[RFI] PLCA Response to WSJ Article
JimMiller at STL-Online.Net
Sat Apr 17 08:11:48 EDT 2004
My fear is that they are "talking" to those that matter(public, FCC) and we
are "preaching to the choir". I won't be surprised when they win in the end
even with the possible change to part 15. Sad.
73, de Jim KG0KP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tope" <W4EF at dellroy.com>
To: "Eric Rosenberg" <wd3q at starpower.net>; <rfi at contesting.com>; "Pete
Smith" <n4zr at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [RFI] PLCA Response to WSJ Article
> Does anyone know what he means by a "low power
> The fact that he toutes the low-duty cycle (e.g. not always
> on) nature of the system in the context of arguing for
> lack of BPL interfererence, is to me, a tacit admission
> that BPL does cause interference. After all, if there were
> no interference whatsoever as he claims, then the duty
> cycle wouldn't matter.
> And the argument that they have spent millions proving
> that BPL causes no interference is also complete rubbish.
> All Ed Hare had to do was drive under a powerline with
> a $500 receiver to prove that BPL radiates as predicted.
> In every article I have read in the professional literature
> (mostly the IEEE Communications Magazine), the authors
> express concern over regulatory emission limits and how
> they will limit BPL performance. This is a tacit admission
> that BPL systems will radiate at or above the current
> regulatory limits. Current regulatory limits will result in
> harmful interference. That fact is indisputable (at least by
> those with a rational understanding of science). Those who
> wish to argue that James Clerk Maxwell is all wrong may
> have a different position, I suppose. When Mr. Clark says
> that the industry has spent millions on "exhaustive research
> and testing" to prove that BPL doesn't cause interference,
> what he really means is that they have spent millions of
> dollars on propaganda that is designed to make people
> (like Michael Powell) believe that there is no interference
> problem with BPL.
> Me thinks Pinocchio's nose is getting longer again.
> 73 de Mike, W4EF................
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr at contesting.com>
> To: "Eric Rosenberg" <wd3q at starpower.net>; <rfi at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFI] PLCA Response to WSJ Article
> > What gibberish. On the other hand, may their public arrogance come back
> > haynt them when Part 15 is invoked to force them to shut down their
> > service, or when we shut it down with our "on demand" signals whose
> > length" is very short.
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
More information about the RFI