[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Broadband over Power Line (BPL) radio interference

To: "bplandhamradio@yahoogroups.com" <bplandhamradio@yahoogroups.com>,"rfi@contesting.com" <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Broadband over Power Line (BPL) radio interference
From: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:15:41 -0500
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:16:14 EDT, K4IA@aol.com wrote:

>2.  By operating under their lines, you are giving the BPL proponents  chance 
>to *prove* their system is not going to crash in the presence of other  
>signals.  After all, they make the claim, we are giving them the  opportunity 
>actually try it out.  Seems like we are providing a public  service.  If they 
>are right, they have nothing to fear and we won't be  bothering them.  If they 
>are wrong, see point 3 below.

I strongly agree with this. The issue is a there must be a disproof of their 
concept. If 
BPL is implemented, there WILL be BPL users next door to hams The sooner the 
incompatibility of this adjacency is clearly proven the better. The failure to 
do this in any 
reasonable way is, IMO, a major shortcoming of ARRL strategy. 

I'm sorry as hell that Ed got bad press from a reporter who drove around and 
him work (or listen to) CW. But for the League to take a milquetoast position 
response to that is a complete mistake, and plays into the hands of the BPL 
folks. The 
best thing that I've seen ARRL do so far is take a strong position in Cedar 
Rapids, and 
it paid off. The same should be done in a lot of other places where trials are 
place and hams are receiving interference. 

In addition, we should be keying in on all of the other services that will 
interference from BPL. International broadcasting is a dead duck under BPL. So 
the maritime services that depend on it, not to mention the local public safety 
And, of course, there is skip, which has the potential to violate international 
treaties. I 
filed BPL comments a year ago, emphasizing all of these issues, while ham radio 
barely mentioned, if at all. 

>Seems to me all this nonsense about whether we should measure their  signal's 
>field strengths in micro-volts at 30 meters or 50 meters from the line  is 
>playing into their hands.  It is technobabble.  No one cares if it  interferes 
>with hams.  The system works or it doesn't.  If it doesn't  work, it is dead.

No, the measurement standard is CRITICAL -- that's why the  BPL folks are 
for it to be loosened, and the reasons we are fighting it are technically quite 
solid. Past 
loosening of Part 15 measurement standards are one reason why we have so much 
trash on our bands now. 

Finally, count me among those who feel that Ed is completely out of line in his 
response to Dave Bernstein. Dave is one of the good guys of our hobby, and I 
his comments to the point. The DXLab suite is one of his contributions -- 
software, well supported, and FREE! 

Tom -- if you have something to contribute in the way of measurement standards 
procedures, don't just sit there, publish them in whateve way you think is most 

And I have one other point regarding hams "cooperating" with the BPL companies. 
Most of those hams with serious engineering input are professionals, and should 
paid for their consulting efforts (by the BPL companies). I work full time as a 
and my rate is $150/hr plus expenses. Until they are willing to belly up to the 
bar, my 
"cooperation" will be limited to supporting the ham community with technical 
information, and, when I have time, parking the biggest rig I can move in the 
middle of 
one of their trial areas, and filing complaints about the interference to my 
licensed use 
of the radio spectrum from unlicensed services. 

Jim Brown  K9YC

RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>