> From http://www.redwaveradio.com/
> "The League also noted that comments in the proceeding so far have
> been silent on the interference susceptibility of BPL to ham radio
> signal ingress. The League predicted that even as little as 250 mW of
> signal induced into overhead power lines some 100 feet from an amateur
> antenna could degrade a BPL system or render it inoperative."
> I realize that this is not the statement about actual tests run by the
> BPL people which you'd like to see, they haven't published *any* test
> results at all, but the League technical guys are pretty sharp and I
> doubt they'd make a statement like this if that didn't have a good
> basis for making it.
Thanks. I do think interference is going to be a real problem for BPL
performance, but ham radio interference will be a very small part of that.
I suspect household devices will be far more significant. I wouldn't expect
the ARRL to be in a position to test for that, at least in the demo phase.
But can be a problem for radio hobbyists if the BPL companies decide to
improve thier signal to noise ratio by boosting thier signal. If they do
this after they establish BPL service, they can legitimately claim (after
they're caught, of course) they are doing it as a service to all their rural
voting customers. If this turns into a numbers game between large number of
established BPL customers and radio hobbyists, the Part 15 rules may become
And if the BPL people don't share their results on how well thier system
fares under common everyday line noise, well, it might be a admission by
> Heh. Yeah, the recent grid debacle is not setting a very good stage
> for a huggy kissy relationship between the BPL types and *anybody*
> else including the FCC. I've seen some economic analyses of BPL and
> from the standpoint of an investor BPL is a big go-nowhere dud.
Almost everybody agrees it's goofy. But it's still around, not because it's
technolgically elegant, but because it is seen to fill a need. Maybe a
couple of needs. It promises high speed internet access for what would
otherwise be higher cost customers. And it might provide a revenue stream
for electric utilities who need to upgrade thier service.
Politicians have a choice. Give the BPL thing a shot, or think about
letting 'em raise rates right now.
> That's quite true. But we can't hear HF listeners and we can't
> normally tune some modes but they're out there and apparently in
> profusion. We almost didn't get any 60M band at all because certain
> feds didn't want hams on "their HF frequencies". I dunno who they are,
> those freqs appear dead when ya tune around. But they're there. FBI,
> CIA, NSA, FCC, the military?
Some of the old utility frequencies near the SW band edges have gone to the
US domestics. But your point is correct. The Feds are holding onto alot of
spectrum. What are they doing with it? Dunno. What do they do with the
vast tracts of federal land? Mostly nothin', it seems. How many
> From a post I launched in RRAP on 8 Feb 2000:
> - - - - -
> >and that HF is for recreation, period.
> "PRECISELY: If I had my druthers I'd have the regulation of HF ham
> radio moved over to the National Park Service and let the geeks***
> around with the FCC."
> - - - - -
Sometimes I wonder how many more creative people would use amatuer
radio if amatuer radio could be used in more creative ways. As an
example, Reggie Fessenden played his violin on the first non code
broadcast. Might Blendor inventor Fred Waring have put on a radio
show on his own homebrew transmitter? It's not inconcievable. I've
read that Bo Diddley made his own guitars and amps. Imagine how
many more radio hobbyists there would be now, if Bo was slamming
the strings on SW radio 30 years ago. I'm sure plenty of people
would love to hear Joe Walsh do the same thing today.
If radio were open to the public, there would be thousands more
people who give a damn about radio. And any politican will desire
the support of thousands who give a damn every bit as much as
he desires a snappy wardrobe and a full head of hair.