N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


I fully support the fight against BPL, and suggest that everyone send
support to ARRL either through their clubs or personally.


Also through membership and well-written comments to NOI and NPRM.

I do however think that while we must remain vigilant, that BPL will
end up on the trash heap of technology. We need to avoid the near panic
that came out when the abomination was first proposed.


Maybe it will be trashed - but maybe not. It's not over till it's over, and
even then it's not over. For example, even though Japan rejected BPL
after trials, the BPL companies there are trying again, claiming "new
technology".

And remember that the levels of interference at the various test sites conform
to existing FCC radiated levels!

Too many powerful interests are aligning in opposition to it. ARRL,
FEMA, and I believe a Broadcaster's association. The FCC has now
"clarified their "broadband Nirvana" statements.


Could still happen. Most of those folks don't have installations in residential
neighborhoods. Most hams, OTOH...


Austria terminating a BPL test after the pilot project provided
free major interference with A Red Cross Emergency drill adds fuel to the
BPL pyre. This was even after they were considering such fixes as a
buffer zone around amateurs houses.


We're not in Austria. The EUs usually are a lot more rejecting of pollution
than we are. (BPL's interference is essentially spectrum pollution, wouldn't
you agree?)

Finally, it is obvious that the technology DOES NOT WORK!


No, it *does* work! The demo sites are functioning.


They are a sort of laboratory condition. If the test results from ARRL
are correct, 1 ham with 100 watts can effectively turn off the service
for quite some distance around him/her. That's what I mean.



The apparent
need to increase power levels, the fact that a HF radio would have to
operate on QRP levels to not shut down a BPL signal, and that normal
levels of HF signals have been able to shut down BPL over a surprisingly
large range.


In some test sites. But at others, it's a different story. And even such
problems are no guarantee that FCC won't allow it.

The market will then take care of it.

Look at Manassas.


Aww, do I have to? 8^)


And before we take a ARS-centric view of the whole thing, remember
that there are plenty of other users of HF beside us.


Sure - and hopefully the combined effect of all of them will be enough to
convince FCC.

But the job isn't done till it's done.

Sure enough. Remember I'm not arguing against a stand against BPL or
the need to fight it. I just want people to not freak.


Soooooo, if the rules are changed so that BPL gets priority use of the
HF spectrum, reversing the radio universe in that part 15 devices will
tolerate no interference from other devices, and that the other devices
are forced to tolerate interference from the part 15 device, and *every*
other user of the HF spectrum is forced off the air, then maybe, just
maybe, BPL will work....kinda.


Stranger things have happened.

Suppose you sit down for a nice bit of PSK and find the waterfall full of noise
- and no signals visible. Do you think the power company is going to interrupt
service so you can operate?

Or suppose you see a signal or two and open up with 100 W. And suppose you dump
the system for a radius of a mile from your house....

Yup, keep on calling CQ. I probably wouldn't go above 50 watts tho' But
even that would be enough to disrupt the BPL.

On a side note, has there been any tests on what solar storms would do
to BPL?


Or suppose the local gendarmes show up, responding to complaints from many
angry citizens that *you* are messing up *their* computers. Do you want to
explain Part 15 and Part 97 to them, when they see you as the electronic
equivalent of somebody violating the peace?

Or suppose any time someone calls the help line, the first question the
help person asks is "Is there a ham radio within a mile of your house?"

Sure enough. All good arguments. And the best arguments for being
steadfast in the fight against BPL. Even though I am certain that in
practice, BPL will fall flat on it's face, that if approved, it will be
a nuisance for some hams and others. But I see different levels of
concern. Concern at a high level such as at the early part of the fight
against BPL, when testing was needed, and arguments presented against
BPL. The present situation, when it is being documented that the system
is very fragile and has a track record of interference to emergency
services (even if it is only a test) allows more leisurely prosecution
of the problem. But prosecution has to go on.

What do you think the F.C.C's response will be when ARRL or FEMA trots
out the Austrian BPL Red Cross interference data? Am I the only one that
thinks that case is darn close to a show stopper?

- Mike KB3EIA -