http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Excellent. Good first shot victory. This is probably how we are going to
have to fight this monster. Piece by piece.

Dan/W4NTI

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

The major "kudos" ought to go to the Cedar Rapids team that put
together an excellent picture of a detailed example of their BPL
test system. One can see it in several Comments on docket
04-37 at the FCC ECFS.

"Kudos to ARRL?" Why? The Cedar Rapids amateur club
did all the work...had the calibrated instruments for valid data
collection. No computer simulations there. Actual on-air tests.

If someone wants to express gratitude to "all involved," the names
and callsigns are in the several 04-37 Comments of the last week.
Write them DIRECT, don't assume that "all" read this din of
inequity called a newsgroup.

Len,

The purpose was, obviously, to let eveyone know what we knew in the first
place - BPL *will* cause interference. Whatever you may think, this will
also cause interference to low band VHF users as well. I shan't get into
who uses that.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

The major "kudos" ought to go to the Cedar Rapids team that put
together an excellent picture of a detailed example of their BPL
test system. One can see it in several Comments on docket
04-37 at the FCC ECFS.

"Kudos to ARRL?" Why? The Cedar Rapids amateur club
did all the work...had the calibrated instruments for valid data
collection. No computer simulations there. Actual on-air tests.

If someone wants to express gratitude to "all involved," the names
and callsigns are in the several 04-37 Comments of the last week.
Write them DIRECT, don't assume that "all" read this din of
inequity called a newsgroup.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/04

In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Excellent. Good first shot victory. This is probably how we are going to
have to fight this monster. Piece by piece.

Note that it was a test program, and that the BPL folks shut down voluntarily.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:



"N2EY" wrote in message
.com...


http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Excellent. Good first shot victory. This is probably how we are going to
have to fight this monster. Piece by piece.



Note that it was a test program, and that the BPL folks shut down voluntarily.




They may heve decided that they were not going to make enough money with it
to make it worthwhile doing. And not worth the trouble, as they know
that hams
don't put up with powerline noise, much less BPL crud....

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Len,

The purpose was, obviously, to let eveyone know what we knew in the
first place - BPL *will* cause interference. Whatever you may think,
this will also cause interference to low band VHF users as well. I
shan't get into who uses that.


I don't know who you have in mind, but the state police use it here. That
may be enough to kill BPL right there.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/?nc=1

Kudos to W0SR, ARRL, and all involved.

The major "kudos" ought to go to the Cedar Rapids team that put
together an excellent picture of a detailed example of their BPL
test system. One can see it in several Comments on docket
04-37 at the FCC ECFS.

"Kudos to ARRL?" Why? The Cedar Rapids amateur club
did all the work...had the calibrated instruments for valid data
collection. No computer simulations there. Actual on-air tests.

If someone wants to express gratitude to "all involved," the names
and callsigns are in the several 04-37 Comments of the last week.
Write them DIRECT, don't assume that "all" read this din of
inequity called a newsgroup.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/04

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

The purpose was, obviously, to let eveyone know what we knew in the first
place - BPL *will* cause interference. Whatever you may think, this will
also cause interference to low band VHF users as well. I shan't get into
who uses that.

BPL *will* cause an HF noise level increase of at least
10 db. NTIA say so. NTIA also say we can "afford that"
because BPL be super-service broadband and W say
broadband good for country. Hooray for Republicans!

I'm not sure if the Access BPL signals WILL affect VHF
hammers. NTIA wasn't measuring there much, were they?

Let's face it, as Dan remarked, BPL is going to HAVE to
be fought "piece by piece" like the Cedar Rapids IA ham
club did. It's also nice if a major radio corporation
division is also in the city. :-) [Collins Radio]

Big article in L.A. Times business section today about
Mike Powell's plans. He not say direct but large speculation
is that Mikey will go off to big pay in corporate world. He
being dangled worm on gold-plated hook. Meanwhile, THE
Chairman of FCC is off on another rural America trip to see
"firsthand" how good BPL is in hinterlands. Whoopee.

I can only see BPL as already there and waiting. Big, Big
BIG antenna for noise-making on HF. Those who say
nothing, do nothing can kiss their S (meter) units goodbye.
You all deserve what you root for by not saying anything.
Enjoy.

In article , Alun
writes:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Len,

The purpose was, obviously, to let eveyone know what we knew in the
first place - BPL *will* cause interference. Whatever you may think,
this will also cause interference to low band VHF users as well. I
shan't get into who uses that.

I don't know who you have in mind, but the state police use it here. That
may be enough to kill BPL right there.

Not enough in my viewpoint. Nearly all states use the 30-50 MHz
bands for highway patrol communications as well as 150+ MHz.
Access BPL is not described (so far) as having radiated RF
byproducts above 88 MHz so the first, oldest, and now least-
used PLMRS bands at 30 to 50 MHz will be the only ones
(supposedly) affected.

Fringe-area "low band" TV receivers for channels 2 through 6
would be affected by BPL. That's a few hundred thousand plus
in the rural areas that are supposed to be the BPL broadband
treat. [Damocles' sword again, cutting two ways]

The majority of those affected by BPL would be the HF users.
The federal government has a whole potfull of fixed frequency
assignments in HF...as can be seen in the tabulations of the
NTIA Phase 1 study and in the Comments of ARINC on docket
04-37. [50,000+ or somewhere in that number region] ARINC,
true to its founding prior to WW2, is a private aviation service
running some of the HF comm facilities for long distance flights.
ARINC is very big in other areas such as acting as the
standards Hq for commercial air carriers, including the US (and,
by adoption, ICAO) radionavigation systems technical standards.

Note: Cedar Rapids, IA, has long been the home town of Collins
Radio. Collins is still busy making civil as well as military
avionics although they've been out of the amateur radio market
area for years. It shouldn't hurt a bit to have a major avionics
corporation in the area with a strong amateur radio identification
and HF commercial radio identification to help the fight against
BPL.

The USA broadcast industry is against BPL even though the
major money income comes from AM and FM BC band ad
sales...neither band expected to be interfered with by BPL.
There's support in the industry for RF-pollution-free bandspace
for US SW BC band broadcasters even though they are a drop
in the program bucket for broadcasting. BPL will make about
a third of all SW BC band listening impossible in the USA due
to RFI.

There's all sorts of objections to BPL from the ESTABLISHED
radio services, amateur included. Nonetheless, Access BPL
is still going to exist...at least for a while. The Chairman of the
FCC loves it (politically, certainly not for technical or legal
reasons) and the Acting Secretary of the NTIA politically loves
it because the USA President (for now) loves it. Both have
made public statements to that regard.

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it. The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL. They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL. Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while. Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

The FCC already does
that with other communications service providers (cable TV in
main but also telephone cable and incidental RF radiation from
electric power lines). The enforcement is going to be a total
bitch of a job for BPL. The FCC is way, way down on facilities
to test and measure BPL installations and is going to have to
really pork up its budget to come close to good measurements
in urban areas especially. It will be a HUGE task.

If it gets done. It probably won't. FCC is not bound by any strict deadlines
for enforcement.

There's no good signs evident that the FCC is coming even
close to realizing the gargantuan task of monitoring BPL of the
future. Mikey Powell and company have been sold on BPL "for
the masses" and that's that...a big mass.

Would you refer to Chairman Powell as "Mikey" to his face? Would you address
your comments to FCC to "Mikey"?

The only perceivable way to fight BPL is now after-the-fact, like
the Cedar Rapids group did, apparently successfully. But, that
takes a concerted group effort in each amateur radio locality.
ARRL can't be dependent as the "big gun" to fight BPL.

But they *can* give needed help, and act to coordinate efforts. And if nothing
else, ARRL has continued to publicize the BPL threat both inside and outside
the amateur community, and to spread accurate information on what is going on.
The Iowa group and the affected amateur both publicly thanked ARRL for its
help.

They
aren't staffed or budgeted to oversee all the possible BPL
installation testing in the USA. The League's budget would have
to quadruple or quintuple to approach being able to do that...and
still not be enough.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Individual industry and local government (state on down) groups
haven't shown they have enough clout to make a difference in the
Commission's enthusiasm for BPL.

Regulation of radio is specifically a Federal function. State and local
governments cannot have any real clout - otherwise they'd be requiring licenses
and fees.

Pandora's Box has already
been opened. Lots of such Boxes in all of the 50 states. It's
going to be one helluva big task to close them.

Maybe. Or maybe a few good precedents will be set that will cause the rest to
give up.

Many highly-touted new technologies have fallen by the wayside once their
disadvantages became known.

There's also the economic angle. The price of DSL keeps dropping, as does
Wi-Fi, while the areas covered by those technologies and cable keep expanding.
If BPL cannot compete in price and performance, it's all over.

It is interesting to note that the Cedar Rapids system used (past tense,
thankfully) BPL to get the signals to poles near the subscriber's homes, but
then depended on Wi-Fi for the actual "connection" to the customer. Thus, they
can replace the BPL component with fiber or coax with no effect on the
customer.

Of course from both an engineering and common-sense standpoint, it would make
sense to go the fiber/Wi-Fi route from the very beginning, if the goal is
broadband access without having to do work on the customer's premises. But both
engineering and common sense are sadly lacking in some places - even among the
professionals who are trying to bring us BPL.

Say goodbye to low-level HF signals if BPL comes to your QTH,
at least for a while.

Depends on the frequencies used. Not all BPL systems use the entire HF
spectrum. See ARRL descriptions of the Penn Yan (NY) system.

Remember which administration brought out
the spectre of Access BPL to this nation while you and everyone
else are at it.

Not just this nation. The Canadians are at it:

http://www.telecomottawa.com/index.p...wDetails&id=30

Jim, N2EY