The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 25
June 18, 2004
[The ARRL has weighed in on behalf of Iowa amateur and ARRL member Jim
Spencer, W0SR, of Cedar Rapids, who has suffered severe broadband over
power line (BPL) interference for more than two months. A formal complaint
to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon calls on the Commission
not only to order Alliant Energy's BPL field trial system to shut down but
to fine the utility $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934
and FCC Part 15 rules. Alleging "ongoing harmful and willful interference
to one or more licensed radio stations," the ARRL asked Solomon to
intervene "on an emergency basis." ]


http://www.uplc.utc.org/index.v3page?p=44489

http://www.uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0...der/33324/UPLC
%20Comments%205_3_2004.pdf

Power companies are in full denial! (Just saying it doesn't make it true.)
If you believe what's being said by UPLC, I have some great land to sell you
in Florida, and a wonderful bridge investment in New York. (When did the BPL
interference spectrum drop to 1.7 MHz ??)

ak

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE UPLC
STORY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY
The UPLC generally supports the FCC's initiative to develop rules that will
support the deployment of broadband over power line systems that will help
achieve President Bush's goal of universal affordable broadband access by
2007.1 The President supports the development of technical standards for BPL
towards that goal.2 Utilities and technology providers are poised to meet
this ambitious goal and the UPLC appreciates the strong support of the FCC
in its BPL proceedings.

The UPLC believes that the definition of Access BPL is potentially
over-inclusive and should be slightly revised. The UPLC supports the
proposal to retain the existing emission limits at the present time,
recognizing that the FCC is proceeding cautiously, even though it has found
that the interference potential from BPL is low.

Before the Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power
Line Systems
ET Docket No. 03-104
ET Docket No. 04-37
Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement guidelines
for Access Broadband over Power Lines Systems
COMMENTS OF THE UNITED POWER LINE COUNCIL

Pursuant to Section 1.415 of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
Rules, the United Power Line Council ("UPLC") hereby submits its comments in
response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the above referenced
proceeding.3 The UPLC supports the proposal to retain the existing emission
limits at this time, and suggests only slight changes to the operational
limits proposed for Access BPL systems, as well as the proposed definition
of Access BPL. Finally, the UPLC supports the proposed measurement
guidelines, which will produce consistent and repeatable results that
demonstrate compliance with the Part 15 rules. The UPLC heartily thanks the
FCC for its support in developing these rules, which strike a very
conservative and pragmatic.

.. . . .

The UPLC is dismayed by the misinformation accepted as gospel by opponents
of Access BPL systems. Despite apocalyptic predictions that "BPL is a
Pandora's box of unprecedented proportions", the UPLC agrees with the FCC
that Access BPL devices will not cause the power lines to "act as countless
miles of transmission lines all radiating RF energy along their full
length."6 These opponents have produced no scientific evidence to show
otherwise, and all the measurements in the field contradict their abstract
calculations. The industry continues to test and to address these concerns
with licensees in areas where systems have been deployed, but there needs to
be a rule of reason when it comes to allegations of BPL interference, and
the UPLC applauds the FCC for making that message clear in this proceeding.

Definition of Access BPL
The proposed definition of Access BPL systems should be narrowly tailored to
apply only to systems used to provide broadband access to the customer
premises. As such, the UPLC recommends this slightly revised version of the
FCC's language in the NPRM: Access Broadband over power line (Access BPL): A
carrier current system that transmits high frequency (1.7 MHz) radio
frequency energy by conduction over electric power lines owned, operated, or
controlled by an electric service provider for the purpose of delivering
broadband data services. The electric power lines may be aerial or
underground, but do not include power lines within the customer premises or
in riser conduit within buildings. Access BPL does not include power line
carrier systems, as defined in Section 15.113 of the Commission's rules.

.. . . .

King Zulu wrote:

The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 25
June 18, 2004
[The ARRL has weighed in on behalf of Iowa amateur and ARRL member Jim
Spencer, W0SR, of Cedar Rapids, who has suffered severe broadband over
power line (BPL) interference for more than two months. A formal complaint
to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon calls on the Commission
not only to order Alliant Energy's BPL field trial system to shut down but
to fine the utility $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934
and FCC Part 15 rules. Alleging "ongoing harmful and willful interference
to one or more licensed radio stations," the ARRL asked Solomon to
intervene "on an emergency basis." ]



Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and
shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet
they don't?

In article , JJ
writes:

Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and
shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet
they don't?

No.

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be able to
compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , JJ
writes:

Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and
shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet
they don't?

No.

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be
able to
compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will work
for the people,
not the rich corporations!

http://k0bkl.org/bpl.htm

John Anderson K0BKL

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be
able to
compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will work
for the people,
not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry? A guy who sat side-by-side with
this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?!

Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give
aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!

George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human
Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral
conviction and honesty. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a
travesty and would send the wrong message to the World.

This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.

Steve, K4YZ

Yes,

We got rid of Nixon. Now we need to dump Bush.

Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/04

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?

A guy who sat side-by-side with
this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?!

When did John Kerry sit side-by-side with Hanoi Jane?

And if such proximity disqualifies someone, how about Donald Rumsfeld shaking
hands with, and warmly greeting, Saddam Hussein? How about the blind eye the
Reagan Administration turned to SH's chemical warfare against the Kurds?

Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give
aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with
them...?!?!

Hanoi Jane's treasonous actions (not just words) are well documented (see
www.snopes.com).

What actions of John Kerry do you refer to? He's a decorated veteran who served
in Vietnam, then came back to the USA and opposed that war.

Was he wrong to follow his conscience in doing so? Is anyone who speaks out
against a war - any war - automatically wrong?

Consider this, Steve: During WW2, FDR (a Democrat) ran for reelection in 1944,
in the middle of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen - or
hopefully ever will see. Yet the Republicans nominated someone to run against
him. Was that giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in
conflict with them...?!?!"

Or how about when Richard Nixon (a Republican) ran for reelection in 1972,
during the very war Mr. Kerry fought in. Mr. Nixon had won in 1968, in part on
a platform that involved a "secret plan to end the war" - which was still going
on 4 years later. The Democrats nominated George McGovern to run against him.
Were either the 1968 or1972 campaigns giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's
foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!"

George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human
Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral
conviction and honesty.

How do you know?

He told us that SH had weapons of mass destruction. He told us that there were
solid links between the 9-11 terrorism organizations and SH's regime. Yet up to
now *no* credible evidence has been provided to back up those claims - in fact,
just the opposite has surfaced.

This doesn't mean Mr. Bush is dishonest. He may have just been mistaken or
misled.

Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a
travesty and would send the wrong message to the World.

What message do you wish to send? That the USA will back its leaders no matter
what? That the supply of oil is so important that we will look the other way
while our suppliers do almost anything?

This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.

There's no shortage of those - on either side of the aisle.

I'm not saying Mr. K is any better or worse than Mr. B. What I *am* saying is
that blind acceptance of any leader's pronouncements leads to trouble. And that
condemning someone because of who they allegedly sat next to 30 years ago would
lead to a lot of people being condemned...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:



Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will work
for the people,
not the rich corporations!



And replace him with who? John Kerry? A guy who sat side-by-side with
this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?!

Did he? Heard that that photo was fake. And it's not like he was
touring Hanoi with her.
For all we know, Jane might have been a CIA spy.


Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give
aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!

Vietnam was a stupid war. Now if we had a goal and a strategy that made
any sense, maybe we
could have achieved something...


George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human
Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral
conviction and honesty. Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a
travesty and would send the wrong message to the World.

Problem is that he's trying to skip over that "separation of church and
state" thing.


This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.


But the economy wasn't in the toilet. I didn't care if Bill got a BJ or
not. But he should
have owned up to it in that court of law. "Okay, I did it. You happy
now? Don't
we have more important things to spend time on?" After a month it would
have
blown over...

Why does GW still claim that Saddam aided Al Queda? Or is it that
Saddam didn't
tell the USA ambassador in Bagdad (or elsewhere) that "Al Queda is
planning an
attack on you guys and I kicked them out of my palace"? Not telling the
cops
about someone hatching a crime conspiracy is illegal.

This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.

The supreme court appointed the current lying, deceiving creep, despite the
fact we did not elect him.

In article qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54, "John Anderson"
writes:

http://k0bkl.org/bpl.htm

John Anderson K0BKL

I will take a look...

Interesting thing about that name "John Anderson" - reminded me of the 3rd
party candidate who helped defeat Carter in 1980.

One of the biggest reasons we got 8 years of Bill Clinton is that Ross Perot
divided the anti-Clinton voters. And he did the the same trick twice!

Then in 2000, the shoe was on the other foot. Ralph Nader, the latter-day
Harold Stassen, divided the anti-Bush voters enough so that Algore didn't win.
(Exit polls of Nader voters showed that if Nader had dropped out of the race,
about half of his support would have gone to Gore, a quarter to Bush and the
rest would have either stayed home or voted for other 3rd party candidates.)
The difference was enough that close states like Florida would have not been
close at all. Gore would have won decisively.

So we have the amazing irony that the author of "Unsafe At Any Speed" and
lifelong critic of Big Business was the key factor in putting a Texas oilman in
the White House.

And he may do the same trick again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

So we had the