I heard this on the local NPR radio station this morning. They made
BPL sound rosy. They did mention that the ham radio guys were against
it but came up with some "notching" solution that would take care of
ham radio guys concerns.

You can listen to the stream at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4801446

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.

wrote:
I heard this on the local NPR radio station this morning.

Are you sure it was "Morning Edition" or was it "Few Things
Considered?"

They made
BPL sound rosy. They did mention that the ham radio guys were against
it but came up with some "notching" solution that would take care of
ham radio guys concerns.

I've got seven radios. Please have them send me seven notch filters.

You can listen to the stream at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4801446

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.

That would be Ed Hare/ARRL.

wrote:
I heard this on the local NPR radio station this morning. They made
BPL sound rosy. They did mention that the ham radio guys were against
it but came up with some "notching" solution that would take care of
ham radio guys concerns.

The "notching" solution is simple: Their BPL system does not use
frequencies that are also ham bands. Whether it works or not is an open
question.

You can listen to the stream at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4801446

I did - interesting piece. 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

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
I heard this on the local NPR radio station this morning. They made
BPL sound rosy. They did mention that the ham radio guys were against
it but came up with some "notching" solution that would take care of
ham radio guys concerns.

The "notching" solution is simple: Their BPL system does not use
frequencies that are also ham bands. Whether it works or not is an open
question.

You can listen to the stream at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4801446

I did - interesting piece. 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.

Ed Hare demonstrated a *ton* of interference. Yep, they put the blame on
amateur radio operators for complaining, 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.

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

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


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
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


Hello, Jim

Well, by limited interference, I am suggesting that BPL be limited as any
other unintentional radiator. I do hear your point and it is well taken.
We do *not* need "only" a 10 dB increase in noise in general LOL

Also, as we are well aware, no filter is perfect, whether a notch filter or
a bandpass filter or any other filter. Also, filters introduce distortion
into the signal. So, it remains to be seen if the power companies can come
up with a BPL with very limited impact on licensed services. I do have my
doubts, but am only suggesting that *if* they can prove a system can produce
very low noise in the airwaves, then it might be worth a try. That is a
*big* if.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

From: "Jim Hampton" on Wed, Aug 17 2005 4:29 pm

wrote in message
Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message


Power lines were never meant to carry HF communication signals.

No kidding?!? From whom did you pick up that factoid? :-)

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.

A couple of points he First, the FCC does NOT "allow"
Access BPL existance. Access BPL systems are (note
carefully) UNINTENTIONAL Radiators.

Secondly, the FCC has never ever established any "radio
service" about or for any Broadband Over Power Lines
concept. BPL is a WIRED system; i.e., NOT an intentional
radiator of RF.

Thirdly, the FCC DOES CONTROL RADIATED RF LEVELS AND TO
ESTABLISHED SPECIFICATIONS NOW IN TITLE 47 C.F.R. That
radiation level HAS been quantified and put into an Order
that did appear both in the Federal Register and at the
FCC website under the Office of Engineering Technology
link. It wasn't under the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau page nor the Amateur radio page under that (there
hasn't been any new link on the amateur page there since
2002).

The NOI (Notice Of Inquiry) of the FCC that caused this
recent flap and furor was NOT about the existance of BPL
as any service...IT WAS ABOUT MEASUREMENT METHODS TO
DETERMINE ACCEPTIBLE WAYS TO MEASURE THE RADIATION.

The OET knew damn well that BPL would radiate. But, they
could NOT LEGALLY STOP BPL from existing. All they could
do is establish a legally-acceptible MEANS OF MEASURING
THAT EXPECTED RADIATION.


Well, by limited interference, I am suggesting that BPL be limited as any
other unintentional radiator.

It IS. One has to scrounge around the FCC webiste a bit to
find it, but it IS there.

I do hear your point and it is well taken.
We do *not* need "only" a 10 dB increase in noise in general LOL

Nobody does, but it has happened. Listen to the "ISM" bands
and the DSSS and stuff there does raise the noise floor.
However, the occupancy of those ISM bands is nearly ALL that
mode and those users coexist peacefully.


Also, as we are well aware, no filter is perfect, whether a notch filter or
a bandpass filter or any other filter. Also, filters introduce distortion
into the signal.

Irrelevant. Those "notch filters" can't erase MOST of the
frequencies on HF. The "licensed users" and the UNLICENSED
listeners are spread over most of the HF spectrum.

So, it remains to be seen if the power companies can come
up with a BPL with very limited impact on licensed services. I do have my
doubts, but am only suggesting that *if* they can prove a system can produce
very low noise in the airwaves, then it might be worth a try. That is a
*big* if.

Many, many things ARE possible. The last 109 years of the total
existance of radio have shown that.

However, TRANSMISSION LINES of signals are technology that goes
back BEFORE the "birth" of radio in 1896. Lee de Forrest, the
inventor of the three-element vacuum tube, was studying
transmission lines academically before his "audion" experiments.
As far as our present-day technology knows (and that is
considerable), transmission lines with lots of discontinuities
will radiate; the TEM field won't be nicely contained. Given
that the ordinary 60 Hz power distribution lines are chock full
of discontinuities and changes in conductor size and spacing
(thus a change in characteristic impedance where that step is a
discontinuity), those power transmission lines WILL RADIATE RF.
That is inevitable.

IF and ONLY IF the electric power distribution system was
designed and REBUILT to known transmission line standards at
HF-VHF could such a wired BPL system be tried out for minimum
interference.

was not

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

[snip]

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.


Actually this would be more of a liberal idea. It surprises me that a
Republican administration would buy into this.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

[snip]

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.


Actually this would be more of a liberal idea. It surprises me that a
Republican administration would buy into this.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Hello, Dee

Liberal? Pushing for more money for power companies? Please forgive my
ignorance, but if I follow the money trail, it leads to big business
(monopolies, at that).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

[snip]

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.


Actually this would be more of a liberal idea. It surprises me that a
Republican administration would buy into this.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Hello, Dee

Liberal? Pushing for more money for power companies? Please forgive my
ignorance, but if I follow the money trail, it leads to big business
(monopolies, at that).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


Liberal because it is being pushed as every having a "right" to broadband.
Yes follow the money and it leads to as many liberal business men as it does
conservative ones.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE