March 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10193] Big BPL Article in Today's Wall Street Journal
by dick＠pobox.com 02 Mar '04

02 Mar '04

2 MAR, 2004 - 1350 CST A local ham friend tipped me off about an article on BPL that is in today's Wall Street Journal. From reading the message appended below, it looks like there is a lot of BS being used to sell this concept to the mass media and the general public. I'm leaving the house on another errand in a few minutes and I'll buy a copy. If you don't already have a copy, you may want to get one. 73 - Dick, W9GIG =========================================================================== 3/2/04: For a heads up, today's The Wall Street Journal ran a big article on "The Web's New Outlet." It paints a pretty glowing picture of BPL with the only downside being the question "Is business ready for it?" It supposes that EarthLink and AT&T will jump on the bandwagon because they otherwise must rely on cable or local-phone lines to carry their signals. "Is the technology ready for prime time? The answer is 'yes' says Ed Thomas, the FCC's chief engineer." This service is being announced today by Cinergy Corp, a Cincinnati utility and Current Communications, a private company. Both Cinergy and Current Communications tested their offerings in 100 homes in the Cincinnati area. The closest comment to problems with this mode is that "earlier efforts were disappointing, mostly due to the cost of the equipment needed and technical issues." But now they have $30 "plug & play modems" that are being given away to subscribers which makes BPL cheaper than other broad-band modes. They also claim higher speeds than DSL or cable-modems.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10192] Re: Grassroots BPL Lobbying Package
by dick＠pobox.com 01 Mar '04

01 Mar '04

1 MAR, 2004 - 1710 CST Hello Dave Sumner... The grass roots lobbying package is a good start - as far as it goes - in the upcoming struggle. But I think we are failing to respond to two claims made by Chairman Powell and the other four commissioners. In their cheer-leading statements they claim that BPL will provide a LOW COST alternative to satellite, DSL, and CATV Internet connections. And they have the unmitigated gall to claim that Homeland Defense will be enhanced by BPL. The technical issues raised in the FCC's NOI indicate that an extensive signal injection system will have to be built. If I correctly understand the data provided so far, a BPL signal rapidly decreases as it propagates along a an open line - a power line in this case. And this attenuation has to be compensated for by re-injecting the RF signal about every 7000 ft. using a coaxial distribution system very similar to a CATV system. It's not rocket science to figure out the total BPL system installation and maintenance cost will not be less that the systems already in use. And when the BPL RF notching and bookkeeping requirements are added to this mix, the cost would be higher. Therefore, the economic claims made by the FCC are bogus. So why should licensed RF users by saddled with this potentially gargantuan interference problem. The commission also claims in its NPRM that Homeland Security will be enhanced. I say Homeland Security will be severely degraded if BPL is allowed to heavily pollute the RF spectrum. Both of these issues should be included in our talking points. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10191] Grassroots BPL Lobbying Package
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 01 Mar '04

01 Mar '04

Ladies and Gentlemen: Here are the key components of staff's proposed grassroots lobbying package on BPL. Please begin with Derek Riker's paper, "Managing a Grassroots Congressional Campaign on BPL." This provides basic guidance. Note that the last four pages of this eight-page document is addressed to grassroots members. Then please look at my paper, "Why is the ARRL Concerned About the FCC's NPRM on BPL?" I wrote this to analyze, in no more than two pages, why the FCC's attempt to address the interference issue falls short. IMPORTANT: Before this package is distributed beyond ODV I would like you all to review this paper with special regard to the section, "What is the ARRL's Proposed Solution?" It isn't enough for us to say "BPL is bad." The process the FCC is engaged in is one of balancing the risk (or probability) of harmful interference to licensed radio services against the benefit of an incremental increase in the availability or affordability of broadband services to consumers and small businesses. We cannot expect the FCC to reduce the risk to zero; however, we can reasonably argue for limits and standards that will preclude interference to typical amateur stations, especially mobile stations that cannot make practical use of the proposed mitigation procedures. Now that we know what is in the NPRM I believe we should conduct the measurements necessary to document the radiated emission limits that would protect typical amateur mobile stations on public thoroughfares. Another important paper is the "BPL Legislative Talker" that contains talking points. Finally, there are attached two "boiler plate" draft letters for Senators and Representatives respectively. Frankly, I am not satisfied with these letters. However, at this point I thought it would be more useful to share the package with you and get feedback before doing any more reworking of the drafts. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ <<Managing a Grassroots Congressional Campaign on BPL.doc>> <<Why is the ARRL Concerned About BPL.doc>> <<BPL Legislative Talker.doc>> <<Dear Senator.doc>> <<Dear Representative.doc>>

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10190] Re: Oh No!!
by James Weaver 01 Mar '04

01 Mar '04

Dick, I suspect it could be very real . . . provided the Laden Powell's originally named Michael. Incidentally, one of our Michigan members knows Colin and Michael pretty well. His view of Michael is that he is totally over his head in the political game in DC. 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 k8je(a)arrl.org

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10189] Oh No!!
by dick＠pobox.com 01 Mar '04

01 Mar '04

1 MAR, 2004 - 1300 CST I don't think this web site is bogus: http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news5.shtml It appears some British officials are getting as paranoid about terrorism as some of ours are with our congressional "Patriot Act" and proposed "Patriot Act II". Apparently the Boy Scouts can be terrorist suspects in the UK. Hopefully, this report is more tongue-in-cheek humor than fact. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0