"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dave:

"Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at
issue.

Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any
more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult
with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia
Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will
think it is, or forecast it as being.

On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable,
meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read
the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is
made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and
purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of
amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to
that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming
of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is
becoming difficult to justify.

On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being
technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think
one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical
data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available
yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a
multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I
know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind
their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net
buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with
reality...

On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK
before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I
think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the
number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio.

On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I
understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold
that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if
it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why
would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move
even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness?

Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance
which I am failing to see here?

John


John,

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.

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.

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

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).

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).


With all due regards,
Jim AA2QA

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?

Sorry, that is just how it all looks to me...

Frankly, as I have stated, when BPL hits mhz instead of khz--I think it is
unworkable--but I AM NOT even knowledgeable enough to know for sure, I
think there are guys there working with BPL which will figure it out just
fine without us hobbyists interfering...

John

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


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dave:

"Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at
issue.

Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any
more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult
with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia
Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will
think it is, or forecast it as being.

On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable,
meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read
the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is
made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and
purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of
amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to
that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming
of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is
becoming difficult to justify.

On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being
technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think
one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical
data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available
yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a
multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I
know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind
their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net
buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with
reality...

On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK
before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I
think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the
number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio.

On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I
understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold
that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if
it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why
would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move
even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness?

Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance
which I am failing to see here?

John


John,

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.

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.

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

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).

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).


With all due regards,
Jim AA2QA

"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

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

"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:

Let me appeal to your feminine side, that side where "religious
zealot-ism" is absent.

My grandfather claimed the first phone companies used peoples' barbed wire
fences, metal buildings, abandoned wiring, railroad tracks, etc. for the
very first phone lines. I wasn't born back then, and have just taken his
word for that, until someone points out is false, I like dreaming about
it. It is darn near as good a story, to me, as a romantic novel is to
heart sick teenager!

Now, what these old amateurs see as the "frankenstein monster", I see as
hope. I am wondering if we are not seeing history repeat itself and
people in the future may reflect back on the first crude methods we
implemented in BPL? And, what will BPL become when we are able to stop
using the "fences and railroad tracks?"

And, surely, you realize someone able to hold a "third-person point of
view" here would see all the players here, the self-serving, the petty,
the liars, the special interests, the con-artists, those of a "good ole
boys mentality", etc.

Gawd, haven't you ever had to sit though such a boring play that it almost
brought you to tears. Look at the opportunity here, free entertainment,
raw emotion, evil doers, the protagonists and the antagonists... you
could never purchase a ticket to such a show. And, it is real, it
is/"will be" history.

Enjoy the entertainment and keep in the mind, whatever the outcome, most
probably, we ALL win... this is not the end of the world...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:21:22 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"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

Jim Hampton wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dave:

"Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at
issue.

Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any
more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult
with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia
Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will
think it is, or forecast it as being.

On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable,
meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read
the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is
made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and
purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of
amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to
that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming
of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is
becoming difficult to justify.

On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being
technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think
one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical
data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available
yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a
multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I
know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind
their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net
buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with
reality...

On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK
before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I
think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the
number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio.

On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I
understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold
that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if
it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why
would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move
even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness?

Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance
which I am failing to see here?

John



John,

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.

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.

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. 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?

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

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.

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.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

From my experience here and on the bands, it is obvious the MAJOR MAJORITY
of hams are vastly behind the times, I think your small group here, and
your "net buddies" are all in agreement, I am also quite sure that hams
fearful of what they don't understand are going around crying "wolf."

You won't find any in the computer industry with these strange and bizarre
views you guys have here...

Course, everyone knows, a "hobby amateur license" makes hams some kinda
"damn authority", unfortunately, one which makes up the truth... who was
that newscaster who got fired for doing that?

John

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

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.

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. 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?

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

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.

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.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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