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.

"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

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

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

Yup.

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

I think you just outed him.....

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.

Your detailed firsthand comments to FCC are much-needed in the fight, Carl.
Theory is great but having lots of hams say "I was there and it raised the
noise floor XX db 160-6" is even better.

And IIRC the demos are meeting Part 15, and the BPL folks want to RAISE the
allowable levels!!

Did DSL or cable get that sort of gimmee? I don't think so!! If the utilities
want to get into the broadband game, let 'em play by the same rules as
everybody else.

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

Would make our codetest debates kinda moot, huh? And don't forget that access
BPL goes up to 80 MHz on fundamentals. Harmonics, anyone?

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

AGREED!

I say the stuff about "coherent noise" is simply a smokescreen to divert away
from the real issue. Which is simply that BPL puts out a lot of noise that will
cause harmful interference to all licensed users of the affected spectrum. And
this interference is totally avoidable by using better technology, like "PBL".

Do you agree, Carl?

73 de Jim, N2EY

btw, how far from the test site do you have to get before the BPL noise
disappears?

"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.

"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

"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.