The Buzz Over BPL

said by zdnet user phoenix vi:

---

"Yes, I’m sure there are 600,000 licensed hams in the US, but only a small fraction of them are on HF bands. And as for their assistance in times of emergencies, they used to play a significant role but not anymore."

---

Wonder what planet that guy lives on?

IMHO HAM radio has been and always will play a very important role in times of emergency...

It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out...

- FM

said by FutureMon:

---

said by zdnet user phoenix vi:

---

"Yes, I’m sure there are 600,000 licensed hams in the US, but only a small fraction of them are on HF bands. And as for their assistance in times of emergencies, they used to play a significant role but not anymore."

---

Wonder what planet that guy lives on?

IMHO HAM radio has been and always will play a very important role in times of emergency...

It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out...

---

I notice he did not have the guts to attach his callsign (if he even has one) to his post.

Still, I have a gut feeling that the FCC, despite all of the negative comments, is going to approve BPL and we are going to have to live with it. Money talks and B$ walks and we are far outspent by the commercial interests.

Yes and if they (the FCC) does approve it before the NTIA gets done with their study, and they find that harmful interference does exist to their services, heads will roll at the FCC. The ITU is an even bigger (worldwide) governing body that already is voicing their concerns. So we hams who are so outspent are not alone in this. The big boys will do the rest. We did our part those that made comments on ECFS system. I'm not too worried - physics does not change for big dollar corporations.

said by w2co:

---

Yes and if they (the FCC) does approve it before the NTIA gets done with their study, and they find that harmful interference does exist to their services, heads will roll at the FCC. The ITU is an even bigger (worldwide) governing body that already is voicing their concerns. So we hams who are so outspent are not alone in this. The big boys will do the rest. We did our part those that made comments on ECFS system. I'm not too worried - physics does not change for big dollar corporations.

---

Well as to the ITU, It has no effect of Law here in the USA and It's not that important (It's only for Equipment makers and Users, here in the USA), The FCC on the Other hand does have US Laws backing It up and Therefore It has Real Legal Muscle. It's what benefits the Public Good the Most that counts and Todays Emergency Services have their own stand by Electrical Generators now, Unlike in years past when that wasn't always the case. So If BPL is approved, As HF Ham is for the FCC to decide who uses that part of the Radio Spectrum, HF Ham Users Don't like It? Too damn bad, Get a Life....

said by zoom3148:

---

Well as to the ITU, It has no effect of Law here in the USA and It's not that important (It's only for Equipment makers and Users, here in the USA), The FCC on the Other hand does have US Laws backing It up and Therefore It has Real Legal Muscle. It's what benefits the Public Good the Most that counts and Todays Emergency Services have their own stand by Electrical Generators now, Unlike in years past when that wasn't always the case. So If BPL is approved, As HF Ham is for the FCC to decide who uses that part of the Radio Spectrum, HF Ham Users Don't like It? Too damn bad, Get a Life....

---

Geesh, how uneducated you are.

The ITU also governs international communications. You think those aircraft frequencies are just for this country? Guess again. The area between 108Mhz-136MHZ AM is worldwide and governed by INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS! Same with the shortwave band that is currently in use by the entire world.

As for your comment of

said by zoom3148:

---

As HF Ham is for the FCC to decide who uses that part of the Radio Spectrum, HF Ham Users Don't like It? Too damn bad, Get a Life....

---

Again, you are wrong and ignorant. The rest of the world uses the same spectrum too.

Maybe you should stop with all you porn downloading and get your own life. Internet access is not life.

Thanks for your arguments moonpuppy. I was away for a day and could'nt defend myself. Yes sounds like the basic uneducated syndrome. Must be a superman spammer.

Well, unless the FCC decides to pull licenses I guess I'll just continue transmitting at 100 - 1500 watts into BPL. Sorry if that knocks out your BPL (it has in several experimental areas).

It will also be a real shame the next time you have a small fire at your house the fire company may have trouble finding it because they can't use their radios for communications with all the interference from BPL. You say you're in a more populated area where the fire co. can afford to buy the new 800 MHz radios. Glad to hear it. I guess you don't care about the more rural areas that can't afford the half a million dollars on a new communications system for their emergency services. You'll have your cheap high speed access and that's all that matters to you. Guess they'll just have to lose their lives.

Gene
KG4ENL

Gee if it's really an emergency, I would think things would be so bad that BPL is down anyway. Because if it is not down, then the power grid and internet is up, so we wouldn't need Ham at that point.

If this country or even an area is down so bad that electric and internet is dead, then we would have a whole lot more to worry about than talking to someone.

said by Ryno:

---

Gee if it's really an emergency, I would think things would be so bad that BPL is down anyway. Because if it is not down, then the power grid and internet is up, so we wouldn't need Ham at that point.

If this country or even an area is down so bad that electric and internet is dead, then we would have a whole lot more to worry about than talking to someone.

---

Need we go over this AGAIN?

No one is going to keep all that ham equipment if it can only be used in rare circumstances. Even if we did, if we can't use it, it's useless during an emergency. Furthermore, if only part of the grid is down (as usually happens), there will still be BPL in other areas interfering with things. After all, the idea is to talk to someone who has their infrastructure running. So the whole idea of "BPL won't work when the power is out so hams can still get to use their radios when the power is out" won't fly.

If I had a nickel for every time we've had to refute the same arguments over and over, I would be able to personally roll out FTTH nationwide.

To the rural areas first.

said by tenbase:

---

If I had a nickel for every time we've had to refute the same arguments over and over, I would be able to personally roll out FTTH nationwide.

To the rural areas first.

---

If topic = "BPL" then angry HAMS = TRUE
its always the same thing everytime a bpl story makes the news page. *yawn*.
-
by the way tenbase do you want my address so you can deploy that shiny new ftth to me?

Hey, if the topic is going to be continually brought up then we have no choice but to participate. Even though this particular thread contains new information it always ends up leading back to the same discussions. We are just as tired of repeating the same things over and over again as you are of hearing them. But we're not going away.

An MTRJ jack in every living room!

said by fifty nine:

---

Need we go over this AGAIN?

---

The only thing that is needed to go over is the fact that the Hams are outnumbered by the millions of potential BPL users. Maybe it's time this country stop letting a group who is in the minority bully millions in the majority. Too many cases the exact thing happens, it should stop now.

said by Ryno:

---

said by fifty nine:

---

Need we go over this AGAIN?

---

The only thing that is needed to go over is the fact that the Hams are outnumbered by the millions of potential BPL users. Maybe it's time this country stop letting a group who is in the minority bully millions in the majority. Too many cases the exact thing happens, it should stop now.

---

Spoken like someone who has no clue what HAM radio is all about. Hell I am not even a HAM operator myself, but I know people who are, and I am damn glad that I know them...because when the s--- hits the fan I know they'll be the first ones to know what the h-e-double-l is going on...

There are plenty of other "minorities" that are being bullied by large corporate interests. This really isn't any different - and based on your comment, sounds like they have a pretty good blind following in the name of technological advancement.

Don't get me wrong but HAM is IMHO a valued part of our nations infrastructure, and has major benefits concerning the security and safety of our nation. I for one am not ready to let that slide so some communities can have yet another option for broadband access so they or their kids can run Kazaa or whatever.

- FM

said by Ryno:

---

said by fifty nine:

---

Need we go over this AGAIN?

---

The only thing that is needed to go over is the fact that the Hams are outnumbered by the millions of potential BPL users. Maybe it's time this country stop letting a group who is in the minority bully millions in the majority. Too many cases the exact thing happens, it should stop now.

---

So are saying that if your house is in the way of a highway project, the state can take it away from you, pay you next to nothing for it so it can benefit thousands of commuters? It's called eminant domain. For the most part, you would have no say. And, judging by your response, you would be the first one banging on the state's door crying abot how unfair it is.

Fact is, HAM's are not the only ones going to be affected. Many other frequencies, under INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, would also be affected. Shortwave bands that are still in use around the world will also be affected.

Also, you are under this assumption that BPL will be pushed out to rural areas. Sorry, the first place it will hit will be the cities with the greatest penetration will occur. Rural areas will happen when they feel like it and only if there are enough subscribers that will make it worth their money. Why else won't cable and DSL providers go to the country?

Better be careful or one day, you might become the minority.

However, while it may be legal, it isn't always right.

Geesh, these trolls come out of no where. Do they inbreed or something?

said by moonpuppy:

---

Geesh, these trolls come out of no where. Do they inbreed or something?

---

Yes all the time when they know hey can get someone going... So goes the life of a troll

quote:

---

"Yes, I’m sure there are 600,000 licensed hams in the US, but only a small fraction of them are on HF bands. And as for their assistance in times of emergencies, they used to play a significant role but not anymore."

---

Thats the biggest bunch of horsesh!t I've read in awhile. Not anymore eh? Well, I'll be sure to stay home the day a tornado rips through that guys town and eats his house.

The quoted also is failing to remember the many other agencies on HF..not just us Hams.

I still wonder if an agreed upon medium could be found. BPL could prove to be invaluable if there was some way to work out the interference issues.

puritan

Just as I said before the ITU is against this, the NTIA is against it, who's next to kill this crap once and for all.
read on...

NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 9, 2003--A subcommittee of an International Telecommunication Union (ITU) panel of technical experts responsible for terrestrial broadcasting issues has joined a growing chorus of concern about the interference potential of power line telecommunication (PLT)--better known in the US as Broadband over Power Line (BPL). ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Sub Working Group (SWG) 6E1 expressed the view that interference produced by systems employing PLT as well as by Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) equipment and short-range devices, would compromise broadcast reception.

BPL would use low and medium-voltage lines like these to distribute broadband services.

"SWG 6E1 is of the opinion that any increase in the amount of noise due to these systems is unacceptable," said a statement from the group's chairman to the chairman of Working Party 6E (WP 6E). "In particular, broadcast services should be protected from unwanted emissions from PLT systems," the panel asserted, "as these emissions are a byproduct of a system that is not itself a user of the radio spectrum." The panel recommended the formation of a group representing all users of the radio spectrum "to coordinate development of limits to be imposed on the radiation from these systems."

WP 6E says it will continue to study the effects of PLT/BPL, ISM equipment and short-range devices on terrestrial broadcasting and send the results to ITU-R Working Party 1A, which is responsible for spectrum engineering techniques. WP 1A is scheduled to meet in Geneva October 30 to November 5.

ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, expressed strong support and appreciation for the SWG's conclusions and the ongoing efforts of parent Working Party 6E to study the issue. "Our studies have shown that the broadcasters' concerns are fully justified," Sumner said. "If BPL is a problem for broadcasters, it's easy to see that it would be a disaster for us," he added, noting that broadcasters' signal strengths typically far exceed those of radio amateurs.

Broadcasters themselves also have exhibited increased concern about the potential of PLT/BPL to prevent their signals from reaching listeners. The Research and Development branch of the highly regarded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has released a White Paper reporting on a brief trial in Scotland. The two competing PLT/BPL systems in operation in the town of Crieff both interfered with HF reception. Tests were conducted at four locations.

"The forms of access PLT that were tested in Crieff were found to have demonstrable potential to cause interference to indoor reception of broadcasting in relevant bands," the White Paper concluded. Before commercially licensing PLT, the report advised, regulators need to undertake further study of other PLT systems and, among other issues, look into possible ways to make the PLT systems compatible with radio reception.

At the first location, a residence, interference from a Main.Net modem was audible even on very strong broadcast signals. Reception was also significantly impaired at a neighbor's house as well as at various locations in the street between the residence and the substation serving it. This was despite the fact that the main distributor cable was underground.

The BBC engineers described the interference as varying between "'annoying' and a level sufficient to make the broadcast completely unintelligible."

At a retail shop where another Main.Net modem was in use, "reception of an apparently strong broadcast signal was badly impaired when the PLT modem was busy," the report said.

Ascom systems were in use at the other two locations. The BBC engineers observed interference to HF broadcasting signals despite the system designers' efforts to reduce emissions in the broadcasting bands.

Field strength measurements taken at three of the four locations showed PLT/BPL emissions far in excess--by as much as 50 dB--of various proposals for limits intended to restrict the degree of interference.

A report prepared by the Australian Communications Authority (ACA), Broadband Powerline Communications Systems--A Background Brief, concluded that "a potential risk to HF radiocommunications services from the widespread use of broadband powerline communications systems" appeared to exist. Citing BPL trials in the US, Europe and Asia, the ACA brief said, "The results of these trials have not alleviated concerns over the potential interference risk to radiocommunications."

They need to stick with DSL or internet over POTS at least these lines are somewhat shielded.

I can't even hear shortwave and I'm in the middle of no where. All the SKIP is interfering with my ability to hear radio.

I bet some of these powerline signals can be heard from 50 miles away.

said by Sarick:

---

They need to stick with DSL or internet over POTS at least these lines are somewhat shielded.

I can't even hear shortwave and I'm in the middle of no where. All the SKIP is interfering with my ability to hear radio.

I bet some of these powerline signals can be heard from 50 miles away.

---

BPL could be heard 1200 miles away. scary no?

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this.

If power line Internet is interfering with Ham radios why can't they use another frequency? I'm guessing most frequencies are being used somehow so someone will end up being screwed?

said by panth1:

---

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this.

If power line Internet is interfering with Ham radios why can't they use another frequency? I'm guessing most frequencies are being used somehow so someone will end up being screwed?

---

Are you asking: why hams can't use another frequency or why BPL can't use another frequency?
BPL is evil and will take out virtually ALL HF communications, not just hams.
You are guessing correctly about most frequencies being in use. The problem with frequency reuse is that BPL will prevent frequencies from being reused; hams reuse frequencies as a normal part of our operations. BPL will do nothing more than prevent ALL HF communications from occurring.

You have stepped into a steaming pile of controversy and I urge you to read all the comments and posts you can find here in this forum; you will find much on both sides of the coin: for and against.

Yea, I meant having the power line technology use another frequency but since all the unshielded wires would be like a giant transmitter it just wont be compatible.

It would seem this could be possible for underground systems that are shielded but would require remote terminals where they could combine the internet with the underground communities.

It does leave those with overhead out and probably not worth the cost to serve a small market.

said by panth1:

---

Yea, I meant having the power line technology use another frequency but since all the unshielded wires would be like a giant transmitter it just wont be compatible.

It would seem this could be possible for underground systems that are shielded but would require remote terminals where they could combine the internet with the underground communities.

It does leave those with overhead out and probably not worth the cost to serve a small market.

---

There is a newer proposition that uses microwave frequencies instead of HF. This *new* BPL would not trash the HF band and is therefor more widely accepted by the ham community. rf_engineer has expounded on this so I will not belabor his point. Besides, he makes long posts and if I tried to reproduce even one of them, I would do you a disservice. Suffice it to say that he has already made many great posts and educated many (myself included). Cheers.

They must not be listening to the bands during the times of national disasters or when bad weather approaches.

We are very active in Weather Watching in our community, we have some hams stationed at the Weather bureau, while we go out and do the spotting, we play a very significant role still.

Why do you think we are called the "silent fraternaty?"

ok, people b*tch about slow speeds and high prices, yet here is a technology that give us very high speeds for a decent price and people are b*tching. only in the US.

I am all phone Broadband over Powerlines, I think the technology is just incredible, they just need to find a way to not interfere with Hams, hams are and always have been the first to come forward when disaster strikes, we love technology, and we know how to operate without power should disaster strike.

No matter what they say this type of technology has never worked worth a flip when tried in the United States.

Also the people that own powerlines now days are Goldman Sachs, KKR and serveral other venture groups besides the power companies. The service would not be cheap and would not be free.

I wouldnt say who it is but the goofiest company we ever provided bandwith to was a power company for their wacky phone company. Strange group of folks with strange ideas on pricing.

Power companies and Investment banks/ VC's will kill this deal with the cost:)

Only in the US?

Go on an explain why other countries have banned the use of this wonderful technology.

-kc0qpf
doesn't affect me yet, but it will soon.

said by y2julio:

---

ok, people b*tch about slow speeds and high prices, yet here is a technology that give us very high speeds for a decent price and people are b*tching. only in the US.

---

The problem is that with that speed comes a non-monetary cost.

BPL is just a stopgap measure. The telcos need to roll out fiber. That's the real problem.

It's an interference problem within the entire HF radio spectrum. Ham radio is just ONE of many services using these frequencies.

This includes Marine radio, weather fax, marine shore communications, long-range emmergency radio, Army, navy and airforce communications etc. etc. etc... One can not crap up an entire communications medium for the sake of a few "broadband" internet users.

When BPL can demonstrate complience with FCC emmission standards, and can co-exist with existing services, I am sure it will fly; but its not there yet.

Captain Bob

If someone can't get DSL, that is one thing. There is a distance limitation and it is expensive to build out for added coverage.

If someone can't get Cable HSI, then they are not worth the investment! They are too sparse in population to justify the expense in building out for them. Some neighborhood are being upgraded to offer it, but if it is not even offered, probably nothing will ever come.

Now, if a cable company can't justify the expense of offering service to people in very remote locations...how in the world will they expect the Power Company to think differently? BPL will only service the same areas that already have service. Period!

I'd hate to see the DSL problems BPL will cause for customers! If a halogen lamp will knock a modem sync, what would 100,000Vac would do!?!

> When BPL can demonstrate complience with FCC emmission
> standards, and can co-exist with existing services, I am
> sure it will fly; but its not there yet.

From all indications, the BPL systems I visited meet the present FCC emissions limits, although the NTIA report may show otherwise. The problem is that the limits -- 30 uV/m at 30 meters from the source -- are high enough that harmful interference is likely. In the ARRL video, system #3 (Emmaus, PA, Main.net) and system #4 (Briarcliff Manor, NY, Ambient) appear to be approximately at the FCC limits, which is why the interference level is high.

Most devices regulated by Part 15 are local in nature, with a limited geographical interference potential. Only those in use at the time nearby receivers are in use can cause interference. Most Part-15 devices emit only on a few discrete frequencies at a time. I hear a neighbor's computer system, but most of the time, I can easily move frequency a bit and not have "harmful interference."

But even devices that have limited interference potential can cause interference. Look at the reply comment of ARINC in the FCC Notice of Inquiry (see »www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ ··· nks.html) and scroll down the page to the "Government" listings. They had interference from what appears to be a legal Part 15 device on 3.013 MHz and the FCC was unable to track it down to more than a neighborhood a mile away.

And that was from a few devices in individual homes, opeating on one frequency. Now, expand that to systems that operate on all frequencies simultaneously over several MHz and that will be build as large as entire communities.

It is not just amateur radio affected, but all of the international shortwave bands. Others have pointed out a wide range of uses for this spectrum other than amateur. I don't know about you, but I appreciate the fact that I can listen to the news broadcasts from other countries, to get a different perspective than I get from the major US networks. Is it worth that price? How about HF aeronautical communication? We already have an example from a similar carrier-current device. Radio astronomers use HF to monitor Jupiter. Is that worth affecting?

ARRL's information is at »www.arrl.org/bpl. The technical filings are sound and detailed and show the interference potential from BPL. ARRL's visits to BPL trial areas show that the interference potential is real and so far, every amateur who has visited the same areas has reached the same conclusion.

Amateur Radio has no objection to BPL; it is the severe interference that is the issue. The BPL industry claims that the interference does not exist. They continue to make such claims in spite of the technical evidence put before them. A spokesman for PPL, the utility that is involved in the Emmaus trial area, was quoted as saying that Carl Stevenson, WK3C, heard "a neon sign" in the Emmaus trial area. Though not related to his concerns about BPL, Carl serves as the chair of several IEEE working groups on spread spectrum and he knows the difference between neon signs and spread-spectrum signals as are found in Emmaus.

In my visit to the trial area, I worked with a local who is in the trial. When he downloaded a file, the radio made noise and when the download stopped, the noise stopped. When I drove around the trial area, when I left the area where we could see the couplers on the line, the noise slowly diminished, down to a dull roar after about 1000 feet along the lines and down after about 100-200 feet in areas where the lines stopped.

Go to the ARRL web page. Look at the information. Look at the video (it is worth downloading, even on a dialup) and decide whether losing the unique resource that is the international shortwave bands is worth the few MB/s of shared access that BPL may give to users.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

One of the major problems I see with BPL from an HF user's point of view is there is no a practical why of filtering it out of the spectrum. I suppose one could build a receiver with digital signal processing software that might be able to remove most of the interference, but the problem is any such radio would cost 100's of thousands of dollars each. it would be all but impossible to afford one. Also the government agency that use these frequency would have to upgrade and it would cost 100's of millions they don't have to do that..

Let see.. A new person move into a neborhood that everone there respect other users and live together. The new group makes more noize than a jet taking off! They exceds all legal standards in any way you measure things. They wont or could change.

Is it the orginal neighbour's job to try to filter or eject the noize maker? The answer is you eject them. Its not the people that were already there job except to remove the noize maker. They are legal while the new person is not and by the new group attiture wont or could change.

Give me fiber or give me death! *can I hear a yaaaay?*

Anyone who thinks that BPL will not be a problem has never noticed what a loose connection on a power line can do.
The noise can carry over long distances and be very hard to trace to the source. It is just like a long wire antenna, and it interferes over a very large bandwidth. I can not understand how BPL can be interference free, or how it will just bother hams.

I agree. Add the problem with noizy power lines causes by dirty connections and some times acting like a re-transmitter combine with BPL will be the biggest mess ever seen. If people thing that just 2 through 80 will be affected are kidding themselves. Any engineer with any sense would die of fright when presented with this.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-14 01:41:51]

Money...money; will bias the minds of many greedy people to not see what they really should know. sad

I truly think this has potential.

It’s 4am, there is a dink, dink, dink, the cooling system on your refer just went out. This is not good because you own a catering company, you have a once in a life time party that will make or break you. You have $10,000 in perishable foods.

If you’re lucky one of your employees will notice that it’s not as cold as it should be in the refer before the temperature gets too high.

Well this doesn’t have to be a problem. Sooner or later smart appliances will have the ability to monitor themselves, and send basic diagnostic logs back to the manufactures for they can see how well everything is working and send problem reports.

Power line internet is a perfect choice for such data. It eliminates the need for placing a phone line near the appliance. Simply plug in the refer and program it and you can send data directly to the manufacturer.

Ok so why would this be a good idea? If the manufacturer or the persons responsible for warranty work know when a problem is starting to occur, they can order the part, schedule an appointment and fix the appliance all in one trip. Currently it takes at least two trips to fix an appliance. (Well 99.9% of the time) Think of the cost savings. Not only would there be savings in labor but in food replacement cost if the warranty covers that.

Well it’s just a thought…

BPL could be a possible nightmare for cable companies that offer HSD. If BPL was activated in a franchise area with cable modems, it could possibly interfere with upstream transmissions from cable modems in the home. Guess what upstream frequencies they use? Same frequencies that BPL would use! Ever wonder how cable tv systems are powered? From power supplies mounted on poles or pedestals which get their a/c supply from the power companies. Add BPL to those power supplies? Could get interesting.

Yes, catv systems are suppose to be closed systems, but with the terminal isolation spec's at the tap, and isolation at the power supplies, along with loose fittings and cracked hardline that can occur at any time, I can't see how they can keep out BPL from being introduced in some way or another. Around here, when HSD breaks down, the local cable company blames a ham radio operator in or near the node. Add BPL? There goes the neighborhood and your HSD service. The cable industry must be against this.

Well, living in a rual area of PA in the poconos and having one cable company that has a virtual lock on ISP access for broadband and is slowly deploying it and verizon who is dragging their heels on deploying DSL to all that new fiber and slic's they have installed over the past 4 years I have some issues with those against IPoPL [thats what PPL calls it, IP over PowerLine]. They ran two tests networks for $29 a month in the allentown pa area. One method used WAPS from the tranformers and the other used a box to pass the signal directly into wall mounted modems. I worked in that area maintaining systems for customers and never once noticed ANY interference of ANY kind on either my am/fm car radio or any of the customers who have cable and are running CNN for customers in waiting rooms. I for one truly hope they deploy it and quickly. After I read of the first tests I thought it would be the cable and telcos that would start the propaganda pushers but aparently there are alot of others that want to prevent progress too. Just an opinion from someone who has had to live with a 56K dialup till verizon installed all that new fiber and dragged all the dialup users down to 26.4K and yes, I'm ticked off about it. I want to see so much competetion for providing broadband service that it cleans the cable and telcos clocks. I want to see at least as many broadband suppliers as there are long distance providers.

I am among the many that have gone from the "neutral" camp to the "no way to BPL" camp over the last three months. And am wondering how many are amazed that the BPL horse has not been declared dead yet. Perhaps bbr is running out of better stories and bpl still catches the attention.

It remains scary to hear that some FCC commissionners still think the horse might kick again. I would guess they have never gone through a "let's scale this up" before. Going ahead with BPL reminds me more of the Iraq quagmire that the weaponry peddlers got us in rather than the Baghdad Bob denial case eluded to by the ARRL: once you are in, you just can't get out, things get uglier and somebody must still foot the bill and send more weapons in, never mind cleaning up or rebuilding what was there before as this can be done by others.

Maybe some people will make some doe or unload it if the BPL horse is not soon declared dead, but many mortals will get shafted with the bill in the name of democracy and other very noble goals, such as broadband to people that feed us in this case.

If the real objective of the FCC NOI was to investigate how to deploy broadband to the rurals, there has got to be far better ways than redefining part 15 for spread spectrum unshielded cable technologies. Telcos&cablecos can definitely be given some healthy competition without creating an environmental RF nightmare. Wired technologies seem to make no sense and the FCC would be better off managing the spectrum allocation, reallocate a good chunk for rural broadband needs (i.e. nothing above 900 MHz) where cell density makes the cost of the deployment too high (aka lesson of 3G deployment flop), pick a suitable standard and let the market work the rest. Doing this at 5 GHz makes no sense either (except for some peddlers of 5 GHz hardware).

In any event, BPL was definitely not the way to deliver broadband to rurals. I look forward to the official calling of BPL as a dead horse. It is suprising that the FCC has to wait until year end to do so. I am hopeful that the BPL friends of the FCC will fully get caught with their pants down before the next FCC wheel steer toward rural broadband delivery. The dead horse will just be harder to bury in the mist of winter and further delay broadband deployment to rurals. BTW, we can do the dead horse burial here on the wet coast.

It's probably good to focus on DSL and Cable now and expanding those services, we have enough problems with the Power-line world as it is, I can see when we "re-do the power-line grid" maybe letting that also include Broadband, but DSL and Cable would probably be easier to continue to expand. I feel there is already enough problems with Power lines, lets fix that then worry about extra features on them.

The Ham radio operators will not be the only one's affected
The Civil Air Patrol - United States Air Force Auxiliary
And The Military Amature Radio Service Both use the Two meter band of the Ham spectrum and the also use the more affected upper and lower sidebands of shortwave .
The CAP provides Air Search and Rescue for CONUS (Continental U.S)They use these bands to provide coordination between Air Crews and Ground Teams mission bases and support crews.
If BPL disrupts their communication it could literally lead to loss of life . The CAP is all volunteer they provide their own radio equiptment at the cost of the individual Officer or enlisted personnel. These people come from all walks of life and do not necessarily have the means to spend thousands of dollars replacing critical equiptment; As CAP members are UNPAID volunteers who sometime must loose several days pay from their regular employers to help in their Humanitarian efforts. I would like to see us give these folk a little consideration .

John C Carlsen
Cpt. CAP-USAF-Aux (ret)