All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73



"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL. That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the
receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most
current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed
equipment to deal with any BPL "interference." The ARRL reports have
conveniently omitted any mention of the coherency issue, and their
measurements are therefore flawed, because they don't reflect real
world situations.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading. Instead, do some reading on your own
by going to non-ARRL web pages such as http://www.uplc.utc.org, and
http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm before accepting the ARRL
claims at face value.

It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?

I live just outside of Emmaus, PA, (test site #3 in Ed Hare's video).
While I am currently far enough away from the limited deployment
that I cannot detect it here at my QTH, I have gone down to the
area with my FT-817 and can verify that the noise is HORRIBLE.

I shudder to think what havoc large-scale deployments would bring.

Despite Mr. Nye's allegations of "FUD" ... the ARRL is right on
this one.

Carl - wk3c

"Bill" wrote in message
. net...
All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own
eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the
ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73



"Jim Nye" wrote in message
...
The claim that BPL will seriously and negatively impact amateur radio
is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) spread by the ARRL. That
organization needs to justify its existence, and the BPL issue is a
convenient way for it to show its activism. The ARRL has apparently
followed the path of other self-justifying organizations such as NOW
and the NAACP.

Unfortunately, the technically unsophisticated do not recognize the
difference between coherent and non-coherent noise, and this makes it
easy for the ARRL to spread its FUD. But the fact is that, if BPL
signals are heard at all, they are coherent (have a predictable phase
and amplitude) and therefore can be completely removed at the
receiver. This can be done in many ways, most of which amount to
nulling the BPL signals by introducing an identical signal which is
180 degrees out of phase with the original. As a matter of fact, most
current HF transceivers have what they call a "noise reduction" option
already built into them which uses the nulling method to accomplish
its goal. Therefore, many amateurs and SWLers already have the needed
equipment to deal with any BPL "interference." The ARRL reports have
conveniently omitted any mention of the coherency issue, and their
measurements are therefore flawed, because they don't reflect real
world situations.

So take the ARRL claims with a large grain of salt, and don't succumb
to the FUD they are spreading. Instead, do some reading on your own
by going to non-ARRL web pages such as http://www.uplc.utc.org, and
http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm before accepting the ARRL
claims at face value.

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

Yup.

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?

I think you just outed him.....

I live just outside of Emmaus, PA, (test site #3 in Ed Hare's video).
While I am currently far enough away from the limited deployment
that I cannot detect it here at my QTH, I have gone down to the
area with my FT-817 and can verify that the noise is HORRIBLE.

Your detailed firsthand comments to FCC are much-needed in the fight, Carl.
Theory is great but having lots of hams say "I was there and it raised the
noise floor XX db 160-6" is even better.

And IIRC the demos are meeting Part 15, and the BPL folks want to RAISE the
allowable levels!!

Did DSL or cable get that sort of gimmee? I don't think so!! If the utilities
want to get into the broadband game, let 'em play by the same rules as
everybody else.

I shudder to think what havoc large-scale deployments would bring.

Would make our codetest debates kinda moot, huh? And don't forget that access
BPL goes up to 80 MHz on fundamentals. Harmonics, anyone?

Despite Mr. Nye's allegations of "FUD" ... the ARRL is right on
this one.

AGREED!

I say the stuff about "coherent noise" is simply a smokescreen to divert away
from the real issue. Which is simply that BPL puts out a lot of noise that will
cause harmful interference to all licensed users of the affected spectrum. And
this interference is totally avoidable by using better technology, like "PBL".

Do you agree, Carl?

73 de Jim, N2EY

btw, how far from the test site do you have to get before the BPL noise
disappears?

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?


Yep, obviously a paid misinformant.

One wonders why he would bother to post his message here where he is
certain to get negative if not hostile responses.
Perhaps he's tuning his argument for some future, more important,
forum.
Steve


JJ wrote in message
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
It's also interesting that Mr. Nye points us to the websites of folks
who are advocating BPL ...

I wonder, is Mr. Nye a consultant to the utilities or BPL manufacturers?


Yep, obviously a paid misinformant.

"Bill" wrote in message .net...
All I know is I have heard it with my own ears, and seen it with my own eyes
and it will wreck HF for me.

I don't care how much theory or alleged science you want to try to wrap
around the BPL issue, it won't solve my personal loss if it becomes the ISP
of the future.

So I will keep sending my money to the ARRL and I will encourage them to
work towards keeping my hobby fun.

73

Bill,

One more thing: COMMENT TO THE FCC about BPL. Your firsthand, detailed
experience is sorely needed in the fight. We can do theory all day but
somebody who was there has the definitive answer.

73 de Jim, N2EY