Re: [TowerTalk] BPL article.... amazing....!!!

[Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>]

At 03:20 PM 4/26/2004 +0000, kb9cry@comcast.net wrote:

> "Not really, simply because the Part 15 radiation levels
> are so strict. I predict that the same will occur with BPL."

Part 15 limits aren't all that strict.  They very much rely on low power, 
localized interference, and the willingness of the user to turn off the 
equipment if it interferes or to accept interference.  There's an 
underlying philosophy of Part 15 and its implementation that also seems to 
assume "point sources".  BPL, by having a distributed source, probably 
doesn't fit within those assumptions.

However, since BPL will be authorized under Part 15 (in all probability), 
the emphasis should be on making sure that there is a decent mechanism to 
identify inteference and have it turned off.  This would mean identifying 
locations and RF characteristics of sources with sufficient accuracy in a 
form accessible to the public, and the imposition of some "reasonable" time 
to cease operation.  One would also need to have some provision that 
doesn't require extensive data taking to confirm the 
interference.  Otherwise, you might wind up in the "well, we drove by at 
10AM last Tuesday with a spectrum analyzer and it looked ok to us" 
scenario.  The interference from BPL is very likely to be usage related. 
This is very different from the usual powerline interference thing which is 
bad enough, but at least tends to be fairly constant. 

_______________________________________________

See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk