[RFI] Why we badly need "party line" materials for all hams
Dave Bernstein
dave.bernstein at comcast.net
Mon Jul 19 16:47:18 EDT 2004
I disagree, Ed. Senior management can create a single integrated team tasked
with winning this war. Educating the ham community, and providing them with
continuously up-to-date information would be a critical responsibility for
this team. Once they are up to speed, there will be few questions or issues
they can't efficiently handle. I unfamiliar with the ARRL's internal
organization, but my experience is that the classic functional model that
serves organizations well when they're in equilibrium often gets in the way
during times of rapid change. Whoever is driving ARRL's anti-BPL effort
should be empowered to set the strategy and execute every dimension of it.
Your "not my bailiwick" comment implied that you lacked this authority,
which is what triggered my suggestion.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces at contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Hare,Ed, W1RFI
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:19 PM
To: rfi at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] Why we badly need "party line" materials for all hams
Dave,
> No one in this organization should ever respond with "not my
> bailiwick".
That is an unrealistic expectation.
First, there are two entities within ARRL that oversee its operation. Its
Board of Directors and its senior management. But none of them should be
expected to monitor every reflector so they can respond to any question
posed, so that staff who are involved with specific aspects of any part of
ARRL won't have to explain that someone else in the organization handles
that part of the job at hand. And it is not likely that Dave or the ARRL
Board could answer questions about the interference aspects of BPL as well
as I could, nor is it likely that they could contribute much to the
interaction on an RFI-related reflector.
Now, it could be set up that all questions about BPL could be sent to one
place, who would then send it out to whichever staff were best able to
answer it, and then back to the member. That would avoid your having to
read my saying that I can't speak for a different part of ARRL also working
on a different part of the issue, but that really does seem like a rather
roundabout way of going about this. I disagree with you that staff should
not be able to explain that a particular job is being done by someone else,
especially when they cc that someone else to faciliate communication.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI at arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee
Member: IEEE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Bernstein [mailto:aa6yq at ambersoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:59 PM
> To: Hare,Ed, W1RFI; 'Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)';
> rfi at contesting.com
> Cc: Hobart, Mary K1MMH; Hagy Jennifer, N1TDY
> Subject: RE: [RFI] Why we badly need "party line" materials
> for all hams
>
>
> Given the magnitude of the threat we face, the ARRL should
> create within
> itself a single organization responsible and accountable for defeating
> BPL. All activities -- including PR -- should be driven by this
> organization. Anything less is pulling punches, which we can
> ill afford.
> No one in this organization should ever respond with "not my
> bailiwick".
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hare,Ed, W1RFI [mailto:w1rfi at arrl.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:50
> To: Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK); aa6yq at ambersoft.com;
> rfi at contesting.com
> Cc: Hobart, Mary K1MMH; Hagy Jennifer, N1TDY
> Subject: RE: [RFI] Why we badly need "party line" materials
> for all hams
>
>
> > I posted a request for a press kit on this
> > reflector a couple of days ago specifically
> > for this kind of situation and got no response
> > whatsoever.
>
> If you mean that you got no response from ARRL, posting a request to
> ARRL on a reflector is not a good way to get an answer.
>
> >I'll contribute money to the ARRL when they tell me they
> will use it to
>
> >hire a public relations firm, which is badly needed.
>
> Media PR is not my baliwick, but ARRL has spent the contributions made
> so far on engineering studies, industry contact and involving other
> agencies and interests in the BPL problem. Its overall expenditures
> for spectrum advocacy annually are over a million dollars. Do you
> think that
> the work ARRL has done so far was not worth doing?
>
>
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
> ARRL Laboratory Manager
> 225 Main St
> Newington, CT 06013
> Tel: 860-594-0318
> Internet: W1RFI at arrl.org
> Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
> Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
> Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
> Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
> Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
> Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee
> Member: IEEE
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rfi-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:rfi-bounces at contesting.com]On
> > Behalf Of Richard (Rick) Karlquist (N6RK)
> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:54 AM
> > To: aa6yq at ambersoft.com; rfi at contesting.com
> > Subject: RE: [RFI] Why we badly need "party line" materials for all
> > hams
> >
> >
> > I posted a request for a press kit on this
> > reflector a couple of days ago specifically
> > for this kind of situation and got no response
> > whatsoever. I'll contribute money to the ARRL
> > when they tell me they will use it to hire
> > a public relations firm, which is badly needed.
> > I'm glad there are at least 2 of us who understand
> > this problem.
> >
> > Rick N6RK
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rfi-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:rfi-bounces at contesting.com]On
> > > Behalf Of Dave Bernstein
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:24 PM
> > > To: rfi at contesting.com
> > > Subject: [RFI] Why we badly need "party line" materials
> for all hams
> > >
> > >
> > > A recent post on the Yahoo BPL reflector contains a BPL
> > article by David
> > > Lazarus, an SF Bay-area journalist, that includes quotes from the
> > > president of a local radio club. See
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPLandHamRadio/message/3728 for the
> > > original article.
> > >
> > > This was an opportunity to set out the facts on BPL in a way that
> > > doesn't make us look like oldtimers straining against the
> wheels of
> > > progress. Instead, all the wrong buttons got pushed -- not
> > because our
> > > representative was ill-intentioned or poorly motivated, but
> > because he
> > > was unprepared.
> > >
> > > The response I posted on the Yahoo BPL reflector is
> appended below.
> > >
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm certain that Mikel Lechner meant well, but the result
> is highly
> > > counterproductive. This perfectly illustrates why we need a
> > "party line"
> > > summary that helps guide hams when they find themselves being
> > > interviewed as Mikel did. Of course this won't eliminate
> > bad press, but
> > > it will significantly change the balance.
> > >
> > > To be clear, my focus is not Mikel Lechner's specific
> > comments. It is
> > > the absence of accessible information that hams can use
> to prepare
> > > themselves for interaction with reporters, government
> > officials, or any
> > > other non-ham that might influence BPL adoption.
> > >
> > > Specific comments and suggestions are prepended by +++ below.
> > >
> > > LAZARUS AT LARGE
> > >
> > > Ham radio operators squawk over BPL
> > >
> > > David Lazarus Sunday, July 18, 2004
> > >
> > > Well, it sure was exciting when Michael Powell, the head of
> > the Federal
> > > Communications Commission, joined execs from AT&T and PG&E
> > in Menlo Park
> > > the other day for a test of newfangled technology to
> > provide Internet
> > > access over ordinary power lines.
> > >
> > > "I think this is critical technology," Powell said at an
> > AT&T facility
> > > on the Peninsula. "This is something we want to see happen."
> > >
> > > Mikel Lechner, a Silicon Valley software engineer who
> > wasn't invited to
> > > the event, is a good deal less enthusiastic about the prospect of
> > > broadband over power lines, or BPL in techno-speak.
> > >
> > > Lechner is president of the Foothills Amateur Radio Society, an
> > > organization of 75 or so local ham radio operators, and
> he's deeply
> > > worried that the new technology will all but obliterate his
> > pastime.
> > >
> > > +++ This positions the issue as being our self-interest
> (continuing
> > > pursuit our hobby) over the self-interest of others (cheap,
> > quick access
> > > to high-speed internet). Since there are many more of them
> > than us, and
> > > since there are alternatives to HF refraction for
> > communication, this
> > > puts us in a fundamentally weak position.
> > >
> > > +++ Instead, "If BPL were a great technology, we'd all be jumping
> > > through hoops to find ways to coexist with it. But its not -- its
> > > economics are terrible, and there are much better, cheaper
> > alternatives,
> > > for example WiMAX." And then launch into the specifics of BPL's
> > > "not-really-a-last-mile-solution" problem, and its RFI problems
> > > (focusing more on the impact to public service and public safety
> > > applications than on ham radio). Close with "And
> shouldn't the power
>
> > > companies be focused on making the power grid deliver
> electricity
> > > reliably? Do you remember what happened in the NorthEast
> > not too long
> > > ago?"
> > >
> > > That's because BPL works by sending radio signals over
> electricity
> > > lines. The signals travel along the wires and through utility
> > > transformers and eventually arrive in people's homes,
> where they're
> > > funneled into home computers via special modems plugged
> > into electrical
> > > outlets.
> > >
> > > "The problem," Lechner told me, "is that power lines were
> > not meant to
> > > carry radio signals. That means the signals will radiate
> > from the wires.
> > > They'll escape. And that means anyone within a short
> distance will
> > > receive interference."
> > >
> > > +++ Characterizing the problem as being limited to "within a short
> > > distance" is technically inaccurate, and weakens our argument.
> > >
> > > The telecom and power industries say this problem has been
> > licked. But
> > > Lechner isn't so sure.
> > >
> > > +++ This was the perfect opportunity to discuss Alliant's recent
> > > withdrawal from BPL due to its inability to mitigate the
> > RFI its pilot
> > > produced. It directly rebuts the "this problem has been
> > licked" claim.
> > >
> > > The radio antenna atop his Campbell home is about 20 feet
> > from a power
> > > line. Lechner can easily imagine what would happen if
> that wire were
>
> > > crackling each day with millions of e-mails and Web pages.
> > >
> > > "It would pretty much kill my hobby," he said. "Except for
> > the strongest
> > > signals, I wouldn't be able to hear a thing."
> > >
> > > BPL is one of those rock-your-world tech breakthroughs
> that has been
>
> > > percolating in telecom circles for years. But it's only
> > been within the
> > > past few months that serious testing has begun throughout
> > the country.
> > >
> > > +++ Having this sort of BS not appear in an article
> requires one to
> > > steer the interview so that the specifics of BPL can be
> > discussed. First
> > > its important to distinguish the distribution of high-speed
> > data to a
> > > home (via BPL) from the distribution of high-speed data
> > within a home
> > > (via HomePlug). The latter is convenient and economical,
> > but is hardly
> > > revolutionary -- its been around (and improving) for
> years. But the
> > > major convenience benefits attributed to BPL -- namely the
> > ability to
> > > get high-speed internet by plugging a PC into the wall -- is an
> > > attribute of HomePlug, not BPL! One can use HomePlug with
> > cable or DSL
> > > today! In addition, its important to point out that BPL
> > generally cannot
> > > bring signals directly into a home -- the distribution
> transformers
> > > block the signal. Thus the power company must install
> pole-mounted
> > > equipment -- either transformer bypasses, or WiFi
> transceivers -- to
>
> > > complete the circuit. This is no less expensive or
> > time-consuming than
> > > making cable or DSL connections.
> > >
> > > One of the most extensive projects has been undertaken in
> > Cincinnati,
> > > where a local utility is spending about $10 million to make BPL
> > > available to 50,000 homes by the end of the year.
> > >
> > > The advances have caught the attention of even President
> Bush, who
> > > observed last month that BPL "seems to make sense if what you are
> > > looking for is avenues to the home. Electricity goes into
> > the home."
> > >
> > > +++ A perfect opportunity to point out that the politicians
> > don't really
> > > understand that while electricity goes into the home, high-speed
> > > internet won't unless the utility installs additional equipment.
> > >
> > > Good call. And that's what makes this technology so
> tantalizing. The
>
> > > notion that homes, businesses and schools can be wired for
> > high-speed
> > > Net access with relatively little muss and fuss makes BPL a
> > dream come
> > > true for a broadband-hungry world.
> > >
> > > "The technology works right now," declared Bill Moroney,
> > president of
> > > the United Telecom Council, a power-industry trade group.
> > "And by next
> > > year you'll see better technology and the year after that
> > even better
> > > technology."
> > >
> > > Let's hope so. BPL may be functional in its present form,
> > but it's still
> > > far from perfect. Not the least is no one really knows
> for sure what
>
> > > would happen to the nation's power grid if it had to do
> > double duty as a
> > > major communications network.
> > >
> > > +++ Our nation's power grid is in terrible shape, as
> > illustrated by the
> > > recent NE blackout and information revealed in follow-up
> > studies. Why is
> > > the power industry focused on BPL when the basic, critical
> > > infrastructure for which they are responsible is unreliable
> > and getting
> > > worse by the day?
> > >
> > > PG&E spokesman John Nelson said testing to date has shown
> that data
> > > transmitted via BPL move independently of electricity
> > flowing through
> > > the lines. In theory, he said, that means the grid should
> > stand up to
> > > the rigors of a tsunami of spam pushing Viagra and Nigerian
> > investment
> > > opportunities.
> > >
> > > +++ Nice to see that PG&E spokesmen understand
> > superposition. Too bad we
> > > can't link BPL to Spam...
> > >
> > > "The science doesn't change as you go to a larger scale,"
> > Nelson said.
> > >
> > > Locally, up to 100 Menlo Park homes will fiddle with BPL
> > for the next
> > > six months. PG&E and AT&T will use the results of the test
> > to determine
> > > when and how BPL will be rolled out on a wider scale in the
> > Bay Area.
> > >
> > > For PG&E, the attraction of BPL isn't repositioning the formerly
> > > bankrupt utility as the next AOL. Rather, Nelson said, PG&E
> > is keen on
> > > the idea that it can have an interactive link with
> > customers, allowing
> > > the company to see where juice is flowing at any given time.
> > >
> > > +++ This would have been a good entre' to "BPL locks
> > subscribers into a
> > > single source of internet access; what's the power
> industry's track
> > > record for fair and effective pricing?"
> > >
> > > +++ Is there truly economic synergy between BPL and realtime power
> > > monitoring? Pole-mounted transformer bypasses or WiFi
> > transceivers won't
> > > automatically monitor and report power usage; adding these
> > capabilities
> > > would increase both capital and installation costs.
> > >
> > > Moreover, he said BPL would provide for more efficient
> use of power
> > > throughout Northern California. By being able to show
> > customers the cost
> > > of electricity in real time, PG&E would allow people to
> choose the
> > > cheapest hour to do the laundry, say, or run the dishwasher.
> > >
> > > "We don't have any plans to be an Internet service
> provider," Nelson
>
> > > said. He added, though, that "no business model has been
> > worked out" for
> > > the utility's use of BPL.
> > >
> > > +++ A huge red flag missed. What will happen if, when the
> > business model
> > > is finally worked out, the economics are unattractive? Who
> > will pay? The
> > > municipalities? The subscribers?
> > >
> > > Irwin Gerszberg, AT&T's director of local network technology,
> > > acknowledged that BPL is still a work in progress. But the
> > arrival of
> > > more- powerful chips and modems in coming months will solve
> > most current
> > > difficulties, he said.
> > >
> > > +++ Response: "Exactly what difficulties are you referring to, Mr.
> > > Gerszberg?"
> > >
> > > One key improvement, Gerszberg stressed, is technology that
> > allows BPL
> > > networks to recognize competing signals from ham-radio
> > operators and, in
> > > effect, detour around the frequency.
> > >
> > > "Interference really isn't an issue anymore," he said.
> "Earlier BPL
> > > systems were noisier. Now it's not a problem."
> > >
> > > +++ Response: "Then why did Alliant recently terminate
> > their BPL pilot
> > > in Cedar Rapids due to interference problems and decide to
> > not pursue
> > > BPL?
> > >
> > > The issue at this point, Gersz-berg observed, is how the heavily
> > > regulated telecom and power industries will work together on a
> > > potentially lucrative new revenue source. "It's like making two
> > > elephants dance," he said.
> > >
> > > It's unclear whether PG&E would offer customers Internet
> access or
> > > whether the utility would lease its lines to one or more service
> > > providers.
> > >
> > > All Gerszberg could say now is that the relatively
> > inexpensive cost of
> > > hooking up to BPL -- a fraction of the price of wiring a
> > home for cable,
> > > he said -- means that BPL will be competitively priced with other
> > > broadband systems.
> > >
> > > +++ Here's the confusion between BPL and HomePlug being
> > used to BPL's
> > > advantage, again.
> > >
> > > "I'm pretty excited about it," he said.
> > >
> > > Lechner, the ham-radio enthusiast, said he's looked at the
> > improvements
> > > described by Gerszberg and there's still some question
> about their
> > > effectiveness.
> > >
> > > +++ "...still some question..." is very weak.
> > >
> > > For example, would a radio operator have to constantly
> > broadcast his or
> > > her presence to the BPL system to gain access to the
> airwaves? Many
> > > operators prefer to listen to on-air chatter before piping
> > up. Moreover,
> > > would the radio operator have to repeat the procedure on
> > each and every
> > > frequency tuned in to?
> > >
> > > +++ "Many operators prefer to listen to on-air chatter" -
> this won't
> > > generate a lot of sympathy preserving amateur radio.
> > >
> > > "I'm taking a wait-and-see approach," Lechner said. "The
> > industry can
> > > say what it wants. Nothing is clear yet."
> > >
> > > +++ If we take a wait-and-see approach, we will lose.
> > >
> > > David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and
> > Sundays. He also
> > > can be seen regularly on KTVU's "Mornings on 2." Send tips
> > or feedback
> > > to dlazarus at s...
> > >
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Dave, AA6YQ
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > RFI mailing list
> > > RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI at contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI at contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
More information about the RFI
mailing list