[CW] BPL, why worry?

[Chipn1ir@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/28/03 11:00:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ken.d.brown@verizon.net writes:

Hi Ken, 

Not to 'pick' on you or anyone else; but I wanted to show what is fact and 
what is otherwise. I will concentrate on identifying the facts. Feel free to 
differ in dialogue.


> Hi all,
> 
> Just a few comments about BPL. Someone has suggested a "wait and see" 


I don't recall anyone saying this.


> attitude towards BPL. It has been suggested that BPL really can be made 
> to work without producing devastating interference on the HF bands.

Yes.

 It > has also been implied that broadband internet access for the masses may 
> 
> be more important than HF communications for a few hundred thousand hams.
> 

Yes-- within the restrictions imposed by Part 15.
 

> I would like to point out a few  reasons why users of the HF spectrum, 
> both licensed and others who either just receive, or may operate 
> "traditional" narrowband part 15 devices, are concerned and should do 
> everthing they can to oppose widespread deployment of BPL. First of all 
> BPL is already legal. If it can work in it's present form without 
> causing significant interference, why is the BPL industry lobbying for 
> relaxation of the part 15 rules? 

Please provide evidence for this and the content which is relevant.

Also tests done by the ARRL and others 
> have shown that BPL systems cause absolutely intolerable interference. 


To whom? A mobile station riding well in the near field and parallel to power 
lines? UNDER the power lines and 6 feet away in the worst cases? Please cite 
documented interference to an extant ham station in a BPL test area.

> It is my understanding that these tests were conducted using BPL system 
> power levels that were not above the present part 15 limits, although 
> the way part 15 is written these systems would have to be shut down, 
> because of the interference that they cause. I don't believe for a 
> minute that the ARRL tests were "doctored".

Who said that please? I am of the opinion that the measurements are more than 
valid, but not relevant in supporting the very asssertions you repeat from 
that study. They are not doctored, as far as I can tell.

? The tests in other countrys 
> show similar results,

I see no evidence for such types of  (in my opinion) unrealistic paradigms 
for measurement--that is, a mobile station under and next to power lines.

 and Japan has made the reasonable decision based 
> on their own studies. Additionally amateur radio is not the only 
> occupant on the HF spectrum. So it would not be merely a few hundred 
> thousand hams making the sacrifice of HF spectrum usability for the sake 
> of BPL. 

In any worst case, the number of hams affected would be in the thousands, not 
the 100's of thousands.  A majority of active hams use VHF, not HF. The NTIA 
regulates government users, and they are a BIG user of HF. Their concerns and 
approach to BPL makes total sense to me.


Even with part 15 rules intact in their present form, BPL is a 
> serious threat to the HF spectrum, because it can be deployed, and only 
> after there is a noise complaint it might be shut down.

Incorrect. It can be 'shut down' before it 'works'. That is, any problems are 
fixed before  widespread approved use.

 We have all seen 
> how interference problems from unintentional radiators are not resolved 
> in a timely manner.
> 

That does happen. Are you suggestion it happens in all cases?


> We all know too well the typical sequence of events: First the ham who 
> can't use one or more HF bands anymore because of the intereference 
> tries to figure out where the noise is coming from. The ham uses all of 
> his resources to try to figure out what kind of device it might be, and 
> where it might be located. After many hours, and ususally many days, the 
> ham figures out the source of the noise, sometimes. Sometimes it is just 
> too hard. Then he tries to get the owner of the noise source to 
> understand his/her responsibility under FCC part 15. Usually the owner 
> of the interference producing device denys that it could be their device 
> causing a problem (after all it is brand new, high tech, as seen on TV, 
> it must be legal) and claims that there must be something wrong with the 
> ham's equipment. Finally the ham asks for help from the ARRL and the 
> FCC. The ARRL and the FCC typically get a similar response from the 
> owner of the offending device. After weeks and months, maybe the owner 
> of the interference generating device is finally convinced (sometimes by 
> threat of monetary forfeiture to the FCC) that they really need to do 
> something.
> 

Surely, you agree, that any BPL provider will be well aware of Part 15. 
Didn't you say that these providers are lobbying for mods?


> Imagine having to do all of the above everytime Wal Mart, or the local 
> power utility has a sale on the latest BPL "solution" for people who 
> want high speed internet.
> 

Incorrect. Problems solved before anything hits WalMart at the level you 
describe.


> In my opinion, FCC part 15 regulations need to be changed to really 
> protect licensed services from BPL and other unintentional radiators, 
> instead of just providing a mechanism for the licensed service to get 
> relief after the interence starts.
> 

So, you are suggesting we lobby the FCC to change Part 15 to be MORE 
restrictive? I confess I am somewhat surprised. I submit that this is  unrealistic. 
The trend is towards more unlicensed spectrum use. Example: WiFi.

> Ken N6KB
> 
> 
> 
73,
Chip N1IR


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---