N2EY wrote:
In article , JJ
writes:


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:


Good work!! Hope you will post any reply you receive....if you get one.
The BPL folks really have their heads in the sand.


Yes, very good work, Carl. Thanks for posting. Perhaps we should all write to
UPLC.

One thing to remember, though: It makes a sort of twisted sense that the BPL
folks would simply 'stonewall', saying there is no harmful interference, their
systems are clean, Part 15 supports them, blah, blah, blah. If they start
admitting that yes, the interference is real, that power lines do radiate, that
the signals carry for many miles, etc., then they've set themselves up to be
shut down, or have their systems modified to the point of unusability.

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.

- mike KB3EIA -

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...

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".

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.

73

Steve, K4YZ

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.

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...

In article ,
Robert Casey wrote:

| 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...

Yes, but conduit and BX wiring will cost more than an eqivilent length
of coax or fiber ... right? I don't see any shielding as happening --
if any sort of shielding is required, it'll just be cheaper to use
something other than BPL.

--
Doug McLaren,
Schrodinger's cat may have died for your sins.

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

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...

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

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.

Not really.

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.

Fraction of a cent in quantity.

Problem is, the customer has to *read* and *understand* it.

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!

Exactly! But that would raise the price, which would cut into sales. And
getting mfrs. to do it would probably require government regulations more
strict than those now in effect...

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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