Please tell FCC NO BPL - URGENT

[w4dan]

As stated in an earlier forum, the Broadband Power Line proposal will create havoc with interference to two way radio communications. Let the FCC know how you feel about this proposal. Go to www.fcc.gov then at the ECFS button on the left panel, click the main or alternate button. This will take you to the NOI comments page. Click the round chad button to the left of "Broadband Over Power Line BPL Docket 03-104." Enter your name and address and state your objection. Example of comments follow:

I am opposed to the Broad Band over Power Line proposal. I have heard comments from Amateur Radio Operators in Europe and Japan where this type of internet and data transfer service was implemented. They claim that it caused very excessive interference to two way radio communications. Please don't permit one communications service to destroy another.

Make up your own comments and do it soon. They will be taking this NOI down soon. The big money in the communications field is behind this. If it passes it could be the end of ham radio as we now enjoy it.

Thank you es 73,
Danny - W4DAN

I must have missed the earlier forum. Pls explain what this is and why it is so bad. I don't send in comments on things I don't know about. TOM K8ERV

[W4CGP]

It's in the News forum....I think it was posted 2-3 weeks ago.

[n0jzq]

I went to the FCC website and added my comments. It took about 5 minutes before the FCC website uploaded my comments. It then gave me a receipt number and said it accepted the comments from Christopher Leyman. This isn't my name. How it loaded this guy's name, I have no idea. It's not even close to my name! No wonder we are in trouble! I am going to attempt to let the FCC know that their software is flawed but who knows if they will get it!

Scott

[w0tdh]

Excerpts and my comments on this issue. #I will be sending these comments to many Congressmen as well. This new technology, if let to become a part of our every day life in these United States will be the end of the Amateur Radio Service. Many other Countries have studied this new technique and have overwhemingly rejected it. Why is our #own FCC expressing unabashed enthusiasm for BPL (PLC) ?

{"Broadband Over Power Line" Could Pose HF Interference Threat}

{The FCC will seek comments on the advisability of using powerlines to deliver broadband and Internet services to homes and businesses.}


{NEWINGTON, CT, Apr 25, 2003--The FCC soon will invite public comment on the concept of using existing electrical power lines to deliver Internet and broadband service to homes and offices. The Commission this week initiated a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in ET Docket 03-104. A form of carrier-current technology typically known as power line communication (PLC), it's also been called "PowerWiFi" and now--by the FCC--"Broadband over Power Line" (BPL). Whatever its name, the technology is raising serious interference concerns within the Amateur Radio community, since BPL would apply high-frequency RF to parts of the power grid. One aspect of the NOI is to gather information on potential interference effects on authorized spectrum users.

"Entire communities will be affected, so every amateur in that community could have part of the radiating system 'next door' on the power wiring on his or her street," cautioned ARRL Lab Supervisor Ed Hare, W1RFI. Hare chairs the PLC Work Group of the IEEE C63 Accredited Standards Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility, which develops standards for emissions and immunity for a wide range of commercial and consumer products. }

How can Mr. Powell think this BPL ( PLC ) can do anything but ruin the Amateur Radio Service ? #Why would Mr. Powell or anyone else on the Board even consider letting this happen ?

Have they succumbed to the Vendors http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Money ? #Power ? #Just why would Mr. Powell let this happen ?

{The FCC has declared BPL as a top priority for its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) in 2003. Powell, who recently witnessed a BPL demonstration, calls its potential "immense." As the chairman sees it, BPL "can offer consumers freedom to access broadband services from any room in their home without need to pay for additional wiring, by simply plugging an adapter into an existing electrical outlet." }

{FCC Upbeat about BPL/PLC }

{The FCC appears enthusiastic about BPL, however, saying it has the potential to "provide consumers with the freedom to access broadband services from any room in the house without adding or paying for additional connections." }

{FCC Chairman Michael Powell led this week's love fest in a separate statement. "Broadband over Power Line has the potential to provide consumers with a ubiquitous third broadband pipe to the home," the chairman enthused. "The development of multiple broadband-capable platforms--be it power lines, Wi-Fi, satellite, laser or licensed wireless--will transform the competitive broadband landscape and reap dramatic windfalls for American consumers and the economy }

I am beginning to see why Mr. Powell is in favor of this. #It seems all too obvious.

{BPL/PLC industry groups filed a report with the FCC even before the formal announcement of the BPL proceeding. In an apparent effort to clear the path of any potential regulatory obstacles, the United PowerLine Council (UPLC), a consortium of PLC manufacturers, and the PowerLine Communications Association (PLCA) have asked the OET to proceed with all deliberate speed on the BPL issue. The PLCA called the FCC's NOI "a historic moment for the power line communications industry." }

Wow, boy am I impressed with the Federal Agency charged with protecting our Spectrum. #It looks like, sounds like a WHOLESALE SELL-OUT of the Spectrum, so that companies selling this new Hi-Tech can make money.

Why, would anyone in the FCC want to ruin a Natural Resource such as our Spectrum and the Amateur Radio Service? #In time of emergencies have we as Amateurs not lived up to providing Communications in times of Natural and Man made disasters ?

This subject needs, I think, the scruteny of Congress..............



Thomas F. Fischel - KØPJG -
8274 Cullowhee Mountain Road
Cullowhee, NC #28723
k0pjg@earthlink.net

All msgs scanned per Norton Anti-Vius, in and out bound.

To view Collins equipment ;
http://www.qrz.com/callsign/k0pjg

Life Member of A.R.R.L. #



#

The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From …
Thomas F. Fischel
…and Thank You for Your Comments

Your Confirmation Number is: '2003527395453 ' #
Date Received: May 27 2003 #
Docket: 03-104 #

Number of Files Transmitted: #1

File Name File Type File Size
(bytes)
Brief Comment #ASCII Text #4594 #

DISCLOSURE

This confirmation verifies that ECFS has received and
accepted your filing. However, your filing will be rejected
by ECFS if it contains macros, passwords, redlining,
read-only formatting, a virus or automated links to
source documents that is not included with your filing.
Filers are encouraged to retrieve and view their filing
within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. For
any problems contact the Help Desk at 202-418-0193.


Initiate a Submission | Search ECFS | Return to ECFS Home Page




updated 02/11/02

[w0tdh]

557 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

Come on guys. #Just 557 folks have taken the time/trouble to file a comment........

The Main page for filing was down. #Need to use the alternate page. # Got that info from the FCC on the phone.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ecfs_alt.html

Select: #Submit a filing ( upper right of page )

To view the 557 comments already filed;

Go to above URL and hit Search for filed comments.

Enter 03-104 in the upper left space marked Proceeding.
Then press Retrieve Document List at bottom of screen.

You will get all of the comments.



Tom - K0PJG

[w0tdh]

We are up to 584 comments filed. Come on folks.

If the NOI was released April 28, #then we should have til June 12 to file ? #( 45 days ) #

Tom - K0PJG

[kd5icr]

589 as of may 28 2003.
I posted 3 week ago. I think we need to screem long and loud about this. I try to bring it up when we have info nets in my part of the country.Maybe all of you should chip in and do likewise.
73 kd5icr Bill

[KD5KUF]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't parallel wires of opposite polarity cancel each other out? This is the charachteristic of open feedline wire (ladderline for example) that hams use quite often in HF and do not generate stray RF (so they claim).

If they can offer me broadband internet in my rural location and not create havoc, I am all for it. And anyone that reads the ARRL enforcement letters should have sense enough to know that the utility companies are held responsible for any interference they may cause.

Lighten up al ye doomsayers. I want broadband internet access. If you all really knew what you were talking about instead of moaning about possible this and probable that, we might eventually make it out of the dark ages. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif (By the way, who didn't know the earth is round? Raise your hands, now.)

The power companies have been using communications and control signals on their wires for years and they haven't caused any undue interference yet, as long as connections and insulators don't break down. Sheesh, what's next, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!, cried Chicken Little." #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif #Get a grip. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[aa6e]

An amazing amount of data on Broadband Power Line (BPL) or Power Line Communications (PLC) is at ARRL PLC Info (http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/) by W1RFI. (With that call, he ought to know!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

You can read the comments by going to FCC ECFS site (alternate) (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ecfs_alt.html). Click on "search for filed comments" and enter "03-104" in the "Proceeding" box. (We are up to 610, as I write.) Note that if you go into the main fcc.gov website, you have to select the alternate comment/filing site. FCC's primary server is drifting out in space somewhere.

Seriously, this is the worst threat to ham radio that I can remember, and that's quite a while. Take your time to look over the data and the test results in Japan and Europe and decide if you want to sacrifice yourself at the altar of "deregulation". Once serious money goes into this technology, our chances seem pretty dim.

I think 600 comments out of 686K hams is not a great showing! But maybe it's the best we can expect on short notice.

73 - Martin

[w0tdh]

I was telling my "Elmer" about this problem. #He asked me to file for him es I have.
Geo - W9TDH has been a Ham since 1934. #He can see no good coming from this except yet more garbage on the air. Think of Cable TV using 2 mtrs to transmit their programing over "Closed,secure es leak proof coax " Now think of the leaks they have just from loose/broken cable shields.
#
NOW think of these power companies using just the bare wire, no shield................ALL over the entire USA.......

By the way, To Chicken Little es get a grip;

W9TDH has not been able to use 80 mtrs since the POWER COMPANY installed their meter reading system several years ago at his QTH. S-9 + Yes, the pwr co's are responsible, but why let them ruin our spectrum es the Amateur Radio Service to prove a point that already has been made, just so they can make money ? Of course you will have to upgrade one notch to suffer these slings es arrows from the power co's...............as they ONLY affect 160 mtrs thru Ten mtrs. I doubt they will bother VHF/UHF http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The Bands are going to be so corrupted with computer hash/ASCII sigs that you will not be able use to use them. Except to see what your neighbor is sending/receiving over the Net of course. #Then I guess they will make our Bands Illegal to listen to as with the Cell Phones................

Tom - K0PJG

[w0tdh]

632 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa6e @ May 28 2003,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An amazing amount of data on Broadband Power Line (BPL) or Power Line Communications (PLC) is at ARRL PLC Info (http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/) by W1RFI. #(With that call, he ought to know!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Check the ARRL home page later this week, as a much more concise presentation of the issues will be put up there and held at the top for the duration.

The preparation for this work has been going on quietly behind the scenes for over a year now. That resource page was up and running a few days after the NOI came out. ARRL also has good contacts in the BPL industry, and those are growing; hams who work in that industry do not want to see amateur radio trashed. (Although I don't share their optimism that this can be corrected. Look at the track record of the electric-utility industry in fixing conventional power-line noise. We cannot depend on them to correct problems that develop.)

I have been out to one field trial area, doing some preliminary work, and have three trips lined up now. My life will be consumed with this work for the coming months, as I help the DC team prepare for the Comments, Reply Comments and inevitable FCC presentations.

If anyone wonders where I am coming from when I respond to those that say &quot;ARRL doesn't represent me,&quot; let them think about my working 8 hours a day for weeks on this problem, then imagining how shocked I am to read a post that says that ARRL doesn't do important work for amateur radio! :-)

This is the big one, guys and gals, and you should not let ARRL go this alone. There are over 600 comments on file with the FCC; there should be 600,000. If you are only going to file one comment to the FCC in your life, this is the one! If you are only going to be an ARRL member for one year, spend 11 cents a day this year to make it happen, because I can promise you that the work I will do every day for the next 6 months on this will be worth the price of a good-size sip of coffee, or a bite of donut.

If you can, help fund some of my travel to the field-trial areas, and the staff time of the DC team with a contribution to the ARRL spectrum defense fund. Most hams have thousands of dollars invested in their stations, between rigs, accessories, antennas and the cost of that ever-growing junk box. Protect that investment with your time, your commitment and invest a small percentage of its worth into helping to ensure that BPL does not trash HF radio as we have come to know and love it.

Commercial mode off. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5KUF @ May 28 2003,09:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Correct me if I am wrong . . .[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, but remember, you asked to be corrected.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but don't parallel wires of opposite polarity cancel each other out? This is the charachteristic of open feedline wire (ladderline for example) that hams use quite often in HF and do not generate stray RF (so they claim). [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Such cancellation does occur, but the degree to which the wires cancel depends on their spacing, the losses in the wire and how much of the power is lost as heat in a load or radiated by an antenna. #Open-wire line works well on HF and into VHF, but above that, its spacing is too great a percentage of a wavelength. Close-spaced wiring makes a good transmission line, but when conductors are spaced a significant part of a wavelength, hams call them &quot;beams.&quot; Power-line wiring has sufficient spacing that HF signals put onto it radiate quite well.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they can offer me broadband internet in my rural location and not create havoc, I am all for it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If either were true, I would be all for it, too. Neither is realistic. First, the physics of the wiring involved makes it an antenna. #The BPL industry wants the FCC to raise the permitted levels, and the permitted levels will result in S9+ on HF. Anyone who thinks that they want to raise the levels, but won't radiate after they do just hasn't thought this through.

The industry is claiming that the infrastructure already exists. It does not. The systems I have seen either run fiber to the neighborhood or have to put digital repeaters on the lines every 2000 feet or so. Doing either is simply not ecomonical to provide broadband to Bumfrog, ID. If it were economical to put repeaters every so often, you would have DSL or cable right not, and if it were ecomomical to run fiber, it would already be there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And anyone that reads the ARRL enforcement letters should have sense enough to know that the utility companies are held responsible for any interference they may cause.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Behind each of those FCC letters are months or years of frustration by a ham, an electric utility company that takes months to fix problems under the best of circumstances, and tens of hours of ARRL staff time. Even at that, there are a number of cases that have languished for years. &quot;Responsible?&quot; This industry has a horrible track record at responding to correcting noise problems.

Right now, the noise problems are bad insulator this or loose wire tie that. From my field measurements, these noises get strong about every mile or two down a line. Now, imagine that the noise is not caused by a correctable defect, but is an inherent result of the radiation of signals that are deliberately put on a line. Imagine that this is going to radiate from the line in an entire community, and that the only solution would be to shut off internet to an entire neighborhood. Do you #honestly think that the electric utility that can't find and fix a bad insulator will take any real responsibility and correct problems promptly?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lighten up al ye doomsayers. I want broadband internet access. If you all really knew what you were talking about instead of moaning about possible this and probable that, we might eventually make it out of the dark ages. #<!--emo&amp;:0 #:p (By the way, who didn't know the earth is round? Raise your hands, now.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I know what I am talking about. I have done the calcualations; I have done antenna modeling to determine the radiation efficiency of power lines as antennas; I have measured noise levels near amateur stations; I serve on IEEE standards committees; I have designed and built field-strength measurement capability and I have spend hundreds of hours working this one issue alone. My technical work on BPL is documented at:

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/files/C63NovPLC.pdf

You obviously disagree, so please share with us your calculations, measurements and qualifications so we can discuss more than your conclusion that those that do not want to see access BPL become widespread are no more than doomsayers. #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The power companies have been using communications and control signals on their wires for years and they haven't caused any undue interference yet, as long as connections and insulators don't break down. Sheesh, what's next, &quot;The sky is falling, the sky is falling!, cried Chicken Little.&quot; #;) #Get a grip. #:p #;)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I agree that a grip is needed, but those that have done some real work on the subject have a much more accurate grasp than your idle speculation. Your comparision of access BPL, that uses high-speed digital signals that occupy HF and power-line carrier, in which the electric utilities send occasional slow-speed digital signals using LF to control utility equipment is indeed a &quot;sheesh.&quot;

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[KD5KUF]

W1RFI, Every one of you arrows hit dead center in the heart. I don't contest your knowledge and experience and I know that your findings will carry weight in the real debate with the powers that be. Good Luck in your crusade.

But as a ham who has enormous difficulty learning cw,(certain pitches I can't hear over the tinnitus) I am being barricaded from HF phone operation because of my personal problems with it, so I don't have a great deal of sympathy to the plight of the HFers. They have no sympathy for my problem as has been made quite obvious in the past. Only one person General class or above has offered to help tutor me one on one to learn CW and I will be taking him up on the offer, because I recognize the value of CW as a mode. But it is an outdated hurdle that I may never be able to jump over just to make others happy, who want code even if it is dropped from the international treaties.

I do appreciate the ARRL standing up for all facets of Amateur radio, but like the NRA, they often turn things into the crisis of the century. I got so sick and tired of their (NRA) continuous gloom and doom and frantic continous pleas for more money that they lost a member. I hope ARRL doesn't turn into the same mess. I can do without all the doom and gloom and extremes in my life even if I have to give up radio again. I enjoy it very much but it is not the be all and end all of my life.

Face it, advances in computer service technologyies are the wave of the future. Not radio, no matter how much I enjoy it myself. Fledgling attempts and new technology have always affected some people adversely. Amateur Radio is not without its history of problems with technology and creating interference or we would all still be using spark gap transmitters, and no one would ever have any reason to complain about us messing up their TV soap operas.

I am sick and tired of no better than a 26k modem connection out here if BF Egypt, and at twice what they pay for 56k connections in Tulsa. With todays graphic intensive or huge text file web pages, you had better take up knitting to kill the time between pages loading.
If technology is available and can be developed and improved, to bring me broad band service, I say Hot Damn, go for it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[w0tdh]

644 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

Well done Ed es THANK YOU for all #you do for the Amateur Radio Service.

Tom - K0PJG

[k4dje]

I believe that DTV offers High speed Internet service on their satellite. It supposedly works all over the USA. Why trash the HF spectrum for internet? If you or if I want high speed internet it is available. I find it hard to believe that so few of us have bothered to respond to this REAL threat to our spectrum

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5KUF @ June 03 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But as a ham who has enormous difficulty learning cw,(certain pitches I can't hear over the tinnitus) I am being barricaded from HF phone operation because of my personal problems with it, so I don't have a great deal of sympathy to the plight of the HFers. They have no sympathy for my problem as has been made quite obvious in the past.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If your difficulty is in hearing certain pitches, if you make arrangements with your local VE team, they can get a code test with a different audio frequency. #It is also possible to demonstrate proficiency by non-audio means, such as a blinking light, a mechanical buzzer, etc. #Start with the VE team and they can tell you what needs to happen to help. #In some cases of hearing loss or other medical conditions, sending tests can demonstrate proficiency, too.

Even if the real issue for some is that they don't want to learn the code, it is entirely possible that in the US, future rules changes could change the code-test requirements, allowing HF access without a code test. How will you feel at that point if HF is not useful to you because of digital noise across entire bands?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Only one person General class or above has offered to help tutor me one on one to learn CW and I will be taking him up on the offer, because I recognize the value of CW as a mode. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Only one General helped me in the 1960s. #Unfortunately, across all license classes, and across all decades, only a special few are willing to devote a lot of time to Elmering.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do appreciate the ARRL standing up for all facets of Amateur radio, but like the NRA, they often turn things into the crisis of the century. I got so sick and tired of their (NRA) continuous gloom and doom and frantic continous pleas for more money that they lost a member. I hope ARRL doesn't turn into the same mess. I can do without all the doom and gloom and extremes in my life even if I have to give up radio again. I enjoy it very much but it is not the be all and end all of my life.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Go to http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Video and play the videos and audio recordings and tell me if you think this is doom and gloom, or it really is doom and gloom. ARRL's fund raising folks will indeed use this as an opportunity, but because the end result is worth it. #If amateur radio wants to see the ARRL work to protect amateur radio, that work needs to be funded. #It will be funded from membership dues, but as pressures on our spectrum increase -- and they are, from HF to microwave, if ARRL is going to increase the money it spends on those increased pressures, other things would have to drop by the wayside. #The solution is to identify those that are willing and able to make additional contributions and ask them to do so. #There is no way to ask except to outline the reasons that such contributions are needed. I chip in, with a voluntary &quot;Diamond Club&quot; membership and contributions to the spectrum defense fund. If in the future, I am unable to make such additional contributions, I won't, and hope that someone else can.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Face it, advances in computer service technologyies are the wave of the future. Not radio, no matter how much I enjoy it myself. Fledgling attempts and new technology have always affected some people adversely. Amateur Radio is not without its history of problems with technology and creating interference or we would all still be using spark gap transmitters, and no one would ever have any reason to complain about us messing up their TV soap operas. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Every single connection to the internet has radio involved in it somewhere. Radio and computers and digital operation go hand in hand, and our rules permit us to become part of that technology. See http://www.arrl.org/hsmm for a glimpse of how amateur radio is moving into the digital age.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sick and tired of no better than a 26k modem connection out here if BF Egypt, and at twice what they pay for 56k connections in Tulsa. With todays graphic intensive or huge text file web pages, you had better take up knitting to kill the time between pages loading.
If technology is available and can be developed and improved, to bring me broad band service, I say Hot Damn, go for it. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

At the expense of trashing all of HF? I have personally seen this technology, up close, and 100 feet away from a device emitting at the legal limit, the signals ARE S9+ to typical ham antennas. Amateur Radio, MARS, shortwave listening, CB, low-band VHF and the lower channels of TV reception are all at risk. In the test area, 30 feet away from the power lines, the radiated signals were within a few dB as strong as the strongest shortwave broadcast stations when the 13 MHz band was wide open to Europe. Still look like &quot;go for it?&quot;

And if your live in Bumfrog, OK, #if it were feasible to run broadband to you, it would already be there. Both the phone company and the cable company have infrastucture ready to go. #BPL needs more infrastructure than the power lines; fiber needs to be run to neighborhoods, or digital repeaters need to be put on the medium-voltage lines. This will be deployed in areas where there are lots of customers.

Perhaps you could consider one of the satellite based broadband services. They use the dialup for the uplink (your computer sending to the internet) and the satellite for the downlink, at some pretty decent speeds.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0PJG @ June 03 2003,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">644 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

Well done Ed es THANK YOU for all #you do for the Amateur Radio Service.

Tom - K0PJG[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You are welcome, but there is no need to thank me. This is my job. I am pleased to do it well, but the bottom line is the ONLY reason that ARRL has full-time staff to work on these issues is that 160,000 of you all chipped in. That is the real thanks, because every year or so, each of you has to make a decision about membership, and if that decision were to change by all 160,000, this work would be over.

This could NOT be done by volunteers. ARRL spends tens of thousands of staff hours every year, counting the HQ staff, the DC team and the Board-level volunteers, protecting amateur spectrum. If we found volunteers to do a few hours a month, it would take thousands of qualified engineers and legal folks, and even if we found them, the continuity would be lost. The ONLY way to do this is with a paid staff, working under a Board of Directors and HQ management team.

So the thanks go to those that are willing to chip in 11 cents a day to make it happen. That is about the cost of a good sip of coffee or a bite of a donut. I can promise you that the work I will do today will be worth 11 cents to you! And even if not, there are 120 other people working at it too, and surely one of them will do something today you figure is worth a dime and a penny. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[N0WVA]

I would like to say that the work carried on by the ARRL and W1RFI has convinced me to support this cause and become a member(as much as I hate clubs) and give my comments to the FCC. This BPL is the most rediculous bunch of nonsense I have heard of. Dont we have enough pollution already? I know what we need! Maybe the eco/environmental movement could be our ally in this. Just get the word out about all the RF that will be radiating through each household. That should cause quite a stir!

[w0tdh]

764 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

[k7dlx]

And that 764 is only through June 5th - I filed my comment today, June 10th - and comments filed the 6th through the 10th have not shown up yet - is it possible we are overloading the system?

Come on people, wake up and smell the ozone - we need to get our comments in NOW.

Ric W7WWB

[w8ob]

Today there are 823 comments filed. You other guys better get off your backsides and file, otherwise don't come on here crying after this hot deal takes effect. Stop and think about 823 comments are only about .1 of 1 percent of the licensed hams. Where are the comments from our beloved radio makers? Ten-tec, Yaesu, Icom and Kenwood where are you?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif??

[N0WVA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w8ob @ June 10 2003,13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Today there are 823 comments filed. You other guys better get off your backsides and file, otherwise don't come on here crying after this hot deal takes effect. Stop and think about 823 comments are only about .1 of 1 percent of the licensed hams. Where are the comments from our beloved radio makers? Ten-tec, Yaesu, Icom and Kenwood where are you?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif??[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, i noticed the same absence. maybe I just missed them.

[w0tdh]

921 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

Have you told a Ham friend or two about this problem ?

Please do.

Tom - K0PJG

[ae4fa]

Okay, so what is the deadline again?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?

Seems pretty simple to me. BPL makes HF and lower VHF unseable. Hams abandon these frequencies. FCC auctions the former ham bands to the highest bidder. Power companies have a monopoly on Internet connections.

When the s**t hits the fan, power and BPL go down. HF emergency communications will not be available because hams have been driven out.

So, in addition to being really dark, it will be really quiet.

[ae4fa]

But then again. If HF is useable at all, CW will probably be the only viable mode.

Hmmm . . .

[w0tdh]

1336 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

Tom - K0PJG

[WA1DH]

I typed and submitted a document to the FCC a few weeks back regarding the issue. I do hope the FCC sees what a mess this will cause and how it will affect emergency communications (along with the attitudes and complaints of radio amateurs). 73 all...

KB1JEC

[w0tdh]

1438 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

[W1RFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0PJG @ July 01 2003,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1438 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104 [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See http://www.arrl.org/bpl for information about broadband over power line and links to the FCC site to file comments.

[w0tdh]

wu0f



Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: --
#Posted: July 01 2003,11:42 # #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting article was recently published in Compliance Engineering magazine. #Written by Diethard Hansen it discusses the impact of power line communications and is very interisting. #It can be found at http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/03/ARG/toc.html

WU0F #


This first part of above URL;


Technical EMI Problems in PLC Systems, Part 2
Diethard Hansen
Analyzing the results of PLC data reveals excessive emissions and incompatibility with existing technologies.

As discussed in Part 1, power line communicaions (PLC) presents significant interference issues and technical problems. These problems became evident in various studies throughout Europe. Individual radiated-emissions measurement campaigns in 2000 and 2001 showed numerous inconsistencies, which are as follows:

University of Dortmund/Siemens, Germany. Tests using –2 dBm at 10 MHz result in just meeting NB 30 limits.
Sevilla, Spain. Tests show –40 to –50 dBm/Hz (0 to –10 dBm in 9 kHz BW) at d = 10 m (5–10 MHz) results in more than 20 dB above NB 30. These PLC systems require a minimum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 15 dB.
Cologne, Germany. Measurements show +17 dBm total injected RF power, at 2–3 MHz, results in more than 13 dB above NB 30.
Suhr/AG, Switzerland. With –16 dBm, around 20 MHz results in 14 dB above NB 30. Outdoor cables are not so critical; 200–300 m in the street with one party at the end of the street being ASCOM connected.
Fulpmes/Stubai, Austria. Running an ASCOM system with typical specs: outdoor frequencies of 2.4, 4.8, and 8.4 MHz; indoor frequencies of 19.8 and 22.8 MHz; and PLC power levels of 17 dBm (50 mW, 124 dBµV, 90 dBµA) to –17 dBm (20µW, 90 dBµV, 56 dBµA).
The result was complete blocking of HAM short-wave receivers at +17 dBm, and the final result was this: no PLC signal was detected at –17 dBm (system bit rate unknown). At only 5W RF power from mobile TX at 21 MHz, the PLC system crashes.
Some reasons for problems are strong variations in cable coupling factors ranging from 5 to 30 (and even 60) dB within homes, depending on national electrical wiring codes and other national installation specifics.

More statistics about real signal-to-noise environment and LCL asymmetrical measurements in mains low-voltage distribution systems are needed. Generally speaking, telecom lines have about 20–30 dB better symmetry than low-voltage systems. Telecom lines, therefore, create less EMI common-mode (CM) current over electricity cables. Power lines transform symmetrically injected signals into asymmetrical, interfering currents (CM), causing network radiation problems.

PLC System Measurement Data

The first field trials with a few clients connected to UK Norweb showed dramatic emissions problems. The UK RadioCommunications Agency and the Radio Society of Great Britain (UK-licensed radio amateurs) documented these cases. Norweb finally left the UK market and started PLC activities in Germany, where it pulled out later as well. In Germany, RegTP ATRT protocols documented emissions up to 40 dB above NB 30 limits for most of the field trial.

Austria revealed serious radiated emissions and immunity problems with ASCOM systems. RWE pulled out in 2002 for technical reasons. Norway showed excessive emissions, about 30 dB over NB 30 limits (13 locations, up to 10 V pp = 140 dBµV injected; P-PE, 2–3 MHz). Consequently, no government license was granted to PLC providers.

Please go to the above URL es read ......then file a comment AGAINST BPL/PLC !


Tom - K0PJG

[w0tdh]

1521 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104


Please file a comment AGAINST BPL/PLC !

Tom - K0PJG

[w0tdh]

1944 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

PLEASE tell another Ham friend about this problem es ask them to file a comment. #I have sent an e mail msg to many Ham Clubs. #Not a big turn out as yet. #I did run into a Ham at a Ford dealership today. He did not know about BPL/PLC. #He is now very informed es will file a comment. Please do the same........ # Take the time to tell another Ham. #

Tom - K0PJG

[W1RFI]

ARRL's filing was huge -- over 120 pages.

To see this in organized pieces, with the antenna file descriptions separated from the technical reports, see:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/et03-104/

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

[w0tdh]

2083 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

[w0tdh]

2127 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104


What are you waiting for http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Tell another Ham if you have already filed.

Tom - K0PJG

[w0tdh]

2138 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:03-104

Deadline is Aug 6 folks. PLEASE FILE A COMMENT.....

Tom - K0PJG

[ka5s]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0PJG @ Aug. 02 2003,07:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Deadline is Aug 6 folks. #PLEASE FILE A COMMENT.....[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
From the ARRL Letter mailing list:
&quot;While the deadline for initial comments has passed, the FCC this week extended the reply comment deadline to August 20&quot;
URL
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2590A1.doc

File REPLY COMMENTS, _NOT_ I repeat NOT &quot;comments.&quot; The deadline for first comments passed 7 July and any effort spent on filing a &quot;comment&quot; will be wasted now.

Important! When filing on the ECFS site, click on *Reply Comment*.

(Should I say it again? -- grin)

If you have filed a comment after the 7 July filing date, I suggest you find one of the coments filed in favor of BPL, and file your again as a Reply Comment to _that_ filing.

Also important: This is NOT &quot;opposition.&quot; Be sure to use &quot;Reply Comment&quot; ONLY as the type of filing.

Arr, me hearties; BPL aport! More sail! We'll catch 'em, boys! No, ye idjits! Don't be shootin off them cannon to starboard!



Cortland