Is there some wrong anti-BPL interference information being disseminated?
As with any issue on the Internet, misinformation or misinterpretations can occur. Some wrong information that has been mentioned: · BPL Power Levels: BPL does not uses watts or kilowatts of power. · BPL Outlawed in Europe: No, it was never outlawed there, although it was outlawed in Japan for some time. · BPL Biological Effects: There is no risk of direct biological damage from BPL. · BPL Security Issues: BPL signals can be intercepted over the air but are undoubtedly encrypted and difficult to decode or do “man in the middle” network based attacks. A particular vendor may have packet sniffing vulnerabilities, however there is not an across-the-board issue with all BPL vendors due to the radiation and interference issue, in my opinion · BPL Affecting Domestic (VHF) Aviation Frequencies: BPL does affect transoceanic/international aviation frequencies but not VHF frequencies commonly used at airports for navigation, landing and takeoff, etc. at 108 to 136 Mhz.
As with any issue on the Internet, misinformation or misinterpretations can occur. Some wrong information I’ve seen: BPL Power Levels: BPL does not uses watts or kilowatts of power. Manassas, VA shutdown: The Manassas, VA site was never shutdown (as of this writing), they’re just on their second contractor. BPL Outlawed in Europe: No, it was never outlawed there, although it was outlawed in Japan for some time. BPL Biological Effects: There is no risk of direct biological damage from BPL. BPL Security Issues: BPL signals can be intercepted over the air but are undoubtedly encrypted and difficult to decode or do man in the middle network based attacks. A particular vendor may have packet sniffing vulnerabilities, however there is not an across-the-board issue with all BPL vendors due to the radiation and interference issue, in my opinion. BPL Affecting Domestic (VHF) Aviation Frequencies: BPL does affect transoceanic/international aviation frequencies but not VHF frequencies commonly us