"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...



TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television).

If you're saying most TVs are getting much higher signal levels than most
radios, I'll agree. But BPL radiation will go up with frequency and will be
much higher at 60 Mhz than it will be at 5 Mhz.


In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.




That may or may not be true in the proposed BPL areas. BPL is supposed to
be most attactive for outlying areas without DSL and cable acess.

Interference aside, BPL would be a slick solution if it's reliable.
However, there hasn't been much evidence that BPL can deliver wide bandwidth
to a significant number of customers over a long period of time.

Frank Dresser