View Full Version : PPL and BPL on the Defensive
About 1 month ago or longer, I ran across an article in a Pennsylvania newspaper "The Morning Call". #It was about a BPL test site around the Allentown PA area.
The article was singing the praises of BPL. #I immediately posted a link to the article on QRZ and urged all that had read it to send an email to the author and urge him to investigate PPL further and report and print the drawbacks and impact of BPL on other communication services in the same newspaper.
I sent an email to him stressing this and a number of others did as well. #Thanks to all those who sent the emails to the author - Mr. Sam Kennedy. #He has presented a fair and balanced view of the BPL drawbacks.
I have attached a link to the site. #Read the story. #It is for a change good news for hams and the menace of BPL.
K2WH (Keep up the fight, never give up)
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5net-glitchsep28.story
K0RFD
10-03-2003, 05:35 PM
Interesting article.
Even more interesting is PLC's new slam that ARRL is only trying to make money off this. #What a crock.
How many millions have the power companies dumped into promoting this fatally flawed technology? #A whole lot more than the 10 bucks I could afford to send to the BPL defense fund, I bet.
kb0ixm
10-03-2003, 07:20 PM
I found it interesting that the power companies neglected to answer why some other countries have already scrapped this kind of technology, or did the writer of the article neglect to ask representatives of the PLC's this? I too found it the biggest case of hypocrosy that the plc's would even begin to argue that the ARRL's only reason for trying to call the ham radio community's and others attention to this had financial motivations. But they will use any method to achieve their goal and that goal is to line their pockets with the potential of unbelievable profits from the flawed bpl technology. Unfortunately as in so many cases in the united states people are slow to react until its to late. I just hope this will not be one of those cases and with the help of some of the other non governmental agencies that have submitted comments pointing out the negative impact bpl technology will have would make a difference in the FCC's ruling on this. Unfortunately I don't have alot of faith in the FCC's capability to keep a fair and balanced opinion on this issue, especially when you look at the money the plc's already have and the potential money they can make if the FCC approves the changes to the noise limits currently allowed. As one other poster on another thread stated..Its the golden rule in action people, he who has the gold rules. In this case the plc's have the key to fort knox and it looks like they want to give that key to the FCC! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
WD8OQX
10-03-2003, 08:17 PM
Has any of those "with the power to say yea or nay to this" ever gone into these "test areas" (more than just one or two) and looked for interference info for themselves? Why take anyones word for it? I think this would end the argument once & for all!
BTW: from what I have seen & experenced of the power lines around here I would have to say it's a no-go. I wish I could visit these test site myself to be sure.
KA1MUY
10-03-2003, 08:23 PM
Check out the program for the recent PLC conference. An interesting look at the players, and those they hope to convince that PLC/BPL is the best thing since sliced bread.
http://www.uplc.utc.org/index.v3page?p=29052
Click on "View Program"
N8CJM
10-03-2003, 10:10 PM
What happens when the guy next door is trying to download a file and my 1500 watts crashes his download?
Does he have to wait for me to get off the air? Do I have to wait for him to get off line?
There are a number of countries that have banned BPL, Japan for one. For the amount of high-tech stuff that they are into over there, one comes to a mind set something must be really wrong with BPL.
So the question is who pays the freight when 200, 500, 800, 1000, or 1500 watts crashes a download?
Follow the money! The amount that the ARRL may take in to try and fight this is Nothing to what the power companies have spent or will to get on-line. Makes me wonder why the head of the FCC is for crashing the air waves. Ms. FCC lets kill air traiffic control, weather service, our troops, police, fire, USCG, public workers, ships on inland waterways and count-less others who are not on 800 or 900 mHz trunking and Yes the amateurs that will Not be able to talk to one another,,,, sorry guys I'll get off my soap box.
Can a HF rig crash BPL downloads? I think you get the point we just may lose a whole lot more then what has been publicly said so far.
73
N8CJM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 02 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: from what I have seen & experenced of the power lines around here I would have to say it's a no-go. I wish I could visit these test site myself to be sure.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You may get your chance to check out a BPL test area, Ambient just got an experimental license from the FCC for nationwide trial sites. See the article.
Ambient Corporation Receives Key License from Federal Communications Commission (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=BW&Date=20030923&ID=2889747&Symbol=US:ABTG)
WD8OQX
10-03-2003, 11:05 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8CJM @ Oct. 03 2003,15:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can a HF rig crash BPL downloads? I think you get the point we just may lose a whole lot more then what has been publicly said so far.
73
N8CJM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Given my experence with computers & radios, I would say it is very possible. Ever have a computer sitting in the shack when you key up? What does it do if RF gets to it? See my point?
(This may not be so prevailent now with modern computers & there sheilding but poor cables make very good antenna)
WD8OQX
10-03-2003, 11:13 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc9aiy @ Oct. 03 2003,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 02 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: from what I have seen & experenced of the power lines around here I would have to say it's a no-go. I wish I could visit these test site myself to be sure.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You may get your chance to check out a BPL test area, Ambient just got an experimental license from the FCC for nationwide trial sites. See the article.
Ambient Corporation Receives Key License from Federal Communications Commission (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=BW&Date=20030923&ID=2889747&Symbol=US:ABTG)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
TNX 4 info - I'll check it out when I get a chance.
Given the way people are around here I don't think we will let this in unless there are some gaurantees that it's not going to cause problems both ways. If interference from Hams can get into it as I think it can, this may be our only hope of being rescued from this.
there you go, Everyone buy a 1500 watts and talk till your blue in the face, if every thing goes to plan customers will drop the BPL due to crashes and unreliability.............snicker...fight fire with fire
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Did I Say That !!!
n7wsb
10-04-2003, 06:54 AM
I liked this comment from a PPL engineer,
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PPL, a leader in power line communications development, has been testing the technology in the Allentown area for a year and a half. To date, the company has received only one complaint about radio interference, he said. ''Doesn't that tell you something?''[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah - that there aren't any hams in Allentown.
I read the article.
Some of points raised by the PLC is quite interesting to me though.
yes, the ARRL did conduct some tests but as the article pointed out, were are the complaints? #Sure I watched the ARRL video and yes it sounded pretty bad but I cannot imagine that in the areas tested there are no ham radio operators yet I have seen or heard nothing from anyone in those areas. #I am sure I would have read something on this website but I have not.
Where are the hams in these test areas?
Is it possible that the interference is not actually as bad as the ARRL is saying? #Think about it.Think about what the ARRL's real agenda just might be.
Broadband Internet access is probably the biggest threat to ham radio in my opinion. #Instant (well almost) #worldwide communication both via text and voice and no license or propagation to worry about, no radio to buy, no interference with your neighbor, no big ugly (not my opinion) antennas and towers in your backyard. etc. #Think about it. This is a major threat to the ARRL itself. #Not because of the interference. Maybe it is because if there is no ham radio, there is no ARRL. #think about it.
Yep, maybe you think that I am bashing the ARRL. That is not my intent. #I am a Life Member of the ARRL.
I just have a big problem when I hear only one side of a issue and so far, #all I am hearing and reading is what the ARRL has to say.
I want to hear what the hams in the test areas are saying.
73 #Thom
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Oct. 03 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I liked this comment from a PPL engineer,
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PPL, a leader in power line communications development, has been testing the technology in the Allentown area for a year and a half. To date, the company has received only one complaint about radio interference, he said. ''Doesn't that tell you something?''[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah - that there aren't any hams in Allentown.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think They Might Be Doing Enough Research in the areas they are testing and avoiding heavy concentrations of hams, Think That Might Be Possible ?
De N0SCC
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0SCC @ Oct. 03 2003,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there you go, Everyone buy a 1500 watts and talk till your blue in the face, if every thing goes to plan customers will drop the BPL due to crashes and unreliability.............snicker...fight fire with fire
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Did I Say That !!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I was wondering about that. I only run 100 watts here but still get into speaker wires/phones in this apartment bldg. now andf then.
PPL sez that the twisted pairs will keep out the interference...hmmmm. Like the idea of "reverse" interference but would probably generate "quiet hours" and such for offending hams since we are small potatoes compared to the power, phone, cable tv and internet interests who would benefit from BPL.
Might just get out the nasty old home brewed pair of 4-1000s and hook it up to a long wire paralell to the power lines and volunteer my services as one of those h.f., do nothing, automated pactor stations on a 24/7 basis....har har. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
OR maybe we could all help arrl out with MORE useless automatic morse code practice in excess of 50 wpm...automated of course. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wi8w @ Oct. 03 2003,01:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I read the article.
Some of points raised by the PLC is quite interesting to me though.
yes, the ARRL did conduct some tests but as the article pointed out, were are the complaints? #Sure I watched the ARRL video and yes it sounded pretty bad but I cannot imagine that in the areas tested there are no ham radio operators yet I have seen or heard nothing from anyone in those areas. #I am sure I would have read something on this website but I have not.
Where are the hams in these test areas?
Is it possible that the interference is not actually as bad as the ARRL is saying? #Think about it.Think about what the ARRL's real agenda just might be.
Broadband Internet access is probably the biggest threat to ham radio in my opinion. #Instant (well almost) #worldwide communication both via text and voice and no license or propagation to worry about, no radio to buy, no interference with your neighbor, no big ugly (not my opinion) antennas and towers in your backyard. etc. #Think about it. This is a major threat to the ARRL itself. #Not because of the interference. Maybe it is because if there is no ham radio, there is no ARRL. #think about it.
Yep, maybe you think that I am bashing the ARRL. That is not my intent. #I am a Life Member of the ARRL.
I just have a big problem when I hear only one side of a issue and so far, #all I am hearing and reading is what the ARRL has to say.
I want to hear what the hams in the test areas are saying.
73 #Thom[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, there are probably very few hams in that test area. #PPL has chosen their test areas very carefully and the test area is very small from what I have heard.
I have talked to lots of hams about this issue (past few months), only about 25% or les even heard of BPL. #My telling them was the first time they heard of it even though it has been on the forefront of ham news for months.
Therefore, if hams are in the area that are active and being so uninformed to whats happening, would probably regard the interference from some source unknown to them. #Oblivious to the problem confronting them. #Sad but true. #Even in this thread, there are some who say they have just heard of BPL. #This is part of the problem.
K2WH
kg6amw
10-04-2003, 03:01 PM
For you guys in PBL test areas, it will be important to report any interference. When you do, send it via certified letter with return reciept to whoever you complain to. These BPL guys have lots of money riding on this venture. Misrepresenting the facts and understating issues are routine. #Next, if you really want to get involved, start a door to door campaign passing out flyers in those test neighborhoods waring people to closely monitor their radio, telephone and tv's for interference. Give them the address/email address of the FCC as a place to complain to. #
KG6AMW
n7wsb
10-04-2003, 05:18 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0SCC @ Oct. 04 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Oct. 03 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I liked this comment from a PPL engineer,
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PPL, a leader in power line communications development, has been testing the technology in the Allentown area for a year and a half. To date, the company has received only one complaint about radio interference, he said. ''Doesn't that tell you something?''[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah - that there aren't any hams in Allentown.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think They Might Be Doing Enough Research in the areas they are testing and avoiding heavy concentrations of hams, Think That Might Be Possible ?
De N0SCC[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It could be. One thing I know about hams locally is that there are a lot that are inactive.
W5TDM
10-04-2003, 08:27 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Oct. 04 2003,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0SCC @ Oct. 04 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Oct. 03 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I liked this comment from a PPL engineer,
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PPL, a leader in power line communications development, has been testing the technology in the Allentown area for a year and a half. To date, the company has received only one complaint about radio interference, he said. ''Doesn't that tell you something?''[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah - that there aren't any hams in Allentown.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think They Might Be Doing Enough Research in the areas they are testing and avoiding heavy concentrations of hams, Think That Might Be Possible ?
De N0SCC[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It could be. One thing I know about hams locally is that there are a lot that are inactive.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I just did a name search for Allentown here on QRZ and
it returned over 300 hams in Allentown,PA. I am sure they are not all active, but at least one must be.
73
Terry
W5TDM
k3mbz
10-05-2003, 01:20 AM
Interesting...
I'm an electrician at PPL's nuclear power plant near Berwick, PA, and this is the first I've heard of their involvement in BPL.
I do know that they are almost done with a meter replacement project that uses the power lines to transmit electricity usage, instead of using people to read the meters. My meter has not been changed yet.
I've been loosely following the potential problems of BPL. Perhaps I can try to find out where the test was conducted.
K2WH, what are your sources for knowing there are no hams in the test area? I'm curious...
W7AKR
10-05-2003, 04:53 AM
I am a utility communications engineer and therefore I am a member of UTC. #I work for a transmission provider, so there is no BPL activity by my employer. #In my home life I am a ham and a member of ARRL. #As a member of UTC, I have been receiving numerous e-mail newsletters proclaiming the goodness of BPL. #I finally sent a reply to the UTC leadership, and a few minutes later had a phone call from Brett Kilbourne (he is an attorney who works for UTC). #Brett feels that my concerns regarding possible interferrence from BPL are "misplaced". #I told him about the ARRL video showing the impact of BPL in the test area. #He assured me that testing was being performed by the BPL implementers that will demonstrate that it will not interfere with amateur radio communications. #When I asked if I could see details of the testing procedure, he responded that the tests are proprietary, and therefore only the FCC would be able to see the details.
I subsequently sent a message to FCC commissioner Abernathy (kabernat@fcc.gov), because she is the person who UTC had speak at their recent annual conference and she proceeded to label BPL as "Broadband Nirvana" -- you can find her prepared remarks at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239079A1.doc.
It appears to me that the decision making process is not being handled by people with technical backgrounds. #
I hope that amateurs in the test areas will document and then report their experiences to the FCC. #It appears to me that such reports will be the only way that BPL can be brought under control.
alan
KG4JYE
10-05-2003, 05:29 AM
I know of one Ham in Allentown, PA that is extremely active and one for clear communications. AF4CB, Jim P., He's from Florida, but he is working under contract up there for Lucent Technologies. He's a comm. engineer and he loves building noise cancelling technology. If anyone can find his e-mail address, I'd love to write him and see what he thinks.
73
Dave
KG4JYE
NCI-5217
KG4JYE
10-05-2003, 05:50 AM
I was wondering if I can get some basic info on the BPL stuff.
What freq. are these things supposed to run at?
What bands will be effected?
What are the transfer rates supposed to be?
Will the FCC acctualy enforce no-interferance laws with it?
just stuff I would like to know. If there is a site that covers these, please point me in their direction. Please FACTS, not speculations.
73
Dave
KG4JYE
NCI-5217
2-80 mhz are clobbered in my neighbor hood but only care about the 80-10 meter ham bands which are, at times useless, useless.
there is another posting below this one concerning BPL in europe..check that one out for lots of good info....also just go to google.com and search for bpl...take a month off from work ...read and weep. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W7AKR @ Oct. 03 2003,22:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am a utility communications engineer and therefore I am a member of UTC. #I work for a transmission provider, so there is no BPL activity by my employer. #In my home life I am a ham and a member of ARRL. #As a member of UTC, I have been receiving numerous e-mail newsletters proclaiming the goodness of BPL. #I finally sent a reply to the UTC leadership, and a few minutes later had a phone call from Brett Kilbourne (he is an attorney who works for UTC). #Brett feels that my concerns regarding possible interferrence from BPL are "misplaced". #I told him about the ARRL video showing the impact of BPL in the test area. #He assured me that testing was being performed by the BPL implementers that will demonstrate that it will not interfere with amateur radio communications. #When I asked if I could see details of the testing procedure, he responded that the tests are proprietary, and therefore only the FCC would be able to see the details.
I subsequently sent a message to FCC commissioner Abernathy (kabernat@fcc.gov), because she is the person who UTC had speak at their recent annual conference and she proceeded to label BPL as "Broadband Nirvana" -- you can find her prepared remarks at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239079A1.doc.
It appears to me that the decision making process is not being handled by people with technical backgrounds. #
I hope that amateurs in the test areas will document and then report their experiences to the FCC. #It appears to me that such reports will be the only way that BPL can be brought under control.
alan[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is it possible we have a budding or building conspiracy here with the BPL advocates and the FCC?
Just a thought.
K2WH
G0MZS
10-05-2003, 02:34 PM
This is what they claim
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">216Mbps raw bandwidth with simultaneous, bi-directional, and symmetrical end-to-end delivery
overall latency of less than 500 microseconds
Multiple independent channels each operating bi-directionally
Use of microwave bands for very high information capacity powerline communications while avoiding interference issues of some other BPL approaches
Very low emissions levels compliant with FCC Part 15
Simple, rapid installation with no electrical characterization of grid required
Performance capabilities that allow creating networks which span more than 5 miles
Viability of leveraging low-cost 802.11 chipsets for powerline communications [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Read more HERE (http://www20.tomshardware.com/technews/20030924_184344.html) very impressive to a person who want BB and is not a Amateur.
WD8OQX
10-05-2003, 11:02 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (G0MZS @ Oct. 05 2003,07:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is what they claim
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">216Mbps raw bandwidth with simultaneous, bi-directional, and symmetrical end-to-end delivery
overall latency of less than 500 microseconds
Multiple independent channels each operating bi-directionally
Use of microwave bands for very high information capacity powerline communications while avoiding interference issues of some other BPL approaches
Very low emissions levels compliant with FCC Part 15
Simple, rapid installation with no electrical characterization of grid required
Performance capabilities that allow creating networks which span more than 5 miles
Viability of leveraging low-cost 802.11 chipsets for powerline communications [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Read more HERE (http://www20.tomshardware.com/technews/20030924_184344.html) very impressive to a person who want BB and is not a Amateur.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'll see it when I believe it!!
(or visa versa)
I find it interesting that there has been only one complaint logged regarding radio interference. #Where are the hams in Emanus PA? #Are there no hams? #Or is there "no problem?"
These guys are no dummies. #They have massive fire power in terms of money, and a nation that is starving for cheap bandwidth. #The FCC is under the gun. #If there is no interference, this spectator figures the FCC will have no option but to let them roll it out in a bigger footprint.
I'll be the first to admit, W1RFI's test involved a hamstick dipole on the roof of his vehicle, parked underneath a powerline. #I know of no ham installations of this nature--either base or mobile.
It seems to me that either 1) complaints must be generated, or 2) the FCC will continue rolling out the welcome mat for BPL. #Like it or not, that's the facts...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I subsequently sent a message to FCC commissioner Abernathy (kabernat@fcc.gov), because she is the person who UTC had speak at their recent annual conference and she proceeded to label BPL as "Broadband Nirvana" -- you can find her prepared remarks at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239079A1.doc.
It appears to me that the decision making process is not being handled by people with technical backgrounds. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I sent an e-mail to commissioner Abernathy as well. I have not received a reply yet, but I expect that she will not respond. I have a concern here that the FCC is in the process of declaring HF a waste land where conventional frequency allocation is no longer a valid method for parsing out this resource. My take is that we are about to see this resource allocated with the philosophy that asks what is the use for this resource that generates the largest economic benefit. I don't have a biography of the commissioner that I can use to assess her qualifications in this field so I can not be sure of this as a fact.
I have since done more research and it appears that this project is receiving extensive attention by marketing people. In all cases, there are no technical claims being made at this time. The pitch appears to be totally monetary in nature. They are attempting #attact significant money.
The tone of ARRL comments in the case of BPL and to commissioner Abernathy by K1ZZ are extreme and shrill. I would take a more reasoned approach, but I missed the comment dead line for filing in the NOI. My comments to the commissioner did reflect a more questioning approach.
I have seen Ed Hare's comments on BPL and his video. I would like to see the signal levels at a distance similar to that employed at a typical station rather than from immediately under the power lines, but this signal will be coming into my home, should it be deployed, and available right inside of my HF radio. I would like to see what the signal levels are in a typical shack in the test area with and without the antenna connected. Lastly, I would love to see some measurements that document the egress of a typical 100 watt station signal into the system and what degradation the typical BPL system suffers to this system. I have yet to see any information concerning this last issue and it will become a major issue should a significant degradation occur. (I think some mention quiet time?)
This entire issue does raise some valid concerns and I think that raising a defense fund in this case is entirely warranted. The League does have a significant monetary stake in the outcome of this issue. I share their concern and BTW I am a full ARRL member. I have not donated as of this time because I am out of work because of outsourcing, but that's another issue and can not afford to donate. I will file comments should a NPRM be issued to change the rules in Part 15 should future there be no answers to the questions I raised in my last paragraph.
AE1X:kes
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0FP @ Oct. 05 2003,19:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it interesting that there has been only one complaint logged regarding radio interference. #Where are the hams in Emanus PA? #Are there no hams? #Or is there "no problem?"
These guys are no dummies. #They have massive fire power in terms of money, and a nation that is starving for cheap bandwidth. #The FCC is under the gun. #If there is no interference, this spectator figures the FCC will have no option but to let them roll it out in a bigger footprint.
I'll be the first to admit, W1RFI's test involved a hamstick dipole on the roof of his vehicle, parked underneath a powerline. #I know of no ham installations of this nature--either base or mobile.
It seems to me that either 1) complaints must be generated, or 2) the FCC will continue rolling out the welcome mat for BPL. #Like it or not, that's the facts...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Who do you complain to?? My antenna is 150 feet from any powerline and I WAS getting clobbered s9+ 20 on all hf bands. We all know this plan will be implemented and complaining to the can co. (which I did) is a waste and the ARRLs defense fund 0f 50gs or so won't even pay a half baked lawyers fees for a couple weeks.
My next logical thought was to contact the local power monopoly. After getting by a half dozen folks who could hardly speak english I was put in touch with the engineering dept. The engineering boys came out and took a listen. They admitted it was BPL but showed me something I had never thought about.....the catv trunks, feeders and drops all run parallel with the power lines.
Not a problem...but also showed me the return path frequencies that catv uses here in my area...lots of hf stuff....still not a problem. Next they disconnected the a.c from my cable modem and the noise dropped to s3!!
I didn't even know 10 and 15 meters were open till then!! So, for those of you who have CABLEVISION/OPTONLINE in NJ here is the "somewhat cure"....return your old models..
MOTOROLA SB-4100 AND SB-4200 cable modems and get the SB-5100. They are canning the older models but just not saying so. The SB 5100 is well isolated from bpl/ppl noise and uses a wallwart power supply. Rather than get into a discussion with the folks at the catv walk-in center I just told them the old modem overheats now and then and they gave me the new one. (lifetime warranty btw)
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Sep. 30 2003,12:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About 1 month ago or longer, I ran across an article in a Pennsylvania newspaper "The Morning Call". #It was about a BPL test site around the Allentown PA area.
The article was singing the praises of BPL. #I immediately posted a link to the article on QRZ and urged all that had read it to send an email to the author and urge him to investigate PPL further and report and print the drawbacks and impact of BPL on other communication services in the same newspaper.
I sent an email to him stressing this and a number of others did as well. #Thanks to all those who sent the emails to the author - Mr. Sam Kennedy. #He has presented a fair and balanced view of the BPL drawbacks.
I have attached a link to the site. #Read the story. #It is for a change good news for hams and the menace of BPL.
K2WH (Keep up the fight, never give up)
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5net-glitchsep28.story[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Read the followup:
http://www.mcall.com/news....ews-hed (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5net-glitchsep28,0,2293904.story?coll=all-news-hed)
Excellent work by Carl Stevenson, WK3C
Access-BPL is a "last mile" technology meant to avoid the need to rewire homes for broadband internet access. This means the BPL signals are not only on the power lines but sent into everyone's house wiring so that all you need to do is plug a special modem into any wall outlet for access.
Of course this turns the entire electric distribution system into a giant antenna.....
Access BPL uses RF signals in the range of 1.7 to 80 MHz. The test sites have not been widely publicized and the technology kept quiet for obvious reasons. Indeed, BPL developers say that results of interference tests they have conducted are "proprietary" and not to be made public.
If people don't know the tests are being conducted, how will they know who to complain to about interference?
If you think it's an HF-only problem, consider that folks like Cingular Wireless are concerned about the 10th and higher harmonics of BPL signals messing up cell phones.
The W1RFI test setup is meant to emulate what hams with typical fixed horizontally-polarized HF antennas can expect to hear. A typical ham dipole or beam will do a much better job of picking up BPL noise than a pair of buddipoles a few inches off the car roof.
Emmaus is a small town outside Allentown. The test site is small and carefully monitored. Once you get away from the site, the interference drops into the noise.
Now imagine that BPL is implemented all over the country. How will you get away from it?
BPL advocates want Part 15 levels raised, too. And they want licensed services to accomodate them, not the other way around.
FCC asked for comments to an NOI (03-104). The 120 page opposition report filed by ARRL was excellent. The comments by WK3C were very good, too. I wish mine were as good.
This problem is not going to go away unless we hams and others fight it relentlessly. It's a simple case of EM spectrum pollution.
My fight BPL-check was sent to Newington a few weeks ago. Time for another?
73 de Jim, N2EY
WD8OQX
10-06-2003, 01:32 PM
Here is another thought. In the last few years "they" (whoever that is) have gotten very conserned about RF exposure to the point that we hams now have to worry about it as well. I would like to know what affect BPL is going go have in this matter? Giving that it is going to be dealing with a lot more freqs than at present. and that those freqs will be in everyone house, like it or not.
BTW: I can hear the Amish laughing now. (this is not intented to be an insult - I just think that at times they have the right idea. We are getting way to relient on technology)
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0SCC @ Oct. 03 2003,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">there you go, Everyone buy 1500 watts
if every thing goes to plan customers will drop the BPL due to crashes and unreliability.....snicker...fight fire with fire[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately for anyone who thinks hams are likely to interfere with BPL, I doubt that will be the case. #
Since BPL is a broadband technology I'd guess it will be pretty immune to interference; and they will probably make it adaptive, meaning: if your 15 meter kilowatt causes interference at 21MHz, the system will be smart enough to just not use 21MHz (or the error correction will just resend any bytes that were corrupted). #
This technology is clearly a reckless, ill-conceived, disaster. #Approval of it would run counter to any claim the FCC has of protecting and administering the airways. #It's a free-market version of the old Soviet "woodpecker" over the horizon radar (i.e. jamming) system.
N0JCG
10-06-2003, 09:32 PM
The very front end of the BPL receiver, like all radios, must be a good old fashion RF amp, and a pretty wide band one at that. Any substantial RF energy in the passband will cause the AGC to desense, essentially pushing the much smaller BPL signal into the mud. The only way around this is substantial hardware filters, which will need to be at every frequency that wants to be rejected. The DSP in the BPL receiver can certainly filter things out, but only if the signal gets that far!
By ther way, increase the RF power level some more in the passband and the front end acts like a diode bridge, essentially clamping the input to the power rails; increase it still further and the front end acts like a fuse.
WD8OQX
10-07-2003, 07:52 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3CW @ Oct. 06 2003,13:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">#It's a free-market version of the old Soviet "woodpecker" over the horizon radar (i.e. jamming) system.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
...And as for all of us that are old enough to remember the "woodpecker", we can all tell you that THAT was bad enough!!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Hello!
I just wanted to jump in here and thank K2WH for his activism.
We need to get hams to talk about these issues, but more than that, we need hams who will get up and DO something as K2WH has done.
Bravo! #Good work, K2WH!
Charles Brabham, #N5PVL
k2lck
10-07-2003, 04:26 PM
I have no way of knowing, of coarse, but from what I read, I suspect that it is a done deal and the "campaign contrubutions" #(read:bribes) have already been paid.. sigh........ Ed
WA3KYY
10-07-2003, 04:28 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JUSTAHAM @ Oct. 05 2003,03:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2-80 mhz are clobbered in my neighbor hood but only care about the 80-10 meter ham bands which are, at times useless, useless.
there is another posting below this one concerning BPL in europe..check that one out for lots of good info....also just go to google.com and search for bpl...take a month off from work ...read and weep. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Have you filed complaints by registered or certified mail with the BPL provider in your area with copies to the FCC? That would go a long way to counter the BPL propnents arguments of no complaints.
Have you transmitted while BPL was active and did it cause interference?
Just curious.
Mike
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 12:18 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0RFD @ Oct. 02 2003,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting article.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I thought it was fair and balanced reporting. The reporter talked with me at ARRL HQ and worked with Carl Stevenson, WK3C, an Emmaus amateur.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even more interesting is PLC's new slam that ARRL is only trying to make money off this. #What a crock.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
By my guess, ARRL may raise $300,000 in response to this threat. The technical staff has been working on this pretty steady since May; the DC staff has been involved with BPL at the international level; ARRL maintains a legal counsel that did the several filings ARRL has done with the FCC and Jim Haynie and others have made several trips to discuss the matter with the FCC and with folks like NAB, etc.
Right now, this is an FCC Notice of Inquiry. The Commission may decide to bring this forth as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which will start this all over again. ARRL's work on BPL will continue into next year. By the time it is all done, the League will have spent the $300,000 and then some. Anyone who claims that there is "big money in this" for ARRL is really missing the point. Or misrepresenting it, anyway.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many millions have the power companies dumped into promoting this fatally flawed technology? #A whole lot more than the 10 bucks I could afford to send to the BPL defense fund, I bet.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The part I find amazing is that ARRL is trying to offer the power companies sound and accurate information about a major problem that will put those millions of dollars at risk, yet some don't want to even listen. If I were about to make a major investment and someone offered to explain any pitfalls to me, I would jump on that in a heartbeat. I have specifically invited the PPL folks to meet me in Emmaus, Whitehall and Bethlehem PA so I can show them the interfernce that the trial system generates.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 12:23 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 02 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Has any of those "with the power to say yea or nay to this" ever gone into these "test areas" (more than just one or two) and looked for interference info for themselves? Why take anyones word for it? I think this would end the argument once & for all!
BTW: from what I have seen & experenced of the power lines around here I would have to say it's a no-go. I wish I could visit these test site myself to be sure.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It literally would be as simple as buying a $30 receiver from Radio Shack and walking down the street.
I will go one better, though, and if any of the involved utilities want to work with ARRL to take a closer look, I will gladly do so.
NTIA, the "FCC" for government use of spectrum, has sent a team from Colorado to look at 3 of the test areas. I have been to several of the areas and know exactly what they will find. The ARRL video is, IMHO, a reasonable representation of what was found in the 4 cities shown. The NTIA test plan looked complete and reasonable and I have confidence that they are only looking for the truth.
You could probably make it to Emmaus, PA in about a day's drive. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 12:27 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8CJM @ Oct. 02 2003,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can a HF rig crash BPL downloads? I think you get the point we just may lose a whole lot more then what has been publicly said so far.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
AMRAD filed reply comments indicating that its tests showed as little as 10 watts took down in-house BPL in their test setup. A fellow in Potomac, MD ran 100 watts to a 15-meter dipole in his attic and that did not take down his system, although on 20 meter CW, it did at about 25 watts. One BPL manufacturer is doing testing with a TS-850 they borrowed from ARRL and they have not yet returned the rig, suggesting to me that 100 watts was enough that that they need to do more engineering.
I have no doubt at all that 1500 watts would be a show stopper. Under Part 15, they must accept any interference caused to them by licensed services.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 12:37 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc9aiy @ Oct. 02 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 02 2003,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: from what I have seen & experenced of the power lines around here I would have to say it's a no-go. I wish I could visit these test site myself to be sure.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You may get your chance to check out a BPL test area, Ambient just got an experimental license from the FCC for nationwide trial sites. See the article.
Ambient Corporation Receives Key License from Federal Communications Commission (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=BW&Date=20030923&ID=2889747&Symbol=US:ABTG)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This really is not the end of the universe as we know it. The FCC has been issuing experimental licences on a state or regional basis for a while, so this just make the FCC and Ambient paperwork a bit easier.
Ambient is involved in the Briarcliff Manor, NY trial area and a few others.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
K0ZZE
10-08-2003, 12:43 AM
amen!!! if it comes down to it fight fire with fire!!! well if talking cant fix it ofcourse.im so against this BPL crap it makes me sick.KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY is something else, im not going to get into it to much cuz i just get to mad thinking about it!!!!
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 12:47 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wi8w @ Oct. 03 2003,01:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, the ARRL did conduct some tests but as the article pointed out, were are the complaints? #Sure I watched the ARRL video and yes it sounded pretty bad but I cannot imagine that in the areas tested there are no ham radio operators yet I have seen or heard nothing from anyone in those areas. #I am sure I would have read something on this website but I have not.
Where are the hams in these test areas?
Is it possible that the interference is not actually as bad as the ARRL is saying? #Think about it.Think about what the ARRL's real agenda just might be.
Broadband Internet access is probably the biggest threat to ham radio in my opinion. #Instant (well almost) #worldwide communication both via text and voice and no license or propagation to worry about, no radio to buy, no interference with your neighbor, no big ugly (not my opinion) antennas and towers in your backyard. etc. #Think about it. This is a major threat to the ARRL itself. #Not because of the interference. Maybe it is because if there is no ham radio, there is no ARRL. #think about it.
Yep, maybe you think that I am bashing the ARRL. That is not my intent. #I am a Life Member of the ARRL.
I just have a big problem when I hear only one side of a issue and so far, #all I am hearing and reading is what the ARRL has to say.
I want to hear what the hams in the test areas are saying.
73 #Thom[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The Emmaus trial area involves a few hundred homes. This is about as large as the trials get. The one in Briarcliff Manor, NY involves about a dozen homes. A number of the trials are quite small. Note that none of the industry claims that there have been no reports of interference say that there were no reports of interference from the 19 homes in the trial area...
The claim has been made that there were no reports of interference from any of the worldwide trials. The Austrian Amateur Radio Society filed reply comments that outlined the 70 reports that were generated in Austria and the attempts by the Austrian regulators to address them.
WK3C showed interference to the reporter in Emmaus, yet the utility response was that he found a neon sign.
The reports of interference that have been outlined in the various comments and reply comments are at http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html#reports.
By dismissing every claim, the industry can continue to say there have been no reports of interference.
And what IS ARRL's agenda? To solicit support from hams to help cover some -- but not all -- of the costs of all that the League has been doing? 0
If your view that ARRL wants to avoid the competition of the internet, how can you explain ARRL's extensive use of the Internet and its promoting amateur radio and the internet in is High Speed and Multimedia Working Group? http://www.arrl.org/hsmm.
Now, the bottom line question: do you think I am lying to you when I tell you that what was documented on the ARRL video is a reasonable representation of what I found when I went to the trial areas? Do you think that the others who also visited some of the trial areas are lying when they filed reply comments confirming what had been found. That is a pretty strong accusation you are making and I wonder if you can tell us the basis you have for making it.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 12:51 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Oct. 03 2003,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, there are probably very few hams in that test area. #PPL has chosen their test areas very carefully and the test area is very small from what I have heard.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, the Emmaus area is fairly large, as these things go -- a few hundred homes passed. Still, statistically, there are not apt to be a ham in the trial areas, although we have identified a few and have worked with them. The new trial in Bethlehem, PA (PPL and Amperion) generated an S9 report within days from a ham who lives in the area.
Some of the trials are very small, with a dozen homes or so involved.
As these areas expand, interference will be experienced by hams in the area.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 12:53 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5TDM @ Oct. 03 2003,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Oct. 04 2003,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0SCC @ Oct. 04 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n7wsb @ Oct. 03 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I liked this comment from a PPL engineer,
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PPL, a leader in power line communications development, has been testing the technology in the Allentown area for a year and a half. To date, the company has received only one complaint about radio interference, he said. ''Doesn't that tell you something?''[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah - that there aren't any hams in Allentown.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think They Might Be Doing Enough Research in the areas they are testing and avoiding heavy concentrations of hams, Think That Might Be Possible ?
De N0SCC[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It could be. One thing I know about hams locally is that there are a lot that are inactive.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I just did a name search for Allentown here on QRZ and
it returned over 300 hams in Allentown,PA. I am sure they are not all active, but at least one must be.
73
Terry
W5TDM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
WK3C lives in Emmaus, but he lives about 3 miles from the trial area. Only those in the immediate vicinity of the system will have interference and when I drove all around the trial area in Emmaus, there wasn't a single Yagi to be found. :-)
Keep in mind that the trial is not the entire city of Emmaus, it involves about a couple of dozen small, "development" type streets and a few larger thorougfares for a half mile or so.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 01:03 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB3GOA @ Oct. 03 2003,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting...
I'm an electrician at PPL's nuclear power plant near Berwick, PA, and this is the first I've heard of their involvement in BPL.
I do know that they are almost done with a meter replacement project that uses the power lines to transmit electricity usage, instead of using people to read the meters. My meter has not been changed yet.
I've been loosely following the potential problems of BPL. Perhaps I can try to find out where the test was conducted.
K2WH, what are your sources for knowing there are no hams in the test area? I'm curious...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The Emmaus test was near the high school. W Berger St is a good street to evaluate the interference from overhead lines. If you have an HF portable or mobile set up, do go there and give us a report. If you email me at w1rfi@arrl.org, I can give you the name of the PPL exec in charge of this project, as I am sure he will give some credence to a report from a PPL employee.
The Whitehall test is also up and running, using an Amperion system. Its OFDM seems to be about 4 MHz wide. The trial area is in the NW corner. Two areas of overhead wiring where the BPL signal was S9+ were Schadt Ave, west of SR145 and Gallagher Rd, at the intersection with Mauch Chunk. Gallagher is a "split" road, with the east and west portions unconnected. It seems to be common in the area, as I found a number of non-continuous streets.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 01:05 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4JYEdave @ Oct. 03 2003,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was wondering if I can get some basic info on the BPL stuff. #
What freq. are these things supposed to run at? #
What bands will be effected?
What are the transfer rates supposed to be?
Will the FCC acctualy enforce no-interferance laws with it?
just stuff I would like to know. #If there is a site that covers these, please point me in their direction. #Please FACTS, not speculations.
73
Dave
KG4JYE
NCI-5217[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There are a number of flavors of BPL, each with different characteristics. The frequencies are reported to range from 2 to 80 MHz, although I haven't heard anything below 3 MHz nor above 50 MHz in my visits to the trial areas.
You can see info on the subject at http://www.arrl.org/bpl.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 01:09 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0FP @ Oct. 04 2003,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll be the first to admit, W1RFI's test involved a hamstick dipole on the roof of his vehicle, parked underneath a powerline. #I know of no ham installations of this nature--either base or mobile.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, the installation is a reasonable mobile setup. The interference with a vertical whip was a bit stronger. One of our technical advisers, George Hagn, did much of the work on the measurements of man-made noise in the 70s and 80s. He explained to me the reasons that a vertical antenna will pick up more noise locally than a horizontal antenna. I wanted our tests to be conservative, so I went with the horizontal polarization.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 01:16 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ae1x @ Oct. 05 2003,03:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The tone of ARRL comments in the case of BPL and to commissioner Abernathy by K1ZZ are extreme and shrill. I would take a more reasoned approach, but I missed the comment dead line for filing in the NOI. My comments to the commissioner did reflect a more questioning approach.
I have seen Ed Hare's comments on BPL and his video. I would like to see the signal levels at a distance similar to that employed at a typical station rather than from immediately under the power lines, but this signal will be coming into my home, should it be deployed, and available right inside of my HF radio. I would like to see what the signal levels are in a typical shack in the test area with and without the antenna connected. Lastly, I would love to see some measurements that document the egress of a typical 100 watt station signal into the system and what degradation the typical BPL system suffers to this system. I have yet to see any information concerning this last issue and it will become a major issue should a significant degradation occur. (I think some mention quiet time?)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Especially in an NOI, late-filed comments do have value, so do make a filing anyway. FCC's OET will be doing most of the analysis, so if there was any technical aspect to what you said, file it so OET will consider it.
The strength of the signal will fall off about as 20 log distance -- the well known inverse square. The near-field region is rather large on HF, so the relationship is not perfect, but EZNEC gives variation vs distance ranging from 15 to 25 dB / distance decade for the models I have run.
In Briarcliff Manor, NY I found S9+ interference on the streets. My modest antenna, about -3 dBi on 14 MHz, gave me S6-S7 interference in BCM when I was parked in a parking lot, about 200 feet from the road. If I had a Yagi, add 15 dB and you are back to S9. That is a test I will probably be doing at some point. The Kinderhook, NY hams owe me a favor and they have a nice traileable Yagi. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 01:20 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 05 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is another thought. In the last few years "they" (whoever that is) have gotten very conserned about RF exposure to the point that we hams now have to worry about it as well. I would like to know what affect BPL is going go have in this matter? Giving that it is going to be dealing with a lot more freqs than at present. and that those freqs will be in everyone house, like it or not.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The RF exposure from BPL systems are many tens of dB less than that from most intentional emitters. BPL does not pose any RF safety issues. If they are operating over a 10 MHz bandwidth, BPL systems opereate with about about 10 milliwatts of total power.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 01:23 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 06 2003,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3CW @ Oct. 06 2003,13:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">#It's a free-market version of the old Soviet "woodpecker" over the horizon radar (i.e. jamming) system.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
...And as for all of us that are old enough to remember the "woodpecker", we can all tell you that THAT was bad enough!!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
BPL will use about 1000 the bandwidth of the woodpecker and will be a few dB stronger at most stations if the system is operating on overhead power lines outside their homes.
73,
Ed hare, W1RFI
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA3KYY @ Oct. 07 2003,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JUSTAHAM @ Oct. 05 2003,03:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2-80 mhz are clobbered in my neighbor hood but only care about the 80-10 meter ham bands which are, at times useless, useless.
there is another posting below this one concerning BPL in europe..check that one out for lots of good info....also just go to google.com and search for bpl...take a month off from work ...read and weep. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Have you filed complaints by registered or certified mail with the BPL provider in your area with copies to the FCC? #That would go a long way to counter the BPL propnents arguments of no complaints.
Have you transmitted while BPL was active and did it cause interference?
Just curious.
Mike[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Done all that...the power company admitted it was causing the problem. In a later post I explained how the bpl/rfi was significantly reduced at my qth..but then again they are not running this thing full blast or 24/7 YET.
I am on the air alot on hf but don't know whether or not it causing the bpl any grief....doubt it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
W1RFI
10-08-2003, 11:42 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JUSTAHAM @ Oct. 07 2003,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Done all that...the power company admitted it was causing the problem. # In a later post I explained how the bpl/rfi was significantly reduced at my qth..but then again they are not running this thing full blast or 24/7 YET.
I am on the air alot on hf but don't know whether or not it causing the bpl any grief....doubt it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What is your location? From one of your posts, it looked as if you are in NJ. There are no BPL installations in New Jersey, to my knowledge. What is the name of your electric utility? If you are experiencing interference from a BPL system in one of the trial areas, it is critical that this get to the FCC, and pronto.
Could it be "regular" power-line noise? That does better match the profile you have set forth.
If you are having interference from power lines and have not been able to resolve it with your electric company, contact Mike Gruber, W1MG@arrl.org for help. He will get your case into the joint ARRL/FCC program to resolve power-line interference.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
WD8OQX
10-08-2003, 01:10 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Oct. 07 2003,18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 05 2003,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is another thought. In the last few years "they" (whoever that is) have gotten very conserned about RF exposure to the point that we hams now have to worry about it as well. I would like to know what affect BPL is going go have in this matter? Giving that it is going to be dealing with a lot more freqs than at present. and that those freqs will be in everyone house, like it or not.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The RF exposure from BPL systems are many tens of dB less than that from most intentional emitters. #BPL does not pose any RF safety issues. If they are operating over a 10 MHz bandwidth, BPL systems opereate with about about 10 milliwatts of total power.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Your reply has merrit - tnx - when I get the chance I'm going to do some math on this & see.
Since I don't really buy into this RF exposer stuff anyway it is just another one of those couriousities that bug me.
It's like, "OK- what does 60HZ (especially hi-power lines) do"? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
W1RFI
10-09-2003, 12:22 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 07 2003,07:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your reply has merrit - tnx - when I get the chance I'm going to do some math on this & see.
Since I don't really buy into this RF exposer stuff anyway it is just another one of those couriousities that bug me.
It's like, "OK- what does 60HZ (especially hi-power lines) do"? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Here was my calculation:
Modem power level: -50 dBm/Hz
Additional coupler loss: 10 dB
Add for 10 MHz: 70 dB
Total: 10 dBm = 10 mw
If one assumes 0 dBi gain for the power line as a radiator, that would be an EIRP of 10 mw total power. This will not result in RF exposure greater than the FCC limits under any circumstances and is not likely to result in dynamic-range blocking of nearby receivers.
The problem is that the "fundamental" is so very strong and about -60 dB of out-of-band suppression would be needed to protect most amateur operation. And even if amateur spectrum were avoided, like HomePlug in-house BPL systems do, somebody's ox is getting gored. Other than amateur, in residential areas, international shortwave, WWV, etc., are the most affected.
Now, at the level of the RF-exposure standards, I do not believe there is any risk to HF. But as a microwave oven tells us, clearly at some power level, RF can become downright dangerous. Don't dismiss the very real safety issues. If we maintain our stations at the exposure limits outlined in the FCC rules, we can operate well below that danger threshold.
http://www.arrl.org/rfsafety
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
WD8OQX
10-09-2003, 01:20 AM
W1RFI
I have to agree - but I must tell you that I don't consider RF to be a problem until I get around 800MHZ just for the reason you mentioned. I am always leary of cell phones as I feel like I'm putting a micowave oven to my head. Even though I don't agree with it at HF, I still (try to) abide by the rules.
TNX 4 the info... Given that I work(ed) with computers I should have figured this for myself. I guess this disability I have is worse than I thought.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
ah6gi
10-09-2003, 11:16 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Oct. 07 2003,18:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0FP @ Oct. 04 2003,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll be the first to admit, W1RFI's test involved a hamstick dipole on the roof of his vehicle, parked underneath a powerline. I know of no ham installations of this nature--either base or mobile.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, the installation is a reasonable mobile setup. The interference with a vertical whip was a bit stronger. One of our technical advisers, George Hagn, did much of the work on the measurements of man-made noise in the 70s and 80s. He explained to me the reasons that a vertical antenna will pick up more noise locally than a horizontal antenna. I wanted our tests to be conservative, so I went with the horizontal polarization.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is there a site that's keeping a current, to-date list of the locations where BPL is being tested?
The ARRL (and your) video is one thing but if we knew where the tests were being run, more folk could have personal experience of hearing the QRN themselves.
I have two receivers near Washington DC and have an S-7+ QRN at one place. The noise is clustered in 10-20 kHz blocks spaced about 40-60 kHz all across HF, worse on 40 and 20 than 15 and 10.
When the noise started I thought it was my computer systems or computerized HVAC but I shut everything down except the receivers (I have several, old SB-303's, Icom, a Signal/One) and the same noise was on all receivers.
Any pointers to maps or lists of BPL sites would be greatly appreciated.
de ah6gi/4
ah6gi
10-09-2003, 11:32 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4wne @ Oct. 07 2003,03:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Broadband over Powerline. Shoosh. They can't even deliver POWER over the Powerlines reliably![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This quote should be on ALL filings on BPL.
Hurricane Izzy came through here as a typical summer storm, 40-50 MPH winds, maybe. A lot of rain but Izzy was not a killer storm. Power was off at both my QTH's for 5 days!
This affected over a million people in DC, VA, and MD.
Before the power utilities start adding more cr*p to their infrastructure, they should get their primary mission handled.
What happens when we have the next Hurricane Izzy or summer storm, some folk are waiting for their power to come back so they can refridgerate their insulin while a half million BPL internet users clog the power company's trouble line complaining about slow eBay response?
90% of the linemen are getting the BPL amplifiers working so P*rn downloads will work while I sit in the dark?
The power company isn't dealing with a full deck.
de ah6gi/4
W1RFI
10-09-2003, 11:46 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 07 2003,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W1RFI
I have to agree - but I must tell you that I don't consider RF to be a problem until I get around 800MHZ just for the reason you mentioned. I am always leary of cell phones as I feel like I'm putting a micowave oven to my head. Even though I don't agree with it at HF, I still (try to) abide by the rules.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is nothing magical about 800 MHz or 2400 MHz; the effects of RF are related to frequency in a fairly linear way. Humans are poor antennas at 1.8 MHz, so we don't absorb much energy at that frequency. Between 30 and 300 MHz, various size humans are resonant, either as grounded monopoles when standing or in free space. Above 300 MHz, more of the RF energy is absorbed by our skin (so we would feel it as heat if it were strong enough), so the permitted levels are higher.
What counts is the amount of power absorbed by the body and the present rules with limits that vary with frequency take that into account reasonably accurately.
One of the best papers I know of about cell-phone safety is:
http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-FAQ/toc.html
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ Oct. 07 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hello!
I just wanted to jump in here and thank K2WH for his activism.
We need to get hams to talk about these issues, but more than that, we need hams who will get up and DO something as K2WH has done.
Bravo! #Good work, K2WH!
Charles Brabham, #N5PVL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I second that emotion! K2WH seems to be everywhere on QRZ.COM and EHAM.COM. He is insightful, witty and is a very knowledgeable ham radio operator especially when it comes to antennas.
While I may not always agree with some of his posting, he is still an activist of the best kind. The kind amateur radio needs. Thank you K2WH.
Tubeman
WD8OQX
10-09-2003, 06:53 PM
W1RFI
Courious;
What is the lowest freq that you know of that actually hurt someone? I haven't heard of any below microwave (this is what I meant by "until I get around 800MHZ" - it should have been "until the freq reaches 800mhz & up).
I would think that by now anyone that carried or was around a xmtr would show some signs. Do you know of any such reports?
W1RFI
10-09-2003, 10:46 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc9aiy @ Oct. 02 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You may get your chance to check out a BPL test area, Ambient just got an experimental license from the FCC for nationwide trial sites. See the article.
Ambient Corporation Receives Key License from Federal Communications Commission (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=BW&Date=20030923&ID=2889747&Symbol=US:ABTG)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I wouldn't read much into it. The FCC had granted Ambient a number of experimental licenses for different sites and trials. This is really not a sign of bad things to come, but merely a way to minimize the FCC and Ambient's paperwork.
It was blown up into a major deal by the Ambient marketing folks, and their stock did take a rather substantial upturn, but it only lasted af few days. When the announcement was made, Ambient stock went from about 22 cents a share up to about 34 cents a share. By today, it was back down to 24 cents a share.
Go to http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/research/welcome.asp and type in ABTG to see the rise and fall of the "big dollars" that some have said will rule the outcome of BPL...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-09-2003, 10:49 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 08 2003,12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W1RFI
Courious;
What is the lowest freq that you know of that actually hurt someone? I haven't heard of any below microwave (this is what I meant by "until I get around 800MHZ" - it should have been "until the freq reaches 800mhz & up).
I would think that by now anyone that carried or was around a xmtr would show some signs. Do you know of any such reports?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I don't know of any reports. However, in 99% of the analyses I have done for hams, most HF stations are in compliance with the standards, so I wouldn't expect to see any problems.
Of course, this does not include RF burns that many of us have obtained from our HF equipment...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
KG4VXS
10-10-2003, 09:48 AM
Maybe at some point, we should all start flooding our congressional reps with letters, postcards, etc. pointing out that the FCC (if they are) is not taking an unbiased look at this thing. 73 Bob http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I visited the place near Allentown PA (Emmaus) with my 20m and 40m HF rig in the car. Believe me guys, it is horrible!! Not all the town has the system installed, though. There are places where "only" S5 of white noise is present, but in other areas there is a constant S9+ of a crackling noise like if my antenna connector is lose and I keep moving it. Only very strong signals get thorugh, turning at least the two bands I tried absolutely useless.
I don't think any kind of noise blanker can remove that. Mine at least did not help. The noise bursts sound kind of too long to be blanked.
Been there, done that! It is horrible.
73, Marc N2UO
my power company here in pa is ppl...about a year back they replaced my power meter with one that transmits over the power lines the amount of energy used...no more meter reader....would like to know what freq is used to transmit this data over the power lines
dan,k3xr
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2UO @ Oct. 10 2003,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I visited the place near Allentown PA (Emmaus) with my 20m and 40m HF rig in the car. Believe me guys, it is horrible!! Not all the town has the system installed, though. There are places where "only" S5 of white noise is present, but in other areas there is a constant S9+ of a crackling noise like if my antenna connector is lose and I keep moving it. Only very strong signals get thorugh, turning at least the two bands I tried absolutely useless.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I believe that you could and should file a report of harmful interference for each band on which you were unable to receive stations normally. That's "harmful interference," right enough!
Here's what the FCC's Web site says for Amateur Radio complaints:
"...Complaints should be sent via e-mail to fccham@fcc.gov or by mail to the address below. Parties are encouraged to send tape recordings in support of their complaints. Recordings should be mailed to: Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Amateur Radio, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. Parties desiring further information may call: (717) 338-2502"
For other stations, perhaps WWV -- and probaby shortwave broadcasting, there's :
"How to Resolve Interference Problems. If you believe that you are receiving blanketing or any other type of interference, we encourage you to first communicate directly to the station allegedly causing the interference. If the station does not satisfactorily resolve the problem, you can mail, fax, or e-mail a complaint to us at the following address:
(Note: emphasis added)
For radio stations: Federal Communications Commission
Audio Division, Media Bureau
445 12th St. SW
Washington, DC 20554
Fax number: (202) 418-1410
E-mail address: dbickel@fcc.gov"
Also:
"Comments to the FCC. We give full consideration to the comments and inquiries we receive about broadcasting. As stated above, we encourage you to first contact the station or network directly about programming issues. If your concerns are not resolved this way, you can mail, fax, or e-mail a complaint about a radio or TV station to us at the following address:
Federal Communications Commission
Enforcement Bureau
445 12th St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
Fax: (202)-418-2810 Telephone number: (202) 418-7450
E-mail address: complaints-enf@fcc.gov"
(this at http://www.fcc.gov/mb....RESOLVE (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#RESOLVE) )
I think interference to Amateur reception is one complaint. To WWV, another. And if broadcasting is interfered with, that would be a third.
The Commisson normally requires interference complaints be resolved between the party creating interference and the party experiencing it. However, because we can point to no history of complaints, BPL proponents have been adamant that interference does not exist. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent on us at this time to file complaints with the FCC at the same time that we request the BPL provider to alleviate interference it creates.
Subsequent non-cooperation could be "rewarded" with a formal Petition imposing special lower emission limits on the BPL provider causing the problem.
Cortland
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2UO @ Oct. 10 2003,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not all the town has the system installed, though. There are places where "only" S5 of white noise is present, but in other areas there is a constant S9+ of a crackling[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's been pointed out to me elsewhere, and I'd like to mention here, that when we do find BPL interference, we should coordinate with Ed Hare, W1RFI. The ARRL is carrying the flag for us on BPL, and Ed's the point man on that patrol (duck, Ed!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and needs to know what we may be finding. Plus, it might not be BPL. That S5 white noise is bad enough but it may be something else. Ed and The ARRL will know the difference.
Cortland
Gene475
10-11-2003, 11:23 AM
I am also curious if there are any other examples of amateur radio causing problems with BPL. It seems like 1500W would do something.
If this all goes through do you really think we will be able to get away with that for long? Even if we could my guess is that the power companies will keep up the noise long enough to discourage most hams from doing anything below 2M. By then it won't matter.
KC8QAY
10-11-2003, 07:03 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 08 2003,14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W1RFI
Courious;
What is the lowest freq that you know of that actually hurt someone? I haven't heard of any below microwave (this is what I meant by "until I get around 800MHZ" - it should have been "until the freq reaches 800mhz & up).
I would think that by now anyone that carried or was around a xmtr would show some signs. Do you know of any such reports?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
W1RFI
Courious;
What is the lowest freq that you know of that actually hurt someone? I haven't heard of any below microwave (this is what I meant by "until I get around 800MHZ" - it should have been "until the freq reaches 800mhz & up).
I would think that by now anyone that carried or was around a xmtr would show some signs. Do you know of any such reports?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I've heard rumors of people getting hurt by DC and 60Hz being transmitted through free space. Either when they connect themselves to it, or get in its direct transmit path in free space. ;-)
I know people who have gotten RF burns mucking with amplifiers on CB (27 Mhz).
W1RFI
10-11-2003, 11:08 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka5s @ Oct. 09 2003,20:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2UO @ Oct. 10 2003,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not all the town has the system installed, though. There are places where "only" S5 of white noise is present, but in other areas there is a constant S9+ of a crackling[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It's been pointed out to me elsewhere, and I'd like to #mention here, that when we do find BPL interference, we should coordinate with Ed Hare, W1RFI. The ARRL is carrying the flag for us on BPL, and Ed's the point man on that patrol (duck, Ed!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and needs to know what we may be finding. Plus, it might not be BPL. That S5 white noise is bad enough but it may be something else. Ed and The ARRL will know the difference.
Cortland[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am not necessarily the point man at all, but have been doing a lot of the techncial research. I will serve as the point on helping to gather and report any BPL interference.
Is is possible to misidentify other noises as BPL. Some hams have reported here that they are hearing BPL from 60 miles away. At the size of the trials, that is simply not possible. A report was made and widely circulated that an AM BC station was experiencing interference from BPL in one of the trial areas, but when I went there, I heard no such interference in the AM bands. In one part of Emmaus, I heard some noises on 21 MHz that were NOT BPL becuase I heard them only within a few hundred feet of one location, and not in the rest of the trial area.
It is important that any "BPLI" reports truly be BPL. ARRL is going to suggest to hams in the trial cities that they coordinate with me to ensure that what is reported is actually interference. So far, other than the mobile work done in the trial areas, we have one active cases of interfernce that has been reported to PPL. PPL shut down the area in response, hopefully to correct the problem if it can be corrected. My guess is that they may go to low VHF to avoid the HF ham bands, at least in that area. Unfortunately, there is also some local 33 MHz use in the area, so I don't know how practical that will be.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-11-2003, 11:11 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2UO @ Oct. 09 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I visited the place near Allentown PA (Emmaus) with my 20m and 40m HF rig in the car. Believe me guys, it is horrible!! Not all the town has the system installed, though. There are places where "only" S5 of white noise is present, but in other areas there is a constant S9+ of a crackling noise like if my antenna connector is lose and I keep moving it. Only very strong signals get thorugh, turning at least the two bands I tried absolutely useless.
I don't think any kind of noise blanker can remove that. Mine at least did not help. The noise bursts sound kind of too long to be blanked.
Been there, done that! It is horrible.
73, Marc N2UO[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You were probably on West Berger St, north of the high school.
It would be very helpful if you were to file a report of your findings in Emmaus as a comment in the FCC BPL NOI. Contact n1kb@arrl.org if you would like to know how to file. Cc me with a copy of the filing so I can add your report to the links at:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html#reports
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
k3jim
10-12-2003, 03:31 PM
Any Hams who are also firefighters or have access to the local fire Department should enlist their help in fighting BPL due to the heavy use of the 33 and 45 mhz fire service bands by Fire departments. The problem with lack of complaints is that they don't know they are being interfered with. They are not technically savvy and think that there are "blind spots" in the radio coverage. #The broadband interference is not easily recognizable as say an interfering DX station may be. #The fire service is used to dead spots and may not know why they exist. For instance it is well known that when in the vicinity of certain gas station/convenience stores in my area you can't use the radio for a few hundred meters. #The problem is the Point of Sale system (POS) that records the gas transactions the lines running to the pumps are not shielded and radiate computer hash like an antenna. #I am a firefighter /truck engineer local fire company and have sent #the following comment on behalf of my fire company. Please feel free to copy it and try and get other Volunteer and paid fire companies to oppose BPL.
"As a member of the Radio committee and Relief Treasurer of the Leo Independent Fire Company, Red Lion, PA, I am writing to oppose the use of exposed or open line BPL. #Our Fire company uses the 33 Mhz. Fire Band for all of it's communications along with fire companies in a 4 county area covering more than 2000 Square miles and 2 million residents in South central PA. #This area is by and large very hilly and the 30-50 Mhz band offers the best coverage in our terrain. In addition volunteer fire companies do not have sufficient resources to replace all of our fire radios in a short period of time. We oppose the use of exposed or open line BPL because of the interference potential to our vital life saving radio communications. #BPL poses a serious potential problem user of the 33 mhz public safety Spectrum. In test areas where this technology has been employed and in Europe where it is being used, SERIOUS interference problems exist on frequency bands that are employed. Currently Cable Services deliver similar services via "Closed Circuit" cables and fiber optics. Leakage of the Cable Services into the HF spectrum are severely dealt with by the FCC. Leakage if BPL into the HF/ Low VHF spectrum will not even be a violation as open wire cannot suppress leaking of RF. If BPL is permitted, it should be only on shielded and filtered lines, similar to those required by the cable TV industry. #RF signals are not supposed to escape from or intrude into the cable TV lines. #Radio signals can coexist with cable signals even on the same frequencies. #Havoc occurs when signals leak into and out of the cables. Unless the FCC can guaranty no interference will exist it is foolhardy to put the public at risk to provide a service that is currently available from at least three other sources. (CABLE, DSL and Direct Broadcast Satellite)"
Jim Walsh
K3JIM
K3jim@hotmail.com
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k3jim @ Oct. 12 2003,08:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">do not have sufficient resources to replace all of our fire radios in a short period of time.
exposed or open[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No one -- VFD or not -- has the resources to replace all their radios in the short period of time before BPL is being expected to be installed.
In my Reply Comment to POWERWAN in the BPL NOI I noted there were 3748 licenses for 30 – 50 MHz in California, POWERWAN's home state, alone, with many of these being government law enforcement and public safety agencies.
At around $1 million each** to replace current (wide area) radio systems, if BPL providers were required to compensate them for the cost of moving, a charge againt earnings of around $3.7 BILLION (California alone!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif would probably dampen their enthusiasm.
**POWERWAN suggests "going to digital technologies" which just now practically means 800 MHz, thus the high cost.
Cortland
kg6ath
10-15-2003, 05:49 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WD8OQX @ Oct. 03 2003,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8CJM @ Oct. 03 2003,15:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can a HF rig crash BPL downloads? I think you get the point we just may lose a whole lot more then what has been publicly said so far.
73
N8CJM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Given my experence with computers & radios, I would say it is very possible. Ever have a computer sitting in the shack when you key up? What does it do if RF gets to it? See my point?
(This may not be so prevailent now with modern computers & there sheilding but poor cables make very good antenna)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Answer is YES !
100 watts at 60 feet will do it.
You think neighbors are upset about your antenna ?
Wait till you crash their porn sessions.
Colin Powell's little brat has been bought off and he is
setting us up to be nuked.
Have yopu noticed that Dept Homeland Security has
objected and trhe FCC doesnt care ?
I smell a fix.
Are your chainsaws tuned up ?
(Diesel is cheaper than Pacific Graft & Extortion out here
anyway. THPBBLLTT!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
KD7EFQ
10-15-2003, 11:12 PM
Aw Shucks guys, 1500 watts isn't the only tool we have way out here in Wyoming. If Ed / W1RFI could please describe what the interface boxes look like where BPL converts to cable / fiber / etc. Pre hunting season might see targets painted on those boxes. Gotta have something to sight in the ol' 30-06 rifle before Deer/Elk time. :-) 73.
KD5TTT
10-16-2003, 08:22 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (G0MZS @ Oct. 05 2003,07:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is what they claim
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">216Mbps raw bandwidth with simultaneous, bi-directional, and symmetrical end-to-end delivery
overall latency of less than 500 microseconds
Multiple independent channels each operating bi-directionally
Use of microwave bands for very high information capacity powerline communications while avoiding interference issues of some other BPL approaches
Very low emissions levels compliant with FCC Part 15
Simple, rapid installation with no electrical characterization of grid required
Performance capabilities that allow creating networks which span more than 5 miles
Viability of leveraging low-cost 802.11 chipsets for powerline communications [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Read more HERE (http://www20.tomshardware.com/technews/20030924_184344.html) very impressive to a person who want BB and is not a Amateur.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
After reading your post and Tom's Hardware, I sent them the following.
-------------------------------
Dear Sirs.
I read your article about Broadband over Power Lines. I think you need to take a harder look at it. Many of us in radio communications think BPL is a Pandora's Box of radio interference. BPL operates in the 2-80 Mhz range and the powerlines act as giant antennas, radiating this radio energy over wide areas. Several countries, Japan for one, have already evaluated it and banned it's use as unacceptable. Long distance Amateur Radio is unuseable in the US test areas. It also has the potential to disrupt police, fire, ambulance, broadcast, military, and FEMA communications. The FCC seems to be turning a deaf ear to our concerns and wants to push ahead even to the point of considering the allowing of increased power level beyond the part 15 restrictions on power output that BPL operates under right now.
Many groups are conducting tests including the power companies. The power companies are keeping their results secret. Amateur radio groups, like mine, have already concluded that the interference levels are completely unacceptable. Amateur radio is the only fail safe communications we have. In this post 9/11 world Amateur Radio is more important than ever.
Please keep your enthusiasm for BPL in check utill all the facts are in.
Thank you,
Mark Corona
KD5TTT
National Traffic System Net Manager
American Radio Relay League
North Texas Section
wp3bm
10-17-2003, 10:13 PM
"I do know that they are almost done with a meter replacement project that uses the power lines to transmit electricity usage, instead of using people to read the meters. My meter has not been changed yet."
Hi!
I think you have hit a nail here! I have a six meter repeater and the receiver is at my QTH. I had noted that in some ocasions there is a hash, like a carrier, that opens the squelch of the receiver, so bad, that I sometimes have dificulty activating the CTSS from the mobile! Asm a matte or fact, they did[B] change the meter for remote reading. I have been noticing a regularity with the interference. Is there a way to know when are they reading?
Gabriel
Regarding BPL...
Well, I hate to say this, but I think a President Gore would have appointed people to the FCC that might actually have nipped this in the bud before it ever came to being. #We basically have 3 pro-Republican appointees that would sell out every radio-spectrum natural resource available if there was money involved. Granted, Gore might not have been good at other things (national defense, etc.), but he at least TRIED to be a little more environmentally conscious. #Does anyone think Bush really cares?
Complain all you want, and keep fighting (I will). #But it should make everyone think about who they elect next time in 2004.
ke4upz
10-20-2003, 05:49 PM
there you go, Everyone buy a 1500 watts and talk till your blue in the face, if every thing goes to plan customers will drop the BPL due to crashes and unreliability.............snicker...fight fire with fire
Uh... let's rethink the cleverness of trying to piss off the power companies by firing up our 1500 watt amplifiers en masse. I don't quite think it'll bring a frown to their faces. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif