of just 4 W in the
BPL operating band of from 4 to 21 MHz.

back to me:

So BPL is a big source of interference to devices it isn't allowed to
interfere with, and it looks like a QRP or CB rig with a good antenna
can knock it out, but certainly a 100 watt rig will take BPL internet
out.

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I'm in rec.radio.cb, Mike. That's pretty much what I'm hearing
about BPL also.

Thanks.