[CW] BPL, why worry?

[n3drk]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "n3drk" <n3drk@triad.rr.com>
To: <Chipn1ir@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] BPL, why worry?


> Chip,
>      This is an ongoing thing with you. You seem to want to debate this
> issue so go to this website and download these files and see what the
> EXPERTS are telling you. Case Closed Chip!
>
> http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#video
>
> john-n3drk
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Chipn1ir@aol.com>
> To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 11:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [CW] BPL, why worry?
>
>
> > 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  ---
> > _______________________________________________
> > CW mailing list
> > CW@mailman.qth.net
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>