View Full Version : IEEE and BPL
According to an article in October 2004 Nuts and Volts magazine, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics and Engineers has begun to develop IEEE 1675 "Standard for Broadband Over Powerline Hardware". Visit IEEE BPL Group (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/bop)
This could be interesting. We are looking at a group who is very capable of seeing the problem of RF leakage and Part 15 compliance when applying HF to an unshielded long wire (power lines).
73
Bernie Parker
K5BP
13. Scope of Proposed Project:
The scope of this standard will be to provide testing and verification standards for the commonly used hardware,
primarily couplers and enclosures, for Broadband over Power Line (BPL) installations, and provide standard installation methods to ensure compliance with applicable codes and standards.
This project will not cover repeater/node hardware,
data transmission, protocols, or other aspects of BPL related to the internal workings of this technology.
<<<SHORTSIGHTED ISNT IT>>> <<BLINDERS WORN>>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
It also states that they are developing safety standards for people that will be working around power lines that are not linemen.
If you look at the name and contact information of the Working Group Chairman you will find that Terry Burns is an employee of APS. This is one of the largest power companies in Arizona.
I saw nothing in the Project Authorization Request that mentions anything about emissions. Just what we need is for the IEEE to publish a standard that the power companies can point to and say that Hams are just a bunch of alarmists. "We fully comply with the IEEE's standard for installation. Who knows more, a bunch of CB'ers (that will be what some PR person will say, knowing it is wrong, just to help lower the public opinion of our argument) or the highly respected Institute?"
73's
Moe
Quote[/b] (nt7c @ Oct. 12 2004,12:38)]It also states that they are developing safety standards for people that will be working around power lines that are not linemen.
If you look at the name and contact information of the Working Group Chairman you will find that Terry Burns is an employee of APS. #This is one of the largest power companies in Arizona.
I saw nothing in the Project Authorization Request that mentions anything about emissions. #Just what we need is for the IEEE to publish a standard that the power companies can point to and say that Hams are just a bunch of alarmists. #"We fully comply with the IEEE's standard for installation. #Who knows more, a bunch of CB'ers (that will be what some PR person will say, knowing it is wrong, just to help lower the public opinion of our argument) or the highly respected Institute?"
73's
Moe
Moe,
One thing that you may not be aware of is that Ed Hare W1RFI is a member of this standards committee. So before you have a fit, remember this is just an attempt to set standards for this service not to serve as point for the industry to point to for justification of its position. In fact, IEEE has filed comments that can be viewed as mildly negative concerning BPL and high lighted the need for additional research into the real issues raised by NTIA, FEMA, and ARRL (ofcourse the two federal complaints have been watered down because of political pressure).
The industry has already characterized us as incompetent and backward looking rather than forward looking as they proport to be. They don't feel they need IEEE to make them legitimate anyway. They are the real experts and only their information should be considered in this case, not those of the otherwise unknowing and misinformed.
Ken
Ken,
You may well be right, but as I see some of the comments already made by the industry, I would still expect that the Institute standard, once released, will be used by the Industry against ham radio.
I didn't intend to seem alarmist because I'm not. I am, however, cynical by nature. That doesn't mean I've been wrong a lot though (smile).
I was aware of Ed's membership. But one only need look towards the League's recent bandwidth committee work to appreciate that all too often the minority opinion may not even be heard.
This may all be mind candy anyway. The Project Authorization may never be approved.
73's
Moe
Quote[/b] (nt7c @ Oct. 12 2004,14:13)]Ken,
You may well be right, but as I see some of the comments already made by the industry, I would still expect that the Institute standard, once released, will be used by the Industry against ham radio.
I didn't intend to seem alarmist because I'm not. #I am, however, cynical by nature. #That doesn't mean I've been wrong a lot though (smile).
I was aware of Ed's membership. #But one only need look towards the League's recent bandwidth committee work to appreciate that all too often the minority opinion may not even be heard.
This may all be mind candy anyway. #The Project Authorization may never be approved.
73's
Moe
Moe: #There are at least 3 different areas of interest within IEEE which should take up BPL, for different reasons. #Power system carrier communications; electromagnetic compatibility (Ed's area of interest and participation); and last, and most important, is high voltage electrical safety.
The National Electric Safety Code, IEEE/ANSI C1, which has been adopted by most states as the bottom line for high voltage safety regulation, incorporates safe working procedures for linemen and others working in the vicinity of high voltage lines, and safety standards to protect the public from high voltage equipment failure. #High voltage electrical devices, which BPL couplers and transformer bypass units are, all must have what is called a Basic Insulation Level (BIL) in kV, which is typically 8-10 times the line to line voltage upon which they are employed. #There are specific test routines, involving application of high voltage pulses to test the integrity of the insulation of the device. #There are standards and test routines for transformers, insulators, and other equipment employing insulation systems which are destined for installation on high voltage power systems. #But nothing yet for BPL couplers, and there should have been.
Quite frankly, the present trial BPL installations are in violation of the NESC in that the couplers have not been tested and rated per a standardized test procedure for high voltage equipment and BILs established. #I have made this point in comments filed with the Commission and several state utility commissions as well.
I suspect that this hasty interest is to quickly 'back in' to compliance with the NESC. #But, I could be wrong.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Lee
W6EM
Another "News" item from 10/4/2004
Quote[/b] ]Work begins next month on one of the IEEE’s most important, and most politically charged, projects, to devise an ‘intelligent’ air interface that can tap into unused spectrum within an occupied band. (IEEE 802.22)
This will be the standard for fixed wireless systems that use cognitive radio techniques to switch automatically to a clear area of the band, and to avoid interfering with other occupying devices. Such systems are the chief hope for using assets in valuable areas of the spectrum more efficiently and so delivering more bandwidth...
"This is ideal spectrum for deploying regional networks to provide broadband service in sparsely populated areas," said Carl Stevenson, interim chair of the new group, in a statement. “Our goal is to equal or exceed the quality of DSL or cable modem services, and to be able to provide that service in areas where wireline service is economically infeasible, due to the distance between potential users.” In fixed networks, 802.22-based technologies could achieve 40 kilometer range and complement local Wi-Fi and 802.16 backhaul, he said.
Anyone want to guess why this is significant?
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 13 2004,00:03)]Another "News" item from 10/4/2004
Quote[/b] ]Work begins next month on one of the IEEE’s most important, and most politically charged, projects, to devise an ‘intelligent’ air interface that can tap into unused spectrum within an occupied band. (IEEE 802.22)
This will be the standard for fixed wireless systems that use cognitive radio techniques to switch automatically to a clear area of the band, and to avoid interfering with other occupying devices. Such systems are the chief hope for using assets in valuable areas of the spectrum more efficiently and so delivering more bandwidth...
"This is ideal spectrum for deploying regional networks to provide broadband service in sparsely populated areas," said Carl Stevenson, interim chair of the new group, in a statement. “Our goal is to equal or exceed the quality of DSL or cable modem services, and to be able to provide that service in areas where wireline service is economically infeasible, due to the distance between potential users.” In fixed networks, 802.22-based technologies could achieve 40 kilometer range and complement local Wi-Fi and 802.16 backhaul, he said.
Anyone want to guess why this is significant?
Sure,
The unused spectrum note. This system will seek out and use spectrum that is not actually in use. This could mean that any spectrum, including amateur spectrum could be used for other purposes.
I could envision a protocol where the radio would listen. Should it hear nothing, it could then take the spectrum over for a time and then listen for an interval to permit the priority users an opportunity to reclaim their spectrum, hearing nothing the spectrum sharing could continue. Theory being that the licensed users only make a small use of their allocated spectrum and this would permit efficient reuse.
Ken
You got part one of the answer, Ken. #Now, go to http://www.nocode.org and look at "Directors".
Next, follow the link in the first message of this chain, then click on BPL PAR, and look on page 3. There is a letter from the BPL guru and one of the CCs is "P.Nikolich". Do an Internet search on the matched name from NCI Directors and "Nikolich" together to get documents where both names appear. Do the same for the name and "ARRL". Look for comments on petitions to the FCC from 98 and 99 concerning the ARRL. Look at the subject matter of the comments and what the commentor is trying to do.
Have fun.
W9WHE
10-13-2004, 02:38 PM
If only the FCC would have taken this issue to the U.N we would not be in this quagmire!
The FCC should have assembled an international coalition, instead of a group of the bribed and cohersed. We need to pass a global test before undertaking such action. All of the BPL stuff is so that Haliburton and Exxon can reap Zillions of $$ in no-bid contracts. RF hash for $$ But we can't pull out now. If you go to John Kerry.com, you can see that he has a better plan. Only he and John Edwards can assemble an international coalition of the "sued and cohersed" foreginers to run our country!
W9WHE
I took your suggestion and went to John Kerry's website to see his plan. It seems pretty clear but there is also a link to the other John Kerry web site with an equal and opposite plan. And somehow, it seems to include Jane Fonda.
So, John's for it and against it and it is not that simple as all of these things are far more complex which means you commoners don't have a chance of getting even a clue.
KD5PSH
k3nco
10-13-2004, 11:08 PM
I guess I am just a little dense. AG4YO seems to want to say something without saying it and I'm not sure what conclusion I am supposed to leap to. Is it that Carl Stevenson wants to eliminate code, or that he wants to suck up the ham bands? Or was it some other director from NoCode I was supposed to be searching on? Now, I don't understand Carl's position on the code, since he is an Extra Class licensee (although it appears he only passed a 5 WPM test since his previous class was Tech+). But it's his opinion and he is welcome to it. Of course, I was opposed to a lot of the restructuring the ARRL did earlier, but from the other side, so I am just a dinosaur.
However, if you read through the BPL proceedings, you will see that Carl has come down squarely on the side of HF spectrum users. From a practical standpoint, you can't build a high speed network that is going to grab the lower 100 kHz of all the ham bands where CW operations are - not #enough bandwidth to do it. Even BPL would have a problem just stealing only that much since a typical OFDM implementation has QPSK carriers every 200 kHz and they pretty much fill up the spectrum. Just turning off one doesn't make a good null (as a number of BPL trials have proven!).
No, the 802.22 stuff seems to be more aimed at the FCC's current baby, cognitive radio at UHF.
From dailywireless.com:
"IEEE is particularly focused on systems for the underused US television spectrum between 54MHz and 862MHz, which is being vacated (reluctantly) as broadcasters move to digital. The FCC proposes to open up 300MHz of this UHF/VHF spectrum as its first major test of software defined or cognitive radios. It would permit fixed access systems transmitting up to 1W in power and portable devices up to 100mW."
Needless to say, the broadcasters (and the Society of Broadcast Engineers - SBE, who seem to have a large ham contingent) are violently opposed to this, as there are concerns about adjacent channel interference and what might happen to fringe area listeners.
For now, at least, I don't think there are any designs on stealing the HF bands - wide band antennas are too big and too hard to make. Now, 2400 MHz, that's another topic...
MarC
(who has never met Carl)
Hi nco,
You're getting close. #Look at the quote, "IEEE is particularly focused on systems for the underused US television spectrum between 54MHz and 862MHz, which is being vacated (reluctantly) as broadcasters move to digital."
If you found the comments made versus the ARRL concerning part 15 devices, you will know that efforts were being made to dilute our ability to keep commercial use out of the Amateur Bands. #The point was that with gazillions of part 15 IEEE 802 devices on the horizon, space/spectrum would be needed for them. #The area being targeted was 2.4 gHz and areas in the 900 mHz Amateur bands. #In the recent statement, the goal now includes areas butting up against the top of 6 meters by the same person. The ARRL has been successful thus far in stopping major infringement in the Amateur Bands due to use of the bands mostly by Technician licensees.
Quote[/b] ] nco: However, if you read through the BPL proceedings, you will see that Carl has come down squarely on the side of HF spectrum users.
Yep. #But you missed the point. #Mr. Stevenson is the NCI Chairman, filed their petition, and filed comments against any and all petitions calling for retention of Element 1 for himself and as #NCI. #Who benefits from removal of Element 1? #After Element 1 is removed, then what happens?
Quote[/b] ]nco: I guess I am just a little dense. AG4YO seems to want to say something without saying it and I'm not sure what conclusion I am supposed to leap to.
What happens to Technicians after Element 1 is dropped? #What happens to use of frequencies above 6 meters? I don't want you to leap to anything. I just want people to think about how all the things happening are related and for more than obvious reasons or implications.
n2obm
10-14-2004, 12:39 AM
Hello All,
Could someone comment on these slides I found. They are authored by Mr.Carl R. Stevenson.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cstb/wireless_ppt_stevenson.pdf
The only opinion I can draw would be along the lines of 'conflict of interest(s)'. But that is subject to one's point of view. I would love to see Carl do a post here. I would hate to waste bandwidth and send him an email...his webpage states something about the 'bit bucket'. I have one of those too.
Quote[/b] (n2obm @ Oct. 13 2004,20:39)]Hello All,
Could someone comment on these slides I found. They are authored by Mr.Carl R. Stevenson.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cstb/wireless_ppt_stevenson.pdf
The only opinion I can draw would be along the lines of 'conflict of interest(s)'. But that is subject to one's point of view. I would love to see Carl do a post here. I would hate to waste bandwidth and send him an email...his webpage states something about the 'bit bucket'. I have one of those too.
Trent,
That presentation is interesting and could be a conflict of interest should Carl endeavor to engage in actions designed to lower amateur radio to the unlicensed status of CB.
It is also interesting because he seems to be pointing to things like CB which are licensed by rule. There seems to be an implied license in this service.
Another point would seem to be that he is advocating for the recognition of BPL as another licensed by rule system, but wouldn't this required a separate section in the rules outside of Part 15 to accomplish this task?
He appears to be indicating that all present licensed services are, in effect, inefficient and should be reviewed for modification. It appears to me that this is the precise goal both NTIA and FCC are trying to achieve. I base this statements on the FCC web-site concerning goals and stategies that would lead to a new paradigm for spectrum allocation and or management.
Ken
Ken,
Quote[/b] ]He appears to be indicating that all present licensed services are, in effect, inefficient and should be reviewed for modification.
That would be a bullseye. #It is a theme in comments to the FCC about using Amateur Frequencies in 98 and 99 that ANY (in the case of the 98-99 comments, the Amateur band) license is not a protection against part 15 devices using frequencies. #This is supported by the work in being done to find and overrun any spectrum not actively used from 54mHz to 2.4 gHz.
How do you clear more spectrum in Amateur bands in the target area? #Those frequencies are used by Technician Class Amateurs mostly, so if you remove telegraphy testing, most Technicians move down to HF. #Now there is less traffic on frequencies above 54mHz so it is harder for the ARRL to defend keeping part 15 devices at bay.
Not related to BPL? Suppose the idea is to get a foot in the door with the adaptive technology. #What is the mainstay of the ARRL defense of HF bands from BPL?
WA6CAW
10-14-2004, 06:24 PM
Here is a news bulletin from today's RCR Magazine !! FYI
Broadband over power line approved despite interference concerns
By Heather Forsgren Weaver
Oct 14, 2004
WASHINGTON-Despite the interference concerns of government-spectrum users, public-safety entities and amateur-radio operators, the Federal Communications Commission Thursday adopted rules to allow broadband over power lines.
"The potential for the U.S. economy is too great, too enormous, too ground-breaking to sit idly by," said FCC Chairman Michael Powell.
Rather than simply requiring BPL operators to live under the existing unlicensed rules, BPL has additional obligations, such as notching and remote shutoff, that will require some adjustments to existing commercial BPL operations, said Bruce Franca, deputy chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering & Technology.
Additionally there will be specific frequencies where BPL operations will not be allowed. These bands are for "life and safety," said OET Chief Edmond Thomas.
The rules set out specific procedures for interference complaints, but the only time limits are for interference complaints from public-safety entities, said Thomas.
BPL equipment will be subject to FCC certification rather than verification procedures used by other unlicensed devices. FCC certification requires equipment manufacturers to submit testing results to the FCC while verification does not require any prior manufacturer contact with the FCC before deploying an item.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said he was disappointed that the FCC did not set out rules for disabilities access, universal service and enhanced 911. "Just because these regulations are long standing does not mean they are out of date," said Copps.
Copps also said he was concerned that power customers may be forced to pay higher rates to subsidize an electric company's "foray into BPL."
Now the ARRL knows how its members feel. As with recent proposals and petitions from the League, despite evidence, letters, emails, and empassioned pleas the League does what it wants to do on its predetermined path just as the FCC has done to them.
And as with the FCC, the League actions benefit the few and ignore the good of the many. Enjoy the feeling of losing a fight that, if the world was a fair place, you should have won.
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 14 2004,16:00)]Now the ARRL knows how its members feel. #As with recent proposals and petitions from the League, despite evidence, letters, emails, and empassioned pleas the League does what it wants to do on its predetermined path just as the FCC has done to them.
And as with the FCC, the League actions benefit the few and ignore the good of the many. #Enjoy the feeling of losing a fight that, if the world was a fair place, you should have won.
Frankly, I don't see this as a loss. It incorporated most of things that are reasonable. The industry did not get all that they wanted either. We will have to see how the actual R&O is worded before any further comments can be made.
Concerning FCC doing their own thing, FCC has said from the start that BPL was already authorized under existing regulations. The statements made by the commissioners indicate to me that the potential for interference has been recognized and appropriate measures will be included to provide a resolution path for complaints as they appear. The Commission, further, stated that some of the BPL technology will not be able to comply with the new rules and some will.
It appears the regulations will require notching and remote system reconfiguration on notice of interference complaints and some time frames will be mandated for compliance with the non-interference directives. These are items the industry wanted present system to be grandfathered for so present technology could be deployed.
There is one issue that does not appear in the literature concerning this R&O and that is the affect this will have on the shortwave broadcast bands. We are party to a treaty that assures protection for these broadcasts. It will be interesting to see how this is addressed.
The ARRL provided clear evidence that interference exists dispite what the industry said. The field tests at the trial sights confirmed the information generated by the NTIA study.
My opinion is that this industry does have some things that it must address before full deployment can be initiated. The present notching technology is not sufficient to prevent interference to licensed services particularly amateur radio and remote shutdown of particular devices is not implemented in the present technology suite, which seems to be required for certification.
Ken
WD8OQX
10-14-2004, 11:23 PM
I have to wonder what will happen to certain devices if the 'digital signal' ever gets to something it's not supposed to get to on the AC line? Such as life support (not all is in a hospital) or even just plan everyday appliances - I can see this causing "great fun"
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
What ticks me off the most is - we the consumer will be the ones paying for this junk regardless of whether we want it or not!!! Look for the cost of electricity to go up.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Quote[/b] (WD8OQX @ Oct. 14 2004,19:23)]I have to wonder what will happen to certain devices if the 'digital signal' ever gets to something it's not supposed to get to on the AC line? Such as life support (not all is in a hospital) or even just plan everyday appliances - I can see this causing "great fun"
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
What ticks me off the most is - we the consumer will be the ones paying for this junk regardless of whether we want it or not!!! Look for the cost of electricity to go up.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
I believe you will find that the normal filters used in the power sources for most hospital equipment will eliminated BPL signals. In addition, most hospitals have transformers immediately outside the building. The power is extracted directly off the MV lines. The signals will not likely bypass these transformers to become a problem.
Concerning the costs, Commissioner Copp specifically expressed his disappointment that the commission did not include language that would preclude the industry from billing rate payers for the costs associated with BPL. The problem is that many of the interested utilities are looking for the rate payers to fund this so they can get the improved metering and systems monitoring capability without cost to the investors.
Ken
Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Oct. 14 2004,17:57)]Quote[/b] (WD8OQX @ Oct. 14 2004,19:23)]I have to wonder what will happen to certain devices if the 'digital signal' ever gets to something it's not supposed to get to on the AC line? Such as life support (not all is in a hospital) or even just plan everyday appliances - I can see this causing "great fun"
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
What ticks me off the most is - we the consumer will be the ones paying for this junk regardless of whether we want it or not!!! Look for the cost of electricity to go up.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
I believe you will find that the normal filters used in the power sources for most hospital equipment will eliminated BPL signals. In addition, most hospitals have transformers immediately outside the building. The power is extracted directly off the MV lines. The signals will not likely bypass these transformers to become a problem.
Concerning the costs, Commissioner Copp specifically expressed his disappointment that the commission did not include language that would preclude the industry from billing rate payers for the costs associated with BPL. The problem is that many of the interested utilities are looking for the rate payers to fund this so they can get the improved metering and systems monitoring capability without cost to the investors.
Ken
Unfortunately, the mechanics of how the utilities fund system expansion is not an FCC, nor FERC responsibility. #State PUCs have this oversight responsibility.
As I've said before, but probably not enough on this site, the cost of reading a meter, using a live body, and writing the entry in a book, is about 8-10 cents per meter per month. #System monitoring. #Well, the cost of adding transformers, transducers, and a BPL-compatible RTU to each customer will be rather expensive, to monitor the customer voltage, and demand. #And, clearly not worth the expense.
As you might surmise, when a power system medium voltage outage occurs, it will render BPL unavailable, since protective devices open the path. #And, even if bypass couplers were added to every fuse, disconnect, recloser and circuit breaker, phase to phase or phase to ground faults and opens will kill the BPL signal.
The use of such 'shadow' justification by utilities was just to make it sound 'techie' to the FCC. #In reality, utilities already have robust SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) systems that use a separate command communications path to control their distribution systems. #For the same reasons stated above. #Unless the SCADA system can remain functional during an outage, it cannot be used to control switching and sectionalizing to isolate faults and restore as much of the utility system as possible remotely.
I'll have a look at what the FCC said, but from what you've said, it doesn't look like we've lost the war. #And, when you add the ARRL's Motion to Recuse Powell, which apparently was ignored by the FCC, there should be ample material to seek judicial intervention.
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.
WD8OQX
10-15-2004, 03:02 AM
Quote[/b] (ae1x @ Oct. 14 2004,17:57)]Quote[/b] (WD8OQX @ Oct. 14 2004,19:23)]I have to wonder what will happen to certain devices if the 'digital signal' ever gets to something it's not supposed to get to on the AC line? Such as life support (not all is in a hospital) or even just plan everyday appliances - I can see this causing "great fun"
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
What ticks me off the most is - we the consumer will be the ones paying for this junk regardless of whether we want it or not!!! Look for the cost of electricity to go up.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
I believe you will find that the normal filters used in the power sources for most hospital equipment will eliminated BPL signals. In addition, most hospitals have transformers immediately outside the building. The power is extracted directly off the MV lines. The signals will not likely bypass these transformers to become a problem.
Concerning the costs, Commissioner Copp specifically expressed his disappointment that the commission did not include language that would preclude the industry from billing rate payers for the costs associated with BPL. The problem is that many of the interested utilities are looking for the rate payers to fund this so they can get the improved metering and systems monitoring capability without cost to the investors.
Ken
My point is that things DO malfunction & signals DO get to where they aren't supposed to - granted in this case it may not occur all that often, but they can happen.
What about something that depends on the 60Hz signal, for example? Why add another factors for trouble when it is a known problem to begin with. Besides as I stated not all life support systems are in hospitals. I can walk to 4 such places here & not have to go that far.
As for the cost factor - I have seen it too many times here where I live. Every time a util. co. of some sort gets a burr under there saddle to "try something" whether it works or not (& most of the time it doesn't) we the consumer pay for it.
I will stay with this opinion until it is proofed to me personally that BPL isn't the "nightmare POS" I believe it to be!
Funny thing is we have the proper technology already in place, (for the most part - around here anyway) fiber optics, all we need to do is use it! (another one of those "waste" I was talking about!)
k3nco
10-15-2004, 04:14 AM
hi yo,
No, I firmly believe that NCI is just opposed to the code because they believe it to be an uneccessary impediment to a large number of technically savvy people getting their licenses. I disagree. Regardless of the fact that there is a codeless Tech license now, I know people who whined for years that they never got a license because of the code - and they still don't have it!
There is a level of commitment necessary to learn what is necessary to pass the exam - even if you have a technical background. I know this only too well because I am currently teaching a ham radio class once a week at lunch at my office. There are 6 people in the class, two of whom have already passed their codeless Tech exams. These are all physicists or electronic engineers - yet some of them don't know how to solder, what a dipole pattern looks like, etc... One of the Techs is now thinking about learning the code.
I was a tech for 19 years (back in the day of the 1 year non-renewable Novice license). Back then almost no one but Technicians used VHF bands. But that was before repeaters and packet and digital modes and satellites. I believe the activity on the VHF bands will not die because Techs will upgrade and move to HF.
That is not to say that I'm not worried about intrusions by unlicensed data radios into mostly 900, 2400, and 5600 MHz. Hams in California have already seen problems at 2400 where 802.11 networks are being set up - some as businesses. If no one thinks this isn't going to be a problem in the future, then look at how WRC 03 raised the 5 GHz unlicensed band (802.11a here, BRAN in Europe) to the status of a co-primary service in some sub-bands! In Europe there is already regulatory activity in trying to protect similar 2400 MHz systems - because they affect so many people. This was the concern I had about BPL - especially after comments made by Southern which basically implied that they didn't care about the 1.2 million shortwave listeners in the U.S. - because a lot more people would want BPL than that.
W1RFI
10-15-2004, 11:19 AM
Let me offer a bit of overview that may sort this out.
The IEEE Standards Association formed an ad hoc committee to look at BPL and make a recommendation to SA on how the IEEE could get involved with BPL standards. ARRL has representation on that committee.
They have met three times now. At the first meeting in Denver, it was decided that the need for electrical-safety standards was clear and that the IEEE Power Equipment Society was the logical body to handle that standard. Terry Burns from APS (the company involved in the Cottonwood BPL trial) has chaired the appropriate committee for some time. The wrote up a PAR and are proceeding with developing the standard.
The ad hoc committee is working on a recommendation letter to IEEE and a white paper to clarify its position. Among the recommendations will be one related to emissions, EMC and immunity. The concensus of the committee is that this is a very important issue that the industry must address effectively -- and the ARRL rep is NOT the only one saying that. At the last meeting, I did a short presentation that offered technical reasons that the industry and radio operators are reaching different conclusions about the nature of BPL interference. (This was related to the differences between spectrum analyzers and inefficient loop antennas and communications receivers and more efficient antennas.)
Ultimately, the industry may develop EMC standards that go beyond Part 15, but that will not be done by the ad hoc committee. It would pass that off to SA, with a recommendation that the IEEE EMC society be directly involved in any EMC standards, either as the sponsor, or by strong participation on the PES working group that may incorporate EMC into any standards it develops.
Yes, developing standards does give legitimacy to BPL, but that legitimacy already exists in spades, from its being legal under Part 15 to the gushing that the FCC and "W" have been doing for months running. A standard that recognizes that radio services must be able to operate in a noise environment free from harmful interference would be important, and would give legitimacy to the needs of licensed spectrum users.
Understand, the rules changes announced yesterday do NOT make BPL legal! It has been legal all along, subject to a requirement that it not exceed the maximum emissions limits and that it not cause harmful interference. These rules add restrictions on BPL that don't exist for any other device, and the fact that the FCC has mandated that it not operate on specific spectrum is a clear indication that it can and will cause local interference on any spectrum where it operates at the FCC limits. The rules about harmful interference haven't changed, and the discussion surrounding these rules changes have emphasized the importance of BPL dealing effectively with interference issues.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-15-2004, 11:23 AM
Commissioner Copps:
" I remain concerned with the question of interference to amateur radio users. I take the concerns of this community very seriously, and believe that the FCC has an obligation to work hard to monitor, investigate, and take quick action where appropriate to resolve harmful interference. If interference occurs, we must have a system in place to resolve it immediately. If an amateur radio user makes a complaint and an agreement between the BPL provider and the amateur radio user cannot be reached, the FCC should step in and resolve the matter. These cases must not take years to resolve."
Commissioner Adelstein:
"I take seriously our obligation under Section 157 of the Communications Act that "[i]t shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public." I am fully committed to that mission to promote new technologies, and to provide a framework for innovation so they can succeed. In order to do so in this case, though, we must ensure that sufficient protections are in place to limit interference concerns.
"Recent Access BPL test deployments have been very useful in developing techniques to address interference issues. It is clear that some Access BPL systems can co-exist very well with existing licensees in the HF and VHF bands. In the limited cases of increased interference, the Access BPL operators were able to quickly resolve and address the interference problem. Other Access BPL systems, though, have not fared so well, and these systems should not be deployed on a commercial basis if they will continue to result in harmful interference.
"We have put in place on Access BPL some special rules that are not normally required of Part 15 operators. However, I believe that these restrictions and requirements, such as adaptive frequency selection, remote shut down control, and a publicly available Access BPL database, are critical to providing an operational environment that safeguards existing licensees from harmful interference. I am also pleased to support our specific requirement for Access BPL providers to promptly respond to complaints of harmful interference from public safety licensees."
Commissioner Abernathy:
" We believe the new requirements we are imposing will help minimize harmful interference that may occur and, to the extent any harmful interference does occur, to quickly resolve any issues."
Commissioner Martin:
"In this Order, we have attempted to facilitate deployment of BPL while ensuring that existing users are protected from harmful interference. Working closely with NTIA, we have taken strides to address interference concerns of both Government and private users. Nevertheless, I recognize that Amateur radio operators still have concerns that they will experience interference from BPL systems. In addition, broadcasters are concerned that BPL systems will cause interference in the low VHF band. I take these concerns - as well as the other concerns expressed about BPL systems causing interference - very seriously. I am confident that the Commission will continue to monitor these concerns and will take steps, where needed, to address interference problems going forward."
k8nqc
10-15-2004, 12:17 PM
As long as amateurs put PARTY LOYALTY ahead of good judgement, those corporations who want to make money will always get what they want. They have bought enough politicians to assure that. If you still have a SW receiver, tune in 3.210 Mhz or 7.580 Mhz at night to hear an alternate view. I had hoped our voice would be heard on BPL, but that was only wishful thinking.
Thanks for the post, Ed. Your opinions are always welcomed and respected.
W9WHE
10-15-2004, 02:12 PM
AG4YO writes:
"Now the ARRL knows how its members feel. As with recent proposals and petitions from the League, despite evidence, letters, emails, and empassioned pleas the League does what it wants to do on its predetermined path just as the FCC has done to them".
Excellent insight!
BPL is just another item on a LONG list of ARRL failures, including the antenna bill and 220 Mhz. Your ARRL dues at work!
W9WHE
Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 15 2004,10:12)]AG4YO writes:
"Now the ARRL knows how its members feel. #As with recent proposals and petitions from the League, despite evidence, letters, emails, and empassioned pleas the League does what it wants to do on its predetermined path just as the FCC has done to them".
Excellent insight! #
BPL is just another item on a LONG list of ARRL failures, including the antenna bill and 220 Mhz. Your ARRL dues at work!
W9WHE
Gentlemen,
Comments such as the above DO NOT http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif add anything useful to this discussion. We all know your position on ARRL, please provide something useful to this topic or start your own ARRL bashing thread.
Ken
ae1x,
Quote[/b] ]We all know your position on ARRL, please provide something useful to this topic or start your own ARRL bashing thread
You know my position about the League? #Tell me. You brought it up with your rude comment. Tell me what I think about the league. Here's your quiz:
1. Am I a member of the League?
2. How do I feel about maintaining League membership?
3. What do I feel is the main problem with the League?
4. How do I feel about The League's BPL effort?
5. How do I feel about my Division Director? Jim Haynie?
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 15 2004,10:40)]ae1x,
Quote[/b] ]We all know your position on ARRL, please provide something useful to this topic or start your own ARRL bashing thread
You know my position about the League? #Tell me. You brought it up with your rude comment. Tell me what I think about the league. Here's your quiz:
1. Am I a member of the League?
2. How do I feel about maintaining League membership?
3. What do I feel is the main problem with the League?
4. How do I feel about The League's BPL effort?
5. How do I feel about my Division Director? #Jim Haynie?
I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to W9WHE. I don't you position on any of the items in question. I should have deleted your quota. Please accept my humble appology in this matter.
Ken
Broadband over power line approved despite interference concerns From RCR Wireless News Oct 14, 2004
WASHINGTON-Despite the interference concerns of government-spectrum
users, public-safety entities and amateur-radio operators, the Federal
Communications Commission Thursday adopted rules to allow broadband
over power lines.
"The potential for the U.S. economy is too great, too enormous, too
ground-breaking to sit idly by," said FCC Chairman Michael Powell.
Rather than simply requiring BPL operators to live under the existing
unlicensed rules, BPL has additional obligations, such as notching and
remote shutoff, that will require some adjustments to existing ommercial BPL operations, said Bruce Franca, deputy chief of the FCC's Office Engineering & Technology.
Additionally there will be specific frequencies where BPL operations
will not be allowed. These bands are for "life and safety," said OET
Chief Edmond Thomas.
The rules set out specific procedures for interference complaints, but
the only time limits are for interference complaints from public-safety
entities, said Thomas.
BPL equipment will be subject to FCC certification rather than
verification procedures used by other unlicensed devices. FCC
certification requires equipment manufacturers to submit testing results to the FCC while verification does not require any prior manufacturer
contact with the FCC before deploying an item.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said he was disappointed that the FCC did
not set out rules for disabilities access, universal service and
enhanced 911. "Just because these regulations are long standing does not
mean they are out of date," said Copps.
Copps also said he was concerned that power customers may be forced to
pay higher rates to subsidize an electric company's "foray into BPL." FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin told Copps he had nothing to fear because
he believed Pat Wood III, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, would protect consumers. "I am confident FERC Chairman Wood
will do everything to protect consumers," said Martin.
Just goes to show you how *uninformed* even members of our resplendent FCC are. #The FERC has no control over what utilities do on their distribution systems. #Only on interconnects with other utilities and generation suppliers.
State PUCs have jurisdiction over investor owned utilities. #*No* objective, removed body oversees rural electric coops nor city-owned electric systems.
Sorry, Mr. Copps, but you haven't done your homework. #Maybe, on purpose......
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.
Over 30 years in the power business.
For the record:
1. Am I a member of the League?
Absolutely!
2. How do I feel about maintaining League membership?
I think members who disagree with League actions should stay a member and work for change.
3. What do I feel is the main problem with the League?
Stuck in the past. #Organizations must be responsive to the wishes of its members. #If they don't know, find out and publish the results so those who don't agree know at least it was a democratic process.
4. How do I feel about The League's BPL effort?
They fought a good battle. #Sorry we all lost.
5. How do I feel about my Division Director? #Jim Haynie?
Frank Butler is one of the nicest people I know. #He needs to stand up to headquarters and represent his members, but still a wonderful gentleman. #Haynie is a hoot to talk to. Very enjoyable. He needs to lead the way in reforming the ARRL rather than being the ambassador of the downslide. Seems like a good person.
1x, Explanation noted. Thanks!
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 15 2004,16:28)]For the record:
1. Am I a member of the League?
Absolutely!
2. How do I feel about maintaining League membership?
I think members who disagree with League actions should stay a member and work for change.
3. What do I feel is the main problem with the League?
Stuck in the past. #Organizations must be responsive to the wishes of its members. #If they don't know, find out and publish the results so those who don't agree know at least it was a democratic process.
4. How do I feel about The League's BPL effort?
They fought a good battle. #Sorry we all lost.
5. How do I feel about my Division Director? #Jim Haynie?
Frank Butler is one of the nicest people I know. #He needs to stand up to headquarters and represent his members, but still a wonderful gentleman. #Haynie is a hoot to talk to. Very enjoyable. He needs to lead the way in reforming the ARRL rather than being the ambassador of the downslide. Seems like a good person.
1x, Explanation noted. #Thanks!
Thanks,
I'm a member as well and I have voiced my opinions regularly to Tom Frenaye K1KI who is the NE Division Director. I have also communicated directly with Dave Sumner and Ed Hare.
I don't agree with everything going on and I will make my views known. I already have on the issue of BPL, band planning, and regulation by bandwidth/mode.
Working within an organization that has the record ARRL has is the only way to go and I will stick with it regardless of what W9WHE says. I stick by comment that he needs his own forum on this subject and should not cause threads on other subjects to be drawn into an argument about the League.
I don't see the new regulations as a complete loss. It id still too early to say that we lost. There are a number things that must be followed up on before we can accept that we have been beaten by an industry that is being given a free pass to occupy bandwidth to which they are not entitled under international regulations. This issue must be brought to the attention of the next WRC.
Ken
W1RFI
10-15-2004, 10:18 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 14 2004,14:28)]4. How do I feel about The League's BPL effort?
They fought a good battle. #Sorry we all lost.
I don't think we lost at all. #We just didn't win as much as we could have.
This is NOT a rule that authorizes BPL. #BPL has been authorized for the past 20 years, at least, under Part 15 rules. Had the FCC done NOTHING that would have been the worst possible outcome.
Actually, not quite worst. They started out by saying that they thought most rules restricting BPL could be removed. #They moved forward by saying that interference would be very rare. #
They ended up by removing not a single restriction, and having four of the Commissioners recognize that interference is very much a possibility -- so much so that they carved out spectrum for the government to use that BPL cannot operate on. #
They recognized that verification (self testing) is not working, and will require a more stringent certification process. I am sure that the technical analyses of some of the "testing" that was done at some sites -- with BPL operating as much as 30 dB over the FCC limits -- played a strong part of that decision.
See:
http://www.arrl.org/news....r-2.pdf (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/11/3/BPL-complaint-letter-Briarcliff-Manor-2.pdf)
http://www.vvara.org/ARRL%20Oct_11_04.pdf
The FCC has imposed limits on BPL that don't exist for other unlicensed devices: #A mandate that they be designed to change frequency and power as needed, or shut off; a requirement for a public database to facilite interference resolution, and a defined step-by-step process for interference resolution (I don't know the details yet, but I will see what I can find out).
I wouldn't call that a loss by any stretch. #I would have loved to have seen amateur radio included in the "forbidden" spectrum, but I think that politically, that would not have been possible, as then everyone else would have screamed "me, too."
It is a 2nd-best resolution to have put limits on the industry, and to send a very clear message that the interference that has occurred to date will not be tolerated. #Some in industry are getting that message, and want to work with ARRL to learn more about where the lines need to be drawn and why. Amateur Radio and the BPL industry may well still have differences, and petition for reconsideration are still possible, but if they really want to try to build a system that doesn't interfere with amateur radio, I will do what I can to help them. #
And if they succeed, I will be the first to be pleased. If they don't succeed, yesterday, promises were made by the FCC, and ARRL will continue to expect that the FCC will follow its own rules and address harmful interference. #And, out of those procedures may come some additional reinforcement of the need to address interference across the board.
It will take about 2 weeks for the final rules to be written and announced, and I am sure we will all be analyzing them closely to see what the details are.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed: #Congratulations and thanks for yours and the ARRL's collective hard work. #Considering where you and the League started from (in terms of the FCC and W's positions on BPL) you have made great strides in reeling in the "cheerleaders".
Type acceptance, remote frequency control/shut down, and the mandate for a public database of BPL systems are 'wins' for our service and others who may suffer at the hands of this technology. #And, wouldn't be, if had not been for your efforts.
The Commissioner statements of concern over public safety impact was especially impressive.
As you've said, now we'll have to see what the R&O has to offer. #I would hope that the Powell Sunshine Law violation (and denial) will prove useful if litigation happens. #I would suspect that at least some of the eleventh hour attitude adjustment by the Commissioners to recognize BPL interference potential may have been the result of the League's Motion for Recusal of Chairman Powell. #A great move.
Again, thanks for your hard work.
73's
Lee
W6EM
W1RFI
10-16-2004, 01:13 PM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 14 2004,19:20)]Ed: #Congratulations and thanks for yours and the ARRL's collective hard work. #Considering where you and the League started from (in terms of the FCC and W's positions on BPL) you have made great strides in reeling in the "cheerleaders".
Type acceptance, remote frequency control/shut down, and the mandate for a public database of BPL systems are 'wins' for our service and others who may suffer at the hands of this technology. #And, wouldn't be, if had not been for your efforts.
Thanks, Lee. But is has NOT been "my" efforts. I had a role in this, but I was one of many players, from ARRL employees to volunteers in the field to the 160,000 members that really made it all happen in the first place.
But one thing can be said: the interference potential of BPL was recognized, even if somewhat understated. The FCC made a promise in the words of most of its Commissioners. To quote Dave Sumner in a similar context -- that is a problem ARRL intends to help them keep.
If there is interference from BPL systems, and it is occurring right now in most BPL areas, it will be addressed cooperatively, but firmly. The bar is set high -- operate at a level that does not repeatedly disrpupt communications. That bar is taken right from the language of Part 15. It is not ambiguous at all.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
k3nco
10-17-2004, 06:12 PM
Ed,
But thanks are still due you for all the analysis and testing you performed - I remember how many documents in the proceeding had your name on them. I know how much time I spent just reading through all the stuff and running a few calculations.
I am still concerned that we are now heading into the 5 or 6 years at the bottom of a sunspot cycle, and that activity on the higher bands, especially 10 and 12 meters, is liable to wane. Some BPL providers avoid the amateur bands completely, but for other BPL providers this may allow them to get used to operating in bands where there is no one around to complain (especially at night) - and then how fast will they be responding to complaints when the next cycle starts to heat up?
A nagging concern is still the issue of ingress of amateur signals into the BPL devices (including HomePlug) - no one seemed to indicate that they had any kind of roofing filter to avoid such problems. My 80/40 inverted Vee is approximately parallel to the line feeding my house, as well as to the lines on one street. I only run 100 watts (when not at QRP-hey, don't I have one of your Tuna-Tin cards???) but that's enough on 40 SSB to get into the phone line here (which runs under the power line). OK, it's their problem, but what happens when you are new to a community, or just a band? Hey, I have a friend with a 1500 W linear, and he went nuts with his neighbor's touch lamps and dial-up service reacting to his 80 and 40 meter output.
While I too am waiting to see the actual text of the R&O, we have a much tighter knit community (well...at times) than the short-wave listeners do (and I was one before & after I got my ticket). Who will rush to their aid?
k2lck
10-17-2004, 08:02 PM
The bottom line is that nothing,but nothing, beats a political contribution....(except a larger one to the other party).........Remember that come election day... K2LCK
W1RFI
10-17-2004, 09:24 PM
Quote[/b] (k3nco @ Oct. 16 2004,12:12)]Ed,
But thanks are still due you for all the analysis and testing you performed - I remember how many documents in the proceeding had your name on them. I know how much time I spent just reading through all the stuff and running a few calculations.
I am still concerned that we are now heading into the 5 or 6 years at the bottom of a sunspot cycle, and that activity on the higher bands, especially 10 and 12 meters, is liable to wane. Some BPL providers avoid the amateur bands completely, but for other BPL providers this may allow them to get used to operating in bands where there is no one around to complain (especially at night) - and then how fast will they be responding to complaints when the next cycle starts to heat up?
A nagging concern is still the issue of ingress of amateur signals into the BPL devices (including HomePlug) - no one seemed to indicate that they had any kind of roofing filter to avoid such problems. My 80/40 inverted Vee is approximately parallel to the line feeding my house, as well as to the lines on one street. I only run 100 watts (when not at QRP-hey, don't I have one of your Tuna-Tin cards???) but that's enough on 40 SSB to get into the phone line here (which runs under the power line). OK, it's their problem, but what happens when you are new to a community, or just a band? Hey, I have a friend with a 1500 W linear, and he went nuts with his neighbor's touch lamps and dial-up service reacting to his 80 and 40 meter output.
While I too am waiting to see the actual text of the R&O, we have a much tighter knit community (well...at times) than the short-wave listeners do (and I was one before & after I got my ticket). Who will rush to their aid?
> But thanks are still due you for all the analysis and testing
> you performed - I remember how many documents in the
> proceeding had your name on them. I know how much time
> I spent just reading through all the stuff and running a few
> calculations.
I did put in more than "my job," although I am on salary, so they pay me for what I do, not for how long it takes me to do it. But so many others volunteered, from those that did testing in areas I couldn't visit to those that organized local BPL teams to do a top-notch job of documenting BPL interference. Volunteers attended local meetings with utilities and their local government. Amateur Radio asked more of these people than we had a right to ask -- but we asked anyway -- and they made sacrifices, too.
That is what it took to get this far, and ARRL was one of the tools we all used to help coordinate our work. I was one of many, and we all owe them a debt of thanks. I would try to list them, but at what point do I draw the line on how much is enough to put them on the list? We have seen some of them in the articles and filings, and there were many others who quietly did what had to be done.
It is times like this that I am proud to be an amateur, because the work done by Amateur Radio in this proceeding is second to none.
Ed Hare, W1RFI