[no subject]

My only point is that Current Technolgy (and their customers and partners)
appear to have met the FCC limits. If you think otherwise, the burden of
proof would seem to be yours. Speculation that they might not meet them
under other conditions is just as nasty an innuendo as your implication that
I misquoted you or Mr. Woodie. I did not!

You will not find a single instance where I have said anything other than
the system used by Cinergy appears to meet the FCC limits and appears to
comply with FCC rules. I resent your implication that I have done otherwise
and think you owe me an apology.

I haven't looked at the ARRL site for a few months. When I did look most of
the interfering systems listed were either outside the USA or had used
technolgy that had been abandoned a few years ago.

I'm sure that you don't monitor this newsgroup on a regular basis so have to
wonder who pulled your chain.

If the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL you should get that word out to your
members.

w1rfi@xxxxxxxx wrote:

>Dave Houston wrote:
>
>> http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/200512190100PR_NEWS_USPR_____NYM051.htm
>> http://www.currenttechnologies.com/about/
>>
>> To preclude further horse corpse desecration by ill-informed hams...
>>
>> "On April 21, 2005 Ed Hare, W1RFI, Head of the ARRL Labs conducted tests in
>> the Hyde Park area of Cincinnati. He conducted these tests on the BPL system
>> installed by Current Technologies for Cinergy. ... Ed found that the BPL
>> emisions were at least 20 dB below the FCC limits of Part 15 devices across
>> the board. He also found that the amateur frequencies have been notched and
>> interference from BPL is at least 60 dB below FCC Part 15 rules in all of
>> the amateur bands with the exception of 60 meters which was very recently
>> added as an amateur band. Ed also noted that there were many other devices
>> in the test area which interfered far more severely with the amateur bands
>> than the BPL."
>
>The quote you offer came from:
>
>http://www.danielwoodie.com/aboutbpl.htm
>
>I would think that folks may prefer seeing it in its entire context.
>
>The quote isn't exactly correct.  My trip to Cincinnati was a one-day
>session in which I met with the local amateurs there and we did some
>limited testing.  In the spots we measured, and based on my driving
>around, the system there was operating at a level that appeared to be
>below the FCC limits.  The design of the BPL manufacturer, Current
>Technologies, does indeed notch the ham bands, but nowhere near -60 dB
>-- the modems used typically get 25 to 30 dB of notching. From what I
>have learned about the Current Technologies systems, the emissions
>would more typically be just about at the FCC limits in many
>installations. It is likely that a combination of the distances between
>my portable test setup and the premise wiring carrying BPL and the
>variations in the nature of the premise wiring explain most of the
>differences.
>
>In general, at this location, the system was not causing harmful
>interference to the Amateur Bands.  The reception of international
>shortwave broadcast, governement WWV time signals and similar uses was
>degraded appreciably, and as I drove around the general area, there
>were areas near active modems where the noise levels were pretty high
>outside the notched spectrum. As a separate issue, yes, as in all
>areas, there were also areas where other devices were causing noise
>levels strong enough to be intereference.  It was my opinion that the
>combination of notching and the intermittent nature of BPL operation
>there would generally protect mobile operation. This would leave some
>potential for interfence to fixed Amateur stations, but with a low
>enough incidence of occurrence that it would be practical to deal with
>it on a case-by-case basis.
>
>If the point is that in parts of this system that are operating at a
>lower level than permitted and that use notching for the ham bands do
>not have major interference issues, I would tend to agree. In fact,
>this type of deployment formed part of the basis for ARRL's Petition
>for Rulemaking to the FCC, asking that the rules be changed to reflect
>the more successful BPL installations:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/18/101/
>
>It is significant that one of the BPL manufacturers that has set out to
>avoid major interference problems is among the more successful.  Not
>all BPL manufacturers have set out to avoid interference by
>specifically protecting spectrum, and those manufacturers that have not
>have not enjoyed commercial deployments as large as Cincinnati nor the
>pending deployment in Dallas. Others have been embroiled in
>interference problems and the associated complaints and costs
>associated with them.
>
>So summarizing the concerns of Amateur Radio as "further horse corpse
>desecration by ill-informed hams" is not a fair characterization at
>all.  In those cases where there has been significant interference, the
>characaterization is inaccurate and in cases where Amateur Radio has
>recognized improvements in the EMC performance of some designs, the
>characterization is a downright mispresentation.
>
>A good summary of this difference can be seen in an editorial written
>by ARRL's CEO, Dave Sumner:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/08/01/1/
>
>Amateur operators are not opposed to BPL -- why should they be? They
>are strongly opposed to BPL that pollutes Amateur spectrum, and causes
>local harmful interference. Those BPL operators that are willing to
>address it when it occurs can expect cooperation and help. Those that
>"resolve" it by claiming it doesn't exist can expect firm opposition.
>
>For background in BPL and its impact on spectrum users, see:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/bpl
>
>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