[Lowfer] 1750M?

[John Davis]

Perry makes some very good points about the extremely low likelihood of
ingress into PLC systems--and from the perspective of someone who has
actually worked with them.  These points ought to be brought up in comments
on the proceeding, Perry.

I am also intrigued by something Lyle says:
>On the other hand, if the power companies were telling the truth, it means
>that the PLC systems in use are so crude that they are susceptible to the
>minute amount of radiation that could be picked up from a 2 watt ERP (in
the
>original ARRL proposal) ham signal. Any system which is that vulnerable to
>incidental interference is wide open to compromise by intentional acts of
>vandalism or terrorism.


This, I suspect, points to something that may stand in our way.  I don't for
a minute believe the PLC systems are really that susceptible to
interference.  But remember, the FCC invited comments on whether the
utilities' database on PLC systems might help hams coexist with them.  This
strikes me as a surprisingly open-minded and creative approach on the
Commission's part.  However,  I strongly suspect that the industry is going
to argue that making such information widely available would itself BE a
security risk.

We might perhaps need to be thinking ahead on a way to counter that
viewpoint.

73,
John