View Full Version : BPL Sabotage
k6pme
03-02-2004, 01:14 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 02 2004,05:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While strictly by the book, technically there is nothing illegal in "us" doing that, malicious actions will be perceived as malicious, and could very easily result in a damaging backlash..
If a BPL system cannot coexist with our normal operations then it's their problem.
But if their system doesn't work because "we" are deliberately sabotaging it, then it easily becomes a political problem rather a technical one.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I couldn't agree more. Personally I see nothing but bad things as a result of causing intentional "harmful interference" to another service.
They have the money, the high end lawyers and political clout on thier side. And lets not forget, BPL has something to do with Homeland Security. But then, so does the wrist watch that I wear.
Granted, something must be done but deliberate sabotage to another service isn't the answer. I really don't think would be in greatest "traditions" of the Amateur Radio Service either.
Monty
There's a VERY old and wise saying..
'CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!'
Since RF is invisible and you can make a rather NICE RF local field strength signal from a mobile..
AND it will take them a while to figure out WHO is doing it.
IF you are careful.. you can screw up QUITE a few BPL systems for a good long time and not get caught.
The goal is to make BPL so unpopular and undesired by the users that they won't take it 'on a bet'.
The user base dries up.. the money goes away.. the operators go bust.. and the BPL goes BY BY
Simple equation.
non violent resistance!
It works
Disrupt the money flow long enough.. people get out of business.
K3FT
kc0ebm
03-02-2004, 09:46 PM
WOW Chuck!
It sounds like you are advocating doing something malicious and illegal.
I don't like BPL any better than the next guy. #But I'm not going to maliciously interfere with BPL, OR the illegal truckers on 10 meters.
Am I, again, reading too much into what you are saying?
I'm not trying to be confrontational in any way. #And I am NOT trying to put you on the spot or embarrass you. I honestly don't understand why you, who has been in enforcement, could advocate any type of illegal activity conducted by amateurs for any cause, good or bad.
If I'm out on the road DFing an illegal ten meter trucker on a busy interstate, equiped with recording equipment and all the rest, and some well meaning ham is QRMing the trucker's transmissions, how in the heck can I be effective?
When I'm bagging LIDS and "doing my thang" on 75 meters, nothing is worse than having an unidentified QRMer foul up my work with malicious QRM.
I know you didn't advocate QRMing truckers here, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. #But to educate me, please tell me why, or why not it is advisable, or illadviseable to QRM a trucker?
And as for QRMing BPL, even with the relative assurance that I wouldn't be caught, why encourage that type of behavior? #Once a person has used that tactic against BPL illegally, wouldn't that condition people to be tempted to use that tactic on other amateurs? #I don't think we should go there. #People these days find it so easy to rationalize illegal behavior, for a supposed good cause. #Once that rationalization has occured, it opens the door for further rationalization.
Again, this is NOT a confrontational post. #Please take it at face value. #There is nothing hidden here and I have been very careful to put forth meaning honestly!
Tom
Have to agree with EBM on this one.
I have no issue using the power levels I would normally use to get through (minimum required).
Heck, if the QRM levels are up, cracking the power up is it's appropriate.
Intentionally cranking up the power to interfere with BPL is harmful interference -- doing this goes against what we agreed to do when we received our license.
People implementing BPL likely have alot better equipment that we have when we participate in a fox hunt -- locating the jammers will not be an issue. When caught, this will not reflect kindly on any of us.
One outcome could be is for a few having their license restricted. #Another could be the FCC limiting the total power all Amateurs could use because of the actions of a few.
May want to think this one out a bit further.
On the flip side -- it's clear the power companies are moving forward with this. Too much $$ has been invested.
Best thing we could do is to know BPL tests or ramp-up is occuring in our areas, note any increase in QRM and promptly report the harmful interference to the FCC. #
This, combined with other feedback provided by MARS, FEMA, Home Land Security and other HF users, is the only avenue we have left to get the power companies to act responsively.
FCC will not have any option but act if the combined data shows there is an issue that could impact emegency communications in the USA. Power companies will have no choise but to find a way to reduce the QRM if they are faced with all the politics and fines that will likely follow.
It's going to take more than a few Amateurs to kill this beast. Let's work together to either make it work, or justify (fact based) why the plug needs to be pulled on BPL.
My thoughts.
Dan
AI4CB:
AMEN...
thanks for the clear thinking...
EBM:
There is a difference between the BPL issue and the 10 Mtr truckers...
BPL is being operated legally... as it is defined now... the 10 Mtr truckers are not operating legally and as such have no rights... if you load up and transmit on the same freq as they are on, they don't have a leg to stand on and you can't interfer with someone who is operating illegally because they 'don't exist' in a legal sense... Riley has stated that Hams won't be sited for interfering with illegal stations as long as we operate legally...
Look at it this way... it is legal to drive down the street blowing your horn... folk who just got married do it all the time... however if you drive up and down in front of a persons house constantly laying on your horn, yopu will get arrested... for causing a disturbance and being a public nuisance...
Same goes for going out of your way to target these BPL boxes... If you operate normally and you interfer... tough on them... even if you use a higher power than normal but still legal... tough on them... but if you go hunting them and are obvious about it... then you are purposally distrupting commerce and I think those who do this could find themselves in the jackpot...
Just my opinion, and I'm no lawyer... but neither do I want to have to hire one to defend me in such a situation...
BPL is a PART 15 service.
Part 15 CANNOT complain about ANY interference THEY recieve NOR can they cause interference to licensed services AND they must work to mitigate/eliminate any interference that THEY cause to a licensed service.
THAT'S the current law.
By definition and by law... a LICENSED service (of course, operating WITHIN their own regulations and according to the law as it applies to the LICENSED service) CANNOT be guilty of interfering with a Part 15 service since...
Part 15 does not grant ANY immunity or protection FROM interference received BY IT from another licensed service.
Let's repeat that to make sure we all understand it.
--- A PART 15 service CANNOT cause interference to a licensed service AND must do what it can to mitigate/eliminate/correct any interference IT generates to a licensed service.
--- A PART 15 service MUST accept any and all interference that ti receives FROM a licensed service.
Now, I never said OPERATE outside the legal amateur spectrum.
I never said operate above the power level authorized by law.
I never said you should just 'key down' and emit an unmodulated carrier.
All I said was "Since RF is invisible and you can make a rather NICE RF local field strength signal from a mobile.. AND it will take them a while to figure out WHO is doing it. IF you are careful.. you can screw up QUITE a few BPL systems for a good long time and not get caught."
That comment about not getting caught was tied to a prior posters remarks about them tracking you down and giving you a bunch of specious legal hassles.
In summary.. If I choose to park my car, legally, on the side of the road and operate my HF rig at 1KW or 100W or whatever and it happens to cause a BPL system to lock up, drop off, or lose data...
The problem is the BPL system NOT me.
73
Chuck K3FT
FT:
I agree that what is being proposed is 'legal' in one sense, however I think you have to look at INTENT... If your intent is to operate a mobile amateur radio station, I don't think they can do anything...
BUT, if they find a pattern in your activity and use it to prove intent to disrupt, then you may be in a whole different category... You won't be getting a cite from the FCC, you'll be prosecuted for something else and the intent will be what buries you...
I'm not saying don't go after these BPL boxes, what I am saying is BE CAREFUL... don't be obvious, don't give them cause to find a way to stop you... there will be plenty of 'regular' interference issues to deal with, without manufacturing them...
Support the folks that are gonna be fighting the REAL interference problems... to me that would be a whole lot more productive...
Sanity check
Would you like someone doing this to you?
w5alt
03-03-2004, 12:03 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ Mar. 02 2004,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sanity check
Would you like someone doing this to you?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sanity check? Huh? If you hear a BPL signal on the ham bands, then they are interfering with a licensed service. Period. And if you can't hear them, then how would you know they are there and target them?
When I operate on the ham bands, I hope someone transmits on the same frequency. I call it a QSO.
And if I transmit on a band I'm not licensed for, I hope someone lets me know so I can correct the problem.
And when I operate on 30m, which is shared, I'm careful to make sure I don't interfere with other licensed users. BPL should do the same.
Sorry, if BPL causes problems, they deserve to be interfered with. And if they don't interfere with us, then how could we ever target them?
73,
kc0ebm
03-03-2004, 01:49 AM
K3FT,
I see what you are saying, but if Part 15 services can't cause interference, and they must accept any interference, then I don't see what the big deal is about BPL.
Sounds alot like the Cable TV service. I don't know what part they are listed under, I suppose Part 15 also. And I have had a few cases where my licensed operations have caused interference to local Cable TV users in my neighborhood. The solution? Merely a call to the Cable TV company telling them about my neighbors problem with my signals interfering with their tv. I advise them that they must not interfere with me, and they must accept, or prevent interference from me. So far, they have responded immediately by fixing the leak in my neighbor's Cable TV feed. I have VERY HAPPY NEIGHBORS because I see to it that their problems are resolved IMMEDIATELY with NO HASTLE to them. I do all the correspondences for them. I am very popular in my neighborhood and my neighbors respect me.
But, in NO WAY, do I go out of my way to interfere with Cable TV. I exist in total harmony and cooperation with Cable TV. And, if my understanding is correct, I can expect the same amicable relationship with BPL. Am I wrong?
But, you didn't deal at all with my complaint that QRM from amateurs on 10 meters, and 75 meters effectually hurts my efforts. I wish people would quit QRMing the LIDs on 75. It deminishes my progress.
And another thing. If Riley did in fact say that we may legally QRM illegal ops on Ten meters, then what is to prevent some well meaning amateur from interpreting that to mean its OK to QRM a licensed op on ten who is operating illegally?
See what I mean? How can one be absolutely sure he's not violating the law by doing what Riley suggests? I mean, unless the illegal trucker admits over the air that he is illegally operating an unlicensed station on the amateur bands and you record that admission, it looks risky to me. And if not illegal, it sure doesn't sound very ethical. Worse than that, QRM an illegal just damages my ability to find the guy and get the DOT number.
Furthermore, if its legal to QRM an illegal station, what is to prevent me or anybody else from QRMing a licensed station on 75 meters when he is operating illegally in some manner, like, not sending his call sign every ten minutes, or engaging in a lewd sexual conversation, or playing music etc etc ad nauseum?
We are opening a pandora's box, and training people to engage in activity that is normally illegal and helping ne'r do wells rationalize further abuses. Besides that, their QRM hinders the progress of REAL enforcement efforts, does it not? It sure hurts my efforts, I'll tell you that!
I like Riley, and what he does, and I'd do all I can to help him do his job. But I'm terribly squeemish about this idea, and quite frankly, a little surprised that Riley suggested it because of the side effects that it could induce.
I won't question what he suggests, but I won't participate based on the damage QRM does to my work.
What say you?
Tom
EBM:
You misunderstood me...
I NEVER said Riley SUGGESTED it...
The fact is he was sent an e-mail some time ago [ by K7PIG if I remember right] that asked him what the status of a Ham on 10 mtrs interfering with the illegal voice stations in the CW sub-band by sending CW or RTTY over the top of them...
He stated something like: a properly operated Amateur Station connot be considered to be interfering with an illegal station because the illegal isn't there...
In other words the illegal has NO status therefore doesn't exist...
That isn't a quote but from my recollection...
This whole topic has a very long history...You may want to do a search on QRZ for maybe...'truckers' and read some of the old stuff... If I remember right the e-mail was quoted on here for all to read... you might be able to find it...
Found it...
http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin....+speaks (http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=48006;hl=fcc+speaks)
KC8QMU
03-03-2004, 09:06 AM
Some of you don't realize something...........
You don't need a kW to render BPL useless...... you can do it with just a couple of watts if it is nearby.
All you need to do is operate your 100W transmitter just as you always do, and chances are if it's around you you WILL be causing some significant problems too it.....
I could be wrong, but doesn't the fact that our service is licensed make it primary over a part 15 device? If that is the case, its their problem. If we encounter inteference from it, the ball should be back in their court to correct that also.
QMU
Thanks for the clarification.
This is something I can agree with.
Let's operate as if we always would, adjust for conditions and report what we find.
One other key point is we should partner with others who may be having the same experience -- FEMA, MARS, State Agencies using frequencies on, or around 6 meters, etc.
There is strength in numbers.
WA3KYY
03-03-2004, 03:32 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ Mar. 02 2004,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sanity check
Would you like someone doing this to you?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
When BPL comes to your neighborhood, they WILL be doing it to you.
IMO, the only way to resolve this is to show that it is incompatible with licensed services under current Part 15 limits. That means operations have to take place in areas where this is being deployed even if no amateurs currently live there.
By current regulation, it is not legally possible for a licensed service to cause harmful interference to a Part 15 device under any circumstances where the licensed service is operating according to the rules of that service. Keying up directly on top of a Part 15 device operating on your licensed frequency is perfectly legal since licensed services always take priority over Part 15 device and the Part 15 device has no legal recourse.
KF4ZHL
03-03-2004, 04:23 PM
Come on guys! There is the WORD of the law, and the SPIRIT of the law. The word of the law is where lawyers and judges work. You can see the mess created from actively trying to find other meanings for the words. Words can be interpreted many different ways.
The spirit of the law on the other hand, is understanding and looking past the words and into the intent. You can rest assured that the intent of most law is to maintain harmony and order. If you work towards the spirit of the law, this will happen. You can feel it when you're abusing your rights. You know you're wrong. Truly lawful people will always try to follow the spirit of the law and maintain order. Don't tempt fate and usher in chaos by abusing and pushing the envelope on your rights. We could all well pay for it in the end.
WA3KYY
03-03-2004, 05:40 PM
Well looking at the intent of the Part 15 regulations all I can see is that Part 15 devices have no rights when it comes to interference to and from licensed services. The "intent" is to allow these devices to operate only if they do not cause harmful interference to licensed services and to offer them NO protection from licensed services. If the Part 15 devices cannot be used under those conditions, the intent of the regualtions is that they be taken out of service. We simply cannot afford to even let the camel's breath in the tent much less his nose.
w5alt
03-04-2004, 03:09 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 03 2004,21:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could that happen? I believe they do have the authority to do it under existing law. What's to prevent it from happening?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Have you read the Communications Act of 1934 and the ITU treaties?
KA4DPO
03-04-2004, 04:49 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ Mar. 02 2004,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sanity check
Would you like someone doing this to you?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, quite frankly I wouldn't. #That's why I would never use amateur radio equipment or frequencies to interfere with BPL. #Nope, I'll use a CB and a big ol leeenyarr, or foot warmer as some folks call them. #When the BPL users start to complain I'll tell them Hell yes I'm a CB'er and proud of it to. #Now that's the way to get it done. #Oh yeah, tell them you drive a big ol truck and git a lot of ten ten stamps while yer out on the road. #You just have to think these things through.
kc0ebm
03-04-2004, 05:20 AM
AI4CB,
I agree with you on every count. #And I have stated so in many ways before. #My detractors always say that I am incorrect because NOBODY ELSE WANT'S THE ARS FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS. #BS! #And what seems so mind blowing to me is that they say this to me while they are writing posts condemning BPL. #Go figure!
That's why I always repeat my mantra that its high time for amateur radio to clean up its act, set a positive example, abide by the letter and the spirit of the law, and demonstrate our value to society by focusing more on service and less on HOBBY! #I also implore the ARS to take seriously their licensed responsibility to help enforce the rules by monitoring, taping, and filing on violators.
I am convinced, that if good sense prevails in the ARS, as this debate continues, more and more amateurs will see the importance of coming to consensus on what WE need to do to ensure our continued health and longevity.
I believe we are at a defining crossroads. #Nobody can help us but ourselves.
What will we do? #I've told you all repeatedly what I will, and am doing.
Tom
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA4DPO @ Mar. 03 2004,22:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ Mar. 02 2004,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sanity check
Would you like someone doing this to you?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, quite frankly I wouldn't. #That's why I would never use amateur radio equipment or frequencies to interfere with BPL. #Nope, I'll use a CB and a big ol leeenyarr, or foot warmer as some folks call them. #When the BPL users start to complain I'll tell them Hell yes I'm a CB'er and proud of it to. #Now that's the way to get it done. #Oh yeah, tell them you drive a big ol truck and git a lot of ten ten stamps while yer out on the road. #You just have to think these things through.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oh...now here is an intellegent idea...
Don't use legal licence to satisfy your problem...
Use illegal equipment and really put yourself in the legal system blender...
You'll loose your Ham licence for using illegal CB gear...
This may be one way to cleanse the Ham gene pool...
GO FOR IT...
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 02 2004,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So one extreme way to settle the issue if amateur disruption of BPL occurs, is for the FCC to simply eliminate the licensed amateur radio service on the theory that it's not as much in the "public interest" as BPL. Or at least they can reallocate spectrum in a way that we probably would not be too happy with.
If the disruption is deliberate, then that would make it that much more popular and justifiable for them.
Could that happen? I believe they do have the authority to do it under existing law. What's to prevent it from happening?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
These people would have something to say about that.
Icom, Yaesu, Kenwood, Alinco, Ameritron, Elecraft, Ten Tec, Mirage, Hy Gain, Cushcraft, Mfj, and many more equip. companies.
Plus ALL of the BIG distributors of amateur gear , and ALL of the organizations affiliated with amateur radio(many).
Dave
WA3KYY
03-04-2004, 01:57 PM
All the treaties state is that certain frequencies are reserved for amateurs on a world-wide or regional basis. It does not force memebr countries to authorize their citizens to use them. See N. Korea (P5) as an example. While the FCC could not assign another service to use the ITU specified frequencies they certainly could decide to withdraw permission for us to use them.
ab3ax
03-04-2004, 02:37 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 04 2004,06:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But Dave, what happens if we butt heads against millions of people that BPL is supposedly going to serve, the corporations, their megabuck investors, their megabuck lawyers, power companies, computer companies, AOL, Earthlink, and government at all levels, and the FCC who are cheerleading on BPL being an economic boom, the next internet revolution, a job creator, and critical to national security and homeland defense (interestingly, all the things the politicians need out there during an election year ...) #
So I agree a lot of people would have something to say about it - but that doesn't mean we can win if it becomes a political issue.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So you would just lie back and await the inevitable? Wars are not won by doing nothing. You will not gain the respect of these people by trying to hold the moral high ground? Since when did such concepts mean diddly squat to them? They will laugh in your face as they continue in their nefarious quest to steal and exploit the entire HF spectrum.
There has got to be a two pronged assault against them.
Firstly, their false claims to their investors have got to be rebutted. They are not enhancing homeland security - by interefering with vital radio services, they are putting it in jeopardy. They are going to interfere with the primary fire response frequencies in many areas, therefore directly threatening the safety of both life and property. They are going to stop folk in some areas from hearing their favorite radio shows. They are offering a service with is inherently unreliable. Amateurs are not the only transmitters of radio energy in the HF bands. If a 5 watt transmitter can blank out this service, how is it going to cope with the high level of ambient radio energy during a peak sunspot cycle? They are wanting people to invest in their service when, hand on heart, they can offer no concrete guarantess over ROI. . .
Secondly, to all the wusses out their who say we must not interfere with them or take the consequences - if we sit back and do nothing do you think it will help preserve our spectrum. Do you really believe that these people are going to recognize the amateur community for their "public-spirited" commitment to playing the game, and because of that somehow do their utmost to avoid interfering with our service. Do you really . . ?
If their flawed technology gains a reputation for unreliability from day 1 then the word will be out on the streets that it does not work and people will be turned off in their droves - like a kind of AOL effect. Without an adquate customer base, then their investment will wither on the vine - people will move their money into more profitable ventures.
Is it not normal mobile Ham activity to transmit from a diversity of places? By the law of averages you are going to be near to power lines very frequently. Just try to stick to that law of averages. Don't transmit next to a main BPL node at every stop. If you happen to be next to one now and again, then c'est la vie. Who is to say that there was any malicious intent. Short transmissions are all that is required. If enough folk are running around and making random transmissions like this, then I challenge any lawyer - from Philadelphia or any place else - to make any kind of case against them.
Rest assured that there are enough other services out there that will also be "interfering" with the BPL sevice. It is impossible not to interfere with it. Are the government really going to move every service off the HF bands, regardless of the requirements of homeland security, military communications, broadcasters, aviation or any of the plethora of other services who currently make use of this part of the radio spectrum.
If any Ham is indicted in any kind of civil test case action, then it is up to every one of us to stand right behind them, and I include the ARRL in this too. Coexistence with this alien BPL monster is not an option.
73 - Gordon AB3AX
ab3ax
03-05-2004, 03:53 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 04 2004,15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you had bothered to read the ongoing thread, the issue here is not lying back and doing nothing, or gaining respect of the BPL people. The issue was whether or not deliberate sabotage of BPL systems is a good thing or a bad thing in this fight.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I read this entire thread before posting, and to be quite frank, I was appalled by the attitude of so many who had written - the almost servile acceptance of what they seem to regard as the inevitable.
I would not use the term deliberate sabotage, as if those who are transmitting from a location that just happens to be near a BPL node are doing something evil - not the done thing, old boy! There is nothing in the regulations that covers the interaction of Ham radio and BPL. I don't think it is wrong to do whatever it takes to remove this insanity of RF pollution from the airwaves and to preserve our hobby not just for ourselves, but also for the enjoyment and education of future generations of Hams too.
Leaving the FCC to their own devices has so far allowed the introduction of this fiendish system, and now that it is out there, leaving it to the FCC will result in the further proliferation of this fiendish system.
There won't be any HF Amateur Bands worth fighting for if we just sit back and let that happen.
Let all those speculators who are looking for a fast buck from BPL get their fingers burned. Give it a reputation for unreliability and unprofitability and then see how long they stay on board the sinking ship. It is the only way to beat this thing.
This is no time for Mr Nice Guy.
73 - Gordon AB3AX
Frankly, I am AMUSED at the postings on here.
AMUSED in that I see quite a few posts from NEWLY (less than 5 years) hams who HAVE NOT any REAL experience or knowledge of the history or past of ham radio.
By that I mean they are UNAWARE of the many, many times that the ham bands have been flooded by unwanted emissions ('signals' for those in Rio Linda) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif which turned out to be Part 15 equipment.
Such things as touch lamps, electric fence voltage generators, pooly designed intercoms (wireless and otherwise), power company problems, poorly designed (to save a buck) TV and radio consumer electronics, etc...etc.
THESE items were introduced and interference WAS known, but the hams didn't do much about it on either a PREEMPTIVE front or an ACTIVE 'when it came out' front. We waited until the problems were entrenched and THEN we acted.
It was a LONG and hard battle to get the FCC to act AND it took a while before the manufacturers cleaned up (RF wise) their acts.
These items ARE documented and the history is available to new hams IF they want to go research it. THEN they'll have an understanding of the WHY myself and others advocate active and ongoing actions NOW - while BPL is still in the pre-born or just-born stage.
Too many new hams (less than 5 years licensed) are USED to having fairly clean ham bands free of interference (IX) from unwanted sources like BPL. So they see us as 'reactionary', 'radio terrorists', 'hotheaded', etc. and counsel us to wait and see or work with the BPL folks, or whatever.
Folks.. the LINES are drawn.
FACT - MOST (save one or two) BPL advocates/providers ARE not going to negotiate unless FORCED to do so bythe FCC to whom THEY must receive approval to operate.
FACT - the lure of the money will have them give lip service to the affected bunch (us). They WILL install their systems and operate. Gain a foothold. Get a user base. Cause IX to us and others.
FACT - If we THEN choose to act, either through the FCC, the Courts, or by taking some kind of (amateur radio) civil action as has been promoted here IT WILL take longer, cost more, and likely result in a patchwork set of fixes that will NOT address the basic issue.
FACT - new hams, prospective hams, and older hams, will either not want to operate those bands 'becuase they don't want the hassle from the neighbors, parents, wife, etc.' or 'they don't want to buck the well-heeled interests' or whatever. They will choose passive actoin by avoidance and thereby slowly lose the bands they have.
FACT - Once entrenched.. it will be VERY hard to get the systems to change, move, or otherwise cease causing problems.
FACT - Even in YOU get your BPL provider to clean up their act, it will last as long as the person who you dealt with remains with the BPL company. When they leave.. the new people have NO knowledge and don't care. THe problem SHALL return and you will have to deal with it again!
Those who advocate 'no active response' or 'let's wait and negotiate with the BPL providers' are (sadly) mistaken if they think that will work. It will NOT.
REFERENCE the comment about Cable TV and ham radio coexisting. Have you LIVED around an active cable TV neighborhood and listened to the HF/VHF bands? HAVE YOU?
I have.. just tune about the various frequencies that are allocated for the CATV channels and you will find they CAN be heard in the ham 2M band (145.25 for example is still quite unusable in MANY CATV areas!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif YOu will hear them on the various aviatoin VHF bands. However, they OFFSET their signals to NOT interfere with aviation.
Folks.. if you DO NOTHING.. If you DO NOT make the BPL proponents OWN UP to the reality of the faults of their systems NOW while it is in the 'just born' stage... you guarantee a hell of a mess down the road.
By showing them that their systems CANNOT coexist with ham/broadcast/commerical systems at all.. they will have not choice to admit it when their customers call andcomplain that they lose connections, lose data, can't connect.
Their PR and spin campaigns will be useless when their customers desert them for cable, satellite, and good old fashioned dial up and DSL.
The time to act is now.
Civil action using LEGAL means and AUTHORIZED methods (our frequencies, legal power, legal operations, and by licensed folks) is fine and good and we should do that.
Those who choose not to, you are welcome not to. BUT please... when the BPL monster comes to ruin YOUR HF reception, kindly do not come crying here about it.
73
Chuck K3FT
QUOTE:
FACT: Older hams let us new guys down by not seeing this coming and stopping before it reached critical mass.
What a crock........
ab3ax
03-05-2004, 02:03 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 05 2004,04:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If, you load up a KW generator and a KW amplifier, travel to Cincinnati, drive around until you find a street with BPL, park there and transmit CW CQs for hours, with the *intent* of disrupting BPL service, then I would call that "deliberate sabotage".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I would call it a futile waste of time. BPL systems do have the in-built capability to move to a different band should they experience problems in a certain locality. It has been shown that they can be wiped out by as little as 5W output within the spread of frequencies they are using in that specific location.
Before we can fight the beast we need to know how it operates. Its Achilles Heel is its susceptibility to localised radio transmissions, and the delay between it being affected and a human response from the local control center.
To give it a reputation for unreliablity, all it takes is to stop it for a few seconds - in that time any downloads taking place over its system will be aborted, and customers will be calling in and bitching about the lousy system they have signed up for.
That has to be the goal - hit and run. Use low power, not high power. It is much harder for them to trace the cause that way. Was it caused by someone right next to their node, or was it caused by a transient strong signal propagated to that area by the Ionosphere? Power lines do, after all, make good antennas to receive as well as transmit radio signals Was it caused by some other kind of fault on their system?
I don't know how they'd go about tackling these problems. As all of us who have done troubleshooting know - it is extremely hard to find an intermittent fault. When the service comes back up, what caused the outage in the first place?
Guerrila tactics will win the day here, not sitting on thumbs and pontificating.
73 - Gordon AB3AX
KI4BOO
03-05-2004, 02:12 PM
Why dont we cause interference the legal way, and simply get on the air more often?
If enough of us are on the air, we will cause interference and it wont even be malicious!
Fancy that idea... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ab3ax
03-05-2004, 03:02 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 05 2004,07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FCC regs require you to identify with your callsign. #That's how they could identify the source of the faults.
Unless you're suggesting unidentified transmission on the hambands. But even then, they'll know that it's in the hambands. And they will be able to tell the location of where the fault occurred. They just look up in the FCC database who has ham licenses at that location.
So now to get around that, you not only have to transmit illegal unidentified transmissions, but you also have to be mobile so they can't locate you, or else transmit outside the hambands illegally and hope they dont know about DF. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I did not, and never would, suggest making illegal transmissions, and it is shameful for you to insinuate otherwise. What is illegal about parking your car and calling out CQ on a band which you are licensed to use? If you can't hear anything, because of, for example, nearby BPL activity, then you simply move some place else and try again. They may well suspect the problem on their system arose because of Amateur activity, but I think that there will be other potential causes of downtime on this system, not just transmissions from Hams.
Perhaps you tell me how they are going to identify the source, especially if it is one radiating under 50W. They would have a job even hearing it through their own QRM!
Have you ever tried to DF a low power station? I had many years of experience doing just this while at sea, and it is no easy task, believe me, even when the transmissions are constant on known frequencies.
With regards to them homing in on nearby Hams - what is it they are going to do about it. Someone working from their Shack within licensed bands and within licensed power limits is breaking no rules and regulations that I have ever heard about.
Someone else made an excellent suggestion. Every licensed Ham with HF capability should make use of it - often. This in itself will help set up an anti-BPL screen which will make their task of providing reliable service to their customers much more onerous.
73 - Gordon AB3AX
The comment that 'we old timers knew BPL was coming"... PUHLEEEZE.. are you serious? I mean do you REALLY mean that?
There have been carrier current systems, wireless intercoms and other 'localized to a house or building' systems for years. We HAVE known about them and we HAVE - when we can and when we are alble to - brought them to the attention of the FCC and others.
Please don't equate that with BPL.
BPL is the FIRST ... MAJOR.... program to use power lines as conductors of digital signals ON A LARGE SCALE MASSIVE BASIS for the average citizen to use as a means of daily, ongoing, and regular data transmission.
It is the FIRST one that bases its 'claims to fame, fortune, and existence' to the KNOWING transmission of digital signals across lines that are unsheilded, in the open, AND are known to be reasonable radiators of RF AC!
BPL is the first system that is DESIGNED to purposefully transmit harmonic-rich content signals, WITHIN the most crowded RF spectrum there is - HF/VHF - on a MASS ROLLOUT large scale system ---
WITHOUT #adequate testing to identify, deal with, and handle interference.
WITHOUT any sort of unbiased or objective tests to determine IF (and WHERE and HOW) interference to already existing services may or may not occur?
WITHOUT any sort of EVEn A PRETENSE at trying to appear to be 'fair and balanced' in soliciting all the stakeholders to become involved to get some kind of idea of the problems.
WHEN BPL was first announced as a POSSIBLE reality in the USA.. the information spread throught the various communications communities VERY QUICKLY.
Us 'OLD PHARTS' quickly became knowledgeable that HERE was a large large problem. OLD PHARTS alerted the ARRL, OLD PHARTS were involved in finding out informatoin about other Countries experiences and making sure the word got out.
OLD PHARTS (who worked in areas where theywere able to get the word out, had experience and credibility to make folks payattention, etc.) DID let folks know about it as early as could be so something could be done.
To their credit.. ARRL and other organizations jumped on the BPL IS A PROBLEM issue quite a while ago. #Lots of OLD PHARTS with memories of past situations became (and are) involved, believe me.
SO BPL was 'not around' long ago. (If you know of that fact that BPL or a system LIKE BPL nad with BPL's parameters WAS OUT, please provide sourcing) #There WERE part 15 systems out long ago and EVEN BACK THEN.. us "OLD PHARTS" (and OLDER PHARTS THAN ME) were making noises about the problems of interference that would happen. That they weren't listened to is not their problem or a failure on their part.
So, please.. DON'T be so foolish as to accuse the OLD PHARTS of not raising the alarm bells.. They have.. we have and we continue to do so.
As for giving BPL fits on HF/VHF? #As one poster noted..
IF you nip it in the bud NOW.. it goes away before any MASS rollout occurs andbefore an installed base gets moving.
If it is nipped NOW.. it's politically viable for the FCC to say 'SEE! BPL HAS INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS! Let's cut it off BEFORE massive investment happens!'
Wait till later? The politics will kick in.. the lobbying will start and continue.. and you are right.. THEN we will suffer at the hands of the moneyed groups.
Nip it now with but a little directed LEGAL civil action and pay a small price for the fallout. OR wait.. and thensuffer the BIG price for trying to swim upstream against a roaring flood.
Your call.
But don't make such blind statments that we old pharts didn't take anyaction about BPL in the old days. Tis not true.
73
K3FT
ab3ax
03-05-2004, 05:28 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 05 2004,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if in addition, I use power levels so low that nobody can pick up my callsign, I have to wonder whether that is going to bother the BPL system at all - why bother?
And anyway, why even do that so that I can't be traced - I miss the point. Seems like I should *want* them to know that it's coming from a licensed service.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't think that whether or not they know the source of the problem is particularly relevant. If they can't identify it, then it just adds doubt to their claims about the inherent reliability of their system.
If you go back and re-read my previous contributions, you will see that I was advocating hitting them where it hurts - in the pocket. They don't need to know who or where - just let them experience an AOL effect - customers deserting in droves - and then wait to see how long the investors stick around.
As to identifying ourselves - I don't know how that is going to enable them to know where the interference is coming from - not unless they install some kind of complex all-band HF reception system within every node of their system. All they will know in their control center is that folk are bitching that they are losing their data streams and wasting time trying to download files or bring up Web pages.
It has already been shown - in SC or VA, not sure which - that as little as 5W could screw up their system. Just as in normal communications protocols, no sense in using any more power than is necessary to get the job done.
As to your comments about intent - this is almost impossible to prove in court.
73 - Gordon AB3AX
WA3KYY
03-05-2004, 05:42 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 05 2004,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ab3ax @ Mar. 05 2004,10http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif2)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I did not, and never would, suggest making illegal transmissions, and it is shameful for you to insinuate otherwise.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Gordon,
The way your post read, the objective of the so-called hit and run operations was to disrupt their system without being "traced".
Seemed to me that, having to identify, means you can be traced.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not so easy to trace those short calls even with an ID. They would need to recognise a pattern and be listening on a specific frequency and even then would likely not be able to identify the interfering signal because it is so transient.
Take this real life example. I have a Westel DSL modem for broadband. Whenever I am opertaing on 80/75 meters, I cause the modem to reset with all but the briefest of transmissions at anything over about 20 W. Just throwing my call out one time at 30 wpm on CW in a DX pileup is enough to affect the modem and cause it to reset itself. I suspect I do this because this particular model operatates somewhere in the 3-4 MHz range.
I suspect a similar situation would exist with a BPL device. Even a momentary transmission in the frequency band being used by the BPL device would cause at least a momentary disruption sufficient to abort file transfers and types of connections that cannot deal with short disconnects. Since the interfering signal would probably not be on very long nor on the same frequency very long, I've QSYd to chase another DX station, they would be hard pressed to figure out the source of the interference.
AI4CB.. my quoted section was not relating to what you said. What you said DID relate to the quote, but the quote wasn't of what you said.
The IEEE study came out in the 90's this is true and your sourcing is accurate.
MY point had to do with the fact that nothing was done - on other than a limited test area basis for test purposes - with BPL UNTIL the recent time. The IEEE report existed.. but can you show any (other than small limited tests) place where BPL was publicly announced (even in a small public venue) as something that was going to be recommended for implementation?
Once the spectre of BPL being CONSIDERED for rollout was disocovered.. THEN the alerts went up and out.
To take your rather extended example of some Congressman introducing some amendment onto an appropriations bill..Yes, they do try that. But the odds are, to be honest, quite extremely small that this would occur. (Yes, some cars get hit by meteorites too, but that's about the same level of chance of such a law as you proposed they might do being passed. )
Anyway. IF that happened.. trust me on this.. you would have such an 'underground' of reaction occuring that it would make the illegals invasoin of 10M in the southwest USA look like a group of kids in a sandbox.
There would not be enough inspectors/investigators in the entire Government to devote to catching all the folks who would take action.
As one poster noted.. it takes a VERY short burst of fairly low power RF to disrupt BPL data transmissions and cause a user's download to dump or upload to be corrupted.
I've done DF'ing using some pretty sophisticated gear and to catch short burst transmissions which would occur at almost any point in the BPL data transmission stream is about as easyas catching a drop of rain in a downpour.
It's even MORE interesting when the target you are looking for is skilled in the art of what they are doing and even MORE interesting if the target is skilled AND knows what techniques the investigators are using to catch them! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Regardless of what BPL does.. IF they launch it.. they are going to find themselves confronted by a never ending series of 'service calls' from their customers for 'line problems', signal-drop out problems, and the like.
I, for one, will be MOST enjoyably operating my 100W output HF rig about 20 feet from the power lines as I do now. NOW we peacefully coexist and get along well. IF (and when) BPL comes out.. BPL will not be a happy neighbor, believe me.
BRING IT ON< BPL!
LET'S ROLL!
73
Chuck K3FT
ab3ax
03-05-2004, 08:04 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4cb @ Mar. 05 2004,12:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would not surprise me at all if, sometime between now and November, the President on the campaign trail makes a speech and to a standing ovation says something like: 'this administration is bringing us promising new technology to give broadband internet access to every home in this great nation, to create jobs and enhance homeland security' (i.e., more or less exactly what the FCC said in the NPRM).
If then if we do see widespread, intentional disruptions of BPL what happens next is some senator or congressman who happens to be getting millions in campaign contributions from a BPL provider, introduces a bill in Congress that goes something like this:
'Whereas BPL is a promising new technology that will bring broadband internet access to every American home, create jobs and enhance home security; and Whereas we find that the Amateur Radio Service is deliberately interefering with this promising new technology;
we resolve that Title 47 of the USCode be amended as follows: The Amateur Radio Service shall be dissolved."
Then they give it a name that no politician who wants to keep his job would want to go on record as voting against - call it the "Homeland Security Communications Protection Act" or the "Broadband Technology Jobs Protection Act".
Tack it onto a major appropriations bill that would be political suicide to vote against. And that is that.
They do this sort of thing all the time. Doesn't even have to be the truth.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
First off, if Bush makes this kind of statement, it certainly gives every Ham in the US an incentive to carefully review how they vote in November. I firmly believe that the FCC is only taking the attitude that it dues on this issue because of intense political pressure from this administration. After all, they have already polluted the land, the sea and the sky - why not make a complete sweep by polluting the airwaves too!
Secondly, I agree that we do not wish this issue to end up in court, but how can they make a case on such spurious grounds? Amateur operators, both fixed and mobile, doing what they always do, is hardly grounds for a prosecution. Yes, parking under a BPL node and sending out CQ with a 1KW rig would play right into their hands, without being a paricularly effective strategy for disruption either. However that is not what I am advocating. Hit and run can be subtle enough that they will have no idea what is causing the problems to their system. As I have said already, I am sure that they will get problems with many signals emanating from elsewhere too. How can they figure out what is going on and why?
We don't need to tell them either. Just let their customers do the talking, with cancelled contracts and equipment returns.
73 - Gordon AB3AX
AI4CB!!! Great idea for a great ad!
And the announcer's voice continues..
"And to think that Johnny can go to ANYWHERE he can find an outlet and plug into the net! At school (cut to Johnny watching a downloaded nasty movie while sitting in the library at school, or even sitting outside next to an outdoor outlet!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and the voice continues.. "Why Johnny can even do that anywhere there is an outlet that has BPL service!" (Cut to Johnny sitting in a booth at a neighborhood eatery plugged into the wall socket andgetting all sorts of 'interesting' things)
Announcer finishes 'BPL! - Universal service for Johnny and other kids! Contact your BPL provider today!"
FADE TO BLACK.
Excellent idea AI4CB! Good call! Now.. HOW do we make the ad happen?
K3FT
W9LQI
03-10-2004, 05:57 AM
There were hams before licenses and fcc as it were.
Just been reading a cute little book named "Radio tesla, the secret of tesla's radio and wireless power.
The basic tesla transmitter was based on high voltage and sudden pulse, (rich in harmonics) see p.3.
Theory behind tesla's cute little transmitter was in tesla's own words" an emmense rate of momentary energy delivery" . This comes easily by a sudden capacitive discharge thru a spark gap oscillator device of some sort.
Tesla seemed to be able to deliver a fair amount of power with not too many parts and in the relm of broadband, so it said. Why he even lit 200 light bulbs at a distance of twenty miles or so using this scheme.
The book is worthy of study, even shows how to generate microwave energy using this approach, broadband indeed. Several cute little circuits.
Telsa was the father of the utility company delivery system, he wasn't big on rf inospherics communication, too unpredictable, useless too him, but ah give him a pair of lines and a way of generating a very high voltage and a sudden and abrupt pulse of a discharging hv capacitor into a series spark gap into a broadband resonator and what a happy man he was.
Just remember there was ham radio before silly licenses and stupid corrupt fcc paid off bloated, on the dole buro-fatcat, nepotism, offspring needing a job beyond their intellect put there by an unelected King George.
Oh yah, has anyone given consideration to EMP and effects on an unstable power grid brought down too easy by money grubbers like Enron, big contributors to King George the Unellected.
And gosh, don't ya just gonna love all that rf squirting outa power lines everywhere. Gonna warm my bootie warmer with all that free power. Those nassty enemies got a way of homing on any urban non-urban setting now, just go for the loud hash.
EMP on on BPL sounds like a new rap tune. Can't ya just see all the fried front ends in all those cheap computers hooked up.
The other George, Georgre Orwell told us all about big brother, now he can just listen in on anyone and everyone, ain't that great. Don't ya just love big biz and big grubbing politicans. remeber if we can hear em so can big bro. White van and all. Now that's real home land security.
Tell me, why was the bloated Powell and his big biz handler uncomfortable when some hams came to the party at Raleigh, NC on 03/05? All they had was a mobile rig at 500 watts. Now the story goes, the hams were making nice and didn't rain on the parade. Wazat say about the robustness of this stuff they wasa show casing???
Just my ruminations don't ya know.
Hutch