September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9527] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Art Goddard 27 Sep '03

27 Sep '03

And we thought you turned your left ear towards us to show off your diamond stud. Fooled again... 73, Art ----- Original Message ----- From: <K5ur(a)aol.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:41 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9526] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL > In a message dated 9/26/2003 6:53:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > > > To a real quiet location, W8JI?, they would probably be > > about +10db > > Pooie! > > Real world? come out here to 5 land and try that on 160, where W8JI hangs. Heck, I'm deaf in my right ear because of trying to pull new ones out of the noise floor on 80/160 for 35 years as it is. (Hey, ever wonder why I always turn my left ear, my good one, towards you? And ya'll just thought Bellows and I liked each other). Anyway, seriously, the problem is compounded from the perspective of comparing problems with the EAST coast versus the true world of K5UR and W0CP noise floors, and that is scary. > > 73, > K5UR... deaf in one ear >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9526] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by K5ur＠aol.com 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

In a message dated 9/26/2003 6:53:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > To a real quiet location, W8JI?, they would probably be > about +10db Pooie! Real world? come out here to 5 land and try that on 160, where W8JI hangs. Heck, I'm deaf in my right ear because of trying to pull new ones out of the noise floor on 80/160 for 35 years as it is. (Hey, ever wonder why I always turn my left ear, my good one, towards you? And ya'll just thought Bellows and I liked each other). Anyway, seriously, the problem is compounded from the perspective of comparing problems with the EAST coast versus the true world of K5UR and W0CP noise floors, and that is scary. 73, K5UR... deaf in one ear

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9525] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Tom Frenaye 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

At 05:53 PM 9/26/2003, W0CP wrote: > >Most of the discussion so far has centered on the adverse effects of BPL on nearby hams. Is there also a possibility that this system would appropriate the HF spectrum worldwide? > >Put another way, what is the potential for BPL signals to propagate via ionospheric skip? Here's Ed Hare's response to a similar question from me: -- Tom >Subject: RE: propagation? >Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:19:42 -0400 >From: "Hare,Ed, W1RFI" <w1rfi(a)arrl.org> >To: "Frenaye, Tom (Dir, NE)" <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> >Cc: "Imlay, Chris" <w3kd(a)arrl.org> > >Depends what math you use. :-) At the FCC limits, 10,000 devices in Baltimore would be just about at the noise floor of a typical residential environment in Atlanta. To a real quiet location, W8JI?, they would probably be about +10 dB. > >But if, as I suspect, these things are really about 20 dB over the FCC limit skyward, then this ratchets up quite a bit. And of you get 100,000 devices 20 dB over the limits, it will start to get ugly fast. > >I am waiting, however, for the NTIA data on actual measurements. I think I have them flagged to look at greater heights than the lines, possibly with some terraine help. If we get data from then, I can then run the total power level through some VOACAP and maybe have another nail for the coffin. I would rather use NTIA data than anything I might develop because it will be less suspect by the FCC and harder for the industry to refute. > > >73, >Ed Hare, W1RFI >ARRL Lab >225 Main St >Newington, CT 06111 >Tel: 860-594-0318 >Internet: w1rfi(a)arrl.org >Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frenaye, Tom (Dir, NE) >> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:49 PM >> To: Hare,Ed, W1RFI >> Cc: Imlay, Chris >> Subject: propagation? >> >> If BPL is deployed at the levels requested, will people >> outside of the US be able to hear it? The aggregate of all >> of those noise sources certainly ought to be loud enough? >> >> -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9524] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Walton Stinson 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

Dave, Most of the discussion so far has centered on the adverse effects of BPL on nearby hams. Is there also a possibility that this system would appropriate the HF spectrum worldwide? Put another way, what is the potential for BPL signals to propagate via ionospheric skip? 73, Walt W0CP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9499] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Jim 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

Dave, To be practical (I am every now and then), there is no BPL proposal in front of the Commission that would include shielding power lines. Frankly, if there was I would think we would be willing to support this provided FCC would make it extremely clear they would highly regulate offenders for any leakage that would cause interference. Having said this, it is obvious that power companies at least in general barely even give lip service to preventing and correcting interfering leakage from their lines as it is. Consequently, absent some iron-clad (maybe I should say, shielding-clad) guarantees and tough fines adopted by FCC I'd not even breath of the possibility of offering this solution. Being practical from an economic viewpoint, the power companies I am sure could not afford to shield their lines to insure non-interference. OK, so try and figure me out! Probably better off if you don't. 73 AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040-9660, Tel. 513-459-0142, E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:05 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9498] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL You get no argument from me, Jim. We don't oppose every dumb idea that impacts the spectrum -- only the ones that impact OUR use of the spectrum. The problem with BPL is that its interference potential is inherent in the medium being used. So, there's nothing wrong with our opposing it as a concept. If you don't want to oppose it as a concept we could offer the following: "We support BPL as long as the power lines are shielded." Dave -----Original Message----- From: Weaver, Jim K8JE (CR) Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:44 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9495] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL Jim, Tnx for correcting my misunderstanding. Given the fact the power companies aren't interested in making BPL available to "my relatives in Indiana" I'll pull back on feeling kindly toward this line of thought. However, my basic point nonetheless remains. This is that we are "against BPL" as a concept, but rather we are against it as a matter of practicality - I think. We would not be fighting it if it did not pose the unquestionable threat of crapping all over our territory. Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040-9660 Tel. 513-459-0142 E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9491] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 09/25/2003 2:20:39 PM Central Daylight Time, k8je(a)earthlink.net writes: I agree with Greg, the concept of using electric lines to make the Internet more available in particular to folks in rural areas. Jim, this is a false concept. The BPL boys are playing it up, but in reality the farmer Jones are not going to get it. Let us say you have a farm or house five miles out of town. First off, they say that they will pull fiber to the last mile. Then the signal has to be injected, by pass all the pole pigs and amplified every 200 meters. This is a very large investment and the BPL people are just not going to do it. I was called by one of the BPL people and he admitted that they were just going to "pick the low hanging fruit." So, the idea that every home in America will have BPL broad band is a public relations hype. 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9497] Re: The economic argument against BPL
by Jim 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

Dave, Very interesting and in many cases, intuitive article. What it tells me is that I am rather pleased that I've not invested in power companies. It offers nothing to me, at least, concerning ARRL positioning on BPL. It's the old case of mixing proverbial apples with proverbial oranges from my view. The information might be useful in talking with FCC folks, but I doubt if this it provides rationale for our opposition. Sorry. Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040-9660 Tel. 513-459-0142 E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9494] The economic argument against BPL I don't have the author's permission to distribute this, so I haven't identified him. This was sent by a member to Jim Haynie and me. Dave >From graduate school buddies, I KNOW that power companies are trying to mine their rights-of-way for growth market opportunities. It's also quite clear that in their search for niche markets, they're over-reaching. Grasping at straws. We know a few other things, too, and I believe they roughly describe the achilles heel of the PI problem: * The cable industry was forced to pull in a fiber optic network, in order to control leakage from their systems and prevent RFI to Air NAV/COM systems, along with amateurs and public safety bands. The industry also saw internet access demanding wideband back-channel capability, which supported this build-out. * Telco's couldn't afford to simply replace their Cu based outside plant (POTS, or plain old telephone service), to support DSL activity. As a result, DSL is constrained to within 3 miles of a central office, or a line concentrator to which they pulled fiber. * Telcos DID pull in massive amounts of long-haul fiber, to support forecast growth, much of which didn't materialize. 80% of the fiber pulled in during the 90's remains dark. Thus, there is massive inventory of fiber, which can come online very cheaply. It's estimated it will take 20 years for demand to catch up with supply. * 80% of the SMSA's had fiber to the curb in 1996. That number is now well above 90, I believe. Haven't had opportunity to verify, but the FCC knows. * Thus, the technically capable telcos and cable operators have both recognized and responded to the market requirement. (which was grossly over-forecast. If in doubt, see Cisco, Lucent, et. al.) * Satellite operators(e.g. Hughes Network Systems Direct Access) have built out residential TV and entertainment distribution without a back- channel. They are presently introducing bidirectional wideband for commercial users, which will compete with the pricing of terrestrial fiber and dedicated satellite links. HNS website has details on this. * From a business perspective, we know that market share and profitability are closely related. Ted Leavitt @ Harvard documented that 30-40 years ago, in a study called PIMS, or Product Information Marketing Survey. The derivative work is what drove GE's strategy decisions over the last 30-40 years. Short form is this: In a stable market, you will find between 3 and 8 players. #1 will have 35% market share or more, and reflect 20% pretax profit. #2 will have 27% share, and have 14% pretax. #3 will have something like 15% share, and only show 8-10% pretax. Everybody else will have miniscule share, and be wondering why they didn't buy CD's. But they hang on until dynamics force them to fold. * Precisely what IS it that the power company can provide, which would destabilize a market already overserved by existing competitors, and thereby provide a new and compelling technology to the consumer? * There is already excess infrastructure. Some of it uses RR rights of way, and perhaps PI r.o.w., as well. * The potential for acceptable ROI can't be demonstrated, in the face of a surplus of national bandwidth inventory. i.e., there can be no demonstrable cost advantage. * They don't control content. That's increasingly held by a smaller and smaller cadre of large firms, which are driven by precisely the same market dynamics as I described, above (and recently supported by the FCC, in their modified ownership rules). To grant the BPL expansion request, therefore, would be to enable a technically marginal player dabbling in a highly questionable business venture, without the slightest hope of success, and with great potential harm to other services. >From a policy perspective, if the FCC doesn't want to appear to close doors on market opportunities...then they should grant a limited field trial, wherein PI can demonstrate that they neither impact other services, and offer something which is not already available in a competitive market. Pick one or two SMSA's, and trial it. However, granting the BPL request will further destabilize the market in which cable and telco's are operating--the robustness of which is at the core of our national economic situation. I would argue that the PI BPL proposal serves no one. Surely not the communications industry. Possibly not the power industry. Definitely not the economy or the sitting administration.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9523] Another Technical Front in the BPL War
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

It hasn't been reported in detail previously to ODV that ITU-R Study Group 1 has on its plate a Question, ITU-R 221/1, that provides an opportunity for input on the issue of compatibility between BPL and over-the-air radiocommunications services as well as on measurement techniques. The compatibility issue is in ITU-R Working Party 1A and the measurement issue is in WP 1C. There is a series of meetings in Geneva October 30-November 7 at which the IARU will be represented by Ken Pulfer, VE3PU. Several weeks ago I asked Paul Rinaldo to have the Technical Relations Office submit a paper into the U.S. WP 1A preparatory process addressing the compatibility issues between the amateur and amateur-satellite services and BPL. Mostly this was simply to annoy the BPL proponents, since if they knew how to play the game they could block a U.S. submission to Geneva. Walt Ireland submitted such a paper, which generated a much more emotional and counterproductive reaction from the BPL representative, Jeff Krauss of Current Technologies, than we could have hoped for. The result was unexpected support for us from other U.S. WP1A participants, and the upshot is that there may indeed be a U.S. paper going forward to the October 30-November 7 meetings. Even if there isn't, the IARU has an opportunity to submit papers directly. We'll be working up at least one paper during the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, Walt Ireland has just reported from Geneva where the meeting of WP 6E (terrestrial sound broadcasting) is wrapping up. WP 6E has adopted a strong statement of concern, stating among things "that the reception of broadcast services will be compromised by the interference that will be produced by systems that employ PLT, ISM equipment and short-range devices. [WP 6E] is of the opinion that any increase in the amount of noise due to these systems is unacceptable. In particular, broadcast services should be protected from unwanted emissions from PLT systems, as these emissions are a by-product of a system that is not itself a user of the radio spectrum." Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9495] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Jim 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

Jim, Tnx for correcting my misunderstanding. Given the fact the power companies aren't interested in making BPL available to "my relatives in Indiana" I'll pull back on feeling kindly toward this line of thought. However, my basic point nonetheless remains. This is that we are "against BPL" as a concept, but rather we are against it as a matter of practicality - I think. We would not be fighting it if it did not pose the unquestionable threat of crapping all over our territory. Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040-9660 Tel. 513-459-0142 E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9491] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 09/25/2003 2:20:39 PM Central Daylight Time, k8je(a)earthlink.net writes: I agree with Greg, the concept of using electric lines to make the Internet more available in particular to folks in rural areas. Jim, this is a false concept. The BPL boys are playing it up, but in reality the farmer Jones are not going to get it. Let us say you have a farm or house five miles out of town. First off, they say that they will pull fiber to the last mile. Then the signal has to be injected, by pass all the pole pigs and amplified every 200 meters. This is a very large investment and the BPL people are just not going to do it. I was called by one of the BPL people and he admitted that they were just going to "pick the low hanging fruit." So, the idea that every home in America will have BPL broad band is a public relations hype. 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9490] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Jim 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

I agree with Greg, the concept of using electric lines to make the Internet more available in particular to folks in rural areas (i.e., without having to pay LD charges to interface) is a great one. Unfortunately, there are many "great" concepts that are simply not practical. Medicine, for example, is filled with them. Many potential drugs do exactly what is needed by curing or mitigating disease. Great concepts. Unfortunately, impractical side issues often get in the way -- e.g., patient death or excessive injury, inability to deliver an effective dose in less than multiple gallon quantities are just two issues that have and will arise. BPL at this time simply is among these concepts in my opinion. Are we against BPL? Or, are we against the interference it brings with it? Would we fight BPL if it did not cause interference on our frequencies or potential frequencies? I doubt it. Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040-9660 Tel. 513-459-0142 E-mail k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: Greg Milnes [mailto:w7oz@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9484] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL Dick I beg to differ. The Commissioner's comments sounded good to me. I agree with most all she said. The only problem is a technical one. IF we could get BPL WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, I think it would be great. This all doesn't mean we can win on technical grounds only BUT we should recognize that it is a good concept. I hope someone can come up with a way to move the signals away from us or filter us out. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9521] Ballots
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 26 Sep '03

26 Sep '03

The ballots for the Hudson Division Director election are in the mail. David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0