Gang, The ARRL has just released its response to the FCC's recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making regarding Broadband over Power Lines. Their report is a blistering 30-page attack on BPL and the FCC's
I just read the ARRL's BPL NPRM response. I encourage you all to read it, and then consider whether you want to be a dues paying ARRL member or a freeloader. Regardless of the other issues (code test
Hi Ken, Have U read the ARRL 30 page report? Just wondering? DE WB6DXR ? over _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mai
I do not understand why the ARRL did not address the issue of propagated BPL interference. Abatement and remediation are impossible if the unidentified signal is coming from "who knows where?" Why do
probably won't ever have BPL but I sure as heck will be able to hear it from other areas. Excellent point! I have not read ARRL's document but am surprised they would not mention this. When I can hea
I suspect it is because that is the condition for which research has been documented. NTIA identified skywave propagation as an issue and said that a serious study of it was needed during the next ph
Well, I found some very wide range digital racket from around 14.3 up to above 18.1 - beam heading 30 degrees east of north - while listening for CW DX on the 17m band. This stuff had a good bit of Q
Les wrote: Hi Ken, Have U read the ARRL 30 page report? Just wondering? DE WB6DXR ? over Yes I read every word of it, and it think it is excellently done. (Double spaced pages read real fast) DE N6KB
Re-read the comments; there was inference to propagated interference. Plenty of references to desired signals being weak SWL or amateur sigs, too. And that antennas would be pointed in a number of di
Accumulated BPL interfering noise was addressed in the ARRL document as something that had not been tested by BPL proponents. A strong point was made that part 15 applies to point sources like a devi
That's a good point to bring out. Point source radiation drops off at the inverse square rate, but line source only drops off at the inverse linear rate. In other words, for a point source, doubling
Inference is not strong enough. Clearly, we are talking to people who don't understand radio. The discussion is bogged down in point vs. line source and 20db vs 40db attenuation at x feet from the wi