All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73



"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.

ARRL FUD about BPL
 

All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73



"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.

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?

I live just outside of Emmaus, PA, (test site #3 in Ed Hare's video).
While I am currently far enough away from the limited deployment
that I cannot detect it here at my QTH, I have gone down to the
area with my FT-817 and can verify that the noise is HORRIBLE.

I shudder to think what havoc large-scale deployments would bring.

Despite Mr. Nye's allegations of "FUD" ... the ARRL is right on
this one.

Carl - wk3c

"Bill" wrote in message
. net...
All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own
eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the
ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73



"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.

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?

I live just outside of Emmaus, PA, (test site #3 in Ed Hare's video).
While I am currently far enough away from the limited deployment
that I cannot detect it here at my QTH, I have gone down to the
area with my FT-817 and can verify that the noise is HORRIBLE.

I shudder to think what havoc large-scale deployments would bring.

Despite Mr. Nye's allegations of "FUD" ... the ARRL is right on
this one.

Carl - wk3c

"Bill" wrote in message
. net...
All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own
eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the
ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73



"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.

(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.

No, it's a real issue. Have you seen the video? Have you conducted
tests on the BPL demo areas?

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.

Every organization needs to justify its existence.

Are you saying we don't need the ARRL, NAACP, or NOW? How about the
NRA?

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.

You admit, then, that BPL emits noise.

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.

Have you actually done this? Where is your 120 page report and demo
video?

Are the BPL folks going to buy me a new transceiver if my existing one
doesn't have these alleged noise-cancelling features?

Let's get down to basics on this.

What you're saying is:

1) BPL does radiate lots of noise
2) Rather than the unlicensed BPL folks not radiating the noise, it
should be up to the licensed users to filter out the noise using
techniques you have not demonstrated.
3) If an amateur does not have the technology to filter out the noise,
he/she is out of luck.

Let's do an analogy, shall we?

Imagine the RF spectrum as a river that is used by many different
people for many different purposes - transportation, recreation,
fishing, irrigation, energy generation, drinking water, etc. All are
licensed and have their uses balanced against each other. Nobody is
allowed to just dump trash in the river.

Along comes a group that wants to use an existing bridge over the
river for transport. But the vehicles they want to use on the bridge
leak and spill their contents, some of which falls into the river.
They claim that:

- the spillage is harmless
- proof of harm is up to the other users
- anybody who doesn't like the spillage should simply equip themselves
with filters to strain it out, rather than requiring the transport
company to seal up their vehicles and not spill in the first place.

Here's another: Perhaps we should remove all air pollution devices,
and simply have everyone go around wearing gas masks.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading.

What about the inaccuracies YOU 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.

I did. I saw nothing about "coherent noise". I did see a lot of
boosterism for a polluting technology.

DSL and cable modems don't pollute the RF spectrum. Why should BPL be
allowed to do so?

N2EY

(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.

No, it's a real issue. Have you seen the video? Have you conducted
tests on the BPL demo areas?

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.

Every organization needs to justify its existence.

Are you saying we don't need the ARRL, NAACP, or NOW? How about the
NRA?

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.

You admit, then, that BPL emits noise.

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.

Have you actually done this? Where is your 120 page report and demo
video?

Are the BPL folks going to buy me a new transceiver if my existing one
doesn't have these alleged noise-cancelling features?

Let's get down to basics on this.

What you're saying is:

1) BPL does radiate lots of noise
2) Rather than the unlicensed BPL folks not radiating the noise, it
should be up to the licensed users to filter out the noise using
techniques you have not demonstrated.
3) If an amateur does not have the technology to filter out the noise,
he/she is out of luck.

Let's do an analogy, shall we?

Imagine the RF spectrum as a river that is used by many different
people for many different purposes - transportation, recreation,
fishing, irrigation, energy generation, drinking water, etc. All are
licensed and have their uses balanced against each other. Nobody is
allowed to just dump trash in the river.

Along comes a group that wants to use an existing bridge over the
river for transport. But the vehicles they want to use on the bridge
leak and spill their contents, some of which falls into the river.
They claim that:

- the spillage is harmless
- proof of harm is up to the other users
- anybody who doesn't like the spillage should simply equip themselves
with filters to strain it out, rather than requiring the transport
company to seal up their vehicles and not spill in the first place.

Here's another: Perhaps we should remove all air pollution devices,
and simply have everyone go around wearing gas masks.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading.

What about the inaccuracies YOU 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.

I did. I saw nothing about "coherent noise". I did see a lot of
boosterism for a polluting technology.

DSL and cable modems don't pollute the RF spectrum. Why should BPL be
allowed to do so?

N2EY

"Bill" wrote in message .net...
All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73

Bill,

One more thing: COMMENT TO THE FCC about BPL. Your firsthand, detailed
experience is sorely needed in the fight. We can do theory all day but
somebody who was there has the definitive answer.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill" wrote in message .net...
All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73

Bill,

One more thing: COMMENT TO THE FCC about BPL. Your firsthand, detailed
experience is sorely needed in the fight. We can do theory all day but
somebody who was there has the definitive answer.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

Having worked in EMC labs (electromagnetic compatibility), I've heard the
signals generated by some equipment. What you fail to understand is that
these signals are being modulated at very high rates of speed. Inside of
your computer exist a number of oscillators. You assume that only those
frequencies and their harmonics would be broadcast. Do yourself a favor and
put an HF radio or HF scanner next to your computer while it is on. Turn
off the monitor so you won't blame the monitor. Guess what? A ton of
garbage. BPL will be worse since it will be carrying more than one signal
over the power lines. These will likely carry information at a 1.5 megabaud
rate. Check out the ARRL website and view (and listen to) the 26 MB video
they have available showing the radio, S-meter, and the car driving around.
It is a veritable cacophony of noise all over HF.

The fact is that folks such as yourself who are not particularly technically
inclined make statements that other non technically inclined individuals
will believe without actually studying the matter. I can assure you that
your position is totally in error.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 8/14/03

Jim,

Having worked in EMC labs (electromagnetic compatibility), I've heard the
signals generated by some equipment. What you fail to understand is that
these signals are being modulated at very high rates of speed. Inside of
your computer exist a number of oscillators. You assume that only those
frequencies and their harmonics would be broadcast. Do yourself a favor and
put an HF radio or HF scanner next to your computer while it is on. Turn
off the monitor so you won't blame the monitor. Guess what? A ton of
garbage. BPL will be worse since it will be carrying more than one signal
over the power lines. These will likely carry information at a 1.5 megabaud
rate. Check out the ARRL website and view (and listen to) the 26 MB video
they have available showing the radio, S-meter, and the car driving around.
It is a veritable cacophony of noise all over HF.

The fact is that folks such as yourself who are not particularly technically
inclined make statements that other non technically inclined individuals
will believe without actually studying the matter. I can assure you that
your position is totally in error.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 8/14/03

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

Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins wrote:

"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

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

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

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal? true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

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

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins wrote:

"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

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

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

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal? true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

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

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

I am fortunate that I am far enough from the Emmaus, PA "pilot"
area that PP&L is running (Test Site #3 on Ed Hare's video on
the ARRL web page) that I'm not noticing interference here from
that small deployment.

However, if I go down off the hill into the deployment area, the
noise is HORRIBLE throughout the HF bands ...

The ARRL is not spreading FUD about Access BPL ... it's
the truth and I've heard it for myself.

Carl - wk3c

"J. D. Beischel" wrote in message
...
Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the
utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins
wrote:

"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

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are
constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

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

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal?
true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy
and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch
antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

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

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

I am fortunate that I am far enough from the Emmaus, PA "pilot"
area that PP&L is running (Test Site #3 on Ed Hare's video on
the ARRL web page) that I'm not noticing interference here from
that small deployment.

However, if I go down off the hill into the deployment area, the
noise is HORRIBLE throughout the HF bands ...

The ARRL is not spreading FUD about Access BPL ... it's
the truth and I've heard it for myself.

Carl - wk3c

"J. D. Beischel" wrote in message
...
Jim,

What electric utility do you work for? Or maybe it is the equipment
manufacturer that sells the interface devices and equipment to the
utility?
Where they are testing BPL in Cincinnati, there is S9 noise and you can't
get rid of it.

Duffy

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:47:06 -0000, David Robbins
wrote:

"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

if they are predictable then they must be constant, if they are
constant
then they can't carry data, doesn't make much sense to me.

You clearly haven't become acquainted with the mathematical definition
of "coherent," which doesn't demaind a constant signal at all. What
it DOES demand is either a sharply peaked or a periodic
autocorrelation function -- properties which enable engineers to come
up with predictive filters.

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

now, just where do you propose getting this out of phase signal?
true,
there are devices out there now that can do this, but they are fussy
and
must be constantly adjusted as you change frequency or switch
antennas.
and
they also have problems with overloading and distortion.

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

sorry, not with this type of signal. the common noise reduction
processors

Sorry, but that's not right. The Icom 746PRO for example, has two
noise reduction functions, one of which samples slightly out-of-band
signals to come up with a time-varying estimate of the values to be
subtracted from the in-band signals. There is no need for the signal
to be constant with respect to time. The second noise reduction
function is directed at impulse noise and is a traditional noise
blanker.

In any case, you are missing the main point of the original post, and
that was that the ARRL FUD conveniently ignores the coherent nature of
BPL leakage signals -- a property which makes them far less formidable
than the ARRL articles would lead you to believe.

"David Robbins" wrote in message ...
"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?

Turns out I did locate it on my first pass but was not sure what BPL
sounded like so I kept sniffing around the town yesterday. It's only
in a specfic area in the town so I restricted my listening today to
that area once Carl alerted me to the details offline. What I heard
today can't possibly be the "fullbore" BPL others have described.
They're definitely playing with it.

w3rv

"David Robbins" wrote in message ...
"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?

Turns out I did locate it on my first pass but was not sure what BPL
sounded like so I kept sniffing around the town yesterday. It's only
in a specfic area in the town so I restricted my listening today to
that area once Carl alerted me to the details offline. What I heard
today can't possibly be the "fullbore" BPL others have described.
They're definitely playing with it.

w3rv

One wonders why he would bother to post his message here where he is
certain to get negative if not hostile responses.
Perhaps he's tuning his argument for some future, more important,
forum.
Steve


JJ wrote in message
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.

One wonders why he would bother to post his message here where he is
certain to get negative if not hostile responses.
Perhaps he's tuning his argument for some future, more important,
forum.
Steve


JJ wrote in message
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.