"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Dick,

I'm not at all sure who uses what spectrum in the areas where they are
testing BPL

Nobody knows how much interference the stuff could generate
eventually. The BPL proponents are advertising their intent to run
from 2 thru 80 Mhz inclusive. At considerably higher power levels than
they're using in the current test areas. There's a major threat in
itself and it's not being tested.

but I'd bet coffee for a week that those folks studied the
situation carefully before proceeding.

Would not surprise me one bit. But then along came hams with HF mobile
rigs like Carl wk3c, Ed Hare w1rfi and Bob Davidson w3hj and myself
who took ham radio into BPL test areas and are blowing the whistle.
Loudly.

Where did they test (I don't know of
all areas and I'm asking a sincere question)?

Go to the ARRL site for the complete list of known test areas. All of
those I know about so far are in the NE corridor in densly-populated
upscale +/- residential neigborhoods. Because that's where the money
is. Which also happen to be the same sorts of neighborhoods in which a
lot of hams live too.

The "promise" of BPL is to
serve areas that are not served well by cable or DSL

Total BS. BPL is quite expensive to deploy. A fiber optic feed line or
cable TV line has to run parallel to the power lines. These feed lines
inject the BPL signals into the low voltage power lines via taps
roughly at every street intersection or the neighborhood has no BPL.
If there isn't any cable or DSL service in your locale because there
isn't any ROI in it for those service providers there most likely
won't be any BPL either. They're all chasing the same dollars.

Did they test a
fairly substantial area in the country where they could demonstrate
far-flung connections to the BPL,

Absolutely not. There are no "far-flung connections" to BPL per above.
In the Emmaus PA test area which I've visited BPL is only distributed
along a few blocks of maybe 3-4 residential streets. Completely
inconclusive test program to the point of being a contrived scam.

or did they test in densely populated
areas that are already served by various broadband connection

Seems like.

(where fire,
police, emergency, etc. are very likely not on low band VHF)?

Dunno. There are at least three test sites concentrated in the Lehigh
Valley region in PA and there are very few if any emergency services
still using lo-band VHF in PA. I have not seen any references to BPL
being tested in places like California and Dick's Missouri where
lo-band is still in use. What a big surprise eh?

Also, FM
broadcasting is usually located near large population areas (since signals
tend to die off pretty quickly after 40 or 60 miles). This means that if
you have BPL in a city, it is unlikely that residents will experience
capture effect on the FM receivers since they will be getting *huge* signals
on their FM receivers.

BPL as presently conceived is not supposed to run in either the AM or
FM broadcast bands. Plus there are guard bands between BPL and both
broadcast bands. 'Nother big surprise.

I note the "neon sign" comment in the thread. Neon
signs are usually found in cities.

There are "point source" neon signs fifty miles north of Butte,
they're *everywhere*.

Those test sites are likely located
either in a city or in an area where the money interests already checked the
FCC site to ensure no low band VHF use by police, fire, ambulance, etc.

Covered above.


Any thoughts on this, or am I crazy?

Certainly you're a crazy. All us frequent posters in this NG are
certified crazies. Where the hell have YOU been?!


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

w3rv



"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Before I retired I was a field engineer working with a statewide
public safety organization which uses low band VHF for base to car
communications statewide, and that system is still virtually as I left