Read for yourself:

www.hamwave.com

Yes, I read it he
http://www.eham.net/articles/7673

Bill Crocker


"Hamguy" wrote in message
...
Read for yourself:

www.hamwave.com

Your "Subject" line is a bit mis-leading. The FCC approved a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making; they did NOT approve BPL,.... just yet.



Ed WB6SAT

Your "Subject" line is a bit mis-leading. The FCC approved a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making; they did NOT approve BPL,.... just yet.
Ed WB6SAT

If you go by their past track record with Chairman Powell at the helm, it
will be passed!

Roland, NK2U

I've lost track of this BPL stuff.. What/who prompted this idea? Is there
"anyone" trying to fight it's approval? Exactly what modes of operation
"may" be affected exactly? I've heard "low band VHF". Does anyone have a
website perhaps aside from the FCC's to read which describes in detail
perhaps who can use this, requirements to do so, where - if any limitations,
etc. A different approach maybe than the FCC shows. I'm sort of wondering,
IF it is to affect low band VHF as I've heard, if that may be the reason
behind trying to shove all the low band VHF stuff in our area up into VHF
high or to the 800s. It would make sense, though "not" given as a reason to
anyone here for doing so. All they say is "their moving up in frequency".
Also, I'm wondering, if in doing this BPL, if there are to be emissions
leakage requirements like the Cable company has. The Power Companies to my
knowledge/memory - have no limitations on leakage but do repair those
problems causing RF interference if brought to their attention. At least in
any experiences I'm aware of. I wonder too, if maybe this may be a good
thing and like all new things, we are skeptical of it. I'd really like to
read much more on it to get familiar with it. I have to wonder about the FCC
at times. Some times, I think they're all a bunch of office workers who know
absolutely nothing of electronics or the effects on the decisions regarding
same. That they are just rubber stamping things for those who yell the
loudest or pay the most money. I used to hold them in high regards, but
anymore... I'm beginning to wonder. And I'm not sure that all can be blamed
on Powell. I think some of it started before his tenure. If memory serves me
correct - in the last year or so, there has been quite a few people moving
around as commissioners there. The deck being pretty actively shuffled. Sort
of makes one wonder why? MNS

"Roland Stiner" wrote in message
...
Your "Subject" line is a bit mis-leading. The FCC approved a Notice
of
Proposed Rule Making; they did NOT approve BPL,.... just yet.
Ed WB6SAT

If you go by their past track record with Chairman Powell at the helm, it
will be passed!

Roland, NK2U

"MNS" wrote in message
...
I've lost track of this BPL stuff.. What/who prompted this idea? Is there
"anyone" trying to fight it's approval? Exactly what modes of operation
"may" be affected exactly? I've heard "low band VHF". Does anyone have a
website perhaps aside from the FCC's to read which describes in detail
perhaps who can use this, requirements to do so, where - if any
limitations,
etc.

BPL will affect frequecies between 1.8 and 75 MHz directly. Many countries
have experimented with it, and dropped it entirely because if intereference
to other services. See the ARRL website (www.arrl.org) for links to various
articles and such on BPL. Also see www.qrz.com.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"MNS" wrote in message
...
I've lost track of this BPL stuff.. What/who prompted this idea? Is
there
"anyone" trying to fight it's approval? Exactly what modes of operation
"may" be affected exactly? I've heard "low band VHF". Does anyone have a
website perhaps aside from the FCC's to read which describes in detail
perhaps who can use this, requirements to do so, where - if any
limitations,
etc.

BPL will affect frequecies between 1.8 and 75 MHz directly. Many countries
have experimented with it, and dropped it entirely because if
intereference
to other services. See the ARRL website (www.arrl.org) for links to
various
articles and such on BPL. Also see www.qrz.com.



Thank you... So I guess the question begs to be asked, if all of them other
countries tried it and it failed, then why the hell are we trying to do the
same thing? Talk about a huge waste of money and effort! Sheeesh.... Come to
think of it, let me ask, and I'm probably right in this guess... Was Japan
one of those countries? And was it anywhere near the 70s perhaps? Seems to
me now that I think about it, I did read an article of some power
experiments back then in like Popular Science or Electronics or something.
Thinking more and more of this, I can surely understand how much of a pain
this may be. Thanks again, I appreciate it. This may get interesting to say
the least. MNS

"MNS" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"MNS" wrote in message
...
I've lost track of this BPL stuff.. What/who prompted this idea? Is
there
"anyone" trying to fight it's approval? Exactly what modes of
operation
"may" be affected exactly? I've heard "low band VHF". Does anyone have
a
website perhaps aside from the FCC's to read which describes in detail
perhaps who can use this, requirements to do so, where - if any
limitations,
etc.

BPL will affect frequecies between 1.8 and 75 MHz directly. Many
countries
have experimented with it, and dropped it entirely because if
intereference
to other services. See the ARRL website (www.arrl.org) for links to
various
articles and such on BPL. Also see www.qrz.com.



Thank you... So I guess the question begs to be asked, if all of them
other
countries tried it and it failed, then why the hell are we trying to do
the
same thing? Talk about a huge waste of money and effort! Sheeesh.... Come
to
think of it, let me ask, and I'm probably right in this guess... Was Japan
one of those countries? And was it anywhere near the 70s perhaps? Seems to
me now that I think about it, I did read an article of some power
experiments back then in like Popular Science or Electronics or something.
Thinking more and more of this, I can surely understand how much of a pain
this may be. Thanks again, I appreciate it. This may get interesting to
say
the least. MNS

To answer the first question, it's the $$$.. power companies and internet
providers lobbied the FCC for this boondoggle, and M. Powell is bending over
backward to accommodate big business (this is no secret, every single vote
the FCC has taken has been in favor of big business, and to hell with the
consumer.

Second question, yes, one of those countries is Japan, and it has been very
recent. Originally, they tried placing band traps for the ham bands because
the hams had been complaining heavily of interference, but that did not
work, so they decided to scrap it altogether (JA hams are only allowed
either 50 or 100 watts PEP/CW, so comms are much more difficult than in the
US with our 1500WPEP).

The tests done by ARRL labs and independent labs were based upon a distance
(IIRC) of about 10 meters from a line.. but if they put this in, you will
never be 10m from a source..

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"MNS" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"MNS" wrote in message
...
I've lost track of this BPL stuff.. What/who prompted this idea? Is
there
"anyone" trying to fight it's approval? Exactly what modes of
operation
"may" be affected exactly? I've heard "low band VHF". Does anyone
have
a
website perhaps aside from the FCC's to read which describes in
detail
perhaps who can use this, requirements to do so, where - if any
limitations,
etc.

BPL will affect frequecies between 1.8 and 75 MHz directly. Many
countries
have experimented with it, and dropped it entirely because if
intereference
to other services. See the ARRL website (www.arrl.org) for links to
various
articles and such on BPL. Also see www.qrz.com.



Thank you... So I guess the question begs to be asked, if all of them
other
countries tried it and it failed, then why the hell are we trying to do
the
same thing? Talk about a huge waste of money and effort! Sheeesh....
Come
to
think of it, let me ask, and I'm probably right in this guess... Was
Japan
one of those countries? And was it anywhere near the 70s perhaps? Seems
to
me now that I think about it, I did read an article of some power
experiments back then in like Popular Science or Electronics or
something.
Thinking more and more of this, I can surely understand how much of a
pain
this may be. Thanks again, I appreciate it. This may get interesting to
say
the least. MNS

To answer the first question, it's the $$$.. power companies and internet
providers lobbied the FCC for this boondoggle, and M. Powell is bending
over
backward to accommodate big business (this is no secret, every single vote
the FCC has taken has been in favor of big business, and to hell with the
consumer.

Second question, yes, one of those countries is Japan, and it has been
very
recent. Originally, they tried placing band traps for the ham bands
because
the hams had been complaining heavily of interference, but that did not
work, so they decided to scrap it altogether (JA hams are only allowed
either 50 or 100 watts PEP/CW, so comms are much more difficult than in
the
US with our 1500WPEP).

The tests done by ARRL labs and independent labs were based upon a
distance
(IIRC) of about 10 meters from a line.. but if they put this in, you will
never be 10m from a source..




Well it is more recent than I was thinking back to. Thank you for that. I
really appreciate it. Maybe that is why there has been some shuffling of the
deck there. Some opposed to it or the way it was being done. Very
interesting. MNS

.. Come to think of it, let me ask, and I'm probably
right in this guess... Was Japan one of those countries? And was it
anywhere near the 70s perhaps? Seems to me now that I think about it,
I did read an article of some power experiments back then in like
Popular Science or Electronics or something. Thinking more and more of
this, I can surely understand how much of a pain this may be. Thanks
again, I appreciate it. This may get interesting to say the least. MNS



Everything you want to know about the BPL issue can be found at:

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

... this includes the recent decision by Japan not to implement...
along with several other countries.


Ed WB6SAT