N2EY placed fingers to the keyboard and typed, " I think the change was due to his
upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-)"

To which John Smith thought, "Sometimes you slay the monster, sometimes
the monster slays you..."

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:12:39 -0700, N2EY wrote:

I think the change was due to his
upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-)

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

Jim Hampton wrote:

If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen
links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards
(apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago
(perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's
work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL.
Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands.


He and the ARRL staff have produced detailed reports based on
observations and
measurements as well as simulations and models.

He's also gone around the country banging the drum about BPL. W3RV got
him to come to Philly and do his presentation here, to a packed house.
I had the pleasure of metting Ed and seeing the presentation.

BPL has one and only one selling point: If you have BPL service, you
can plug your computer into any power outlet in your house - or your
neighbor's house, if it's served - and get a highspeed connection. It's
a 'last mile' delivery system, nothing more.

The plug into the outlet thing is kind of a day late and a dollar short
IMO. My desktop computers are plugged into the walls, but all of the
family laptops are wireless. So it might be a hard sell to tell someone
that they will just have to plug into the wall socket to get their
internet, when they now don't have to connect to anything!


I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the
tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how
advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was
incorrect, just that much was omitted.


He's also busy as all get-out. Plus too many folks assume that since he
works at Hq., that he must march lockstep with ARRL policy. That's not
the case at all,
but after a while it's clear that some folks are immune to certain
facts.

Much easier to argue that way... ;^)

A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting
worse.


Naw, the bickering has always been here. You can find posts five and
more years
old - from both sides - that look the same as today's.

The bickering is similar, but the fringe element is certainly worse.


WA6VSE used to
among the worst - then he mellowed and became quite well mannered even
if you disagree with him totally. I think the change was due to his
upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-)


You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was
demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact
that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that
it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned
channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can
affect).

BPL is proven to interfere with amateur radio services. Proof is
available to anyone who seeks it. The idea that it doesn't is a
political one, such as faith based science ("Toto, I think we lost
Kansas!") global warming (If the world isn't warming up, fine! I'll
accept that. Now tell me *how* the atmosphere is coping with the
greenhouse gas load) and other bafflegab. Give me scientific reasons,
not accuse me of being a liberal or something because I don't agree with
your bad politically motivated science.


Shall I tell the lightbulb joke again?

Does the lightbulb become "empowered"?


It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging
in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean
that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if
BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services).


Better yet, there's the technique of tossing in stuff that's provably
wrong.

Gets people to comment, for sure. Proven trolling technique.



Like misquotes of what people wrote, errors of fact, etc.

I seem to recall some of that.


Well, yeah Jim! Lets see we have an "anony- mousie" who is pretty good
at spouting off. Lot's of opinions, and ridicule to all who might
disagree with (him?). Sounds like a major troll to me.


Please don't feed the trolls.

We all have to tell each other that once in a while....


I wonder why Len doesn't have any trouble with this anony-mousie? Seems
all the others arouse his ire..... ;^)


Because he's against the code test, against the ARRL, against
conventional ham radio, and because he *never* disagrees with Len.

But Len doesn't like anonymous posters!

All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, and they get the treatment.
Worse,
if the actually prove him wrong about something (like whether it's
legal to operate with an expired-but-in-the-grace-period license) he really goes
ballistic. So predictable it's not worth bothering about.

Which I mostly don't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

Here is what I think:

1) NO standards have been established.
2) BPL is in a testing phase, we will NOT know anything until this is
completed by independent testing laboratories--NOT HAMS--NOT THOSE
HOLDING THE LICENSES, PATENTS, MANUFACTURING RIGHTS, ETC, ETC....
3) Amateurs are over-reacting BEFORE data has been had.
4) All will be decided on its merits.
5) Amateur hobbyists may have to tolerate some interference for the
benefit of tens or hundreds of millions.
6) I think they would be idiots to tell us exactly what they were working
on and details of the methods, freqs and hardware... if they do, why not
just give the technology away?


BPL will benefit no one. In the markets large enough for it to have a
chance of flying, consumers already have a choice among several competing
technologies (phone, DSL, cable, WI-FI, and satellite), some of which are
better than BPL.

To compete, it will have to be as cheap as phone and as fast as cable.
Won't happen. To cover operating costs, it will cost in the same range per
month as DSL or cable with NO advantages and several disadvantages to the
actual users.

See it isn't just throwing the signal on the power line and then having a
special modem at the consumer end. Substantial investments in hardware are
required. There has to be a signal booster every mile or so OR the signal
has to run via cable almost up to the consumer and then be shifted to the
power line. In addition, every transformer has to have a bypass installed
for the broadband signal.

While we need to keep alert to the problem potential in BPL, I'm not too
excited about it as there are independent industry analysts showing that it
will be a loser due to financial considerations even if the system is mature
and fully "loaded" to achieve the lowest possible price.

Besides the speed at which Dad will drop BPL when Junior interferes with his
ballgame on TV or radio would make your head spin.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

Jim Hampton wrote:


{snip}

BPL has one and only one selling point: If you have BPL service, you
can plug your computer into any power outlet in your house - or your
neighbor's house, if it's served - and get a highspeed connection. It's
a 'last mile' delivery system, nothing more.

The plug into the outlet thing is kind of a day late and a dollar short
IMO. My desktop computers are plugged into the walls, but all of the
family laptops are wireless. So it might be a hard sell to tell someone
that they will just have to plug into the wall socket to get their
internet, when they now don't have to connect to anything!


I hadn't really considered that before but I can see where the wireless home
network is going to diminish the value of "plugging into any electrical
outlet" sales pitch. Many of my friends, as well as myself, have wireless
networks for the laptops and desktops. BPL is going to lose a lot of ground
here as by the time they get deployed, if they get deployed, will be a late
entry into that game.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


The plug into the outlet thing is kind of a day late and a dollar short IMO.
My desktop computers are plugged into the walls, but all of the family laptops
are wireless. So it might be a hard sell to tell someone that they will just
have to plug into the wall socket to get their internet, when they now don't
have to connect to anything!


Your laptops would likely continue wireless via your home network. But just
like now, somewhere you'd need to "plug in" to connect to your ISP.

From: John Smith on Thurs 11 Aug 2005 11:04

Jim:

W1RFI? The arrl hitman against BPL? That guy? Krist, look at his call!
The guy has RFI on the brain, probably thinks alien spacecraft is causing
a lot of interference on the band too! Oh yeah, sounds like a real
unbiased guy to be giving advice alright...

Get real!

Another history lesson, John. Ed Hare (W1RFI) is a lead
spokesperson for the ARRL on radio interference matters
affecting radio amateurs. He got enthused about that job
(he gets paid for what he does) enough that he got a vanity
call to reflect his work.

In truth, Ed Hare doesn't have much experience in metrology
anywhere else but at the ARRL "laboratory." He does possess
enough smarts to analyze data and find sources of information
from those WITH experience in metrology. FOR the ARRL he
appears to be doing a good job.

However, the ARRL is not the be-all and end-all of any BPL
problems' information. ARRL has actually hired a commercial
firm to do RFI measurements at one Market Test location.
ARRL website used to have a link to download that report,
may still be there (haven't looked myself). The ARRL has
(or had at any rate) several links to other sites which DO
have quantitative data on RFI problems.

A REAL source of information on BPL is in the Comments to the
FCC from 2003 to 2004 on the FCC's NOI (Notice of Inquiry)
into "industry suggestions on measurement methods of RFI in
the field." That alone touched off a tirade, a flood of
angst by radio amateurs against BPL's very existance...without
a whole lot of "suggestions on measurement methods."

Lost to the majority of Commenters is the FACT that the FCC
COULD NOT FORBID the existance of BPL. All the FCC could do
is to determine if RFI exceeded a regulatory-set power level
and regulate the service-provider aspect of BPL providers.
The FCC has since done that and is refining some of its
regulations. The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
is handling Access BPL.


On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:

If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen
links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards
(apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago
(perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's
work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL.
Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands.

Slight correction, Jim. Ed Hare didn't find out all this
"tremendous
amount of interference" all by himself. OTHERS found it and
reported
it. Government agencies have made quantitative measurements to a
high metrology accuracy and documented that...such is publicly
available. Ed Hare pointed to the sources of information. The
ARRL itself did very little but publicize the matter. Certain
localities (a club organization in Iowa) have done far more in
their own area in terms of effort and maintaining high metrology
standards as well as reporting it.

"Tremendous amount" is a very subjective statement. Subjective
statements aren't good for regulation law. The law should state
some exact limit levels on that interference, including the
general method (peak v. average, measurement bandwidth, comparison
against known physical standards, etc). Some of those exact limit
levels will be argued and they may be arbitrary...but they will be
far more correct that using the subjective "tremendous amount."


A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting
worse.

True, but irrelevant to the subject thread... :-)


You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was
demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact
that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that
it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned
channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can
affect).

Those radio services (including broadcasting) have been noted
and explained by industry/business groups involved in those HF
and low-VHF services on the FCC NOI. It isn't the job of the
ARRL to safeguard anything but the wishes of its membership.


It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging
in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean
that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if
BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services).

"Trolling" seems to be the essence of many folks' participation
in here...including some of your own postings! :-)

Insofar as "some folks" are concerned, it's NOT everyone's job
(or goal in life) to placate them, to commisserate, to capitulate
to their mighty opinions. [especially true about the PCTA extras
in here] If you don't like controversy, newsgroups are NOT for
you!

On the same token, postings should have some semblance of civility
which is often thrown aside by some. John posts provocatively
but he is also civil (as much as possible) to his 'opponents,'
most of whom have NOT bothered with much civility in denigrating
him. I give John credit for talking back to these other anony-
mousies (and identifiables) who have increased the intolerable
noise level in this newsgroup.

bpl rfi

Dee:

I say, if it is technically possible, we WILL have it, if not, we WILL NOT
have it--I hear "authority hams" on the bands--I avoid them--what they say
just doesn't matter... if you really want to look into that crystal ball,
look much harder--radio and tv WILL BE over the internet, so will your
landline phone... no one is going to have to worry about interference to
the bands now existing, even now, many radio stations simulcast and can be
heard on your computer, I listen to east coast am stations all the time,
if I had a faster connection, I'd watch some internet tv... SDP is a free
program which does internet radio quite nicely, audio is superb...

BPL will be in testing for years, somewhere along the way the guy with the
right idea will show up and/or the technology will advance, the rest will
be history...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:18:51 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

Here is what I think:

1) NO standards have been established.
2) BPL is in a testing phase, we will NOT know anything until this is
completed by independent testing laboratories--NOT HAMS--NOT THOSE
HOLDING THE LICENSES, PATENTS, MANUFACTURING RIGHTS, ETC, ETC....
3) Amateurs are over-reacting BEFORE data has been had.
4) All will be decided on its merits.
5) Amateur hobbyists may have to tolerate some interference for the
benefit of tens or hundreds of millions.
6) I think they would be idiots to tell us exactly what they were working
on and details of the methods, freqs and hardware... if they do, why not
just give the technology away?


BPL will benefit no one. In the markets large enough for it to have a
chance of flying, consumers already have a choice among several competing
technologies (phone, DSL, cable, WI-FI, and satellite), some of which are
better than BPL.

To compete, it will have to be as cheap as phone and as fast as cable.
Won't happen. To cover operating costs, it will cost in the same range per
month as DSL or cable with NO advantages and several disadvantages to the
actual users.

See it isn't just throwing the signal on the power line and then having a
special modem at the consumer end. Substantial investments in hardware are
required. There has to be a signal booster every mile or so OR the signal
has to run via cable almost up to the consumer and then be shifted to the
power line. In addition, every transformer has to have a bypass installed
for the broadband signal.

While we need to keep alert to the problem potential in BPL, I'm not too
excited about it as there are independent industry analysts showing that it
will be a loser due to financial considerations even if the system is mature
and fully "loaded" to achieve the lowest possible price.

Besides the speed at which Dad will drop BPL when Junior interferes with his
ballgame on TV or radio would make your head spin.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


The plug into the outlet thing is kind of a day late and a dollar short
IMO. My desktop computers are plugged into the walls, but all of the
family laptops are wireless. So it might be a hard sell to tell someone
that they will just have to plug into the wall socket to get their
internet, when they now don't have to connect to anything!


Your laptops would likely continue wireless via your home network. But
just like now, somewhere you'd need to "plug in" to connect to your ISP.


But once you have a wireless router, then it doesn't usually matter where in
the house you have it as none of the computers need to be connected directly
to it. Thus the "plug it into any power outlet" for the ISP becomes moot,
i.e. it has no extra sales value over a cable, DSL, etc connection.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dee:

I say, if it is technically possible, we WILL have it, if not, we WILL NOT
have it--I hear "authority hams" on the bands--I avoid them--what they say
just doesn't matter... if you really want to look into that crystal ball,

If it is economically viable, it will happen. If it is not, it won't.
Technology is seldom the driving force as to whether or not something is
implemented.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote

Thus the "plug it into any power outlet" for the ISP becomes moot, i.e. it has
no extra sales value over a cable, DSL, etc connection.

I think the "plug it into any power outlet" notion is a marketing play to the
idea of not needing another phone line, coax, fiber, or other "pipe" out to the
world.

73, de Hans, K0HB