Of course if they don't *generate* any RFI on MHP frequencies they won't
likely get any comnpalints!

Yes, and if they continue not to generate signals on low VHF, they will
continue not get any complaints. If they would reduce their emissions on the
ham bands to about 60 dB less than FCC, amateur radio wouldn't get a
significant amount of interference and ARRL could move on to new challenges.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
W1RFI wrote:

Of course if they don't *generate* any RFI on MHP frequencies they won't
likely get any comnpalints!


Yes, and if they continue not to generate signals on low VHF, they will
continue not get any complaints.


But is is almost certain they they will claim success for their
"tests" in that "We got no complaints from low VHF users" when they
generated no such interference during testing-but are sure to when BPL
is widely implemented. That seems to make it very much necessary for
someone to document the parameters of what they DO generate so that
accurate information is available to challenge those later claims with
the facts when they make *inaccurate* reports of their of their
"successful" tests to FCC. It must be shown that the tests were
not properly done so as to actually test the system that will be
put into service.

That's a pretty substantial project-documenting the interference
generated at each -or at least certain critical- BPL test sites where
this could be the result. It then requires knowledge of local conditions
such as knowledge of what spectrum that is used locally by which users.

No wonder the BPL people are confident of a win. None of this is
accidental.


If they would reduce their emissions on the
ham bands to about 60 dB less than FCC, amateur radio wouldn't get a
significant amount of interference and ARRL could move on to new
challenges.


It's almost a certainty that the only way they will do that is if
they're challenged with collected data that causes FCC to require it.

If they were to do what it would take to reduce their emissions by 60 dB,
the system flat out won't work ... it only works passably as it is, which is
why they want to up the power. (A former user in the PPL trial area told
me - in front of the reporter - that when he had the system working (before
his service died and PPL couldn't/wouldn't fix it) he was getting "Maybe
4x dial-up speeds ..." He clearly wasn't impressed. Let's hope that there's
a lot of that going around. )

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
W1RFI wrote:

Of course if they don't *generate* any RFI on MHP frequencies they
won't likely get any comnpalints!


Yes, and if they continue not to generate signals on low VHF, they
will continue not get any complaints.


But is is almost certain they they will claim success for their
"tests" in that "We got no complaints from low VHF users" when they
generated no such interference during testing-but are sure to when BPL
is widely implemented. That seems to make it very much necessary for
someone to document the parameters of what they DO generate so that
accurate information is available to challenge those later claims with
the facts when they make *inaccurate* reports of their of their
"successful" tests to FCC. It must be shown that the tests were
not properly done so as to actually test the system that will be
put into service.

That's a pretty substantial project-documenting the interference
generated at each -or at least certain critical- BPL test sites where
this could be the result. It then requires knowledge of local
conditions such as knowledge of what spectrum that is used locally by
which users.

No wonder the BPL people are confident of a win. None of this is
accidental.


If they would reduce their emissions on the
ham bands to about 60 dB less than FCC, amateur radio wouldn't get a
significant amount of interference and ARRL could move on to new
challenges.


It's almost a certainty that the only way they will do that is if
they're challenged with collected data that causes FCC to require it.

If they were to do what it would take to reduce their emissions by 60
dB, the system flat out won't work ... it only works passably as it is,
which is why they want to up the power. (A former user in the PPL
trial area told me - in front of the reporter - that when he had the
system working (before his service died and PPL couldn't/wouldn't fix
it) he was getting "Maybe 4x dial-up speeds ..." He clearly wasn't
impressed. Let's hope that there's a lot of that going around. )

Carl - wk3c



Far be it from me to suggest deliberate QRM to BPL, but I think it would
be nice if everyone could run full legal in areas with BPL trials. Or at
least as much QRO as they could muster. Maybe if we know an area where
it's happening we could all descend with linears and set up a multi-multi
QRO contest station. Perhaps with 1500w signals on three or four bands we
could get their speed down to 14.4k?

Dick Carroll wrote:





But is is almost certain they they will claim success for their
"tests" in that "We got no complaints from low VHF users" when they
generated no such interference during testing-but are sure to when BPL
is widely implemented. That seems to make it very much necessary for
someone to document the parameters of what they DO generate so that
accurate information is available to challenge those later claims with
the facts when they make *inaccurate* reports of their of their
"successful" tests to FCC. It must be shown that the tests were
not properly done so as to actually test the system that will be
put into service.

That's a pretty substantial project-documenting the interference
generated at each -or at least certain critical- BPL test sites where
this could be the result. It then requires knowledge of local conditions
such as knowledge of what spectrum that is used locally by which users.

No wonder the BPL people are confident of a win. None of this is
accidental.


If they would reduce their emissions on the

ham bands to about 60 dB less than FCC, amateur radio wouldn't get a
significant amount of interference and ARRL could move on to new
challenges.


It's almost a certainty that the only way they will do that is if
they're challenged with collected data that causes FCC to require it.

This is what comes from a dysfunctional FCC made up of lawyers instead
of technical people who know something about the radio spectrum.

But is is almost certain they they will claim success for their
"tests" in that "We got no complaints from low VHF users" when they
generated no such interference during testing-but are sure to when BPL
is widely implemented.

Why would they use a different BPL system than the one they used successfully
for their marketing trial?

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

All this may wind up in a court somewhere, which means your
documented efforts could be very important.

If this were to end up in court, I would want to see a professional EMC lab
make the measurements.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

(W1RFI) wrote in message ...
All this may wind up in a court somewhere, which means your
documented efforts could be very important.

If this were to end up in court, I would want to see a professional EMC lab
make the measurements.

Would Bob w2hj be one?

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

w3rv

Dick Carroll wrote:


No wonder the BPL people are confident of a win. None of this is
accidental.

Along with the high paying jobs they have probably offered those in the
FCC to push it through.