What you are proposing is to shift the cost of correcting the
interference caused by this technology from those who will profit from
it to the victims of the interference.
Do you plan to invest your BPL profits into stock in the companys
that will manufacture the new radio equipment that your technology
will force us all to buy?
Steve .. AI7W



(Jim Nye) wrote in message ...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL. That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the
receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most
current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed
equipment to deal with any BPL "interference." The ARRL reports have
conveniently omitted any mention of the coherency issue, and their
measurements are therefore flawed, because they don't reflect real
world situations.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading. Instead, do some reading on your own
by going to non-ARRL web pages such as http://www.uplc.utc.org, and
http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm before accepting the ARRL
claims at face value.

What you are proposing is to shift the cost of correcting the
interference caused by this technology from those who will profit from
it to the victims of the interference.
Do you plan to invest your BPL profits into stock in the companys
that will manufacture the new radio equipment that your technology
will force us all to buy?
Steve .. AI7W



(Jim Nye) wrote in message ...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL. That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the
receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most
current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed
equipment to deal with any BPL "interference." The ARRL reports have
conveniently omitted any mention of the coherency issue, and their
measurements are therefore flawed, because they don't reflect real
world situations.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading. Instead, do some reading on your own
by going to non-ARRL web pages such as http://www.uplc.utc.org, and
http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm before accepting the ARRL
claims at face value.

"Keith" wrote in message
.net...

Hey don't tell us what you think, tell the FCC with their ECFS.
It doesn't matter since NTIA says that BPL is OK

NTIA is studying BPL vis a vis USG HF ops ... the same sort of
ops that relegated us to 5 spot channels at 5 MHz instead of a band.

From talking with the folks there who are looking into it, they seem
just as concerned as we should be.

Carl - wk3c

"Keith" wrote in message
.net...

Hey don't tell us what you think, tell the FCC with their ECFS.
It doesn't matter since NTIA says that BPL is OK

NTIA is studying BPL vis a vis USG HF ops ... the same sort of
ops that relegated us to 5 spot channels at 5 MHz instead of a band.

From talking with the folks there who are looking into it, they seem
just as concerned as we should be.

Carl - wk3c

"Agent Smith" wrote in message
news:3ff6666b.4278809718@feadnread...
On 19 Aug 2003 19:55:22 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I'm familiar with Emmaus and drove around the borough today looking
for the stuff with my TS-50 but struck out. Kindly cite an
intersection where the stuff is in use, I'll try again. Also
characterize the signal if you can/will.

Such 'powerful' interference that even someone who knows where it
is supposed to be can't find it? g

Sounds like the stuff of FUD to me. g

ah, but all he knows is that it is supposed to be in town somewhere. these
tests may only cover a mile or two along one road. and as k1rfi found they
aren't always on... and then again, could they have thrown in a placebo??? a
claimed test area where they really didn't put it in just to see how many
complaints they get?

"Agent Smith" wrote in message
news:3ff6666b.4278809718@feadnread...
On 19 Aug 2003 19:55:22 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I'm familiar with Emmaus and drove around the borough today looking
for the stuff with my TS-50 but struck out. Kindly cite an
intersection where the stuff is in use, I'll try again. Also
characterize the signal if you can/will.

Such 'powerful' interference that even someone who knows where it
is supposed to be can't find it? g

Sounds like the stuff of FUD to me. g

ah, but all he knows is that it is supposed to be in town somewhere. these
tests may only cover a mile or two along one road. and as k1rfi found they
aren't always on... and then again, could they have thrown in a placebo??? a
claimed test area where they really didn't put it in just to see how many
complaints they get?

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?


Yep, obviously a paid misinformant.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?


Yep, obviously a paid misinformant.

"Agent Smith" wrote in message
news:3ff6666b.4278809718@feadnread...
On 19 Aug 2003 19:55:22 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I'm familiar with Emmaus and drove around the borough today looking
for the stuff with my TS-50 but struck out. Kindly cite an
intersection where the stuff is in use, I'll try again. Also
characterize the signal if you can/will.

Such 'powerful' interference that even someone who knows where it
is supposed to be can't find it? g

I had NO problem finding it, but I had the advantage that Ed Hare had
told me where to look, knowing that I live not far away.

The fact that the deployment is limited makes it hard(er) to find if
you don't know where to look ... and lots of the wiring in that area
is underground, which makes it sort of a "best case scenario" ... with
more overhead wiring, it would be a lot worse (though it's awful in
the deployment area as it is ...)

Listen to Ed Hare's video on the ARRL website ... I can assure you
that Ed wouldn't "doctor" things even if the ARRL tried to tell him
to do so (not that I believe or am insinuating that they would).

If the trash you hear on the video for Test Area #3 (Emmaus) doesn't
bother you - especially considering it's a "best case" sort of situation
with a limited deployment - then you obviously don't give a damn about
amateur radio.

Carl - wk3c

"Agent Smith" wrote in message
news:3ff6666b.4278809718@feadnread...
On 19 Aug 2003 19:55:22 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I'm familiar with Emmaus and drove around the borough today looking
for the stuff with my TS-50 but struck out. Kindly cite an
intersection where the stuff is in use, I'll try again. Also
characterize the signal if you can/will.

Such 'powerful' interference that even someone who knows where it
is supposed to be can't find it? g

I had NO problem finding it, but I had the advantage that Ed Hare had
told me where to look, knowing that I live not far away.

The fact that the deployment is limited makes it hard(er) to find if
you don't know where to look ... and lots of the wiring in that area
is underground, which makes it sort of a "best case scenario" ... with
more overhead wiring, it would be a lot worse (though it's awful in
the deployment area as it is ...)

Listen to Ed Hare's video on the ARRL website ... I can assure you
that Ed wouldn't "doctor" things even if the ARRL tried to tell him
to do so (not that I believe or am insinuating that they would).

If the trash you hear on the video for Test Area #3 (Emmaus) doesn't
bother you - especially considering it's a "best case" sort of situation
with a limited deployment - then you obviously don't give a damn about
amateur radio.

Carl - wk3c