In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to
even us poor dumb amateurs.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...:-)

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Since the FCC has NO power to "stop" any Access BPL now,
the thousands of amateurs complaining about it aren't going to be
at all effective in stopping it. All that proceedings 04-37, 03-104,
and 04-29 in the ECFS are seemingly good for is a place to vent
steam generated by whatever frustrations all those thousands of
amateurs must have.

Anyone who really wants to "stop" Access BPL would have better
luck contacting their federal congressperson or senator and tell
Congress to stop it. The FCC doesn't have the legal power to
stop Access BPL; all the FCC can do right now is to set regulations
for incidental RF radiation levels.

I've made my comments on all three proceedings. That's in the
public record. Maybe it is effective, maybe not. The point is that
I and all of us can DO it. We have the direct input to the FCC and
the congresspersons have web addresses and postal addresses.
I am NOT going to do anyone's work for them. I sure as heck
can't tell anyone in this newsgrope what to do, can I? :-)

Besides, argumentative one, you've implied so many times that
you "know" what the FCC thinks. That's a key to get them to
"stop" Access BPL, isn't it? Why don't you spread around that
information for all to share? Show your dedication and
committment to the "amateur community."

LHA / WMD

On 27 Mar 2004 08:05:03 GMT, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Yep, back when the agency was run by technically knowledgeable people
who would have laughed BPL right out the door.

Those days left with Jimmy Carter's administration.

Y'know, you're right.

Until Carter got in, the Chairman was Dick Wiley, an extremely
knowledgeable comm lawyer who could understand things technical
without any problem and knew what the Commission was supposed to do.
Very impressive.

Carter replaced him with Charlie Ferris, Tip O'Neill's bag-carrier,
in a patently political payback. Ferris brought in the economists
and the consumer-ists for top management and policy-setting positions
and the slippery slope started.

In the Reagan-Bush_I years that followed Carter, there were a
succession of lightweight Chairmen epitomized by "Madman Mark"
Fowler, a comm lawyer who couldn't get a significant law partnership
after he was replaced by Reed Hundt - the guy who took the field
apart because he didn't understand what enforcement was all about
and why the agency had to do it - when Clinton got in. Hundt was
followed by Bill Kenard, whose greatest achievement was to make the
spectrum auction system work. Bush_II brought us Michael Powell, the
cheerleader of BPL.

And Jim wonders why I'm embarrassed ??

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Keith wrote in news:106acqfbbo6k117
@corp.supernews.com:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:37:31 GMT,
Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:11:05 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

IOW, if I know my neighbor has BPL access, does my continued use of my
HF amateur privileges when I know that tests show that the only HF
signal that did not knock a BPL signal out was at the QRP level
constitute that willful interference?

I say no, but the other side has an interesting interpretation.

Maybe Phil could weigh in on this one too?

This attorney says that if you are operating within the FCC Rule
requirements then any interception by a system which is not intended
to receive those signals - be it an audio device or a BPL system -
is the problem of the affected system operator and not of the
transmitter operator or licensee.

That isn't the point Phil, these emails and newsgroup posts could
be presented to the FCC and Congress to prove that all the interference
to BPL is intentional by ham radio operators and that the government
should stop the hams from destroying the Internet or whatever
argument the deep pockets of the BPL industry want to use
to stop complaints by ham radio operators.



All I advocate is that we excercise our privileges. As Phil points out, the
law is on our side. For the record, I only have a 600W linear and it
doesn't even work!

From a serious angle (and you can start a new thread if you really want to
play ostrich and bury your head in the sand!) we do in fact need to
demonstrate what 1500 W at close proximity will do to BPL. If in fact it
does wipe it out (which wouldn't be surprising, but which we don't really
know for sure) then Mr Powell really does need to find that out, and sooner
rather than later. It can't do us the least bit of good for the FCC to
discover that only after BPL has been rolled out nationwide. Intervening to
bring those circumstances about before that is not intentional
interference, at least not from a legal point of view. The right word for
it is testing.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
What's irresponsible about excercising our privileges on our
frequencies. How could it be jamming when BPL isn't a radio
transmission? I have not and would never advocate jamming.

Alun,

I did not suggest that *you* were advocating operations designed to
intentionally disrupt BPL.

However, I have seem some comments that, if they don't outright
advocate it, come so close
that the BPL spin doctors could clearly make them look so.

We do have a right to use our frequencies in legitimate ways that our
licenses permit.

All I am saying is that discussing - even if in jest - operations
designed specifically to disrupt
BPL are a VERY bad idea and will harm our cause.

73,
Carl - wk3c



I disagree. I consider it to be valid testing. The ARRL has been active in
looking at what would be radiated by UPL, but those who propose it don't
care about that. If, OTOH, it can be shown that BPL falls over when exposed
to licenced services, they will care about that. Our position is stronger
now than it would be with millions of entrenched BPL users in place.

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Phil Kane wrote:
On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:


I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.


That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.


There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access,
because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices
would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done
about it.

Isn't that the case now? If my computer monitor interferes with my cordless
phone, can I insist that FCC fix the problem? Just try!

All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...

But will a device that meets Part 15 "30 meter" specifications interfere with
BPL? I don't think so.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:

I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.

That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

Uh-oh...

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

"Getting the government off our backs"...

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.

And even if BPL is not deployed on a wide scale, setting that precedent makes
the *next* battle that much less winnable.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to
even us poor dumb amateurs.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the authority
to stop it.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Sure they can "stop it".

Steve, K4YZ

On 28 Mar 2004 04:04:30 GMT, Alun wrote:

From a serious angle (and you can start a new thread if you really want to
play ostrich and bury your head in the sand!) we do in fact need to
demonstrate what 1500 W at close proximity will do to BPL. If in fact it
does wipe it out (which wouldn't be surprising, but which we don't really
know for sure) then Mr Powell really does need to find that out, and sooner
rather than later.

The danger in that is a repeat of the fiasco that occurred at the
height of the unlicensed CB enforcement problem.

The Commish' was asked by The Congress what its most costly field
enforcement problem was. The reply was "tracking down and citing
unlicened CB operators". The result was ordering the Commish' to
drop the license requirement and changing the law to allow such.

Poof -- the problem went away. Instantaneously.

Let's hope that the same "instantaneous solution" method doesn't
happen when ham HF signals are intercepted by BPL users and the
complaints start flowing to the Commish'.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , (the
paralegal gunnery nurse) rants, raves, and writes:

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the
authority to stop it.

To "stop" WHAT? There's NO Report and Order from the FCC saying
that Access BPL exists per se. If the proposed rulemaking given in
NPRM 04-29 becomes an R&O, then it has a specific definition in
terms of incidental RF radiation levels.

Right now, the FCC regulations on incidental radiation devices, Part
15, Title 47 C.F.R., simply acknowledge devices that radiate RF and
include maximum signal levels. There are limitations on the FCC's
"stopping" power since they must investigate interference claims
first in order to determine unspecified or unidentifiable sources of
such interference. There are NO "radio police officers" at the FCC,
just an Enforcement Bureau which may or may not ask for U.S.
Federal Marshals to be the "police officers" accompanying FCC
investigating agents.

There are NO widely-distributed public documents on the technical
details of any of the Access BPL systems currently undergoing
tests. There are NO specific details available on the incidental RF
radiation signal levels from any of those Access BPL test sites.
The FCC doesn't have any. The ARRL has only some audio and
video examples for download. Access BPL proponents have NO
specific data for public release other than a lot of PR BS. NO
radio amateurs have done any quantitative calculation or modeling
to simulate the actual Access BPL test installations' levels.

Further, the FCC is NOT "in charge" of approval or disapproval
of Access BPL as a system despite what a lot of commenters on
three ECFS procedings think. All the FCC can do is regulate the
amount of incidental RF radiation from the system. Right now,
NOBODY, probably not even the proponents, have any real
numbers on those RF radiation levels. Until someone comes up
with those real numbers from real tests done by real instruments
at real sites, all the complainants are shouting and hollering in
the dark, posturing and ranting like so many did during the
McCarthy communist witch hunting during the 1950s. Federal
law on technical subjects requires actual information that can be
incorporated into that law. Until then all of the fuss and furor,
the fist-shaking and shield-waving, posturing, and epithet-throwing,
threats of "action" is just a lot of silly, ignorant BS tossing.

In NPRM 04-29, the FCC is asking for DATA to use, just as they
did in NOI 03-104. I don't see any of that data.in 5,956 documents
of three proceedings in the ECFS. Show real numbers.

Kind of spoils all your ranting and posturing with reality of the
situation, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk.

LHA / WMD

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/28/2004 3:32 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , (the
paralegal gunnery nurse) rants, raves, and writes:

But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access
BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC
can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF
radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29
is all about.

Sure it can.

The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the
authority to stop it.

To "stop" WHAT? There's NO Report and Order from the FCC saying
that Access BPL exists per se. If the proposed rulemaking given in
NPRM 04-29 becomes an R&O, then it has a specific definition in
terms of incidental RF radiation levels.

What "R&O" is required for the FCC to go to Joe Schmo's Cable Company and
say "your system is interfering with Commission licensees, and you'll either
stop it or we'll invoke NAL's..???

Right now, the FCC regulations on incidental radiation devices...(SNIP)

Thank you for YOUR "paralegal" advice, Lennie, but it doesn't stack up.

Kind of spoils all your ranting and posturing with reality of the
situation, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk.

Lennie, NOTHING you cited "ruins" anything.

I am a Commission licensee. If I start experiencing interference to my
otherwise properly operating station, it's teh FCC's OBLIGATION to resolve the
issue.

Sorry you don't agree.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
ect: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/27/2004 8:46 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (N2EY)
Date: 3/26/2004 11:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I consider myself a "professional" too, but I don't remember
ahving
been
taught that profanity is an effective means of communication.

How did you make it through the U.S. Marine Corp without ever meeting a
sailor?

What does having served in the U. S. Marine Corps or meeting sailors
have
to do with my training and education as a Nurse, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

I've never met a sailor who could communicate w/o profanity.

Then I'd say that your scope of experience was pretty narrow.

Just how many "sailors" do you know, Brain?

Unless you consider "sailoring" to not be a profession.

I am unaware of a profession called "sailoring".

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make the use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should the
offended person so desire.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in public
correspondence?

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of communication...?!?!

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.

I think the actual buzzphrase is "arease underserved by broadband" or some
such.

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable, and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies don;t
serve those areas yet.

I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't inexpensive!

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.

I think the actual buzzphrase is "arease underserved by broadband" or some
such.

What's an "arease?"

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable, and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

How many people there in those "arease?" How many people
NOT?

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost
cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies don;t
serve those areas yet.

"Ost" is 'cheese' in Swedish. "Cheese cases?"

"saem?" "don;t?"

I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't inexpensive!

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Service providers can't broadcast it? There's an IEEE standard
on it, same main number as "WiFi" (which is wired) but different
decimal numbers. 30 mile range. Not in HF.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may mean
a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

What "fact," senior? Where did you see a detailed technical description
of Access BPL that stated that "fact?" Fill us all in with all this
broadband expertise of yours.

Where in the United States are electric power distribution lines
standardized as HF transmission lines? That's not in the NEC,
either NEC.

You have technical experience in wired repeaters? Ellucidate.

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:


So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".


Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.


I think the actual buzzphrase is "arease underserved by broadband" or some
such.

Not areas "undeserved" by broadband? ;^)

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable, and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies don;t
serve those areas yet.

I find it exceptionally misleading that people are being allowed to
believe that the signals are just going to travel by the power lines
from start to finish.


I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"


Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't inexpensive!


In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.


And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.


Or just do the right thing, and run the silly signal the rest of the way
into the house via accepted and technically astute methods.

note: I'm making a bit of an assumption that this can be done.


Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

I wonder how the costs compare between a BPL line system and a cable
system?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that
BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may
mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
.... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""

Carl - wk3c

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Phil Kane wrote:

On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:



I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.


That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.


There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access,
because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices
would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done
about it.


Isn't that the case now? If my computer monitor interferes with my cordless
phone, can I insist that FCC fix the problem? Just try!

I read them as both part 15 devices, and they have to put up with each
other's interference. Hopefully the manufacturers making the junk will
either redesign or go out of business.


All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...


But will a device that meets Part 15 "30 meter" specifications interfere with
BPL? I don't think so.


Not sure here Jim.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that

BPL

systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may

mean a

repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.


The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""


Good work!

Right there is the evidence that the proponents are being less than
accurate in their portrayal of BPL.

Since BPL is slower than some other broadband services, and the
infrastructure appears to be similar to running fiber, is the slowing
attributed to the "existing infrastructure" part of the line?

I'm ignorant of the finer details of BPL, so I may be way off here.

Seems like if they have to run fiber, and do all the repeaters, etc.
why not just........ run fiber and put the signals into the houses as
they should be?

Any good sources of the nitty-gritty of BPL technology?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that

BPL

systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may

mean a

repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.


The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""


Good work!

Right there is the evidence that the proponents are being less than
accurate in their portrayal of BPL.

Actually, no more "inaccurate" than any other MARKETING and PR
group for any communications carrier service.

There is NO factual, detailed technical description available in the
electronics or communications industry trade publications about any
proposed or in-test Access BPL system.

The public doesn't know the conducted BPL signal levels, doesn't
know the (presumably) tested losses along electric power distribution
lines, the BPL coupler and other interface equipment losses. Nor is
there any specific data on the range of impedance/admittance of
installed electric power lines throughout the USA. Those electric
power lines were NEVER standardized to be RF transmission lines.

Without detailed information to make judgements from, there is no
telling what the RF radiation levels might be. It is obvious from
monitoring installed test systems that it DOES radiate RF over
a broad spectrum.

Since BPL is slower than some other broadband services, and the
infrastructure appears to be similar to running fiber, is the slowing
attributed to the "existing infrastructure" part of the line?

Not a good question since there is not enough detail to determine
any data rate.

Access BPL is essentially a very new way to distribute data. From
the allegedly-needed bandwidth requirements covering most of HF
and part of VHF spectrum, the fastest data rate could be greater
than 10 Megabits per second, certainly faster than a T1 line at
1.54 MBPS. Without any detailed system information it is very
broad conjecture.

I'm ignorant of the finer details of BPL, so I may be way off here.

So are we all. :-(

Seems like if they have to run fiber, and do all the repeaters, etc.
why not just........ run fiber and put the signals into the houses as
they should be?

Good question.

Any good sources of the nitty-gritty of BPL technology?

Look at the websites for industry magazines EDN, Electronic Design,
and RFDESIGN, even Microwaves & RF. I get all four and there's
not been any nitty-gritty data yet. Lots of PR generalities.

As an IEEE Life Member, I get their membership magazine free each
month and SPECTRUM is well-regarded as giving detailed explains
on many electronic systems. Excellent articles, informative. None
there yet. The SPECTRUM is on-line and with free access at
www.ieee.org.

A website search turns up most of the BPL proponents' sites but
you won't find any details there, just the same PR slide-show
material they showed to the FCC.

The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology isn't telling. They
might not know any more than anyone else, hence their NOI of
last year.

Access BPL is going to be bad for HF. We just don't know HOW
bad. Kiss your HF receiver sensitivity ratings goodbye...it won't
matter if BPL goes past your house.

LHA / WMD

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 7:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make the
use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should the
offended person so desire.

Too bad we don't have a "conduct unbecoming" regulation.

Yes. I'd take great pleasure in seeing you adn Lennie prosecuted under it.

You'd spend all of your time at Captain's Mast rather than harassing
and stalking others.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Tell me about that misister's non-judicial punishment.

No, document it.

How can a civilian be "punichsed" under military law, Brain?

I did NOT state is was a military person. We were discussing profanity.

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in public
correspondence?

Yes. No.

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of communication...?!?!

You don't show verbal comments, they are not official navy
"documents."

Ahhhhhh....so no "verbal comments" of a Naval officer have ever been
"documented"...?!?! Those comments were never "credited" to a person in an
official position?

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

darn

Glad to disappoint you again.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 11:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 7:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 4:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I AM aware of SPECIFIC Naval and Marine Corps regulations that make
the
use
of profanity "conduct unbecomming", and punishable by Article 15 should
the
offended person so desire.

Too bad we don't have a "conduct unbecoming" regulation.

Yes. I'd take great pleasure in seeing you adn Lennie prosecuted under
it.

You'd spend all of your time at Captain's Mast rather than harassing
and stalking others.

Does it happen? Sure it happens....I've heard ministers swear.

Tell me about that misister's non-judicial punishment.

No, document it.

How can a civilian be "punichsed" under military law, Brain?

I did NOT state is was a military person. We were discussing
profanity.

Many ministers wear the uniform. You brought in the minister and the
UCMJ. Why would you bring in someone not subject to the UCMJ, then
start backpeddling?

No backpeddling, Brain.

I am very, VERY sorry that you can't/won't keep up, but do I REALLY need to
spoon feed each and ever answer to you?

Are you REALLY that childish and inept, or is it just an act?

Do they do it in the course of thier professional duites or in
public
correspondence?

Yes. No.

Nope...Unless you can show me some sort of "official" Naval document
wherein profanity was used as a professional means of
communication...?!?!

Steve is saying that all professional communications must be written.

In 18 years of service in the USMC, I can honestly say I NEVER head ANY
USMC or USN officer use "profanity" in thier official capacity. As I
said...did I hear any of them EVER swear? Of course, but NOT in order to do
thier jobs, communicate a point or otherwise use it to try an effectively
express themselves.

It wasn't necessary.

You don't show verbal comments, they are not official navy
"documents."

Ahhhhhh....so no "verbal comments" of a Naval officer have ever been
"documented"...?!?! Those comments were never "credited" to a person in an
official position?

Hmmm? You tell me.

Sorry, Brain. You were, again, the one making an unenable assertion.

You're up again, PutzBoy.

I'll sit here holding my breath waiting on that one, Brain.

(No I won't...just teasing you...)

darn

Glad to disappoint you again.

Steve, you've been a monumental disappointment, and probably not just
to me.

I am sure you'd like to think so.

I have correspondence to the contrary on many numerous counts.

Sorry. Sucks to be you...Again.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 9:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I am very, VERY sorry that you can't/won't keep up, but do I REALLY
need to
spoon feed each and ever answer to you?

Are you REALLY that childish and inept, or is it just an act?

Look, kook, you're the one who thought them relative and necessary to
make your point. But they apparently didn't make your point nor were
they necessary or even related to your point.

Just don't go taking it out on me for your pointless mention of the
UCMJ and ministers.

Not my problem.

Brain...it IS YOUR problem when you can't keep your stories straight,
present some valid corroboration of your assertions, or be stand-up enough to
admit that you've been mistruthful when it's proven that you WERE mistruthful.

I just have a great time watching you do it.

Thanks.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 27 Mar 2004 08:05:03 GMT, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Yep, back when the agency was run by technically knowledgeable people
who would have laughed BPL right out the door.

Those days left with Jimmy Carter's administration.

Y'know, you're right.

Until Carter got in, the Chairman was Dick Wiley, an extremely
knowledgeable comm lawyer who could understand things technical
without any problem and knew what the Commission was supposed to do.
Very impressive.

Carter replaced him with Charlie Ferris, Tip O'Neill's bag-carrier,
in a patently political payback. Ferris brought in the economists
and the consumer-ists for top management and policy-setting positions
and the slippery slope started.

Which was recognized by only a few at the time.

In the Reagan-Bush_I years that followed Carter, there were a
succession of lightweight Chairmen epitomized by "Madman Mark"
Fowler, a comm lawyer who couldn't get a significant law partnership
after he was replaced by Reed Hundt - the guy who took the field
apart because he didn't understand what enforcement was all about
and why the agency had to do it - when Clinton got in. Hundt was
followed by Bill Kenard, whose greatest achievement was to make the
spectrum auction system work. Bush_II brought us Michael Powell, the
cheerleader of BPL.

Republicans and Democrats both. Let's see - Carter plus Clinton is 12 years,
Reagan plus Bushes is 16 years. Pretty balanced.

And Jim wonders why I'm embarrassed ??

Not any more.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

So much for "no other method to serve the unserved areas but BPL".

Did anyone actually say that? It's highly inaccurate if they did.

I think the actual buzzphrase is "areas underserved by broadband" or some
such.

Not areas "undeserved" by broadband? ;^)

The image depicted is that there are large parts of the USA where broadband
access is either unavailable or very expensive. That's partly true - just
as
it's true that there are parts of the USA where cable TV is unavailable,
and
parts where underground natural gas service is unavailable. Etc.

The *implication* is that BPL will somehow fill in those gaps, but in ost
cases
that's not really the case - for the saem reasons competing technologies
don;t serve those areas yet.

I find it exceptionally misleading that people are being allowed to
believe that the signals are just going to travel by the power lines
from start to finish.

Of course it's misleading, but that's nothing new. Notice how the word "radio"
is avoided by people pushing "new wireless technologies".

Remember, Mike, they're all "professionals". They must know what's best, right?

I
think there is a vision of just sending the signals over the power lines
and boy howdy, an instant nationwide network, everywhere there is a
power line, "you have mail!"

Exactly.Just like there was a vision of next-generation satellite phones
that
would let all of us place phone calls from anywhere in the world via a
network
of low-eart-orbit satellites. That vision worked - but it wasn't
inexpensive!

In truth, a fiber has to be run to somewhere near the house that is
going to be served, so that means that rural areas will not be any
easier to serve than they are now.

And that's just the first problem. Once the fiber gets there, other
competing
technologies could use it, too. Including WiFi, as described by K2ASP.

Or just do the right thing, and run the silly signal the rest of the way
into the house via accepted and technically astute methods.

note: I'm making a bit of an assumption that this can be done.

Of course it can be done. But it costs $$ to do it, and the DSL and cablemodem
folks don't see an adequate ROI. Yet.

This is the downside of "deregulation". Once upon a time, "the phone company"
had to serve everyone pretty much equally, regardless of cost, in return for
having a monopoly. Not true any more.

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that
BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may
mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

I wonder how the costs compare between a BPL line system and a
cable system?

Depends on the particular situation. If there is currently no cable system, the
cost of running new cable and all that goes with it is quite high, compared to
putting in a few BPL taps and repeaters. OTOH, if the infrastructure is in
place it's a different story.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 26 Mar 2004 09:17:15 -0800, N2EY wrote:

But not the Wall Street Journal, or the chief engineer of the FCC, or the
Commissioners....;-) ;-)

Both the Commissioners and the Chief of the Office of Science and
Technology dance to the tune of the politicians who control them.

But Phil - they're "professionals", just like Len!

It embarasses the hell out of me.....

Why? You don't work for FCC any more, Phil.

Loyalty and respect die hard......I spent a lot of years there at a
time when the agency had national and international respect for
doing things right and put a lot of effort into carrying my share of
that load.

I know exactly what you mean, Phil.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Then there's the fact that the HF losses on power lines are so high that
BPL
systems need a repeater every few thousand feet. In rural areas that may
mean a
repeater for each customer, or more. Plus couplers and other hardware for
*each* customer.

The slides I've seen presented by BPL marketing fluff folks show repeaters
every
300 meters ... that's a hell of a lot of repeaters to "serve rural America"
... yet they
claimed in the same presentation that it was "low cost because no
infrastructure was
required because the wires were already (presumably) there."

I pointed to their block diagrams with fiber to the area, "head-ends" to go
from fiber
to the MV/HV lines, repeaters every 300 meters, couplers, etc. and asked
"How can
you claim with a straight face that this "doesn't require the installation
of infrastructure?""

Good work!

Right there is the evidence that the proponents are being less than
accurate in their portrayal of BPL.

It just means they define "infrastructure" differently.

They don't consider the addition of fiber, taps or bypass couplers to be
"installation of infrastructure". They do consider ahving to run actual wires,
particularly into subscribers' homes, as "instalation of infrastructure".

Running the last mile of wire is expensive because of all the labor involved.
Running the last couple of dozen/hundred feet into the subscriber's house or
business is even more expensive because of the labor and having to work in
somebody's house or business. The liability is high, too.

Since BPL is slower than some other broadband services, and the
infrastructure appears to be similar to running fiber, is the slowing
attributed to the "existing infrastructure" part of the line?

As I understand it, none of the systems uses the whole 2-80 MHz spectrum at the
same time. This is because you couldn't "repeat" (amplify) without interfering
with yourself. So a system might use, say, 30-40 MHz in one length of line,
then translate to, say, 15-25 MHz for the next length so that the MV line
doesn't have to break.

It appears that in the Penn Yan system, only one set of frequencies is used
because the system only goes about 9 blocks.

I'm ignorant of the finer details of BPL, so I may be way off here.

Seems like if they have to run fiber, and do all the repeaters, etc.
why not just........ run fiber and put the signals into the houses as
they should be?

Because of the cost of getting the fiber in the houses, and the terminal
equipment once it gets there. And back at the office.

To my way of thinking, the "best" answer with current technology lies in the
various "Wi-Fi" ("wireless") technologies. No installation cost in the
subscriber homes or businesses, no RFI issues, lots of bandwidth, and will even
work with a lapper that isn't plugged in.

More than 15 years ago, I was talking about how we should each have a "personal
fiber" that would handle all our comm needs - telephone, data, TV, etc. No EMI
or RFI because it's light! But between the installation and equipment costs
it's just not feasible. Yet.

There was also the fact that regulations prohibit certain things, in an
attemprt to prevent monopolies. At least back then, a telephone company could
not offer "cable" TV, and the cable company could not offer telephone service,
because of federal regulations.

Any good sources of the nitty-gritty of BPL technology?

One of the best (Carl, WK3C) replied to your post, Mike. Carl has experienced
BPL first-hand.

73 de Jim, N2EY