So let me see if I've got this straight:
BPL is being sold as an efficient and cost effective means of providing
Internet access to rural areas, but is only being tested and rolled out in
urban areas.
BPL is supposed to be cheaper than cable internet or DSL access, but appears
to cost the same or more.
BPL tests show little or no intereference to radio communications, but are
being tested in areas with minimal or no amateur radio licenses (or at least
no active ones)
BPL-like systems have been tested in Europe, Japan, and other parts of the
world and are, for the most part, being discontinued for causing
interference to other radio services to the point where it is not
technically feasible to overcome.
BPL is currently allowable under FCC Part 15 -- no license, minimal power
permitted, not allowed to cause interfence to any other service and must
accept interference from other services.
But we and others are "exageratting potential interference" and we are doing
so to "limit the efficiency and effectiveness of BPL"
Huh? What did I miss that goes towards that conclusion? (I know, there I
go again, trying to inject logic into the situation)
Oh, and I like that further comment that "to the extent that interference is
demonstrated, there should be an attempt to accommodate BPL, even if it
means that existing communications providers may have to share or transfer
bandwidth." I think, IMHO, that that is legal double-speak (apologies to
George Orwell) for "even if we do cause interference, too bad, live with it
and go elsewhere."
73, ron wn3vaw
"I lost most of my squad over Macho Grande... Planes too..."
Ted Stryker, Airplane II: The Sequel
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|