(Fwd) Re: [CW] Latest BPL news

[Hare, Ed W1RFI]

I am nearly done with a major update to ARRL's BPL interference page.  If there are any web links to interference in Europe or elsewhere, I can add as a link.

BTW, the "Media articles" and "Business" section of ARRL's BPL web page has some pretty useful links.  Perhaps they will help elsewhere in the world.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI at arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
   Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
   Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee
Member: IEEE 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jrg.dk3ng at t-online.de [mailto:jrg.dk3ng at t-online.de]
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:03 AM
> To: CW at mailman.qth.net
> Cc: addx de; Martin Hengemuehle; Zwingl; Alexander Schwarz;
> w1rfi at arrl.net
> Subject: AW: (Fwd) Re: [CW] Latest BPL news
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> you are experiencing the same problems we initially  encountered over
> here in Europe. But now things are getting slightly 'better' (that is,
> an increasing number of interference cases are being reported) as a
> result of the tireless efforts of a number of dedicated people who
> expend a huge amount of effort to apprise their fellow hams, broadcast
> listeners and other  users of the HF spectrum of the BPL /PLC threat. 
> 
> Also, one should perhaps not be too surprised that some people do not 
> yet perceive BPL as a major  risk when we have folks like Larry Price,
> who personally told me at last year's Ham Radio in Germany that he
> thought we were all a bit  hysterical about  the problems that BPL/PLC
> might cause. I sure hope he's changed his mind since - or that he is
> right!
> 
> J R 'Jo' Groeger, G4XXW, DK3NG
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> Return-Path: <dl5qe at muenster.de>
> Received: from muemailb.citykom.de ([195.202.32.22]) by
> mailin02.sul.t-online.de
> 	with esmtp id 1Arzwx-1Ub55U0; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:35:15 +0100
> Received: (qmail 29783 invoked by uid 0); 14 Feb 2004 13:35:14 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO martinhe) ([62.134.125.216])
>           (envelope-sender <dl5qe at muenster.de>)
>           by muemailb.citykom.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
>           for <jrg.dk3ng at t-online.de>; 14 Feb 2004 13:35:14 -0000
> From: "Martin Hengemuehle" <dl5qe at muenster.de>
> Organization: http://www.muenster.de/~dl5qe
> To: jrg.dk3ng at t-online.de,
>               kurier at addx.de
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:38:08 +0100
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: (Fwd) Re: [CW] Latest BPL news
> Reply-to: dl5qe at muenster.de
> Message-ID: <402E32D0.13135.31465 at localhost>
> Priority: normal
> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02)
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Content-description: Mail message body
> X-Seen: true
> X-TOI-SPAM: n;0;2004-02-14T13:35:17Z
> 
> 
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> In a message dated 2/13/04 9:48:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> ken.d.brown at verizon.net writes:
> 
> 
> > I do not quite understand what the latest BPL statement from the FCC
> > is. It is my understanding that part 15 has not been changed. Is
> > this so, or has there been a modification to part 15 to make it
> > easier for BPL to QRM? I thought that BPL was already legal, within
> > the limitations of part 15, and was in fact in service in a few
> > areas.
> 
> There are some test areas in operation.
> 
> Was there some kind
> >
> > of temporary prohibition of BPL that has been lifted? What has
> > changed?
> >
> 
> FCC regulates both wire and radio systems, and all such systems need
> approval unless totally private. That obviously wasn't the case with
> BPL, so it needed FCC approval.
> 
> Some BPL folks were trying to get Part 15 levels *raised*, and FCC
> said no. Others were trying to turn the law on its head by making it
> so that licensed radio services would not be able to even *complain
> to
> FCC* that BPL was causing harmful interference!
> 
> It ain't over yet, either. This is just the NPRM - we'll be able to
> comment on it.
> 
> But consider this:
> 
> There are over 682,000 US hams, all of them licensed to use HF and/or
> 6 meters. BPL systems as demnstrated affect all ham bands from 80-6.
> Yet so far FCC has only received 5100 comments on BPL, and at least
> some of them aren't from hams.
> 
> So we have fewer than 1 in 100 US hams commenting on something that
> has the potential to wipe out all of our HF and one of our VHF bands.
> And if harmonics are involved....
> 
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
> 
> 
> --- 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 at mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> 
> ------- End of forwarded message -------Sent by Martin Hengemuehle
> Email: dl5qe at muenster.de
> http://www.muenster.de/~dl5qe
> http://www.qsl.net/dl5qe
> 
> 
> 
>