ARRL FUD about BPL
 

On 19 Aug 2003 13:05:59 GMT, (Jim Nye)
wrote:

The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL. That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Self justification? The ARRL has plenty to do without needing to
tackle this mess. I have been a member for more than 25 years because
there have always been advocacy issues. This is yet another one.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD.

I don't mean to brag, but I am technically sophisticated enough to
take issue with your arguments.

But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the
receiver.

This is nonsense. The problem with this argument is that you assume
the power line is a point source. But it's not. If it's not a point
source then you can't null it out effectively.

This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most
current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal.

Name even one model that has this feature.

Sure, you can buy an accessory which can do this for you, but it also
will reduce dynamic range. This is why it's not a regular feature,
and why your arguments don't hold water.

Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed
equipment to deal with any BPL "interference." The ARRL reports have
conveniently omitted any mention of the coherency issue, and their
measurements are therefore flawed, because they don't reflect real
world situations.

Dear me, you must be trolling. The ARRL sent several engineers with
reasonable test rigs to sites where BPL was being tested. They
predicted beforehand how much they expected to find. And if anything,
the signals they actually measured using common HF transceivers was
WORSE.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading. Instead, do some reading on your own
by going to non-ARRL web pages such as http://www.uplc.utc.org, and
http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm before accepting the ARRL
claims at face value.

The ARRL is not an ideal organization. It's democratic and it often
is subject to all sorts of silly internal politics between competing
interests. However, you are way out there in left field. The ARRL
has nothing to gain from throwing FUD around and a very strong
reputation to maintain. This BPL thing is no more a case of FUD than
your name is Alfred E. Newmann ("What, me worry?")

73,

Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"