In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource.

I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now
and again...

And they are being reminded vis a vis BPL.

Indeed!

The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER
commercial radio services administered by the FCC.

Oh ... why didn't you say that?

This is where the FCC's true mission exists,

The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio
spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that
includes the ARS.

Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic
concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a
big part
of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See
Comm.
Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband
Nirvana" being BPL. As if!

The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched"
BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread,
"the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have
to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers,
modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor
to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'."

Exactly. And for test purposes at least, FCC bought that pitch.

It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited
at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from
the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact
that it's a demonstrably crappy business model.

Agreed. You think that after the dotcom bubble burst, they'd be a bit more
skeptical.

The other reason the
Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the
technical background to see the problems without significant education
on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical
advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a
technical advisor amongst them.

Incredible but true.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around.

You did a very good encapsulated explanation there, Carl. The "Morning Call"
exposure was solid gold.

One of the odd things about the commissioners however. They must be
able to suspend disbelief pretty easily.

Household and electrical wiring has been around for a long time. And
there's no rocket science to the technology of riding a signal on a line
voltage circuit. Control signals are sent along these wires regularly
and have been for many years.

Yup. Just not at HF

Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum.

"X10" is not Access BPL. It's not even In-House BPL

At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home
to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED
AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY
RANGE!

Why are you shouting, Len? We all know that.

Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't
understand that yet...?

Maybe not. But they are the 'expert agency" in charge of regulating such
things. Both 'wire' and 'wireless' communications.

I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and
see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms
to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home.

Ever hear of matching transformers?

That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can
expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency
transmission.

Yet it does. BPL works. It just trashes the EM spectrum in the process.

There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and
wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even
more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation).

Couplers. Matching transformers. Adaptive transceivers. Modern modulations and
codings. Error detection and correction.

So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?

For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-)

How do you know?

I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are
supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the
counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second
pair is no better.

One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room
is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the
outliet
in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of
the
Homeplug group explains that.

Neither Phonex nor Homeplug are Access BPL

I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from
10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is
probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with
that much attenuation...it is already too great.

For the technology used in those units. part of the reason for their failure is
that they must meet current Part 15 regulations. BPL advocates are trying to
get Part 15 levels raised.

I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

The philosophy of FCC seems to be to let them at least try it out rather than
banning it on purely "theoretical" grounds.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?

One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the
vaporware BPL systems work.

Why? Do you think they don't work?

NONE of them explain it in enough
detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so
in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than
more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware.

So if it isn't in one of your magazines, it doesn't exist. Well, Len, that's
simply not the case.

The BPL folks are playing their cards very close for a number of reasons,
including things like:

- there are a number of different methods being tried out
- patents probably pending
- they don't want to help out the opposition and competition

Those BPL folks are *professionals*, remember? They're on record as saying that
*amateurs* are exaggerating the interference. They say, in so many words, that
we amateurs want to hold back "progress".

Why should FCC accept the word of *amateurs* over *professionals*, Len?

Are the *professionals* who came up with Access BPL mistaken?

Tests sites are functioning right now in places like Emmaus, PA. WK3C, W1RFI
and others (including at least one other rrap regular) have visited that test
site for measurement and observation. (See excellent comments to FCC on BPL by
WK3C and ARRL).

BPL isn't vaporware. BPL works. It just trashes the EM spectrum in the
process.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference
be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL
interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See,
we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't
cause interference."


Are there indentifying characteristics?

One possible backlash of this is that there may be many hams running
about looking for BPL interferece, and finding other Power line
interference that the Power companies will have to clean up!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:

Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum.

I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power
companies use?

There was another system that was used to control clocks in schools and
other places where the clocks need to show the same time over




At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home
to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED
AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY
RANGE!

Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't
understand that yet...?

I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and
see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms
to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home.

That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can
expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency
transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and
wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even
more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation).


So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?


For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-)

I guess I was kind of knowing the answer as I asked the question. 8^)
It's intellectual dishonesty for those companies to try to sell it as
something that will work.

But even if it is a failure, some will be able to make money on it..
for while.

I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are
supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the
counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second
pair is no better.

One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room
is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the
outliet
in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of the
Homeplug group explains that.

I can hear it now.........."We need to rewire your house to get your
BPL modem to work!" 8^)


I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from
10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is
probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with
that much attenuation...it is already too great.

Interesting. As a comparison to my cable modem hookup, There was a lot
of adjusting of the line levels to get a good signal to my home office.
If the installation included boosting the power enough to overcome that,
there would be some serious RFI running around.



I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?


One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the
vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough
detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so
in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than
more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware.

Agreed!


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum.

I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power
companies use?

There was another system that was used to control clocks in schools and

other places where the clocks need to show the same time over




At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home
to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED
AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY
RANGE!

Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't
understand that yet...?

I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and
see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms
to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home.

That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can
expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency
transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and
wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even
more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation).


So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?


For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-)

I guess I was kind of knowing the answer as I asked the question. 8^)
It's intellectual dishonesty for those companies to try to sell it as
something that will work.

But even if it is a failure, some will be able to make money on it..
for while.

I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are
supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the
counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second
pair is no better.

One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room
is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the
outliet
in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of
the
Homeplug group explains that.

I can hear it now.........."We need to rewire your house to get your
BPL modem to work!" 8^)


I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from
10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is
probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with
that much attenuation...it is already too great.

Interesting. As a comparison to my cable modem hookup, There was a lot
of adjusting of the line levels to get a good signal to my home office.
If the installation included boosting the power enough to overcome that,
there would be some serious RFI running around.



I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?


One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the
vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough
detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so
in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than
more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware.

Agreed!

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference
be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL
interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See,
we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't
cause interference."


Are there indentifying characteristics?

One possible backlash of this is that there may be many hams running
about looking for BPL interferece, and finding other Power line
interference that the Power companies will have to clean up!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Go download it from www.arrl.org .

I played some of my CD of it on 14.275 so a friend could hear it. After I
signed out I was deluged with people saying they couldn't believe how
terrible it was.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum.

I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power
companies use?

No, it's a long-on-the-market home appliance remote control and
alarm system, available at places like Lowe's and Home Depot
among many. Search for "X10" on the Internet and you can find
their website and product explanation.

There was another system that was used to control clocks in schools and

other places where the clocks need to show the same time over

Those were still very low-frequency. For clocks with synchronous
motors, the separate clock AC line could be speeded-up or slowed-
down by a separate AC source (synchronous clock motors don't
take much AC power). For some systems, a separate control line
was used to set the hands to a particular time all at once to make
them read the same. WREX-TV in Winnebago, IL, had still another
system combining a WWV receiver checking the time of a master
pendulum clock through the background tone-on from WWV and
then syncing all the clocks in the station running on their own AC
circuits. In master control we used the master pendulum clock
since every second counted (for cash flow) on taking network (CBS
at the time, coming up precisely 1.0 second after the hour or every
half hour).

At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home
to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED
AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY
RANGE!

Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't
understand that yet...?

I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and
see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms
to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home.

That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can
expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency
transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and
wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even
more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation).

So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the
internet developed this way in the first place?

For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-)

I guess I was kind of knowing the answer as I asked the question. 8^)
It's intellectual dishonesty for those companies to try to sell it as
something that will work.

I'm sure it can work...the question really is "can it be used anywhere
with the ease at which existing wired service does?"

When each and every BPL proponent HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE
TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THEIR SYSTEM, they can't actually be
charged directly with "intellectual dishonesty." At this point it is all
the usual marketing-advertising snow job.

But even if it is a failure, some will be able to make money on it..
for while.

That's usually the case. See the fancy bar-code reader that Radio
Shack was promoting as part of a "system" to speed up information
exchange. IEEE Spectrum magazine and a couple of other trade
publications have spotlighted that one.

The point with BPL now is still vaporware. It WILL increase the
noise environment from MF to bottom of VHF but it is impossible to
get a quantitative handle on the spectral power. Getting technical
details is like nailing jelly to a tree...it doesn't work and everyone gets
sticky from all the sugar in the jelly.

The ARRL Lab did the best they could with the BPL technical info
available. They used the maximum RF radiation specs from Part 15
in modeling one transmission line (so-called "MV" distribution in a
neighborhood). Their model was as "good" and "accurate" as the
circumstances allowed...and doesn't actually model a BPL system
because the exact nature of the BPL systems isn't explained!

The problem with such modeling is that the actual MV distribution is
HIGHLY variable depending on the city, district, neighborhood, etc.
The spacing of the conductors (which determines equivalent RF
characteristic impedance) is highly variable even if within the NEC and
local codes. For SOME distribution systems BPL uses those MV
lines (voltages from 4 to 12 KVAC). There's absolutely nothing in the
National Electrical Code or even any local ordinances that mandates
any characteristic impedance of those lines or standardization at RF!

I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are
supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the
counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second
pair is no better.

One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room
is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the
outliet
in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of
the
Homeplug group explains that.

I can hear it now.........."We need to rewire your house to get your
BPL modem to work!" 8^)

None of us have any idea of how those "BPL modems" work...the BPL
folks won't explain it... :-(

I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from
10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is
probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with
that much attenuation...it is already too great.

Interesting. As a comparison to my cable modem hookup, There was a lot
of adjusting of the line levels to get a good signal to my home office.
If the installation included boosting the power enough to overcome that,
there would be some serious RFI running around.

You have higher speed than 56K?

I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a
technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when
considering BPL.

Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight?

One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the
vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough
detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so
in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than
more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware.

Agreed!

Initially, there was an UNWARRANTED Hue and Cry by the "radio
community" (two BPL proponents' name for ham radio) in that "RF
interference would be too high!"

Since NO ONE had any specific RF line level information on BPL
systems, it was really impossible to determine whether those levels
were "too high," "just right" or "too low." The ARRL model was
done solely on RF levels being at a certain maximum level that was
not determined from any specific BPL data.

Instead of acting in group hysteria, the "radio community" should
have gone into basics and demanded more details of the BPL systems
both in hardware and expected technical performance. For a bunch
of supposed RF-savvy radio activists, damn few ever considered the
AC power lines as RF transmission lines or the VARIATION of lines'
characteristics at RF.

Picture an RF transmission line spaced for about 1000 to 3000 Ohms
connected (somehow, unknown) to 75 Ohm coax as a basic model.
Then consider that the RF xmssn line is really a triplet with a
common in the center and the "coax" is really Twinax (a shielded
twisted-pair, sort-of). Intuitively, it's going to be one bitch of a task
to get a 7 to 8 octave frequency match of one line to the other. If
the match isn't good, then the reflected RF is going to go someplace
and that is back out the MV line and probably radiated instead of
being absorbed (by unknown "terminations").

The BPL types would have been better off to just consider a fiber-
optic cable carrying high-speed data both directions...and that
mounted in the pole space of the MV lines. No conductors and
the fiber-optic cable couldn't short out the MV lines and the MV
lines wouldn't interfere with data on the fiber. Sharing "pole space"
could have been their schtick instead of thinking that RF can flow
easily on an AC power system never designed for RF.

LHA

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference
be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL
interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See,
we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't
cause interference."


Are there indentifying characteristics?

Listen to the ARRL video is the best I can offer over the net.
If you were here, I'd be happy to take you down to the BPL
area in Emmaus and show you ... to someone who's listened
to a lot of data transmissions it has a certain characteristic (which
varies from the SS system of main.net and the OFDM system
of Amperion ...) but it's nearly impossible to explain in text.

One possible backlash of this is that there may be many hams running
about looking for BPL interferece, and finding other Power line
interference that the Power companies will have to clean up!

Most have been dismally poor at doing that - ARRL has over 300
unresolved power line noise complaints on the books, according to
Ed Hare, including 50 or so where the FCC has sent a letter to the
utility telling them to find it and fix it.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum.

I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power
companies use?

No, "X10" was an in-home system.

73,
Carl - wk3c

I definitely am not an expert in any way, shape or form about this whole BPL
thing, but to me logic would dictate that if these BPL lines are going to be
emanating a ton of intereference, would they not also be prone to
interference coming in???

Seems to me that would create problems with connections and the quality of
transfer rates.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX

"Symbolism is for the simple minded....."



For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe
to it!

I have to believe that it would be the biggest dog of a service ever
invented! I suspect in the real world, it might work about as good as a
56K modem... maybe.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote in message .net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What
money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's
baloney.
I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions
by
any manufacturer ...)

All that's really happened so far in the "current round" is a flurry of
petitions. There are more in process that don't have RM numbers yet.

Back during the restructuring NPRM, there were comments from
manufacturers.

But not when mere proposals and petitions were flying about.

And let's be up-front about it - manufacturers are part of the amateur
radio community, and have a vested interest. If a rules change has an
effect on Kenwood's sales, why shouldn't they comment?

That doesn't mean their comments will necessarily always be in the
best interest of the ARS.

In fact, the most-often-quoted-by-FCC commenter in the R&O to 98-143
wasn't ARRL or NCI or NCVEC or some individual radio amateur.

It was Kenwood.

I wonder if any folks let them know that they would NOT be purchasing
Kenwood products because of this? I've always been a big proponent of
leveraging one's monetary muscle.

Good idea! But considering that I've never owned a non-USA made piece
of hamgear, I doubt it would mean much to them coming from me.

In fact, I'm probably the exact type of ham that Ikensu wants to go
away. In 36 years as a ham, I've bought exactly two major pieces of
ham radio equipment (transceivers). Both were kits. Both were from
American companies. All the rest has been used stuff, military surplus
("and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and never make war
any more") and good ol' homebrew. A few rrap regulars have heard and
worked said homebrew.

BTW, has anybody sent their respective ARRL candidates an e-mail re. their
stance on the code?

More than one.

I'm getting campaign flyers in the mail, seems like the
right opportunity. Same with our regular elected representatives. Drop 'em a
note and make 'em, at least, question the FCC. Remember how the vanity call
system came about.

I dunno if bugging congresscritters will do much good. But the ARRL
directors really do want to know, because it means they have backing
whichever way they decide.

73 de Jim, N2EY