[Lowfer] Broadband over Power Line (BPL); Filing Comments to FCC

[Ed Phillips]

Peter Barick wrote:
> 
> John on responding to Tim's petitioning of the FCC on the BPL issue:
> >>> longwave@mindspring.com 06/02/03 11:12PM >>>
> "
> Tim,
> BPL ... is not a threat to LF.
> ...
> appears to represent a ... misunderstanding of the FCC's position
> regarding the difference between BPL and PLCs.
> "
> 
> Yes, I also took note of making the parallel argument against BPL and
> linking it to the 137kHz ruling:
>   1) as John says, they BPL is not feasible at LF
>   2) it may appear by the Comm. as sour grapes leaking into the
> argument.
> 
> "
> But BPL is not well suited for low frequencies, and the utilities are
> not
> going to let BPL down where it would interfere with their tinker-toy
> PLC
> systems either.  We only have the one big foe to contend with at LF,
> thankfully, not two.  

	Say what you will, those guys were there MANY years before we took up
our hobby.  They claimed the territory first and to them we're at best
squatters (if we even do anything that bothers them, which is
problematical).  If you'e ever taken a receiver under some HV lines and
listened you'd realize the interference they are already contending with
and I can't see how we'd contribute to it no matter what we do,
reasonable or unreasonable.

	There must be someone within our ranks who really understands what the
utilities do with their 10-525 kHz PLC systems.  I suspect that any
interference with them could have disasterous consequences and that they
have good reason to guard their turf.

	Last comment.  Twenty years ago I could hear dozens of PLC signals here
in the 160-190 kHz band and now I hear only a few.  How about the rest
of you?

Ed