Re: another major BPL deployment

[w1rfi@xxxxxxxx]

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

Is that one of those do-as-you-say, not-do-as-you-do sort of things?
You were pretty clear  that you hadn't researched ARRL's web page or
position in months, yet you knee-jerked yourself about it in a way that
was rather painful to watch, I would say.

> 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.

ARRL has never opposed BPL, so your soapbox oratory falls apart rather
quickly.  As an example, long before access BPL was viewed as a viable
technology, ARRL was helping HomePlug in the development of the very
standard that Current Technologies has used in its successful
deployments.

http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf

You might be better served to research what has been posted by ARRL on
its web site about BPL before letting your knee jerk you into deep
waters.  Oh, wait, that's what you said...

> I even cited the NTIA study.

Did you cite the part where NTIA said that at the FCC emissions limits,
harmful interference was probable for hundreds of meters from a power
line carrying BPL, or for tens of kilometers to aircraft?

> 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.

Are you now saying that you believe that access BPL should not be
permitted to operate below 30 MHz on overhead power lines and that it
should not be permitted to use the Amateur bands?  If you really
believe that ARRL has "caught up with you," that is our position.
Surely you wouldn't have said that without doing the research you
chided me to do... would you? :-)

The bottom line is that BPL that operates at the limits of the present
rules will cause strong interference locally on any spectrum it uses.
Those "legal limits" are high enough that, according to the NTIA report
you cite, interference for distances greater than typical receivers are
located from power lines is likely.

Nothing in ARRL's position has changed with respect to noise levels
that cover up all but the strongest of signals locally. Nor should it.
What has changed is that part of the industry is committing itself to
operating well below the FCC emissions limits in the Amateur bands. Why
you would believe  that such a change somehow represents anyone
"catching up with you" is absolutely beyond me.

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

He was incorrect. If you feel you need to call that "ill informed" for
some reason, I see no need to dissuade you.

> 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.

At least you are willing to admit it. Good for you.  Baiting others
publicly is something that most people wouldn't do, and fewer would
admit to.

> Now that your CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their
> flames at him. ;)

Some of them have, although most understand the reasons that ARRL can
be in opposition to rules that simply don't work for BPL and radio
services' mutual compatibility and recognizing and, to some extent,
supporting those companies that do it exactly the way that ARRL's
petition asked the FCC to mandate for all BPL systems.

If you want this industry to be successful, you would try to get it to
support successful rules. If you just want to bait people on a
newsgroup, that's entirely different.

> Would you care to comment on this...

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

I think that my original post addressed pretty accurately the degree to
which Current's design prevents interference to Amateur Radio and the
fact that it offers no additional protection over the existing rules
(and NTIA conclusions about interference distances) for other spectrum.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab