Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
What they neglect to mention is that:

- BPL is a "last mile" delivery method, not a complete system. Still
needs a 'head end'

- BPL bandwidth is shared between users on the same line, so as your
neighbors sign up and use the system, your performance degrades.

- There are several BPL technologies out there, not just the one they
profiled.

- There are other technologies (like Wi-Fi) which can do the same job
without all the fuss and bother.

- The big danger of BPL is that it turns the whole idea of spectrum
protection and allocation upside-down, and sets a bad precedent.

I wonder how rosy a solution they would think it was if BPL interfered
with FM broadcasting, reducing the utility and availability of that
mode of communications?

If would be great if a qualified ham could respond to their article.
They usually take listener comment and broadcast those comments the
next day or so.

A qualified ham was part of the article. The rest of us should comment,
too.

---

One thing the piece proved was that the media, and particularly
National Public Radio, are not all a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals'.
BPL is a
poster technology for the Bush Administration, who thinks BPL can do no
wrong. The best BPL analogies I've seen describe BPL as unnecessary
spectrum pollution, and you'd think a bunch of 'tree-hugging liberals'
would be against anything that pollutes half as bad as BPL has been
shown to do. The article also accepts without question the idea that
fast internet access is a necessity for all Americans and their
communities - another Bush Administration bit of rightthink.

Thanks for posting the link. Anybody besides me and the original poster
actually listen to it?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Hello, Jim

Yes, I listened to the link provided.
It has possibilities - good
possibilities - but we need to
see a demonstration that showes little or no
interference.

I disagree!

Power lines were never meant to carry HF communication signals.
They're lossy at HF because they radiate! The whole concept
is deeply flawed. By allowing BPL systems, FCC is setting
a very bad precedent by saying it's OK to pollute the electro
magnetic spectrum with noise, even if there are viable
alternatives to the noise-producing technology.

All the notching does is to promise that particular system won't
pollute the ham bands with noise. Maybe. What about harmonics and
other crud?

Some might say that FCC cannot ban BPL as such, but that's
simply a semantic runaround. All FCC needs to do is to set
very low radiated energy standards for BPL and other non-point-source
systems, and the problem is solved. But FCC refused to
see the difference between, say, a computer monitor that is
a point source, and a BPL system that involves miles of wire.

Ed Hare demonstrated a *ton* of interference.

Ed and others. Carl, WK3C, did some measurements and
observations of the Emmaus system as well - to name
just one other.

Yep, they put the blame on
amateur radio operators for complaining,

That's like blaming the fishermen for
complaining that the sewage plant is
killing off the fish because the sewage
isn't treated right.

but fail to realize that commercial
television (channels 2 and 3 in the U.S.)
as well as other users fall into
the spectrum used by BPL.

Heck, the second harmonic of 44-54 MHz
falls right in the FM band. I wonder
what they'd say if NPR stations were rendered
inaudible because of BPL?

I think most folks would put up with a *very* small amount of
interference,
but what Ed Hare turned up was anything but small.

Why should licensed radio services have to put up
with *any* unnecessary interference?

Is there no other way to deliver broadband internet
access?

The speed sounds interesting, but I'm running between 4 and 7
megabaud currently on DSL

And that doesn't drop if your neighbor is doing big downloads.

73 de Jim, N2EY