In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

You would think so, but that's not how it works.

Take cell phones. How many "average people" really know the most basic things
about how they work? I'm not talking about CDMA or even analog vs. digital,
but
just the idea that they are little radio transceivers? Look at the people
opposing cell towers as "sources of radiation" - yet demanding perfect
coverage, and holding the dern things next to their heads for many minutes per
day. Note how the solutions that have evolved have included disguised sites,
and the use of more cells with reduced coverage. "Inverse square law"?
Puhleeze!

Why do you think the 'phone folks revived the term "wireless"?

Because the "'phone folks" did NOT "revive" it.

The term "wireless" of modern use came from the LAN people,
those who design and make Local Area Networks. The first
LANs were WIRED. Wiring can be expensive and cumbersome in
most areas so the LAN folks brought in low-power RF linking, or
"wireless LANs." That was popular and grew.

"Wireless" as the word is used now is almost anything not needing
wires to connect audio, video, or data over short distances.

An automobile was once referred to as a "horseless buggy." That
kind of description hasn't been in use much in either today's
society nor even that of my childhood. For the same reason,
modern society does NOT think of "wireless' as anything like the
old 1920s term of radio.

If the "'phone folks" called cellular anything, it was "mobile."
It still is and many industry folks refer to it as "mobile,"
synonymous with "cell" and "cellular."

[count on another argument and ignitor of potential flame wars
concerning the above...some folks don't stop at mere facts in
here when it comes to wanting to fight...:-) ]

In article ,
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

| UPLC will manage to loud-mouth thier plan into deployment...They
| will forego any really adequate shielding, in OR out, and then the
| "consumer" will be left barking about how badly it works.

What possible sort of shielding could there be?

Well, you could put a shield around each wire. In fact, they have a
word for that sort of thing -- coax. Or you could move the wires
closer together -- that wouldn't shield anything, but it would
decrease the radiation. Or twist the cables together like twisted
pair -- but that would require some sort of insulation on the wire.

All of these methods are many many many times more expensive than just
running coax or fiber alongside the power line and using that for
data.

Or is there some sort of magic, yet cheap, shielding that they could
do that I'm just not aware of?

--
Doug McLaren,
Why don't cannibals eat clowns? They taste funny.

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting,
inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC:

I'd almost think you were angry with them or something..........

Seriously, it's a great letter. Good work, Carl.


To quote Carl's letter: "With all due respect - Hogwash".
I don't think it is a good letter at all. It would have been better if
Carl had delayed in sending it for several days, cooled his jets and had
written a toned-down response.

Well Dave, we could say "With all due respect, sirs, we don't want to
insinuate that you might not be accurate, but we don't really think that
your assessment is possibly not totally of the same opinion that we
have. All apologies if we might be wrong, but we really think that, well
we were kind of hoping that maybe you would.........."



Yeah, Carl used Hogwash in his letter. I personally think he pulled his

punch there anyhow. Hogwash is putting it quite politely.

The UPLC doc uses exaggeration, innuendo, gratuitous insults, and
monumental inaccuracies.

Also flat-out falsehoods.

And while we are on the gratuitous line, it
makes an equally monumental stretch in connecting BPL with Home security.

The version he sent is inflammatory and
combative. Then again, Carl is generally inflammatory and combative.
At least he left out the "electronic paintball wars" stuff in his
description of amateur radio.

I disagree with Carl on a number of issues, but on this one I believe
he is spot on. We didn't start the volley of insults, UPLC did. The
question of whether we want to be in this position is moot. We can
either stand by and let them stomp on us, or we can take a more active
stand.

The question is - what will be effective? For example, the "vaduum tube
transmitter" comment could be countered by "you folks still use wooden poles
with porcelain insulators on them". But will such behavior help or hurt?

Perhaps that's what UPLC wants - to get into a shouting match with name calling
and all the rest.

While it was satisfying to see Carl's response, after some thought I begin to
wonder how effective "replying in kind" would be.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: response to UPLC new release/comments on BPL
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 7/2/2004 8:09 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Even if a person is completely ignorant of how BPL works, wouldn't the
average person get a little suspicious when we are told that it doesn't
interfere, and then a few lines later, we are told of mitigation
methods? If it doesn't interfere, there is no need for interference
mitigation.

"Mitigation" is four syllables, Mike, so right away you lost half the
population's ability to make any sense of it...

"Republican" is four syllables, too.....;-)

Few will notice or appreciate that disparity you point out, even though
it's a very valid one...Just like the folks who ignore the "Part 15" caveat
on
thier "consumer electroics" devices at home who get "stepped on" by a
licensed
transmitter ("those !@#$%^ hams"...regardless of what service is the culprit)
and then demand the FCC "do something" about "them".

That's because they're not educated about how things work. Of course, education
costs time and money, and educated customers are harder to please.

UPLC will manage to loud-mouth thier plan into deployment...They will
forego any really adequate shielding, in OR out, and then the "consumer" will
be left barking about how badly it works.

Which may ultimately prove their undoing.

Let's do a little survey: What options are available where you live, and at
what price?

Here in Radnor, besides dialup, I can choose cable access at $42.95/month, or
DSL access at as low as $29.95/month. No BPL, thankfully.

How about others?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: response to UPLC new release/comments on BPL
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 7/3/2004 6:27 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Few will notice or appreciate that disparity you point out, even though
it's a very valid one...Just like the folks who ignore the "Part 15" caveat
on
thier "consumer electroics" devices at home who get "stepped on" by a
licensed
transmitter ("those !@#$%^ hams"...regardless of what service is the
culprit)
and then demand the FCC "do something" about "them".

That's because they're not educated about how things work. Of course,
education
costs time and money, and educated customers are harder to please.

Mostly money.

A one or two page pamphlet of what can be expected couldn't cost more than
a few extra cents to include in the device.

Of course if the consumer KNEW what they really needed to, they might
demand that the things be properly engineered and manufactured in the first
place!

73

Steve, K4YZ

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: response to UPLC new release/comments on BPL
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 7/2/2004 8:09 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
[snip]
"Mitigation" is four syllables, Mike, so right away you lost half
the
population's ability to make any sense of it...

"Republican" is four syllables, too.....;-)

No wonder the Democrats are so successful. The word Democrat is only three
syllables!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: response to UPLC new release/comments on BPL
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 7/2/2004 8:09 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
[snip]
"Mitigation" is four syllables, Mike, so right away you lost half
the
population's ability to make any sense of it...

"Republican" is four syllables, too.....;-)

No wonder the Democrats are so successful. The word Democrat is only three
syllables!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

They're only successful at circumventing campaign finance reform with
with the "Air America" radio program, "Day After Tomorrow" and
"Farenheit 911" movies, and Bill Clinton's book "My Life."

What a bunch of hooey.

All of these methods are many many many times more expensive than just
running coax or fiber alongside the power line and using that for
data.

Or is there some sort of magic, yet cheap, shielding that they could
do that I'm just not aware of?



There's conduit and to a lesser extent BX wiring in the house, but
nobody's going to change
out the romex to get this shielding. And you still have all those
unshielded portable power
cords feeding table lamps, toasters, TV sets and such...

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...


Mike Coslo wrote:


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


Follows, for anyone who's interested, my response to the insulting,
inaccurate press release (and comments to the FCC) from the UPLC:


I'd almost think you were angry with them or something..........

Seriously, it's a great letter. Good work, Carl.


To quote Carl's letter: "With all due respect - Hogwash".
I don't think it is a good letter at all. It would have been better if
Carl had delayed in sending it for several days, cooled his jets and had
written a toned-down response. The version he sent is inflammatory and
combative. Then again, Carl is generally inflammatory and combative.
At least he left out the "electronic paintball wars" stuff in his
description of amateur radio.

Dave K8MN



Personally I think he wasn't strong enough in his statements.

The correct experssion would be for Carl to say "Bullshjt" or "They're
full of shjt", but
I remember from high debate sessions that such are not really effective
in arguements.

Of course if the consumer KNEW what they really needed to, they might
demand that the things be properly engineered and manufactured in the first
place!



As Beavis and Butthead are fond of saying: "You can't polish a turd".
There's no way to
make BPL using HF and VHF frequencies not QRM licensed users of those
frequencies.
Even microwave BPL is going to goof someone else up. Except maybe put
them on the
same frequency as that used by all the microwave ovens...