said by FightingBlue:

"First, it is crystal clear that ARRL is not against BPL, or any new technology."

Lip service, meaning nothing, if the ARRL fights tooth and nail against every single BPL experiment, no matter how non-invasive.

said by FightingBlue
...if the ARRL fights tooth and nail against every single BPL experiment, no matter how non-invasive.
[/BQUOTE:

Maybe I have a faulty connection or brain, but where in the heck did you see anything to support this claim, especially following the post by Mr. Hare (to which you directly responded) or the links above that detail the ARRL's position and actions?

The truth? ...you can't handle the truth!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14170028 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:46:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14169588 N3EVL : You assertions are baseless. The ARRL has certainly had a presence at most if not all of the BPL test sites, primarily for the purposes of measuring and documenting the extent of the interference (or lack thereof).

No doubt you would prefer it if all of the HF spectrum users potentially affected by this technology just disappeared and let BPL proceed. The BPL industry's own initial reluctance to admit to the potential for interference followed by their claims to have solved such problems (e.g. via notching) when this patently is not the case, have not helped foster an environment of implicit trust in that industry.

To assert that the ARRL and its members are against BPL under any circumstances is just plain silly. To expect them to sit by and not take an active interest as BPL is deployed is even sillier.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14169588 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:11:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14168344 anon : "First, it is crystal clear that ARRL is not against BPL, or any new technology."

Lip service, meaning nothing, if the ARRL fights tooth and nail against every single BPL experiment, no matter how non-invasive. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14168344 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:10:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14165215 The Folsom : The "Bubble Pack Pirates" is an apt term. the FRS does share some frequencies with GMRS and I have on many occasions heard some of their operations. FRS radios out of the box are unable to access the repeater frequencies of GMRS, though.

The "Combination" FRS/GMRS are very popular. These are most likely the "Pirates" to which you refer; these radios have a higher output on the GMRS portion. Frequently, the packaging downplays the need for an FCC license to operate on the GMRS portion, and advertise them as "22 Channels". There is usually a small advisory in the enclosed literature about requiring a license. I have met many people who have bought these and bragged about having "more channels and more power" than "regular" FRS radios. If this is brought to their attention, they usually shrug and say, "So what? I have more power and more channels than the guy next door!" But most of the combos don't have a repeater capability and at 1W output, they are not likely to cause interference to the higher powered transmitions to stations operating legitimately. Technically, it is a violation of Rules, but unless more people start using unlicensed GMRS radios to "jam" GMRS users or simply operate without a license, the FCC is not going to have the time or the interest in pursuing illegal operators(IMO). I am not aware of such occurances, but I would be surprised if there were none.

With all respect, though, I think you are incorrect about GMRS being non-commercial. There are many businesse that use it, and if they cannot get a frequency pair in their area, they must enter in to a written agreement with the owner of a local repeater.

I would be interested in hearing more about this issue, but I think I have jacked the thread far enough.

Also, the original reply I made to Retired_rich's original post was more aggressive than was necessary; in the heat of being ham radio's self appointed defender, I may not have considered the main point of his post. I wish I could edit out the post I made, but it is too late. So I offer to him here my public apology and hope that this part of the thread can die.

But thank you for your comments.

Cheers.
--
Q: What is- More powerful than God; More evil than Satan; rich people want it and poor people have it; If you eat it you will die? A: Nothing.
»www.folsomtech.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14165215 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:30:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14164244 pcscdma :

said by The Folsom :

Although your first link had some interesting material, it was nothing I had not already read elsewhere. :hmm:

As to the ARRL link, I read that one with much interest; I agree with and support their position. :)

I like 49 MHz and GMRS, too, but I don't have a license for GMRS-for some reason, it doesn't interest me at all. :hmm:

The links were more directed towards the kind of people who think that hams don't like BPL. Hams don't like interference. Most (all?) of the early BPL schemes used the high-power power lines to carry the data.

GMRS is for non-commercial use only and you can set up a repeater with it. It's somewhere around $60 for a 5 year license and your whole family can use it. There are 8 462mhz & 467mhz repeater pairs with a max power of 50W.
The bubble pack pirates are taking over the spectrum with their FRS/GMRS radios. But the FCC doesn't seem to care about it. More interested in breasts and shit. I think that may be why interest in GMRS is dwindling.
--
Posting .sig]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14164244 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:26:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14163958 W1RFI : The premise that ARRL is looking to "fight BPL to death" even if there is no interference is flawed on its face.

First, ARRL has a track record of working cooperatively and productively with industry. For example, I am an ARRL employee, and serve as the representative of Amateur Radio on the IEEE EMC Society's Standards Development Committee; the IEEE BPL Study Groups EMC Working Group and the ANSI Accredited Standards Committee C63 EMC. On several of those groups, I have been asked to chair subcommittees or working groups -- a leadership position that is not given to those who act as your post alleges.

Over the years, ARRL has worked productively with groups like HomePlug; the Home Phone Networking Alliance; the Society of Cable Telcommunications engineers and various DSL committees to help them address interference issues responsibly. Amateur radio has also addressed its own interference issues. Just as a couple of examples:

»p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/homeplug···ARRL.pdf
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfigen.html
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfi-elec.html

ARRL's own BPL page belies what you claim. First, it is crystal clear that ARRL is not against BPL, or any new technology. It is the interference that BPL can and does cause locally on any spectrum it uses at or near the FCC limits that is the issue. The NTIA itself says that BPL has a "moderate to severe" probability of interference for 1/4 mile distance to fixed stations and over 7 miles to aeronautical stations. Again and again, interference to Amateur and other spectrum is seen in BPL cities.

Even at that, when companies like Motorola approached ARRL, they worked together to design a system whose design has encouraged ARRL and the industry. Contrary to the claims that ARRL is against BPL no matter what, ARRL wrote articles supporting and appreciating the design that Motorola put forth. Another BPL company, Current Technologies, has also gotten some postitive press from ARRL, due to their avoidance of HF (shortwave) spectrum on overhead wires and the fact that their HF modems radiate only when in actual use; only from building and 220 volt wiring and have notches in the ham bands that offer protection to most amateur radio operation. Two other companies also intentionally avoid amateur spectrum -- IBEC and Corridor Systems. ARRL is encouraging them to complete the process and add hardware filters to protect nearby amateur operation and protect themselves from the transmissions of amateurs.

These are the companies that are accomplishing the goals that the FCC has set forth, and, ironically, ARRL is helping them do it. The IEEE EMCS BPL study project is also looking to help define how BPL can be done correctly and successfully, and I am chairing that group, building a strong and diverse concensus body.

Even so, there have been serious interference problems with many BPL systems and, yes, ARRL will be at those issues and will ensure that accurate and complete reports and complaints are filed. Those are well documented on the videos available on the ARRL BPL page at:

»www.arrl.org/bpl

And this is NOT just an amateur radio problem. Even in those systems where the BPL manufacturer has successfully notched amateur spectrum (3 systems that I know of to date -- two small trials and the larger deployment in Cincinnati), the BPL system is extremely loud locally on other spectrum. In those areas, the ability to listen to international shortwave broadcasts is all but gone. In some areas, CB is all but gone and in others, low-band VHF is seriously compromised.

In a larger number of other BPL trials, BPL is either operating at full strength in the amateur bands, or operating with inadequate notching. If the BPL industry wants to follow in the success of the cable and DSL industries, it must do as those industries have done and address its interference issues firmly.

The cable industry has much more strigent interference regulations than the BPL industry. Yet it has determined that if cable is to do broadband successfully, the cable industry must operate well inside those limits. Cable is a shielded system, and BPL is neither shielded, balanced or well grounded. For it to do broadband reliably, especially for VOIP, it will have to be done to standards that are better than the FCC has put forth for cable.

See:

Deploying VOIP on the Outside Cable Plant
»www.arrl.org/~ehare/ARRL_EMC_Com···ant.html

I am afraid that your post does little more than add fuel to a fire that does not have to burn. ARRL is ready and willing to continue to offer its expertise to this industry to help it do BPL successfully, with the understanding that "successful" means that it appropriately addresses its EMC responsibilities fairly. It has the expertise and is positioned within the professional EMC community to help BPL do just that. Let's try to keep this discussion accurate and productive and focused in that direction.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
Web: »www.arrl.org/tis
Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
Member: IEEE, Standards Association, Electromagnetic Compatibility Society
Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
Member: IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee
Chairman, BPL Study Project
Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee
Board of Directors: QRP Amateur Radio Club International]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14163958 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:46:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14162406 The Folsom :

said by sbhusted :

You ham haters need to get bent already.

Ham Haters - The other white meat.

I think it would be more accurate to call it the "Other Other White Meat"...;)
--
Q: What is- More powerful than God; More evil than Satan; rich people want it and poor people have it; If you eat it you will die? A: Nothing. »www.folsomtech.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14162406 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:40:05 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14161390 sbhusted :

You ham haters need to get bent already.

Ham Haters - The other white meat.
--
Scott B. Husted »www.Husted.cc]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14161390 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:26:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14160883 RayW :

said by dibbb :

I'm sure this is showing my ignorance, but I didn't think hams were really still around that much...

They (hams of the radio operator variety) are used all the time in my area for events that require wide area coordination like parades, fireworks displays, fires, marathons, bike races, chemical spills, floods, search and rescue, just to name a few things I know about.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14160883 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:19:54 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159889 The Folsom :

said by pcscdma :

Let's modify a CB to transmit on 10 meters, get a linear amp and point it towards Desert Hot Springs, California and see what you think about CBers!
:)

BTW: You forgot about the unlicensed 49MHz and licensed GMRS services

Assorted links:
»www.corridor.biz/ fiber - wifi hybrid

»www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/08/01/1/ ARRL sets the record straight

Ho, hum on the 10 meter-to-CB mod... Proximity is more important than power. ;) If you are in town and do that, then you have something going on. :)

Although your first link had some interesting material, it was nothing I had not already read elsewhere. :hmm:

As to the ARRL link, I read that one with much interest; I agree with and support their position. :)

I like 49 MHz and GMRS, too, but I don't have a license for GMRS-for some reason, it doesn't interest me at all. :hmm:
--
Q: What is- More powerful than God; More evil than Satan; rich people want it and poor people have it; If you eat it you will die? A: Nothing. »www.folsomtech.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159889 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:01:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159634 pcscdma : Let's modify a CB to transmit on 10 meters, get a linear amp and point it towards Desert Hot Springs, California and see what you think about CBers!
:)

BTW: You forgot about the unlicensed 49MHz and licensed GMRS services

Assorted links:
»www.corridor.biz/ fiber - wifi hybrid

»www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/08/01/1/ ARRL sets the record straight
--
Posting .sig]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159634 Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:14:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159485 The Folsom :

said by TKJunkMail :

said by TKJunkMail :

Let's face it, the ARRL will fight BPL to the death. Even in those cases where no interference is seen. Their position is that maintenance issues down the road COULD result in interference.

»www.astrosurf.org/lombry/qsl-rfi-bpl.htm

Switching transients on power grids with generators going on and off line, dynamic load sharing, fault and maintenance work, all induces massive transients that also swamp data signals.

"Broadband Power Line telecommunications & the amateur service Do ban BPL !"

is the title of the article to which you referenced.

How does that bolster your allusion that ARRL/ham radio is somehow incorrect in their/our assertion/postion that BPL is harmful to ALL radio services in that part of the RF spectrum?

The ARRL was only mentioned peripherally, at best, and there was only one link... The ARRL did not even write this article!

There is interference in ALL BPL trials. And it is ALL harmful... no matter what anyone says to the contrary. I can prove that only by supplying links to articles which I have read. You have yet to prove your assertion. :hmm:

--
Q: What is- More powerful than God; More evil than Satan; rich people want it and poor people have it; If you eat it you will die? A: Nothing. »www.folsomtech.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159485 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:53:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159343 The Folsom :

said by dibbb :

ham haters?

who hates ham radio operators? I didn't know this was a group of people that other people hate...

I'm sure this is showing my ignorance, but I didn't think hams were really still around that much...

Maybe I'll dust off my CB and talk to one.

(jk, I know they're different from CB's...)

:)

My reply was directed to someone else. But since you bring it up... The biggest haters of hams are the people who want broadband at any price and even though hams are NOT the only victims of this tech, we seem to be the ones who are singled out for hateful comments by many posters who inevitably come out of the woodwork to take their cheap shots... This is why I stand up for hams in the face of this discrimination. We are not "Second Class Citizens"... In fact, there are roughly 650,000 hams in the United States, adding to the approximately 1,000,000 in the rest of the world. :o

You are not ignorant; merely unaware of some facts. ;)

I am also a CBer and I abstain from the "normal" elitism that a few hams practice toward CBers... I don't hate. :D

CB, ham, FRS, MURS, whatever... It's ALL good. :)

Cheers. :)
--
Q: What is- More powerful than God; More evil than Satan; rich people want it and poor people have it; If you eat it you will die? A: Nothing. »www.folsomtech.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159343 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:27:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159200 TKJunkMail :

said by TKJunkMail :

Let's face it, the ARRL will fight BPL to the death. Even in those cases where no interference is seen. Their position is that maintenance issues down the road COULD result in interference.

»www.astrosurf.org/lombry/qsl-rfi-bpl.htm

Switching transients on power grids with generators going on and off line, dynamic load sharing, fault and maintenance work, all induces massive transients that also swamp data signals.

--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159200 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:03:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159024 dibbb : ham haters?

who hates ham radio operators? I didn't know this was a group of people that other people hate...

I'm sure this is showing my ignorance, but I didn't think hams were really still around that much...

Maybe I'll dust off my CB and talk to one.

(jk, I know they're different from CB's...)

:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14159024 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:38:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14158997 The Folsom :

said by TKJunkMail :

Let's face it, the ARRL will fight BPL to the death. Even in those cases where no interference is seen. Their position is that maintenance issues down the road COULD result in interference.

My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum

Show us an article or something else that validates your assertion, please... Even if those happen to be technically correct, you still must do this in order to not appear to be a ham hater.

I'm not a member of ARRL, but I happen to agree with their position as it relates to BPL, and am willing to do some basic research to validate my position; moreover, I will post my findings...

Are/will you?

You can't attack hams directly, so you go after organizations which further the hobby, thereby indirectly attacking hams? Is that it?

Coward.

You ham haters need to get bent already.

/me throws down gauntlet and slaps you in the face with the back of my hand...
--
Q: What is- More powerful than God; More evil than Satan; rich people want it and poor people have it; If you eat it you will die? A: Nothing. »www.folsomtech.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14158997 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:34:40 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14156396 TKJunkMail : Let's face it, the ARRL will fight BPL to the death. Even in those cases where no interference is seen. Their position is that maintenance issues down the road COULD result in interference.

My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14156396 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:51:52 EDT