FCC endorses BPL, another threat to ham radio
 

This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum), the FCC seems disposed
to encourage it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. The noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

-------------------

From:
Amateur Radio Station N0JAA
4:00 PM

Subject:
[ARLI] FCC Commissioner's Comments Concerning BPL
To:
, ,




The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.

This is from today's FCC Digest.

Paul, N0JAA

----------------------


Reaching Broadband Nirvana
United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery)


Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I
have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this
important juncture for BPL.

As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I also fundamentally
believe that the FCC can best promote consumer welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these key goals. It will not only bring broadband to
previously unserved communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I
want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and diversified marketplace is
something I would call broadband Nirvana. We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL technology is a major step forward.

While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is: What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking with my Nirvana
metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the path to enlightenment?

I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services. After all, regulatory
parity and a level playing field are intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology platforms are established. Many of our regulations
are premised on the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become
unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services that need room to breathe.

The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available, that will further
undermine the justification for regulating incumbent LECs broadband services as if they were the only available offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect that we will eliminate many existing rules and
substantially modify others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market.

Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many competition-related regulations, other types of regulation may well remain necessary. For example, the
FCC must implement public policy goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition. Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals
generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to protect consumers
where market failures are identified. Although, as I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services when the were introduced, it was also right
to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that, while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we
should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few questions if we have time.


******------****** please click on one or more of the links below to send a blank subscribe message.
Amateur Radio Legal Issues List
(A list for discussing legal and legislative issues impacting Amateur Radio from Congress and the FCC)
What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Jeezehus-H-christ...get F-N real !!

"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...


Another no-callsign anti-ham Troll.

(yawn)

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

recalcitrant ham op wrote:

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Hams are the least of the problems. There are many other users of the
HF range who will be effected other than hams. Here's just a few:

US Coast Guard makes high use of HF
All branches of the military
Many long distance marine comms are still on HF
TransAtlantic and Pacific Air Traffic Control Comms are HF
(Imagine if the ATC ground station can't hear an Aircraft call is
position).


And that's just a few services who are heavy uses of HF.

George
http://www.MilAirComms.com
With DSL who needs BPL?

"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:

What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.


--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out.
=======================================


You really are a dumbass ain't ya Kieth? Tell me, in you apparantly drug
clouded brain. How BPL and CW have anything to do with each other?

Oh never mind. You ain't worth reading anylonger.

Dan/W4NTI

"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Jeezehus-H-christ...get F-N real !!


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI



Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:


What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.


--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out.

=======================================


You really are a dumbass ain't ya Kieth? Tell me, in you apparantly drug
clouded brain. How BPL and CW have anything to do with each other?

Oh never mind. You ain't worth reading anylonger.

Dan/W4NTI


Keith,

Just ignore Dan. Everyone in his mind is a DUMBASS. the only one who
is perfect is HIM, PERIOD.


--
73

Frank K3EKO

"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Fortunately, our HF bands are interleave in between
allocation for aeronautical mobile, maritime mobile,
DoD, private fixed service, short wave broadcasting,
etc.

I do not believe that we will be anywhere near close
to being alone in this battle.

Carl - wk3c

What's that got to do with BPL???

Keith wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:

What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.

--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out. =
==========================================

Right on --
retired merchant marine R/O
N4GL

GeorgeF wrote:

recalcitrant ham op wrote:

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Hams are the least of the problems. There are many other users of the
HF range who will be effected other than hams. Here's just a few:

US Coast Guard makes high use of HF
All branches of the military
Many long distance marine comms are still on HF
TransAtlantic and Pacific Air Traffic Control Comms are HF
(Imagine if the ATC ground station can't hear an Aircraft call is
position).

And that's just a few services who are heavy uses of HF.

George
http://www.MilAirComms.com
With DSL who needs BPL?

Here's what we do --- we built a (legal) KW rig into a van, install a
vertical-
radiating antenna, cut out the roof and replace it with a fiberglass
sheet. Drive directly underneath a power line with BPL running. Run lots
of QSO's, and
have at it. We're legal. Induced RF just might make them think twice
about it.
Yes, I know Ashcrofts boys are reading this --- Hi, muthers -- I live at

the callbook address. Bring some beer when you come visiting.
N4GL

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI



Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser

"Walter Treftz" wrote in message
...
Here's what we do --- we built a (legal) KW rig into a van, install a
vertical-
radiating antenna, cut out the roof and replace it with a fiberglass
sheet. Drive directly underneath a power line with BPL running. Run lots
of QSO's, and
have at it. We're legal. Induced RF just might make them think twice
about it.
Yes, I know Ashcrofts boys are reading this --- Hi, muthers -- I live at

the callbook address. Bring some beer when you come visiting.
N4GL



Do you mean the way CBers made channel 5 unwatchable 25 years ago?

I don't know much about BPL, but I think the TV analogy might hold. Given
the bandwidth of BPL, there must be dozens, maybe hundreds of channels on
the powerline. Can every one, or most of them, be wiped out? I'm thinking
somebody came up with some pretty robust ways to deal with interference.

But what if it does stop BPL? BPL isn't being backed because it's a
technically elegant system. It's being backed by politics. Rural areas
were critically important in the last Presidential election, and any
candidiate would love to say something like "MY OPPONENT IS STOPPING ONE
FORM OF HIGH SPEED INTERNET DISTRIBUTION ON BEHALF OF HIS PALS IN THE
TELECOMMUNCATIONS INDUSTRY, BUT I PROMISE TO BRING IT IN, RIGHT ON YOUR
POWER LINE, AS SOON AS I'M ELECTED!!" Of course, that would be a political
misrepresentation, but politicans get away with worse every day. Politics
turns into a numbers game.


How many politicians or bureaucrats are saying anything negative about this
goofy scheme? Politicians may not know physics, but they do know how to
count.

Frank Dresser

I posted something similar to this in a different newsgroup, but I wonder if
based on the logic that the interference could also affect other services
such as emergency services, aircraft frequencies, and even military
frequency allocations, it would seem to me to be important to persuade those
groups to pressure the FCC against the whole BPL thing.....



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Jeezehus-H-christ...get F-N real !!

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI



Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser



The transmission lines are radiators. As such they will also receive.

Power lines are right up next to the rigs. The RF from the radios will
trash the BPL. Probably by causing drop outs and adding lots of extra
delays. Basically it will make BPL useless anywhere near a ham station.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Frank Dresser wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI




Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser




It would more likely end the legality of 1kw for hams.

Dick


It probably wont take a KW to trash BPL. Just needed to communicate on HF.

Dan/W4NTI

"Frank Todd K3EKO" wrote in message
news:M7Mcb.579252$YN5.415635@sccrnsc01...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:


What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.


--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out.

=======================================


You really are a dumbass ain't ya Kieth? Tell me, in you apparantly
drug
clouded brain. How BPL and CW have anything to do with each other?

Oh never mind. You ain't worth reading anylonger.

Dan/W4NTI


Keith,

Just ignore Dan. Everyone in his mind is a DUMBASS. the only one who
is perfect is HIM, PERIOD.


--
73

Frank K3EKO


Gotta give ya credit Franky me boy....when your right, your right.

But I don't think everyone is a dumbass. Just the people I call
dumbass...like you and Keith.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


The transmission lines are radiators. As such they will also receive.

Power lines are right up next to the rigs. The RF from the radios will
trash the BPL. Probably by causing drop outs and adding lots of extra
delays. Basically it will make BPL useless anywhere near a ham station.

Dan/W4NTI



OK, let's say it does slow or even stop BPL near a ham station. Why
wouldn't the FCC restrict amatuer operations around BPL areas?

Frank Dresser

OK, let's say it does slow or even stop BPL near a ham station. Why
wouldn't the FCC restrict amatuer operations around BPL areas?



Hmmm. That would be real interesting. The FCC restricting the use of
lawfully licensed transmitters in order to accomodate Part15 unlicensed
operations of incidental radiators.....


Ed WB6SAT

Ed G. wrote:

OK, let's say it does slow or even stop BPL near a ham station. Why
wouldn't the FCC restrict amatuer operations around BPL areas?




Hmmm. That would be real interesting. The FCC restricting the use of
lawfully licensed transmitters in order to accomodate Part15 unlicensed
operations of incidental radiators.....


Ed WB6SAT

They'll modify the rules so it fits their agenda. remember, the FCC
will do anything that can make them $$$$ for the US Treasury.

73

Frank K3EKO

"Ed G." wrote in message
. ..



Hmmm. That would be real interesting. The FCC restricting the use of
lawfully licensed transmitters in order to accomodate Part15 unlicensed
operations of incidental radiators.....


Ed WB6SAT

Uh huh. The BPL folk have important freinds at the FCC. Do the hams? If
so, why has this BPL thing gone this far?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


The transmission lines are radiators. As such they will also receive.

Power lines are right up next to the rigs. The RF from the radios will
trash the BPL. Probably by causing drop outs and adding lots of extra
delays. Basically it will make BPL useless anywhere near a ham station.

Dan/W4NTI



OK, let's say it does slow or even stop BPL near a ham station. Why
wouldn't the FCC restrict amatuer operations around BPL areas?

Frank Dresser



Well, hopefully, they can still read their own rules and regulations there
at the FCC. You see we are the authorized legal service. And BPL is the
unlicensed part 15 activity. Part 15 devices must accept interference from
the licensed users. Hams.

Course again, we are dealing with lawyers. So anything goes.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...



Well, hopefully, they can still read their own rules and regulations there
at the FCC. You see we are the authorized legal service. And BPL is the
unlicensed part 15 activity. Part 15 devices must accept interference
from
the licensed users. Hams.

Course again, we are dealing with lawyers. So anything goes.

Dan/W4NTI



If they don't like what they read, they'll write new ones.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


The transmission lines are radiators. As such they will also receive.

Power lines are right up next to the rigs. The RF from the radios will
trash the BPL. Probably by causing drop outs and adding lots of extra
delays. Basically it will make BPL useless anywhere near a ham station.

Dan/W4NTI



OK, let's say it does slow or even stop BPL near a ham station. Why
wouldn't the FCC restrict amatuer operations around BPL areas?

Frank Dresser



Because we are a licensed service and BPL is not ...

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...


Because we are a licensed service and BPL is not ...

Carl - wk3c


Oh. Who writes the licensing rules? Would it be the same politicians and
bureaucrats who think BPL is just fine and dandy?

Frank Dresser

In article k.net,
Dan/W4NTI w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote:
Well, hopefully, they can still read their own rules and regulations there
at the FCC. You see we are the authorized legal service.

THEY are the law. If they decide the public need for this kind of
broadband internet access outweighs the need of a few hams to
chit-chat...well...

Politics is quite an interesting thing. What's Right isn't always
clear-cut, and doesn't always go, even if it is.

We're probably talking about a majority of lawmakers who neither
understand radio nor the internet. They're likely to see, "guy with
freaky-ass radio equipment is stopping hundreds of my voters from
getting internet access, and this should be illegal." Or, worse, "Guy
who is giving me no money is interfering with organization that is
laying on the dough."

A united voice speaks better to the government, which is why ARRL is
asking for backing.

-Beej

"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:

What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.


--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out. =
==========================================

Makes you happy that you are nothing more than a no-code CB'er.

10-73's!

"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Jeezehus-H-christ...get F-N real !!


Get your facts straight. There are 300,000+ hams licensed to operate HF and
another 300,000+ hams licensed in the VHF and higher only category. Note
that BPL will also trash 6meters and 2meters.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


The transmission lines are radiators. As such they will also receive.

Power lines are right up next to the rigs. The RF from the radios will
trash the BPL. Probably by causing drop outs and adding lots of extra
delays. Basically it will make BPL useless anywhere near a ham station.

Dan/W4NTI



OK, let's say it does slow or even stop BPL near a ham station. Why
wouldn't the FCC restrict amatuer operations around BPL areas?



Right now and under the new power level proposal, BPL must meet Part 15.
This means that it legally cannot cause interference to any authorized or
licensed radio service and must accept interference from any authorized or
licensed radio service. Therefore any problems in BPL must be resolved on
the BPL side under current regulations. It would require changes in both
Part 15 and Part 97 to restrict operations around BPL areas. Plus don't
forget the non-ham spectrum users. The FCC will have a heck of a time
telling commercial AM radio, FM radio, and over-the-air TV broadcasters to
shut down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Right now and under the new power level proposal, BPL must meet Part 15.
This means that it legally cannot cause interference to any authorized or
licensed radio service and must accept interference from any authorized or
licensed radio service. Therefore any problems in BPL must be resolved on
the BPL side under current regulations. It would require changes in both
Part 15 and Part 97 to restrict operations around BPL areas.

Yes, that's the question. If a currently legal amatuer radio operator could
shut down high speed internet access for a given area, is there any reason
the FCC couldn't change it's current regulations, and put in new
restrictions on amateur radio?


Plus don't
forget the non-ham spectrum users. The FCC will have a heck of a time
telling commercial AM radio, FM radio, and over-the-air TV broadcasters to
shut down.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I'm sure the FCC wouldn't restrict any of that. The TV networks, radio
networks and all the people who watch and listen won't let them.

Frank Dresser

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Well interference caused by hams will be small potatoes compared to the
power that some of the commercial broadcasters are allowed to use. That
will compromise BPL over a much larger area than any ham station ever
could.
If BPL ever comes to my area, I'm within a few hundred yards of some of
these broadcasters so the BPL users will never even notice my signal since
they'll be constantly torn up by the commercial stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I expect the BPLers would trap the broadcast frequencies. If the
interference from established broadcasters is still too high, they simply
won't offer service in that neighborhood.

But I don't think RF is the biggest problem for BPL. Overhead power lines
will only intercept a small percentage of the RF, and re-radiate at least
half of that. I think noise sources plugged directly into the power line
are going to cause far more problems.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...


Well interference caused by hams will be small potatoes compared to the
power that some of the commercial broadcasters are allowed to use. That
will compromise BPL over a much larger area than any ham station ever
could.
If BPL ever comes to my area, I'm within a few hundred yards of some of
these broadcasters so the BPL users will never even notice my signal
since
they'll be constantly torn up by the commercial stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I expect the BPLers would trap the broadcast frequencies. If the
interference from established broadcasters is still too high, they simply
won't offer service in that neighborhood.

But I don't think RF is the biggest problem for BPL. Overhead power lines
will only intercept a small percentage of the RF, and re-radiate at least
half of that. I think noise sources plugged directly into the power line
are going to cause far more problems.

Frank Dresser

Could very well be. If one of the neighbors has welding equipment, that can
really put a lot of noise onto an electrical line. It takes a lot of
filtering to keep that out of your radio and no doubt would do a good job of
interfering with the Internet signal.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Capt. Carl would you please make BPL go away like you did the real Hams.

Thank you.

10-73's!

Don't know about BPL, but VDSL goes from 138KHz to 12MHz and has 4096 tones. Not as much potential for a problem, as it's all twisted pair rather than power lines.

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Walter Treftz" wrote in message
...
Here's what we do --- we built a (legal) KW rig into a van, install a
vertical-
radiating antenna, cut out the roof and replace it with a fiberglass
sheet. Drive directly underneath a power line with BPL running. Run lots
of QSO's, and
have at it. We're legal. Induced RF just might make them think twice
about it.
Yes, I know Ashcrofts boys are reading this --- Hi, muthers -- I live at

the callbook address. Bring some beer when you come visiting.
N4GL


Do you mean the way CBers made channel 5 unwatchable 25 years ago?

I don't know much about BPL, but I think the TV analogy might hold. Given
the bandwidth of BPL, there must be dozens, maybe hundreds of channels on
the powerline. Can every one, or most of them, be wiped out? I'm thinking
somebody came up with some pretty robust ways to deal with interference.

But what if it does stop BPL? BPL isn't being backed because it's a
technically elegant system. It's being backed by politics. Rural areas
were critically important in the last Presidential election, and any
candidiate would love to say something like "MY OPPONENT IS STOPPING ONE
FORM OF HIGH SPEED INTERNET DISTRIBUTION ON BEHALF OF HIS PALS IN THE
TELECOMMUNCATIONS INDUSTRY, BUT I PROMISE TO BRING IT IN, RIGHT ON YOUR
POWER LINE, AS SOON AS I'M ELECTED!!" Of course, that would be a political
misrepresentation, but politicans get away with worse every day. Politics
turns into a numbers game.

How many politicians or bureaucrats are saying anything negative about this
goofy scheme? Politicians may not know physics, but they do know how to
count.

Frank Dresser

Don't know about BPL, but VDSL goes from 138KHz to 12MHz and has 4096 tones. Not as much potential for a problem, as it's all twisted pair rather than power lines.

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Walter Treftz" wrote in message
...
Here's what we do --- we built a (legal) KW rig into a van, install a
vertical-
radiating antenna, cut out the roof and replace it with a fiberglass
sheet. Drive directly underneath a power line with BPL running. Run lots
of QSO's, and
have at it. We're legal. Induced RF just might make them think twice
about it.
Yes, I know Ashcrofts boys are reading this --- Hi, muthers -- I live at

the callbook address. Bring some beer when you come visiting.
N4GL


Do you mean the way CBers made channel 5 unwatchable 25 years ago?

I don't know much about BPL, but I think the TV analogy might hold. Given
the bandwidth of BPL, there must be dozens, maybe hundreds of channels on
the powerline. Can every one, or most of them, be wiped out? I'm thinking
somebody came up with some pretty robust ways to deal with interference.

But what if it does stop BPL? BPL isn't being backed because it's a
technically elegant system. It's being backed by politics. Rural areas
were critically important in the last Presidential election, and any
candidiate would love to say something like "MY OPPONENT IS STOPPING ONE
FORM OF HIGH SPEED INTERNET DISTRIBUTION ON BEHALF OF HIS PALS IN THE
TELECOMMUNCATIONS INDUSTRY, BUT I PROMISE TO BRING IT IN, RIGHT ON YOUR
POWER LINE, AS SOON AS I'M ELECTED!!" Of course, that would be a political
misrepresentation, but politicans get away with worse every day. Politics
turns into a numbers game.

How many politicians or bureaucrats are saying anything negative about this
goofy scheme? Politicians may not know physics, but they do know how to
count.

Frank Dresser

Don't know about BPL, but VDSL goes from 138KHz to 12MHz and has 4096 tones. Not as much potential for a problem, as it's all twisted pair rather than power lines.

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Walter Treftz" wrote in message
...
Here's what we do --- we built a (legal) KW rig into a van, install a
vertical-
radiating antenna, cut out the roof and replace it with a fiberglass
sheet. Drive directly underneath a power line with BPL running. Run lots
of QSO's, and
have at it. We're legal. Induced RF just might make them think twice
about it.
Yes, I know Ashcrofts boys are reading this --- Hi, muthers -- I live at

the callbook address. Bring some beer when you come visiting.
N4GL


Do you mean the way CBers made channel 5 unwatchable 25 years ago?

I don't know much about BPL, but I think the TV analogy might hold. Given
the bandwidth of BPL, there must be dozens, maybe hundreds of channels on
the powerline. Can every one, or most of them, be wiped out? I'm thinking
somebody came up with some pretty robust ways to deal with interference.

But what if it does stop BPL? BPL isn't being backed because it's a
technically elegant system. It's being backed by politics. Rural areas
were critically important in the last Presidential election, and any
candidiate would love to say something like "MY OPPONENT IS STOPPING ONE
FORM OF HIGH SPEED INTERNET DISTRIBUTION ON BEHALF OF HIS PALS IN THE
TELECOMMUNCATIONS INDUSTRY, BUT I PROMISE TO BRING IT IN, RIGHT ON YOUR
POWER LINE, AS SOON AS I'M ELECTED!!" Of course, that would be a political
misrepresentation, but politicans get away with worse every day. Politics
turns into a numbers game.

How many politicians or bureaucrats are saying anything negative about this
goofy scheme? Politicians may not know physics, but they do know how to
count.

Frank Dresser