Re: another major BPL deployment

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

Ed,

You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this
topic before letting your knee jerk you into deep waters.

I'm glad to see that the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL. In fact the
statement by the ARRL CEO that you cited makes many of the same points that
I made here in October 2004 when the FCC first gave its blessing to Access
BPL. I even cited the NTIA study. I also opined that the ARRL was "shooting
itself in the foot" by opposing all BPL. It's good to see that you folks
have finally caught up with me.

Since "Woodie" cited incorrect figures, I guess that makes him an
ill-informed ham. ;)

I couldn't resist that but my "beating a dead horse" ploy was meant to bait
the ill-informed hams who attacked me here in October of 2004. Now that your
CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their
flames at him. ;)

Would you care to comment on this...

     http://www.danielwoodie.com/currentresponse.htm

w1rfi@xxxxxxxx wrote:

>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html
>
>Hello, Dave,
>
>I wasn't accusing you of misquoting Woodie, although I can see how one
>might take it that way.
>
>Woodie was reporting what I had found, and it was not accurately
>reporting what I had provided to the hams in Cincinatti.  That 60 dB
>figure could well have been a typo on his part, or a misunderstanding,
>but it was not accurate nonetheless.
>
>If you feel I should clarify this on the list, I will gladly do so. I
>agree; it is his figure that is incorrect.  If you feel an apology is
>necessary over words that can be interpreted in a number of ways, I
>will gladly offer you one.
>
>No one "pulled my chain," Dave. The entry was sent to me by a routine
>Google news search I have set on my callsign or name.
>
>I don't know how long it has been since you have been to the ARRL web
>site, Dave, but there has been a lot of information about US trials,
>interference from same and from the present generation of BPL. You may
>have to drill down a bit on the links, but there is information aplenty
>that it is obvious you haven't seen. To save you the trouble, here are
>a couple:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html
>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/other-articles.html
>http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html
>
>There are two "FCC" limits that need to be met. The first is the
>emissions limit. I have personally tested about 4-5 systems whose
>levels exceeded the FCC limits by a considerable amount. These can be
>difficult to measure, and not all systems have been tested by ARRL or
>local amateur operators.
>
>The second limit is related to harmful inteference. "Legal" BPL systems
>operate at levels that, locally, are tens of dB greater than the other
>noise levels in the area. Amateurs that report "S9" BPL noise that
>completely fills an amateur band or three are reporting harmful
>interference. I have seen many a BPL systems whose emissions were
>strong enough to degrade Amateur and other communications significantly
>-- at S9 signal levels, all but the strongest signals on a band are
>covered up.
>
>My observation that Current Technologies systems can cause interference
>on other spectrum is not speculation, Dave. A simple analysis of
>antenna physics tells you that "legal" BPL systems will generate strong
>noise locally. I have personally seen Current systems generating strong
>noise on top of shortwave broadcast and WWV time signals, for example.
>
>I would think that some of the links I provided show that ARRL and
>Amateur Radio is not opposed to BPL, but rather to interference.
>Perhaps it would be helpful if you read them. If you still have some
>advice to offer, it is more than welcome, and, being better informed,
>you're advice will probably be more useful.
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Laboratory Manager
>225 Main St
>Newington, CT 06013
>Tel: 860-594-0318
>Internet: W1RFI@xxxxxxxx
>Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
>Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
>   Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
>   Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
>Member: IEEE, Standards Association, Electromagnetic Compatibility
>Society
>Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
>Member: IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee
>   Chairman, BPL Study Project
>Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee Board of
>Directors: QRP Amateur Radio Club International