Is anyone else embarrassed by the 'public sound and fury' antics of ARRL
in response to the BPL threat? Below is part of some correspondence I
sent to my Division Director. If you feel it's time for more sound
science and less hand-wringing, you should let YOUR Director know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jay,

I understand all the arguments against BPL rollout and I agree with 98%
of them. I also agreee that ARRL ought to mount the strongest possible
technical rebuttal to relaxation of Part 15 rules. To that end the work
of Ed Hare, et.al. is dead on target. I personally authorize you to
double the amount of my dues to support sound science-based work which
generates a technically convincing rebuttal to Michael Powell and his
minions.

But this amateurish "whipping up the troops to write letters to the
White House" and similar tactics are embarrassing. The typical ham (I'm
sorry to report) hasn't the technical accumen to make any sort of
persuasive case against BPL, so their protests take on the whining tone
of "you can't do this to us because we do all this good stuff on HF.".

As someone with a lot of professional contacts in the wireless industry,
I can tell you that our public and regulatory image is on a swift
decline. We are increasing viewed as technically naive kneejerk
obstructionists. For every Ed Hare doing good technical investigation
and writing convincing counter arguments, there are thousands of
clueless emotional emails and letters irresponsibly stoked up by Dave
Sumner editorials. The valuable and responsible work of Ed Hare gets
lost in the "noise and fury".

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
Is anyone else embarrassed by the 'public sound and fury' antics of ARRL
in response to the BPL threat? Below is part of some correspondence I
sent to my Division Director. If you feel it's time for more sound
science and less hand-wringing, you should let YOUR Director know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jay,

I understand all the arguments against BPL rollout and I agree with 98%
of them. I also agreee that ARRL ought to mount the strongest possible
technical rebuttal to relaxation of Part 15 rules. To that end the work
of Ed Hare, et.al. is dead on target. I personally authorize you to
double the amount of my dues to support sound science-based work which
generates a technically convincing rebuttal to Michael Powell and his
minions.

But this amateurish "whipping up the troops to write letters to the
White House" and similar tactics are embarrassing. The typical ham (I'm
sorry to report) hasn't the technical accumen to make any sort of
persuasive case against BPL, so their protests take on the whining tone
of "you can't do this to us because we do all this good stuff on HF.".

As someone with a lot of professional contacts in the wireless industry,
I can tell you that our public and regulatory image is on a swift
decline. We are increasing viewed as technically naive kneejerk
obstructionists. For every Ed Hare doing good technical investigation
and writing convincing counter arguments, there are thousands of
clueless emotional emails and letters irresponsibly stoked up by Dave
Sumner editorials. The valuable and responsible work of Ed Hare gets
lost in the "noise and fury".


Hey Hans,

Once upon a time, in my naivety, I thought a good sound technical
rebuttal of BPL would be sufficient to sway the regulators. After all,
it is so technically awful that it *should* be easy to convince an
intelligent person without much difficulty that it is a loser
technology. Certainly other countries around the world have agreed it is
such.

My old opinion can be googled up here. But times have changed.

I think the decision was made a long time ago based on other than
technical reasons, and BPL *will* be rolled out, and I don't think there
is one thing that we can do about it, save for the ballot box.

BPL is going to happen! All money spent fighting it, all letters to
representatives, all comments to the FCC and all the hand wringing is
100 percent useless.

I am pegging my hopes on BPL being the failure that it will inevitably
be. The utilities will run the fibers, start running the BPL portion of
the lines, and after they find out how many of their transformers are
putting out trash that interferes with the digital signal,( check the
FCC actions on arrl.org to see how good the utilities are at replacing
noisy transformers) and after the BPL users figure out that cable is
faster and DSL is more reliable anyhow, BPL will become the 8 track of
the internet.

Then what will happen is that they will step back, take a look, and
figure out that they already have 95 percent of the job finished. The
fiber is almost to the houses! simply run it the rest of the way, and
LIB! decent speed internet connections! If the ill educated consumers at
the other end want to they can go wireless, so they don't even have to
connect their machines to a outlet in the wall.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hello, Hans

I've about made my mind up that it isn't going to be the hams that stop this
mess.

Of course, there are other users of low band VHF who may raise a stink
(especially once it gives them a problem). I am chuckling over one thought,
however. Yes, the BPL industry *claims* that they can put bandpass filters
on and largely eliminate nearby interference in a given band (such as
amateur bands).

I do have on question. Has anyone else in this group worked in an emc lab?
Especially an Open Air Test Site? I have. They are going to have to have
one pretty wide *clean* band to be able to test for regulatory compliance.
A band that will stretch from well below 10 meters up past our 900 MHz band.
They cannot test from inside an anechoic chamber; it must be an open air
site. I have seen a number of times that the ambient noise levels were too
high to allow testing. I can only imagine what happens if BPL gets pumped
through the power lines (street power is, perhaps, 200 feet away).
Hopefully, everyone understands that every new product utilizing rf (or even
digital signals above - I don't remember exactly - something like 10 kHz)
has to be tested for unwanted rf radiation if it is to be sold in the United
States (oh, and Europe, Canada, etc. etc.) Also, devices in current
production also have samples pulled from production lines and tested
periodically. Kinda hard if BPL is nearby.

Once the problem is finally figured out by the lawyers, the next problem is
who will reimburse the power companies if they then disallow BPL (word to
the wise: hang on tight to your wallet - us taxpayers to the rescue, once
again LOL).

As for technical acumen, the current state of affairs is such that even if
you really don't even know the difference between positive and negative, you
may well pass the exams for an amateur radio license.


Just my ramblings - but, still, hang on to your wallet.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...
Is anyone else embarrassed by the 'public sound and fury' antics of ARRL
in response to the BPL threat? Below is part of some correspondence I
sent to my Division Director. If you feel it's time for more sound
science and less hand-wringing, you should let YOUR Director know.

snip
The valuable and responsible work of Ed Hare gets
lost in the "noise and fury".

73, de Hans, K0HB




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.689 / Virus Database: 450 - Release Date: 5/21/04

"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...
Is anyone else embarrassed by the 'public sound and fury' antics of ARRL
in response to the BPL threat? Below is part of some correspondence I
sent to my Division Director. If you feel it's time for more sound
science and less hand-wringing, you should let YOUR Director know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jay,

I understand all the arguments against BPL rollout and I agree with 98%
of them. I also agreee that ARRL ought to mount the strongest possible
technical rebuttal to relaxation of Part 15 rules. To that end the work
of Ed Hare, et.al. is dead on target. I personally authorize you to
double the amount of my dues to support sound science-based work which
generates a technically convincing rebuttal to Michael Powell and his
minions.

But this amateurish "whipping up the troops to write letters to the
White House" and similar tactics are embarrassing. The typical ham (I'm
sorry to report) hasn't the technical accumen to make any sort of
persuasive case against BPL, so their protests take on the whining tone
of "you can't do this to us because we do all this good stuff on HF.".

As someone with a lot of professional contacts in the wireless industry,
I can tell you that our public and regulatory image is on a swift
decline. We are increasing viewed as technically naive kneejerk
obstructionists. For every Ed Hare doing good technical investigation
and writing convincing counter arguments, there are thousands of
clueless emotional emails and letters irresponsibly stoked up by Dave
Sumner editorials. The valuable and responsible work of Ed Hare gets
lost in the "noise and fury".

73, de Hans, K0HB



Just a minute here Hans. Several of the Alabama hams, including myself,
have sent letters off to our various state and federal congressmen and
women, also to the public utilities that may be involved.

Our replies from these people have been quite complimentary and indicate we
are taken seriously.

I think you are dead wrong on this one Hans.

Dan/W4NTI

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
Is anyone else embarrassed by the 'public sound and fury' antics of ARRL
in response to the BPL threat? Below is part of some correspondence I
sent to my Division Director. If you feel it's time for more sound
science and less hand-wringing, you should let YOUR Director know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jay,

I understand all the arguments against BPL rollout and I agree with 98%
of them. I also agreee that ARRL ought to mount the strongest possible
technical rebuttal to relaxation of Part 15 rules. To that end the work
of Ed Hare, et.al. is dead on target. I personally authorize you to
double the amount of my dues to support sound science-based work which
generates a technically convincing rebuttal to Michael Powell and his
minions.

But this amateurish "whipping up the troops to write letters to the
White House" and similar tactics are embarrassing. The typical ham (I'm
sorry to report) hasn't the technical accumen to make any sort of
persuasive case against BPL, so their protests take on the whining tone
of "you can't do this to us because we do all this good stuff on HF.".

As someone with a lot of professional contacts in the wireless industry,
I can tell you that our public and regulatory image is on a swift
decline. We are increasing viewed as technically naive kneejerk
obstructionists. For every Ed Hare doing good technical investigation
and writing convincing counter arguments, there are thousands of
clueless emotional emails and letters irresponsibly stoked up by Dave
Sumner editorials. The valuable and responsible work of Ed Hare gets
lost in the "noise and fury".


Hey Hans,

Once upon a time, in my naivety, I thought a good sound technical
rebuttal of BPL would be sufficient to sway the regulators. After all,
it is so technically awful that it *should* be easy to convince an
intelligent person without much difficulty that it is a loser
technology. Certainly other countries around the world have agreed it is
such.

My old opinion can be googled up here. But times have changed.

I think the decision was made a long time ago based on other than
technical reasons, and BPL *will* be rolled out, and I don't think there
is one thing that we can do about it, save for the ballot box.

BPL is going to happen! All money spent fighting it, all letters to
representatives, all comments to the FCC and all the hand wringing is
100 percent useless.

I am pegging my hopes on BPL being the failure that it will inevitably
be. The utilities will run the fibers, start running the BPL portion of
the lines, and after they find out how many of their transformers are
putting out trash that interferes with the digital signal,( check the
FCC actions on arrl.org to see how good the utilities are at replacing
noisy transformers) and after the BPL users figure out that cable is
faster and DSL is more reliable anyhow, BPL will become the 8 track of
the internet.

Then what will happen is that they will step back, take a look, and
figure out that they already have 95 percent of the job finished. The
fiber is almost to the houses! simply run it the rest of the way, and
LIB! decent speed internet connections! If the ill educated consumers at
the other end want to they can go wireless, so they don't even have to
connect their machines to a outlet in the wall.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I hope you are right here Mike. And I think you are. It only took Alabama
power 5 years to clean up my 30 some sources of noise in my immediate
neighborhood. This is going to get interesting when I trash their BPL
signals.

Dan/W4NTI

In article .net, Dan/W4NTI
says...

It only took Alabama
power 5 years to clean up my 30 some sources of noise in my immediate
neighborhood. This is going to get interesting when I trash their BPL
signals.

Dan/W4NTI


An Alabama State trooper pulls over Dan on I-20. He says to him, "Got any ID?"

Dan says, "Bout what?"

In article t,
"KØHB" writes:

Is anyone else embarrassed by the 'public sound and fury' antics of
ARRL
in response to the BPL threat?

I'm not, Hans.

What would you have ARRL do?

So far, there have been QST and website articles on BPL, detailed
comments that included actual observations as well as serious models
and simulations, and W1RFI doing a first-class presentation to amateur
and industry groups. (I got to see it here in Philly). Also suggested
letters and emails, etc.

In addition, ARRL has been banging the drum for well thought out and
well written comments and other feedback.

Most hams don't have the resources to make actual measurements or
simulations of something like BPL. That's one reson we need a strong
national organization like ARRL.

Would you rather they keep quiet? Tell hams not to comment?

What's really embarrassing is that any "professional in
radio-electronics" - in any engineering or regulatory capacity - would
even consider an HF-VHF based BPL-type system.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article t,
"KØHB" writes:

Is anyone else embarrassed by the 'public sound and fury' antics of
ARRL
in response to the BPL threat?

I'm not, Hans.

What would you have ARRL do?

So far, there have been QST and website articles on BPL, detailed
comments that included actual observations as well as serious models
and simulations, and W1RFI doing a first-class presentation to amateur
and industry groups. (I got to see it here in Philly). Also suggested
letters and emails, etc.

In addition, ARRL has been banging the drum for well thought out and
well written comments and other feedback.

Most hams don't have the resources to make actual measurements or
simulations of something like BPL. That's one reson we need a strong
national organization like ARRL.

Would you rather they keep quiet? Tell hams not to comment?

What's really embarrassing is that any "professional in
radio-electronics" - in any engineering or regulatory capacity - would
even consider an HF-VHF based BPL-type system.

I'm not embarrassed by the League's actions in the least. It would
serve us well if each radio amateur were to draft letters to his
congressman and senators. These folks do pay attention to their
constituents. This type of letter writing campaign is what put the heat
on Michael Powell over the proposed radio-TV station ownership changes.
Those in the Congress don't understand BPL but they understand all about
votes.

Dave K8MN