Talk:EE TV

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether amateur radio operators are the only people complaining, the fact is that these devices fail to meet EMC regulations yet have not been recalled. I have edited this page 4 times now to reflect that fact and 4 times that fact and associated links have been removed. EMC causes problems for everyone so I believe its relevent.

Glowplug1 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point you're making but you're making some fairly severe allegations with the tone of the text you've been inserting. "BT has yet to issue an official recall" presupposes that a recall is necessary. Ofcom - for one - appear to disagree. The links you quote are of interest of course, but they're self-published sources (a youtube video and an image of a chart uploaded to photobucket) which does not meet the Wikipedia criteria of a "reliable source" (i.e. published test results in a respected industry journal or other reputable publication). Personally I do feel that these issues are of relevance more to powerline technology than BT vision, (since lots of people and companies use Powerline adaptors, not just BT Vision customers) and would be best discussed in the more relevant article - but of course I imagine there will be differing views on that and that's fine too. I've tried to back up the points you've been making with more reliable reports (e.g. industry journals, and the report in The Register) and with more balanced text, but you've reverted these changes in favour of what appears to be a more inflammatory style of rhetoric. Utimately it's hard to support the kind of text which you appear to wish to write (e.g. "BT issuing illegal kit and yet they won't recall it") without much much better, rock-solid proof of fact. The fact that Ofcom don't see this as a major issue would seem to indicate that maybe it's actually not that noteworthy. But again, I fully appreciate that your mileage may vary.

Bonusballs (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've moved this into its own section within the article and also removed the duplicated text (as you had several paragraphs repeated straight after themselves) so that it can be better discussed and addressed.

Bonusballs (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There is definite data out there, the problem is that Ofcom are [or seem to be] avoiding the facts as the level of complaints is relatively low. People with wireless keyboards will have problems if they or a close neighbour use Comtrend PLT adaptor, as will short wave radio enthusiasts, CB users, Amateur radio operators. Further reading is HERE.

In particular pay attention to: ---begin extract The RSGB’s complaint (published on their website, www.rsgb.org) was made on 31 July, just four weeks before Ofcom’s PLT statement. That’s hardly sufficient time for them to consider the evidence in detail and then write their response, if they could actually have been bothered to do so. Which they weren’t. Indeed, their response does not even mention the two central points of RSGB’s complaint:

a) Comtrend’s PLT products emit conducted noise at levels way above the limits in EN55022, the most relevant EMC product standard

b) They rely for their EMC Declaration of Conformity on a discredited CISPR committee draft (CISPR/I/89) – simply a committee paper – never a published standard – which anyway was withdrawn several years ago.

AND also:

And where does the test of “significant public harm” arise in the EMC Regulations? None of these issues exist anywhere other than in the fevered brains of Ofcom’s spin-doctors, who hope to convey the impression that they have some meaning – some relevance to the issue of interference from PLT, which of course they do not. ---end extract

Further reading: A low level of complaints is not evidence of compliance (An update on the EMCIA’s position on PLT) By EurIng Keith Armstrong, C.Eng, MIET, MIEEE, www.cherryclough.com [here]

So you see the evidence is strong, Ofcoms position or specifically lack of enforcement, doesnt mean that both sides shouldnt be given or that facts shouldnt be presented and I feel its relevent to have some mention (perhaps more concisely as the page is mainly BT Vision) on the BT Vision page.

BT have failed to recall them and given the facts above I do believe that needs to be mentioned.

Lastly, you say "The fact that Ofcom don't see this as a major issue would seem to indicate that maybe it's actually not that noteworthy"....I'd say that would simply indicate Ofcom are not taking action.

Glowplug1 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of the 'powerline' section is still very much in doubt, and the POV tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved. That's not achieved by inserting more and more loaded text about homeplugs. The relevance of any of this to BT Vision is highly questionable, they are neither the only seller, vendor, or user of this technology. This article is an inappropriate venue for radio amateurs to campaign.

Bonusballs (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

BT Vision as a product has a component of that product relying on a technology which is inappropriate, derives its Type Approval from a discredited committee draft and conspicuously exceeds all prescribed limits. Someone felt that it was prudent to make this known. The fact that it may not have been well written or well-handled does not detract from the validity of the subject. I suggest that the section is carefully rewritten with a verifiable bibliography so that readers that are interested may make their own minds up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G7cnf (talk • contribs) 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, while I appreciate your position, I reject your attempted "argument from authority" - i.e. the suggestion that without a degree in electrical engineering, I am not qualified or not able to make a valid point. This is, of course, not true.

While there is doubtless much of interest to discuss on the topic of interference to amateur radio by homeplugs, there are two points to consider. One - that BT Vision is not the place to have that argument. You may as well add this information to articles about Dell Computers, HP Printers, Intel Network Cards, the Apple Mactintosh, because these devices are also used alongside homeplug technology. And, I would suggest, far more commonly than they are with BT Vision boxes! But such a thing would be ludicrous - the only logical place for such issues to be raised is directly on a page where it is relevant, and that is the page about Homeplugs itself. Secondly - no matter where the argument occurs, Wikipedia is NOT a forum for argument and debate. Wikipedia is a factual, knowledge-driven venue, a place for information which is actual, which is true and verified and known, and which can be backed up with cast-iron references from reliable sources. (See:

WP:COI

) is generally frowned upon as the quality of what results is rarely neutral or balanced.

If your argument is against Homeplug technology in general, and you believe that there is significant information of note which has not been included in relevant articles, then the relevant article is the place for that information. I am not asking for information to be removed - I am suggesting that it is put in the right place. The fact that you choose instead to bring that information into the BT Vision article gives every appearance that you are allied with the UK Radio Amateur campaign which, for some reason, is singling out BT Vision rather than Homeplug technology in general.

I support your suggestion that the information relating to this issue is re-written, as currently it breaches numerous Wikipedia standards. I see that you've already made useful additions to the

Bonusballs (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.123.76 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the problem here is that the references being quoted do not (and could never) support the highly biased and opinionated text. Phrases like "a document which was acrimoniously removed from the IEC website", and "has been thoroughly discredited by the EMC industry" simply do not meet Wikipedia standards of neutrality. I think we're making progress on the neutrality of the initial paragraphs, but the last one continues to give grave cause for concern, for these and other reasons. The referenced transcript of evidence given to a Parliamentary enquiry does not even mention the alleged document which has allegedly "been thoroughly discredited by the EMC industry" yet it is cited as a reference for that statement as if it proves it to be the case. The same transcript is used to cite the claim "it has been determined that the technology cannot meet the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC Essential Requirements, Article 5", yet the transcript merely re-states that claim rather than offers evidence to prove it - the only reference that the transcript cites is the EU directive itself, rather than evidence that "determines" that "the technology cannot meet the EMC Directive", as the text in this Wiki article states. I'm inclined to think that the last paragraph should be removed in its entirety. I think the rest of the section covers the nature of the issue sufficiently (again, on the assumption that it absolutely MUST be in this article at all, which I still dispute, but in the spirit of compromise and all...)

Bonusballs (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Given the final comment on this topic was in April and it now being September with the current version looking to me acceptably NPOV I am going to go ahead and remove the tag on the main article page as I think it is no longer relevant. The long time gap seems to me evidence the dispute is now resolved. I will put a small see more link to the main Power line communication article for those seeking more detailed information MttJocy (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BTTVLogo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]