[RFI] Broadband over Power Line (BPL) radio interference
jim at audiosystemsgroup.com
Fri Jul 16 23:15:41 EDT 2004
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:16:14 EDT, K4IA at 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 to
>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 watched
him work (or listen to) CW. But for the League to take a milquetoast position in
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 taking
place and hams are receiving interference.
In addition, we should be keying in on all of the other services that will receive
interference from BPL. International broadcasting is a dead duck under BPL. So are
the maritime services that depend on it, not to mention the local public safety services.
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 was
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 pushing
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 found
his comments to the point. The DXLab suite is one of his contributions -- excellent
software, well supported, and FREE!
Tom -- if you have something to contribute in the way of measurement standards and
procedures, don't just sit there, publish them in whateve way you think is most effective.
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 be
paid for their consulting efforts (by the BPL companies). I work full time as a consultant,
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
More information about the RFI