In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

It would seem prudent to have the ARRL petition the FCC to raise amateur
power limits to partially recover that lost 10 dB. I think perhaps a 10 kw
limit would be close enough. It might also make BPL communications a bit
dicey too

Har! :-) :-) :-)

I was totally flabbergasted at reading the Phase 2 report. They
boldly went where no technical person dared to go in saying
"BPL will 'improve' the electric power line noise problems!"

Ideology trumps science! Yes, that was a shocking thing to read.

As of the end of the business day on Friday, 18 June 2004, the
Comment numbers in the FCC ECFS were -

docket 04-37 (NPRM) 1,399
docket 03-104 (NOI) 6,076

There's lots of more-than-one-page real technical problem
presentations there showing that Access BPL is full of snit
than there are for the BPL proponents. I don't think that will
matter much.

The writing seemed clear on the wall last year. BPL *will*
be started. The business folks are geared up for profits.
The President has made both BPL and Broadband a goal.
The good little Republican syncophants are synchronized
to The Word from on high.

BPL = Ban Pretentious Liberals?

Heh. No. It doesn't matter which political power is "in power"
in DC on Access BPL. It evolved from the initial trial in
Norway a decade ago and presents a "business ideology"
(of making money) and all that capitalism stuff.

Somehow, through whatever means, the BPL advocates in the
USA convinced the FCC that it was the greatest thing since
sliced bread to fit the "broadband super highway." It just
happened that the FCC has Republican-oriented commissioners
and the Acting Chief of the NTIA is sucking up to Bush's
speech statement in rather blatant politicalization.


Hoo, we are getting close to that strange discussion we had last year
with the fellow saying that if we know that it interferes, and we
transmit, we are purposely interfereing. That's enough to give a person
a headache!

Not quite. Amateurs have to understand that they are small-time
players in this particular game. All the rah-rah and we-are-the-
greatest internal pep-talking doesn't help the image presented to
the lawmakers. It boils down to a very few individuals trying to
"get even" for incidental interference by deliberate interference
with a communications service. That service is much bigger, in
both employees and affected customers than a few hams in any
particular locality. It would be a lopsided legal fight, despite all
the whoopdedo of "helping" by the League. If Access BPL spreads
to many more communities, the League would run out of legal and
moral resources to help.

Deliberate interference isn't necessary. Ordinary operating should
be sufficient to disrupt Access BPL in any one location. Hams
would just need to transmit more and on different HF bands...not
spending more of their free time on the Internet and then writing
that "they are very active on the bands" when they were not.

But if a person is in a neighborhood with Access BPL, they won't need
to use that linear. Seems 100 watts will do just fine. I don't know the
frequency context of BPL/Amateur transmitter interference, but my guess
is that if you hear it on the band you are transmitting on, you'll do it
interference harm if you fire up.

Perhaps. Technical details of Access BPL systems have yet to
be released to the electronics industry. While that may be logical
to assume, it isn't proof positive.

All in all, though, the FCC has NO POWER to proactively stop
Access BPL now. At best all it can do is set the incidental
RF radiation levels and then enforce those. Or, wait about 30
years or so until BPL is truly legacy service and then, like
land telephony, start drafting more stringent regulations. In 30
years from now, few of us will be in a position to do much.



I left that in on purpose. Just to emphasize that the FCC CANNOT
stop Access BPL right now. But, what can be done, is to demand
TESTING of any installed systems. LOTS of it to correspond with
a wide-area installation (a logical demand).

The FCC has NO power to stop BPL directly. It's not in the rules.
[that's why docket 04-37 is concerned with an NPRM] But, by
demanding appropriate TESTING with emphasis on PASSING all
tests, THAT can make it economically infeasible.

Testing takes valuable manhours. BPL systems will be at many,
many places in one community, therefore MUCH testing is needed
for compliance. Not only does that affect the installation budget,
but it takes TIME to complete. Businesses offering broadband
services want to start making money as soon as possible (also
logical) but lots of testing and test time would delay that.

That's a realistic way of looking at the problem and a possible
way to make BPL economically difficult to sustain. However,
remember that once BPL is in-place, it will quickly become a
legacy service and damn difficult to remove.