[CW] BPL, why worry?

[n3drk]

Chris,
     maybe you dont have an up to date computer which you can see these
videos! If such is the case tell us.

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