In article ,
(Caljsi) wrote:

I'm rather surprised that any amateur would dismiss the BPL initiative,
or
be so cynical as to believe that the appeal for funds in this case is the
ARRL
"crying wolf". Most of you have a search engine and I suggest you look up
the
studies done to date on the effect of BPL on the HF and low VHF spectrum. I
particularly suggest checking the results of tests in Japan. And take a look
at the relevant articles in the Web Extra section of the ARRL website.
If you don't want to contribute money to the ARRL's efforts to fight the
BPL initiative, then may I suggest you look up the comments filed on 03-104
and
file some well thought out reply comments; we have until 6 August.
Cal K4JSI


BPL is bad for Amateur radio operations. Anyone who speculates that it
won't be as bad as they say, then does nothing and waits for it to
happen and then finds out there's a high, broadband noise on your
favorite band it'll be too late. Once it's in place you'll have a very
tough uphill fight to do something about it.

Sorry, but there is no excuse for being complacent, (thats a nice way to
say sitting on your dead ass and doing nothing because you're
satisfied).

ARRL is our voice in Washington. Every other special interest group has
a contact in Washington, then why shouldnt we.

If you value ham radio then you should support the ARRL.

--
Dale J.
Bloomington, Minnesota

E-mail:

In article ,
(Caljsi) wrote:

I'm rather surprised that any amateur would dismiss the BPL initiative,
or
be so cynical as to believe that the appeal for funds in this case is the
ARRL
"crying wolf". Most of you have a search engine and I suggest you look up
the
studies done to date on the effect of BPL on the HF and low VHF spectrum. I
particularly suggest checking the results of tests in Japan. And take a look
at the relevant articles in the Web Extra section of the ARRL website.
If you don't want to contribute money to the ARRL's efforts to fight the
BPL initiative, then may I suggest you look up the comments filed on 03-104
and
file some well thought out reply comments; we have until 6 August.
Cal K4JSI


BPL is bad for Amateur radio operations. Anyone who speculates that it
won't be as bad as they say, then does nothing and waits for it to
happen and then finds out there's a high, broadband noise on your
favorite band it'll be too late. Once it's in place you'll have a very
tough uphill fight to do something about it.

Sorry, but there is no excuse for being complacent, (thats a nice way to
say sitting on your dead ass and doing nothing because you're
satisfied).

ARRL is our voice in Washington. Every other special interest group has
a contact in Washington, then why shouldnt we.

If you value ham radio then you should support the ARRL.

--
Dale J.
Bloomington, Minnesota

E-mail:

"Caljsi" wrote in message
...
I'm rather surprised that any amateur would dismiss the BPL
initiative, or
be so cynical as to believe that the appeal for funds in this case is the
ARRL
"crying wolf". Most of you have a search engine and I suggest you look up
the
studies done to date on the effect of BPL on the HF and low VHF spectrum.
I
particularly suggest checking the results of tests in Japan. And take a
look
at the relevant articles in the Web Extra section of the ARRL website.
If you don't want to contribute money to the ARRL's efforts to fight
the
BPL initiative, then may I suggest you look up the comments filed on
03-104 and
file some well thought out reply comments; we have until 6 August.
Cal K4JSI

It really is pathetic isn't it Cal? This is the first and ONLY time I have
sent in a donation. Thats how serious I take it.

Dan/W4NTI

"Caljsi" wrote in message
...
I'm rather surprised that any amateur would dismiss the BPL
initiative, or
be so cynical as to believe that the appeal for funds in this case is the
ARRL
"crying wolf". Most of you have a search engine and I suggest you look up
the
studies done to date on the effect of BPL on the HF and low VHF spectrum.
I
particularly suggest checking the results of tests in Japan. And take a
look
at the relevant articles in the Web Extra section of the ARRL website.
If you don't want to contribute money to the ARRL's efforts to fight
the
BPL initiative, then may I suggest you look up the comments filed on
03-104 and
file some well thought out reply comments; we have until 6 August.
Cal K4JSI

It really is pathetic isn't it Cal? This is the first and ONLY time I have
sent in a donation. Thats how serious I take it.

Dan/W4NTI

Let's see, we have several hundred thousand amateur radio enthusiasts' needs
to consider versus hundreds of millions of computer/data users' needs. Who
do I think will win? Come on, get real.

Save your money for a new electronic doohickey that will utilize the
increased bandwidth with which we are about to be blessed.

Change is inevitable - resistance is futile.

Ed Cregger, NM2K


"Caljsi" wrote in message
...
I'm rather surprised that any amateur would dismiss the BPL
initiative, or
be so cynical as to believe that the appeal for funds in this case is the
ARRL
"crying wolf". Most of you have a search engine and I suggest you look up
the
studies done to date on the effect of BPL on the HF and low VHF spectrum.
I
particularly suggest checking the results of tests in Japan. And take a
look
at the relevant articles in the Web Extra section of the ARRL website.
If you don't want to contribute money to the ARRL's efforts to fight
the
BPL initiative, then may I suggest you look up the comments filed on
03-104 and
file some well thought out reply comments; we have until 6 August.
Cal K4JSI

Let's see, we have several hundred thousand amateur radio enthusiasts' needs
to consider versus hundreds of millions of computer/data users' needs. Who
do I think will win? Come on, get real.

Save your money for a new electronic doohickey that will utilize the
increased bandwidth with which we are about to be blessed.

Change is inevitable - resistance is futile.

Ed Cregger, NM2K


"Caljsi" wrote in message
...
I'm rather surprised that any amateur would dismiss the BPL
initiative, or
be so cynical as to believe that the appeal for funds in this case is the
ARRL
"crying wolf". Most of you have a search engine and I suggest you look up
the
studies done to date on the effect of BPL on the HF and low VHF spectrum.
I
particularly suggest checking the results of tests in Japan. And take a
look
at the relevant articles in the Web Extra section of the ARRL website.
If you don't want to contribute money to the ARRL's efforts to fight
the
BPL initiative, then may I suggest you look up the comments filed on
03-104 and
file some well thought out reply comments; we have until 6 August.
Cal K4JSI

In article ,
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Great commentary Dave. This was sent in to FCC as comments, or reply
comments, right?

By me and others. Quite a bit of what I wrote in this posting is
based on other peoples' comments on the FCC site, which I read before
I wrote and submitted my own comments.

You can read my own modest contribution at:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6514284 473

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article ,
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Great commentary Dave. This was sent in to FCC as comments, or reply
comments, right?

By me and others. Quite a bit of what I wrote in this posting is
based on other peoples' comments on the FCC site, which I read before
I wrote and submitted my own comments.

You can read my own modest contribution at:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...t=6514284 473

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article ,
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

It would also seem that the need to "get around" the isolation provided by
the local distribution (120/240) transformers from the HV lines would mean
that filters of some kind would need to bridge lines operating anywhere
from
2.4kv to around 21kv to the low voltage lines into the home. Not a trivial
task to do economically and safely. It seems like there would be potential
(pun intended) to degrade both the reliability and safety of the
electrical
distribution system.

Which is exactly why the FCC didn't authorize the 136 hz sliver band for us,
right?

My recollection is that the FCC turned down the LF allocation,
primarily due to claims by the power companies that even low-power
amateur transmissions could interfere with their existing LF powerline
control systems. It wasn't an issue of bridging past isolation, I
think.

The existing PLC architecture is (I understand from reading elsewhere)
designed to work within the limitations of the power grid... it can
deal with the degree of RF isolation between one section of the grid
and another, and in fact I think it actually depends on this to some
extent to allow for region-limited control.

The power companies' stated concern was that even a relatively
low-power and inefficient amateur LF transmitter (a few watts, on a
short antenna) could create enough low-frequency RF voltage on the
lines to cause their equipment to malfunction (by overdriving and
saturating the RF receiver stages, I imagine).

As the ARRL and others have pointed out, there's a _very_ obvious
disconnect between this claim (which the FCC has accepted), and the
apparent claims of the BPL proponents that BPM systems can co-exist
with amateur-radio and other licensed band users, operating with
*much* higher RF power levels and much more efficient antennas.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

In article ,
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

It would also seem that the need to "get around" the isolation provided by
the local distribution (120/240) transformers from the HV lines would mean
that filters of some kind would need to bridge lines operating anywhere
from
2.4kv to around 21kv to the low voltage lines into the home. Not a trivial
task to do economically and safely. It seems like there would be potential
(pun intended) to degrade both the reliability and safety of the
electrical
distribution system.

Which is exactly why the FCC didn't authorize the 136 hz sliver band for us,
right?

My recollection is that the FCC turned down the LF allocation,
primarily due to claims by the power companies that even low-power
amateur transmissions could interfere with their existing LF powerline
control systems. It wasn't an issue of bridging past isolation, I
think.

The existing PLC architecture is (I understand from reading elsewhere)
designed to work within the limitations of the power grid... it can
deal with the degree of RF isolation between one section of the grid
and another, and in fact I think it actually depends on this to some
extent to allow for region-limited control.

The power companies' stated concern was that even a relatively
low-power and inefficient amateur LF transmitter (a few watts, on a
short antenna) could create enough low-frequency RF voltage on the
lines to cause their equipment to malfunction (by overdriving and
saturating the RF receiver stages, I imagine).

As the ARRL and others have pointed out, there's a _very_ obvious
disconnect between this claim (which the FCC has accepted), and the
apparent claims of the BPL proponents that BPM systems can co-exist
with amateur-radio and other licensed band users, operating with
*much* higher RF power levels and much more efficient antennas.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!