http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/200512190100PR_NEWS_USPR_____NYM051.htm
http://www.currenttechnologies.com/about/

To preclude further horse corpse desecration by ill-informed hams...

"On April 21, 2005 Ed Hare, W1RFI, Head of the ARRL Labs conducted tests in
the Hyde Park area of Cincinnati. He conducted these tests on the BPL system
installed by Current Technologies for Cinergy. ... Ed found that the BPL
emisions were at least 20 dB below the FCC limits of Part 15 devices across
the board. He also found that the amateur frequencies have been notched and
interference from BPL is at least 60 dB below FCC Part 15 rules in all of
the amateur bands with the exception of 60 meters which was very recently
added as an amateur band. Ed also noted that there were many other devices
in the test area which interfered far more severely with the amateur bands
than the BPL."

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:12:59 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <43a80de3.39646868@nntp.fuse.net>:

>http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/200512190100PR_NEWS_USPR_____NYM051.htm
>http://www.currenttechnologies.com/about/
>
>To preclude further horse corpse desecration by ill-informed hams...

... by resurrecting a favorite _straw_ horse as a vehicle for gratuitous insult
in comp.home.automation?   

The subject of this new c.h.a article is "another major BPL deployment", but
this is not "another" deployment. As I posted more than a year ago in this
newsgroup, this deployment by the utility serving my and Dave's region (Cinergy
/ Duke) was one of the first (March 2004) and (still) few deployments
nationwide. 

 ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

Dave Houston wrote:

> http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/200512190100PR_NEWS_USPR_____NYM051.htm
> http://www.currenttechnologies.com/about/
>
> To preclude further horse corpse desecration by ill-informed hams...
>
> "On April 21, 2005 Ed Hare, W1RFI, Head of the ARRL Labs conducted tests in
> the Hyde Park area of Cincinnati. He conducted these tests on the BPL system
> installed by Current Technologies for Cinergy. ... Ed found that the BPL
> emisions were at least 20 dB below the FCC limits of Part 15 devices across
> the board. He also found that the amateur frequencies have been notched and
> interference from BPL is at least 60 dB below FCC Part 15 rules in all of
> the amateur bands with the exception of 60 meters which was very recently
> added as an amateur band. Ed also noted that there were many other devices
> in the test area which interfered far more severely with the amateur bands
> than the BPL."

The quote you offer came from:

http://www.danielwoodie.com/aboutbpl.htm

I would think that folks may prefer seeing it in its entire context.

The quote isn't exactly correct.  My trip to Cincinnati was a one-day
session in which I met with the local amateurs there and we did some
limited testing.  In the spots we measured, and based on my driving
around, the system there was operating at a level that appeared to be
below the FCC limits.  The design of the BPL manufacturer, Current
Technologies, does indeed notch the ham bands, but nowhere near -60 dB
-- the modems used typically get 25 to 30 dB of notching. From what I
have learned about the Current Technologies systems, the emissions
would more typically be just about at the FCC limits in many
installations. It is likely that a combination of the distances between
my portable test setup and the premise wiring carrying BPL and the
variations in the nature of the premise wiring explain most of the
differences.

In general, at this location, the system was not causing harmful
interference to the Amateur Bands.  The reception of international
shortwave broadcast, governement WWV time signals and similar uses was
degraded appreciably, and as I drove around the general area, there
were areas near active modems where the noise levels were pretty high
outside the notched spectrum. As a separate issue, yes, as in all
areas, there were also areas where other devices were causing noise
levels strong enough to be intereference.  It was my opinion that the
combination of notching and the intermittent nature of BPL operation
there would generally protect mobile operation. This would leave some
potential for interfence to fixed Amateur stations, but with a low
enough incidence of occurrence that it would be practical to deal with
it on a case-by-case basis.

If the point is that in parts of this system that are operating at a
lower level than permitted and that use notching for the ham bands do
not have major interference issues, I would tend to agree. In fact,
this type of deployment formed part of the basis for ARRL's Petition
for Rulemaking to the FCC, asking that the rules be changed to reflect
the more successful BPL installations:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/18/101/

It is significant that one of the BPL manufacturers that has set out to
avoid major interference problems is among the more successful.  Not
all BPL manufacturers have set out to avoid interference by
specifically protecting spectrum, and those manufacturers that have not
have not enjoyed commercial deployments as large as Cincinnati nor the
pending deployment in Dallas. Others have been embroiled in
interference problems and the associated complaints and costs
associated with them.

So summarizing the concerns of Amateur Radio as "further horse corpse
desecration by ill-informed hams" is not a fair characterization at
all.  In those cases where there has been significant interference, the
characaterization is inaccurate and in cases where Amateur Radio has
recognized improvements in the EMC performance of some designs, the
characterization is a downright mispresentation.

A good summary of this difference can be seen in an editorial written
by ARRL's CEO, Dave Sumner:

http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/08/01/1/

Amateur operators are not opposed to BPL -- why should they be? They
are strongly opposed to BPL that pollutes Amateur spectrum, and causes
local harmful interference. Those BPL operators that are willing to
address it when it occurs can expect cooperation and help. Those that
"resolve" it by claiming it doesn't exist can expect firm opposition.

For background in BPL and its impact on spectrum users, see:

http://www.arrl.org/bpl

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
Web: http://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

If you are accusing me of misquoting Daniel Woodie, I took the quote
verbatim merely eliding one sentence (which I replaced with an elipsis so
any literate person would recognize that fact). I did not quote the entire
page. 

The sentence I elided said, "His findings were very promising for the future
of both amateur radio and BPL."

I have not misrepresented anything.

Mr. Woodie cites the 60dB figure so, if you disagree, your disagreement is
with him.

The Cinergy system has been deployed for about two years. AFAIK there have
been no interference issues.

Most of the hams who have posted here on this topic have either talked about
trial systems that they claimed failed to meet FCC limits or, like Mr.
Woodie, opposed even the Current Systems technology which appears to meet
the FCC limits. They are doing you more harm than good.

From what I've read, DS2 (Spain) technology also meets the FCC limits. I do
not know whether Current developed their own proprietary technology or is
using DS2 or some other system.

My only point is that Current Technolgy (and their customers and partners)
appear to have met the FCC limits. If you think otherwise, the burden of
proof would seem to be yours. Speculation that they might not meet them
under other conditions is just as nasty an innuendo as your implication that
I misquoted you or Mr. Woodie. I did not!

You will not find a single instance where I have said anything other than
the system used by Cinergy appears to meet the FCC limits and appears to
comply with FCC rules. I resent your implication that I have done otherwise
and think you owe me an apology.

I haven't looked at the ARRL site for a few months. When I did look most of
the interfering systems listed were either outside the USA or had used
technolgy that had been abandoned a few years ago. 

I'm sure that you don't monitor this newsgroup on a regular basis so have to
wonder who pulled your chain.

If the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL you should get that word out to your
members.

w1rfi@arrl.org wrote:

>Dave Houston wrote:
>
>> http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/200512190100PR_NEWS_USPR_____NYM051.htm
>> http://www.currenttechnologies.com/about/
>>
>> To preclude further horse corpse desecration by ill-informed hams...
>>
>> "On April 21, 2005 Ed Hare, W1RFI, Head of the ARRL Labs conducted tests in
>> the Hyde Park area of Cincinnati. He conducted these tests on the BPL system
>> installed by Current Technologies for Cinergy. ... Ed found that the BPL
>> emisions were at least 20 dB below the FCC limits of Part 15 devices across
>> the board. He also found that the amateur frequencies have been notched and
>> interference from BPL is at least 60 dB below FCC Part 15 rules in all of
>> the amateur bands with the exception of 60 meters which was very recently
>> added as an amateur band. Ed also noted that there were many other devices
>> in the test area which interfered far more severely with the amateur bands
>> than the BPL."
>
>The quote you offer came from:
>
>http://www.danielwoodie.com/aboutbpl.htm
>
>I would think that folks may prefer seeing it in its entire context.
>
>The quote isn't exactly correct.  My trip to Cincinnati was a one-day
>session in which I met with the local amateurs there and we did some
>limited testing.  In the spots we measured, and based on my driving
>around, the system there was operating at a level that appeared to be
>below the FCC limits.  The design of the BPL manufacturer, Current
>Technologies, does indeed notch the ham bands, but nowhere near -60 dB
>-- the modems used typically get 25 to 30 dB of notching. From what I
>have learned about the Current Technologies systems, the emissions
>would more typically be just about at the FCC limits in many
>installations. It is likely that a combination of the distances between
>my portable test setup and the premise wiring carrying BPL and the
>variations in the nature of the premise wiring explain most of the
>differences.
>
>In general, at this location, the system was not causing harmful
>interference to the Amateur Bands.  The reception of international
>shortwave broadcast, governement WWV time signals and similar uses was
>degraded appreciably, and as I drove around the general area, there
>were areas near active modems where the noise levels were pretty high
>outside the notched spectrum. As a separate issue, yes, as in all
>areas, there were also areas where other devices were causing noise
>levels strong enough to be intereference.  It was my opinion that the
>combination of notching and the intermittent nature of BPL operation
>there would generally protect mobile operation. This would leave some
>potential for interfence to fixed Amateur stations, but with a low
>enough incidence of occurrence that it would be practical to deal with
>it on a case-by-case basis.
>
>If the point is that in parts of this system that are operating at a
>lower level than permitted and that use notching for the ham bands do
>not have major interference issues, I would tend to agree. In fact,
>this type of deployment formed part of the basis for ARRL's Petition
>for Rulemaking to the FCC, asking that the rules be changed to reflect
>the more successful BPL installations:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/18/101/
>
>It is significant that one of the BPL manufacturers that has set out to
>avoid major interference problems is among the more successful.  Not
>all BPL manufacturers have set out to avoid interference by
>specifically protecting spectrum, and those manufacturers that have not
>have not enjoyed commercial deployments as large as Cincinnati nor the
>pending deployment in Dallas. Others have been embroiled in
>interference problems and the associated complaints and costs
>associated with them.
>
>So summarizing the concerns of Amateur Radio as "further horse corpse
>desecration by ill-informed hams" is not a fair characterization at
>all.  In those cases where there has been significant interference, the
>characaterization is inaccurate and in cases where Amateur Radio has
>recognized improvements in the EMC performance of some designs, the
>characterization is a downright mispresentation.
>
>A good summary of this difference can be seen in an editorial written
>by ARRL's CEO, Dave Sumner:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/08/01/1/
>
>Amateur operators are not opposed to BPL -- why should they be? They
>are strongly opposed to BPL that pollutes Amateur spectrum, and causes
>local harmful interference. Those BPL operators that are willing to
>address it when it occurs can expect cooperation and help. Those that
>"resolve" it by claiming it doesn't exist can expect firm opposition.
>
>For background in BPL and its impact on spectrum users, see:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/bpl
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Laboratory Manager
>225 Main St
>Newington, CT 06013
>Tel: 860-594-0318
>Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
>Web: http://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.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html

Hello, Dave,

I wasn't accusing you of misquoting Woodie, although I can see how one
might take it that way.

Woodie was reporting what I had found, and it was not accurately
reporting what I had provided to the hams in Cincinatti.  That 60 dB
figure could well have been a typo on his part, or a misunderstanding,
but it was not accurate nonetheless.

If you feel I should clarify this on the list, I will gladly do so. I
agree; it is his figure that is incorrect.  If you feel an apology is
necessary over words that can be interpreted in a number of ways, I
will gladly offer you one.

No one "pulled my chain," Dave. The entry was sent to me by a routine
Google news search I have set on my callsign or name.

I don't know how long it has been since you have been to the ARRL web
site, Dave, but there has been a lot of information about US trials,
interference from same and from the present generation of BPL. You may
have to drill down a bit on the links, but there is information aplenty
that it is obvious you haven't seen. To save you the trouble, here are
a couple:

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/other-articles.html
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html

There are two "FCC" limits that need to be met. The first is the
emissions limit. I have personally tested about 4-5 systems whose
levels exceeded the FCC limits by a considerable amount. These can be
difficult to measure, and not all systems have been tested by ARRL or
local amateur operators.

The second limit is related to harmful inteference. "Legal" BPL systems
operate at levels that, locally, are tens of dB greater than the other
noise levels in the area. Amateurs that report "S9" BPL noise that
completely fills an amateur band or three are reporting harmful
interference. I have seen many a BPL systems whose emissions were
strong enough to degrade Amateur and other communications significantly
-- at S9 signal levels, all but the strongest signals on a band are
covered up.

My observation that Current Technologies systems can cause interference
on other spectrum is not speculation, Dave. A simple analysis of
antenna physics tells you that "legal" BPL systems will generate strong
noise locally. I have personally seen Current systems generating strong
noise on top of shortwave broadcast and WWV time signals, for example.

I would think that some of the links I provided show that ARRL and
Amateur Radio is not opposed to BPL, but rather to interference.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you read them. If you still have some
advice to offer, it is more than welcome, and, being better informed,
you're advice will probably be more useful.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
Web: http://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

Ed,

You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this
topic before letting your knee jerk you into deep waters.

I'm glad to see that the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL. In fact the
statement by the ARRL CEO that you cited makes many of the same points that
I made here in October 2004 when the FCC first gave its blessing to Access
BPL. I even cited the NTIA study. I also opined that the ARRL was "shooting
itself in the foot" by opposing all BPL. It's good to see that you folks
have finally caught up with me.

Since "Woodie" cited incorrect figures, I guess that makes him an
ill-informed ham. ;)

I couldn't resist that but my "beating a dead horse" ploy was meant to bait
the ill-informed hams who attacked me here in October of 2004. Now that your
CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their
flames at him. ;)

Would you care to comment on this...

     http://www.danielwoodie.com/currentresponse.htm

w1rfi@arrl.org wrote:

>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html
>
>Hello, Dave,
>
>I wasn't accusing you of misquoting Woodie, although I can see how one
>might take it that way.
>
>Woodie was reporting what I had found, and it was not accurately
>reporting what I had provided to the hams in Cincinatti.  That 60 dB
>figure could well have been a typo on his part, or a misunderstanding,
>but it was not accurate nonetheless.
>
>If you feel I should clarify this on the list, I will gladly do so. I
>agree; it is his figure that is incorrect.  If you feel an apology is
>necessary over words that can be interpreted in a number of ways, I
>will gladly offer you one.
>
>No one "pulled my chain," Dave. The entry was sent to me by a routine
>Google news search I have set on my callsign or name.
>
>I don't know how long it has been since you have been to the ARRL web
>site, Dave, but there has been a lot of information about US trials,
>interference from same and from the present generation of BPL. You may
>have to drill down a bit on the links, but there is information aplenty
>that it is obvious you haven't seen. To save you the trouble, here are
>a couple:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html
>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/other-articles.html
>http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html
>
>There are two "FCC" limits that need to be met. The first is the
>emissions limit. I have personally tested about 4-5 systems whose
>levels exceeded the FCC limits by a considerable amount. These can be
>difficult to measure, and not all systems have been tested by ARRL or
>local amateur operators.
>
>The second limit is related to harmful inteference. "Legal" BPL systems
>operate at levels that, locally, are tens of dB greater than the other
>noise levels in the area. Amateurs that report "S9" BPL noise that
>completely fills an amateur band or three are reporting harmful
>interference. I have seen many a BPL systems whose emissions were
>strong enough to degrade Amateur and other communications significantly
>-- at S9 signal levels, all but the strongest signals on a band are
>covered up.
>
>My observation that Current Technologies systems can cause interference
>on other spectrum is not speculation, Dave. A simple analysis of
>antenna physics tells you that "legal" BPL systems will generate strong
>noise locally. I have personally seen Current systems generating strong
>noise on top of shortwave broadcast and WWV time signals, for example.
>
>I would think that some of the links I provided show that ARRL and
>Amateur Radio is not opposed to BPL, but rather to interference.
>Perhaps it would be helpful if you read them. If you still have some
>advice to offer, it is more than welcome, and, being better informed,
>you're advice will probably be more useful.
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Laboratory Manager
>225 Main St
>Newington, CT 06013
>Tel: 860-594-0318
>Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
>Web: http://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

> You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this
> topic before letting your knee jerk you into deep waters.

Is that one of those do-as-you-say, not-do-as-you-do sort of things?
You were pretty clear  that you hadn't researched ARRL's web page or
position in months, yet you knee-jerked yourself about it in a way that
was rather painful to watch, I would say.

> I'm glad to see that the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL. In fact the
> statement by the ARRL CEO that you cited makes many of the same points that
> I made here in October 2004 when the FCC first gave its blessing to Access
> BPL.

ARRL has never opposed BPL, so your soapbox oratory falls apart rather
quickly.  As an example, long before access BPL was viewed as a viable
technology, ARRL was helping HomePlug in the development of the very
standard that Current Technologies has used in its successful
deployments.

http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf

You might be better served to research what has been posted by ARRL on
its web site about BPL before letting your knee jerk you into deep
waters.  Oh, wait, that's what you said...

> I even cited the NTIA study.

Did you cite the part where NTIA said that at the FCC emissions limits,
harmful interference was probable for hundreds of meters from a power
line carrying BPL, or for tens of kilometers to aircraft?

> I also opined that the ARRL was "shooting itself in the foot" by opposing all BPL. It's good to see that
> you folks have finally caught up with me.

Are you now saying that you believe that access BPL should not be
permitted to operate below 30 MHz on overhead power lines and that it
should not be permitted to use the Amateur bands?  If you really
believe that ARRL has "caught up with you," that is our position.
Surely you wouldn't have said that without doing the research you
chided me to do... would you? :-)

The bottom line is that BPL that operates at the limits of the present
rules will cause strong interference locally on any spectrum it uses.
Those "legal limits" are high enough that, according to the NTIA report
you cite, interference for distances greater than typical receivers are
located from power lines is likely.

Nothing in ARRL's position has changed with respect to noise levels
that cover up all but the strongest of signals locally. Nor should it.
What has changed is that part of the industry is committing itself to
operating well below the FCC emissions limits in the Amateur bands. Why
you would believe  that such a change somehow represents anyone
"catching up with you" is absolutely beyond me.

> Since "Woodie" cited incorrect figures, I guess that makes him an ill-informed ham. ;)

He was incorrect. If you feel you need to call that "ill informed" for
some reason, I see no need to dissuade you.

> I couldn't resist that but my "beating a dead horse" ploy was meant to bait
> the ill-informed hams who attacked me here in October of 2004.

At least you are willing to admit it. Good for you.  Baiting others
publicly is something that most people wouldn't do, and fewer would
admit to.

> Now that your CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their
> flames at him. ;)

Some of them have, although most understand the reasons that ARRL can
be in opposition to rules that simply don't work for BPL and radio
services' mutual compatibility and recognizing and, to some extent,
supporting those companies that do it exactly the way that ARRL's
petition asked the FCC to mandate for all BPL systems.

If you want this industry to be successful, you would try to get it to
support successful rules. If you just want to bait people on a
newsgroup, that's entirely different.

> Would you care to comment on this...

>  http://www.danielwoodie.com/currentresponse.htm

I think that my original post addressed pretty accurately the degree to
which Current's design prevents interference to Amateur Radio and the
fact that it offers no additional protection over the existing rules
(and NTIA conclusions about interference distances) for other spectrum.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab

Maybe you should actually read what's on the ARRL website. I'll quote from
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

"Radio amateurs are not opposed to broadband services. On the contrary, they
tend to be early adopters of new technology. However, there are ways to
deliver broadband that do not pollute the radio spectrum as Broadband over
Power Line (BPL) does. These include fiber-to-the-home, cable, DSL, and
wireless broadband. The ARRL--The National Association for Amateur Radio--
is supportive of broadband access for all Americans; however, it opposes BPL
as a way to achieve this goal because of its high potential for causing
interference to radiocommunication."

Sure seems like it says they oppose all BPL.

http://rfdesign.com/mag/radio_time_closer_look/
http://www.vonmag.com/issue/2005/jan/features/broadband_over_power_lines.asp

In the above cited case, the FCC seems to have determined that the ARRL
claims were baseless. Are there any cases where the FCC agreed with the
ARRL? I really don't want to waste my time on one-sided ARRL reports of
interference when the FCC appears to disagree in one such case they
investigated.
 
w1rfi@arrl.org wrote:

>> You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this
>> topic before letting your knee jerk you into deep waters.
>
>Is that one of those do-as-you-say, not-do-as-you-do sort of things?
>You were pretty clear  that you hadn't researched ARRL's web page or
>position in months, yet you knee-jerked yourself about it in a way that
>was rather painful to watch, I would say.
>
>> I'm glad to see that the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL. In fact the
>> statement by the ARRL CEO that you cited makes many of the same points that
>> I made here in October 2004 when the FCC first gave its blessing to Access
>> BPL.
>
>ARRL has never opposed BPL, so your soapbox oratory falls apart rather
>quickly.  As an example, long before access BPL was viewed as a viable
>technology, ARRL was helping HomePlug in the development of the very
>standard that Current Technologies has used in its successful
>deployments.
>
>http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf
>
>You might be better served to research what has been posted by ARRL on
>its web site about BPL before letting your knee jerk you into deep
>waters.  Oh, wait, that's what you said...
>
>> I even cited the NTIA study.
>
>Did you cite the part where NTIA said that at the FCC emissions limits,
>harmful interference was probable for hundreds of meters from a power
>line carrying BPL, or for tens of kilometers to aircraft?
>
>> I also opined that the ARRL was "shooting itself in the foot" by opposing all BPL. It's good to see that
>> you folks have finally caught up with me.
>
>Are you now saying that you believe that access BPL should not be
>permitted to operate below 30 MHz on overhead power lines and that it
>should not be permitted to use the Amateur bands?  If you really
>believe that ARRL has "caught up with you," that is our position.
>Surely you wouldn't have said that without doing the research you
>chided me to do... would you? :-)
>
>The bottom line is that BPL that operates at the limits of the present
>rules will cause strong interference locally on any spectrum it uses.
>Those "legal limits" are high enough that, according to the NTIA report
>you cite, interference for distances greater than typical receivers are
>located from power lines is likely.
>
>Nothing in ARRL's position has changed with respect to noise levels
>that cover up all but the strongest of signals locally. Nor should it.
>What has changed is that part of the industry is committing itself to
>operating well below the FCC emissions limits in the Amateur bands. Why
>you would believe  that such a change somehow represents anyone
>"catching up with you" is absolutely beyond me.
>
>> Since "Woodie" cited incorrect figures, I guess that makes him an ill-informed ham. ;)
>
>He was incorrect. If you feel you need to call that "ill informed" for
>some reason, I see no need to dissuade you.
>
>> I couldn't resist that but my "beating a dead horse" ploy was meant to bait
>> the ill-informed hams who attacked me here in October of 2004.
>
>At least you are willing to admit it. Good for you.  Baiting others
>publicly is something that most people wouldn't do, and fewer would
>admit to.
>
>> Now that your CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their
>> flames at him. ;)
>
>Some of them have, although most understand the reasons that ARRL can
>be in opposition to rules that simply don't work for BPL and radio
>services' mutual compatibility and recognizing and, to some extent,
>supporting those companies that do it exactly the way that ARRL's
>petition asked the FCC to mandate for all BPL systems.
>
>If you want this industry to be successful, you would try to get it to
>support successful rules. If you just want to bait people on a
>newsgroup, that's entirely different.
>
>> Would you care to comment on this...
>
>>  http://www.danielwoodie.com/currentresponse.htm
>
>I think that my original post addressed pretty accurately the degree to
>which Current's design prevents interference to Amateur Radio and the
>fact that it offers no additional protection over the existing rules
>(and NTIA conclusions about interference distances) for other spectrum.
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Lab

Wow! I found an extensive quote from a real ARRL expert that seems to
contradict much of what you are saying. It's from...

http://www.eham.net/articles/12322

and I'll provide the entire quote. Otherwise, you might be tempted to
mischaracterize it. ;)

<quote>
RE: New ARRL Petition Seeks to Resolve BPL Standof     	 Reply
by W1RFI on October 24, 2005 	Mail this to a friend!
> Interesting. So, where's the data from Ed Hare's
> exhaustive testing to show that the two products do
> not cause any interference to any amateur bands?

You are right, Lee; you are confused. From a regulatory perspective, the
goal is NOT to set limits and conditions that would make interference
impossible. You would not want those limits placed on Amateur operation,
would you? To unconditionally protect Grade B TV service would require 110
dB of harmonic supression, IIRC. If Amateur Radio were being proposed and TV
broadcasters asked the FCC for regulations that were stringent enough to
make interfernce impossible, none would think them reasonable.

Remember, this is a petition for rulemaking that is intended to set
reasonable rules under which BPL can function, but without widespread
harmful interference. Just like the rules that apply to our stations, in
which limits are set that will limit our harmonics to a degree, then depend
on the "no interference" clauses in the rules to require some of us to add
low-pass filters when needed.

Good regulations have balance, and a supportable regulatory goal is to have
restrictions that will reduce the number of interference problems to a small
enough number that is practical to handle them on a case-by-case basis, thus
allowing the rules about harmful interference to have a chance at working.

> ARRL was quick to criticize, based on data. Now, its > sufficient to say the Current Technologies'
> configuration is FB?

"Sufficient to say?" Do you really believe that all ARRL has done is to just
say so? C'mon, Lee. That sounds good echoing from your soapbox, but I have
personally put three years into studying and analyzing BPL, and ARRL would
not take these steps unless there were good reasons for them. However,
seeing as you presume deception or incompetence unless you are personally
given the background, let me provide you with some of it. (Most people would
be sure that they had justification before jumping on a public forum and
cricitizing, btw...)

Current Technologies systems use HomePlug technology. (See
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf). The HomePlug
modems operate between 4 and 20 MHz, with the amateur bands notched. They
operate only from 120/240 volt wiring, thus have a much smaller geographical
footprint than overhead power lines. They are dead quiet except when in
acutal use. Their ham band notches are about 25 dB lower than the present
FCC limits and, in most cases, house wiring appears to radiate somewhat less
than the FCC's limits, from all I have seen.

When you combine these, a simple calculation (you did all those simple
calculations before you wrote your post with all the "news for ARRL", didn't
you, Lee?) shows that this level should be enough to protect mobile amateur
operation.

From a rules point of view, considering that there is no way that ARRL will
be able to persuade the FCC that the limits on BPL should be about 100 dB
lower than the limits on our spurious emissions, I think that this is a good
balance, and that the number of cases of interference to fixed stations
should be manageable on a case-by-case basis. As a minimum, the rules
changes ARRL sought are a tremendous improvement for the Amateur Radio
Service under the present BPL rules, wouldn't you say?

This is all borne out in practice. In Cincinnati, the Current Technologies
system passes about 60,000 homes at this point. There have been no reports
of harmful interference to the Amateur Radio Service from Cincinnati hams,
and the locals have organized a pretty good team. I have been to Cincinnati
and have personally looked at things and I concur with myself that mobile
operation is protected.

In the rather dense suburban areas where BPL is deployed there so far, the
protection offered by the HomePlug notching is apparently adequate in the
moderate noise environment of the area. There is no doubt that if this were
deployed in a more quiet environment, the ham next door would see some
interference, but that is just like your neighbor's TV vis a vis your
"legal" 50-milliwatt harmonic. Based on calculation and experience in
Cincinnati, those cases should be a small enough number that it is practical
to fix them as they occur. (Just as one example, in this low-noise
environment, BPL could be operated at a lower level.)" 
</quote> 

w1rfi@arrl.org wrote:

>> You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this
>> topic before letting your knee jerk you into deep waters.
>
>Is that one of those do-as-you-say, not-do-as-you-do sort of things?
>You were pretty clear  that you hadn't researched ARRL's web page or
>position in months, yet you knee-jerked yourself about it in a way that
>was rather painful to watch, I would say.
>
>> I'm glad to see that the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL. In fact the
>> statement by the ARRL CEO that you cited makes many of the same points that
>> I made here in October 2004 when the FCC first gave its blessing to Access
>> BPL.
>
>ARRL has never opposed BPL, so your soapbox oratory falls apart rather
>quickly.  As an example, long before access BPL was viewed as a viable
>technology, ARRL was helping HomePlug in the development of the very
>standard that Current Technologies has used in its successful
>deployments.
>
>http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf
>
>You might be better served to research what has been posted by ARRL on
>its web site about BPL before letting your knee jerk you into deep
>waters.  Oh, wait, that's what you said...
>
>> I even cited the NTIA study.
>
>Did you cite the part where NTIA said that at the FCC emissions limits,
>harmful interference was probable for hundreds of meters from a power
>line carrying BPL, or for tens of kilometers to aircraft?
>
>> I also opined that the ARRL was "shooting itself in the foot" by opposing all BPL. It's good to see that
>> you folks have finally caught up with me.
>
>Are you now saying that you believe that access BPL should not be
>permitted to operate below 30 MHz on overhead power lines and that it
>should not be permitted to use the Amateur bands?  If you really
>believe that ARRL has "caught up with you," that is our position.
>Surely you wouldn't have said that without doing the research you
>chided me to do... would you? :-)
>
>The bottom line is that BPL that operates at the limits of the present
>rules will cause strong interference locally on any spectrum it uses.
>Those "legal limits" are high enough that, according to the NTIA report
>you cite, interference for distances greater than typical receivers are
>located from power lines is likely.
>
>Nothing in ARRL's position has changed with respect to noise levels
>that cover up all but the strongest of signals locally. Nor should it.
>What has changed is that part of the industry is committing itself to
>operating well below the FCC emissions limits in the Amateur bands. Why
>you would believe  that such a change somehow represents anyone
>"catching up with you" is absolutely beyond me.
>
>> Since "Woodie" cited incorrect figures, I guess that makes him an ill-informed ham. ;)
>
>He was incorrect. If you feel you need to call that "ill informed" for
>some reason, I see no need to dissuade you.
>
>> I couldn't resist that but my "beating a dead horse" ploy was meant to bait
>> the ill-informed hams who attacked me here in October of 2004.
>
>At least you are willing to admit it. Good for you.  Baiting others
>publicly is something that most people wouldn't do, and fewer would
>admit to.
>
>> Now that your CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their
>> flames at him. ;)
>
>Some of them have, although most understand the reasons that ARRL can
>be in opposition to rules that simply don't work for BPL and radio
>services' mutual compatibility and recognizing and, to some extent,
>supporting those companies that do it exactly the way that ARRL's
>petition asked the FCC to mandate for all BPL systems.
>
>If you want this industry to be successful, you would try to get it to
>support successful rules. If you just want to bait people on a
>newsgroup, that's entirely different.
>
>> Would you care to comment on this...
>
>>  http://www.danielwoodie.com/currentresponse.htm
>
>I think that my original post addressed pretty accurately the degree to
>which Current's design prevents interference to Amateur Radio and the
>fact that it offers no additional protection over the existing rules
>(and NTIA conclusions about interference distances) for other spectrum.
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Lab

Here's another article where Dave Sumner is quoted...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114135,00.asp

"If the commission decides that BPL cannot operate in this country, that'd
be fine with us."

So based on the ARRL website and statements by its CEO, it's obvious that
your claim that the ARRL has never opposed all BPL is unadulterated
bullshit. A lot of the ARRL membership must be suffering from whiplash given
ARRL's sudden shifts in the party line.

Ed, you and the ARRL have zero credibility.

I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm happy with ADSL. More options
might mitigate prices but economic studies have shown that it takes more
than 3-4 competitors to have much effect - smaller groups find it's easy to
collude. 

And I don't know whether the economics make sense for the utility companies
although the possibilities for remote meter reading and load management
would certainly sweeten the pot. On the surface it would seem to make sense
for rural areas where DSL and wireless do not reach.
 
w1rfi@arrl.org wrote:

>> You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this
>> topic before letting your knee jerk you into deep waters.
>
>Is that one of those do-as-you-say, not-do-as-you-do sort of things?
>You were pretty clear  that you hadn't researched ARRL's web page or
>position in months, yet you knee-jerked yourself about it in a way that
>was rather painful to watch, I would say.
>
>> I'm glad to see that the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL. In fact the
>> statement by the ARRL CEO that you cited makes many of the same points that
>> I made here in October 2004 when the FCC first gave its blessing to Access
>> BPL.
>
>ARRL has never opposed BPL, so your soapbox oratory falls apart rather
>quickly.  As an example, long before access BPL was viewed as a viable
>technology, ARRL was helping HomePlug in the development of the very
>standard that Current Technologies has used in its successful
>deployments.
>
>http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf
>
>You might be better served to research what has been posted by ARRL on
>its web site about BPL before letting your knee jerk you into deep
>waters.  Oh, wait, that's what you said...
>
>> I even cited the NTIA study.
>
>Did you cite the part where NTIA said that at the FCC emissions limits,
>harmful interference was probable for hundreds of meters from a power
>line carrying BPL, or for tens of kilometers to aircraft?
>
>> I also opined that the ARRL was "shooting itself in the foot" by opposing all BPL. It's good to see that
>> you folks have finally caught up with me.
>
>Are you now saying that you believe that access BPL should not be
>permitted to operate below 30 MHz on overhead power lines and that it
>should not be permitted to use the Amateur bands?  If you really
>believe that ARRL has "caught up with you," that is our position.
>Surely you wouldn't have said that without doing the research you
>chided me to do... would you? :-)
>
>The bottom line is that BPL that operates at the limits of the present
>rules will cause strong interference locally on any spectrum it uses.
>Those "legal limits" are high enough that, according to the NTIA report
>you cite, interference for distances greater than typical receivers are
>located from power lines is likely.
>
>Nothing in ARRL's position has changed with respect to noise levels
>that cover up all but the strongest of signals locally. Nor should it.
>What has changed is that part of the industry is committing itself to
>operating well below the FCC emissions limits in the Amateur bands. Why
>you would believe  that such a change somehow represents anyone
>"catching up with you" is absolutely beyond me.
>
>> Since "Woodie" cited incorrect figures, I guess that makes him an ill-informed ham. ;)
>
>He was incorrect. If you feel you need to call that "ill informed" for
>some reason, I see no need to dissuade you.
>
>> I couldn't resist that but my "beating a dead horse" ploy was meant to bait
>> the ill-informed hams who attacked me here in October of 2004.
>
>At least you are willing to admit it. Good for you.  Baiting others
>publicly is something that most people wouldn't do, and fewer would
>admit to.
>
>> Now that your CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their
>> flames at him. ;)
>
>Some of them have, although most understand the reasons that ARRL can
>be in opposition to rules that simply don't work for BPL and radio
>services' mutual compatibility and recognizing and, to some extent,
>supporting those companies that do it exactly the way that ARRL's
>petition asked the FCC to mandate for all BPL systems.
>
>If you want this industry to be successful, you would try to get it to
>support successful rules. If you just want to bait people on a
>newsgroup, that's entirely different.
>
>> Would you care to comment on this...
>
>>  http://www.danielwoodie.com/currentresponse.htm
>
>I think that my original post addressed pretty accurately the degree to
>which Current's design prevents interference to Amateur Radio and the
>fact that it offers no additional protection over the existing rules
>(and NTIA conclusions about interference distances) for other spectrum.
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Lab

w1rfi@arrl.org wrote:

>ARRL has never opposed BPL, so your soapbox oratory falls apart rather
>quickly.  As an example, long before access BPL was viewed as a viable
>technology, ARRL was helping HomePlug in the development of the very
>standard that Current Technologies has used in its successful
>deployments.
>
>http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf

And then you opposed HomePlug before the FCC saying that despite the well
publicized joint tests (your "help"), your computer models predicted that
harmful interference was still a possibility.

     http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/082203_16.pdf

I think the public record makes it abundantly clear that nothing you have to
say should be given any credence whatsoever.

> I think the public record makes it abundantly clear that nothing you have to
> say should be given any credence whatsoever.

And your public record of admitting that you haven't read ARRL's web
page in months, but know all about is credible how?

Dave, it is pretty obvious that you think that you can think about this
for a few minutes and know all the answers -- a symptom seen by most
usenet pontificators. I see little benefit to trying to discuss this
with you, as your insults and profanity are not techniques used by
reasoned people who want to have a reasonable discussion.  I will
gladly let my response to "Lee" speak for itself.  Your choice of "ARRL
experts" is interesting, unless you were trying to be selective in
finding one other ham that agreed with your general viewpoint.

You have twisted the point of every point I tried to make.

I have spent three years of my life working on this. I serve on IEEE
industry committees working on EMC and BPL standards, chairing some of
its study projects and sub committees.

You bring to the table a few minutes of thought about the subject and a
few insults and profanities.

It is pretty clear that you don't want to discuss this; you want to
argue and insult and curse like a high-school child.

I wish you well. I shall not trouble you again or contradict the
authority you have tried to establish on this NG.

And I sure understand why you noted that some of the other Amateurs who
posted here argued with you. :-)

Ed

w1rfi@arrl.org wrote:

>And your public record of admitting that you haven't read ARRL's web
>page in months, but know all about is credible how?

As I noted up front I first posted here on the topic in October 2004 when
the FCC approved BPL. I had been aware of the Cinergy trial which had
started more than a year before that and had checked with contacts in the
local media (who have used me as a resource in the past). 

>Dave, it is pretty obvious that you think that you can think about this
>for a few minutes and know all the answers -- a symptom seen by most
>usenet pontificators. I see little benefit to trying to discuss this
>with you, as your insults and profanity are not techniques used by
>reasoned people who want to have a reasonable discussion.  I will
>gladly let my response to "Lee" speak for itself.  Your choice of "ARRL
>experts" is interesting, unless you were trying to be selective in
>finding one other ham that agreed with your general viewpoint.

Gee. I've been thinking about it and sharing my thoughts here since I first
heard of HomePlug. I think that goes back more than three years. I've
recently posted about the approval of the HomePlug AV spec and will probably
post about the forthcoming release of the HomePlug Command & Control spec
when it's approved.

What profanity? Your understanding of English is on a par with your
technical proficiency. 

From Dictionary.com...

"Profane: Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred"

Please point out where I've done that. What's sacred? ARRL? Ed (March) Hare?
Male bovine excrement? What? 

>You have twisted the point of every point I tried to make.

I've merely quoted you or the ARRL web site or the ARRL CEO. Any twists
would seem to be your doing. 

>I have spent three years of my life working on this. I serve on IEEE
>industry committees working on EMC and BPL standards, chairing some of
>its study projects and sub committees.

Then we're in deeper trouble than I imagined.

>You bring to the table a few minutes of thought about the subject and a
>few insults and profanities.
>
>It is pretty clear that you don't want to discuss this; you want to
>argue and insult and curse like a high-school child.

As I noted above I've been monitoring and commenting on this topic for a few
years. 

Please point out where I have cursed.

Once again from Dictionary.com...

"Curse: profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger"

I may have far more expertise in this area (and other areas) than you can
even dream of. Whoever solicited your help in this thread neglected to warn
you that I do my research and have an extensive technical and managerial
background.

>I wish you well. I shall not trouble you again or contradict the
>authority you have tried to establish on this NG.

I wish you and the ARRL the oblivion you deserve.

>And I sure understand why you noted that some of the other Amateurs who
>posted here argued with you. :-)

I sure do! Some bought into the ARRL propaganda and are now undoubtedly
deeply chagrined by the recent doublecross. A couple have argued that
licensed hams are entitled to buy and use devices that are illegal to sell
under FCC rules. They deserve something other than oblivion and should the
FCC ever get the personnel and budget to again enforce the rules I intend to
see that they get what they deserve. You really should do better research.

Let's reiterate a few key points, shall we?

1. Cinergy started their trial in 2003 using HomePlug technology which they
say you had tested and blessed before their trials began. (You refused to
comment on this point.)

2. The FCC approved Access BPL in October 2004. The ARRL adamantly opposed
this.

3. ARRL opposed in-house BPL before the FCC despite the results of their
joint tests with HomePlug. (I bet HomePlug felt your definition of
"cooperation" was a bit different from theirs.) 

4. ARRL petitioned the FCC in February 2005 asking them to rescind their
approval of Access BPL. (Seems you were still opposed to all BPL at that
time.)

5. ARRL filed an Emily Litella petition with the FCC in October 2005.

The only thing that seems to have changed between the time that Cinergy
started their trial and your October 2005 petition are your views on the
HomePlug technology Cinergy uses. The technology hasn't changed but you've
gone from opposing in-house BPL (HomePlug 1.0) to praising Cinergy for their
implementation of Access BPL (which uses HomePlug 1.0). Go figure.

(I have to admit that, in this thread, you've waffled significantly on your
approval of HomePlug 1.0. You seem to like being on both sides of an issue
or maybe it's just that you lack the competetence to decide which end is
up.) 

I'm amazed that the ARRL membership hasn't demanded that you and the ARRL
CEO be fired for gross incompetence. Actually, I'm amazed that they haven't
been gathering faggots of wood and looking for stakes.

Given that the EU approved Access BPL last year and that there are BPL
trials underway in Australia and Asia, the change in the ARRL position has
all the earmarks of a deathbed conversion. RIP.

On 21 Dec 2005 17:27:59 -0800, w1rfi@arrl.org wrote in message
<1135214879.698686.65260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

>> I think the public record makes it abundantly clear that nothing you have
to
>> say should be given any credence whatsoever.
>
>And your public record of admitting that you haven't read ARRL's web
>page in months, but know all about is credible how?
>
>Dave, it is pretty obvious that you think that you can think about this
>for a few minutes and know all the answers -- a symptom seen by most
>usenet pontificators. I see little benefit to trying to discuss this
>with you, as your insults and profanity are not techniques used by
>reasoned people who want to have a reasonable discussion.  I will
>gladly let my response to "Lee" speak for itself.  Your choice of "ARRL
>experts" is interesting, unless you were trying to be selective in
>finding one other ham that agreed with your general viewpoint.
>
>You have twisted the point of every point I tried to make.
>
>I have spent three years of my life working on this. I serve on IEEE
>industry committees working on EMC and BPL standards, chairing some of
>its study projects and sub committees.
>
>You bring to the table a few minutes of thought about the subject and a
>few insults and profanities.
>
>It is pretty clear that you don't want to discuss this; you want to
>argue and insult and curse like a high-school child.
>
>I wish you well. I shall not trouble you again or contradict the
>authority you have tried to establish on this NG.
>
>And I sure understand why you noted that some of the other Amateurs who
>posted here argued with you. :-)
>
>Ed


Ed,

From your posts I learned more about the evolving status of Broadband over
Power Lines (BPL) technology and ongoing and past efforts to improve it.
Thanks. 

You, and the non-profit organizations you are involved with, are to be
commended for trying to make it better.

It may be useful for you to know that Dave has characterized himself in this
newsgroup as a curmudgeon. From the same dictionary he uses for his attacks
on you (www.dictionary.com ): 

"Curmudgeon, n.  "An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn
notions"

so Dave's self-analysis is spot-on in my opinion and experience.

As Dave wrote in this thread, his original post was a  "ploy [that] was
meant to bait".

The subject line of the thread he started was flat-out wrong, the general
subject barely on-topic for this newsgroup, and Cinergy BPL technology not
available at his apartment.

In other words, the post was for the sole purpose that your (Ed's) response
achieved --  to satisfy Dave's personal needs.

IMO, part of Dave's pathology is the need to be 'fer or agin'. Which leads
him to connive and twist and misrepresent in order to set up and maintain a
dog fight as he has transparently done in this thread.

So despite his specific claim to the contrary, he does "have a dog in this
fight" -- namely his ego and his compulsion to belittle and bully. 

Dave's also a feller compelled to bet on dogs and hosses  -- dead, live,
straw, Technologies, HA gizmos -- don't much matter long as thar's
squawkin', cussin', an' dodgin' -- an' his dog comes out on top or his hoss
is first. 

And once the race is on, there's no changing hosses for Dave. And so he
can't actually be objective in the discussion despite the smug veneer and
his Word-Of-The-Month vocabulary.

   Said McCoy to the rest of his kin,
   See, them Hatfields jes' ain't gonna win.
   Now our wimmen, awright,
   Got no dog in this fight,
   But us fellas, we's fer or agin." 
      (Credit:Chris Doyle in OEDIF) 

We all wish Dave well. 
Some of us also wish that he would get better.

Happy Holidays ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org