Stephanie (and list members),
One of the arguments made by BPL proponents is that they have received no
Considering the 20 August cut-off for Reply comments, if harmful
interference is shown to be BPL related I think we hams need to take note
of it in our Replies, as well as *filing formal complaints to the FCC* in
parallel with complaints to perpetrators.
We have in the past accommodated a lot of interference because we could
work around it. Perhaps it is also time to stop doing that. BPL proponents
and others who would put RF on power wiring seem to assume that compliance
with Part 15 is good enough (though more than a few want even that
relaxed); we know it is not. The Commission, with few of our complaints in
its files, has little data to back up our assertion. I expect it will get
> [Original Message]
> From: Stephanie WX3K <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Hare,Ed, W1RFI <email@example.com>
> Date: 8/8/2003 10:54:53 PM
> Subject: RE: [RFI] BPL video FAQs
> Nice job on the video.....The segment showing the TS-440s on the table
> the S9 noise level is quite alarming to say the least.
> I would assume that PP&L was the one utility conducting BPL trials.
> ?.....I am a PP&L customer here in the Poconos and I have spoken to the
> folks at PP&L many times about local RFI in my neighborhood. I took my
> FT-817 out with my SONY camcorder and recorded the resultant RFI levels
> sent them a copy of the videotape. They understand that when I call with
> RFI complaint, I mean buisness now ;-)
> If there is anything I can do to help your effort, please let me
> am an experienced engineer and have a significant amount of experience
> chasing down RFI......
> Stephanie R. Koles WX3K
> wx3k at arrl dot net