[TowerTalk] Re: FCC's NPRM on BPL

[VR2BrettGraham]

OH6LI suggested:

>Does BPL make power network a telecommunications network?
>
>Telecom networks have all sorts of spurious emission
>specifications to fulfill.

Not if you ignore the ITU - one large NA country is steaming at a high rate
of knots towards becoming the electromagnetic pariah state.

At the risk of getting slagged off by the Commissar, the head of the executive
arm hails from the Republic of Texas, where apparently it is firmly believed
that the ITU has nothing to do with spectrum allocation.

Come next solar cycle, how will the rest of the world keep BPL out of our
antennas?  I have been experimenting with ways to hear through the apparent
surface wave radar that is trashing the exclusive, all ITU region allocation to
the amateur service at 24 Mc - I constantly have to play with phase to counter
what I guess are additional phase shifts from propagation as I try to notch the
stuff out.

Remember the Woodpecker?  I now wish I had an AEA WB-1 here, as the
18 & 21 Mc exclusive, all ITU region allocations to the amateur service are
increasingly being trashed by something that sounds the same - the pulse
trains generated by these intruders sound like they could be handled by a
set-&-largely-forget approach as was used in the WB-1.

Since just about anything seems to be justifiable whilst in a state of war &
the war on terror appears not to be going away any time soon, we need
solutions & just like keeping the 7th Fleet from trashing 4 Gc downlinks
in the Gulf, upstream solutions are best - therefore, I suggest BPL is not
entirely OT on Towertalk.

It would be appreciated, however, that folks refrain from keeping the entire
Towertalk digest in their replies to the list. I would expect others appreciate
a little humor at times like I do, but the head or prospective head of the
executive arm of the USA strike me as definitely OT.  Thank you.

73, VR2BrettGraham