Any interference is unwelcome, and if it can be prevented, then I say do it
!
Why should anyone have to pay for new receivers or new equipment to
compensate for problems caused by some large company who can bend and twist
the law to their own advantage ? Why should anyone put up with this kind of
bull crap ? Amateurs are held to strict limits on the amount of interference
they can cause - why should any one put up with a big company's
intereference, and what makes them less liable for preventing interference
than hams ? I don't buy the argument about coherence. It is already no
picnic listening to interference even if you do have a noise blanker or
noise reduction circuit. We don't need more degradation of the signal.

"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
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.

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. 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 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. 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.

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.

In article ,
(Jim Nye) wrote:

snip

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise,

snip

Here is how I deal with non-coherent posts...

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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.

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. 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 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. 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.

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.

Noise is noise. The "noise blanker" switches in 80s tabletops were meant
for the Soviet "woodpecker" radar and probably won't work for BPL.
Besides, BPL is so loud that it could easily overtake noise blanker
switches. It's the equivalent to jamming all of HF-which, if you're
conspiracy minded, may or may not be one of the goals. Oh, and as for
noise blankers, portables don't have them.