View Full Version : ARRL REPEATS CALL FOR SHUTDOWN OF AZ BPL TRIAL
AA7BQ
10-23-2004, 04:58 AM
The ARRL again has asked the FCC to immediately shut down a broadband over
power line (BPL) field trial in the Cottonwood, Arizona, area that it says
is interfering with Amateur Radio communication. The League's second
shutdown request, sent October 11, accuses the FCC of doing "absolutely
nothing" to enforce its rules or to protect licensed services from
interference. In an accompanying 12-page technical analysis, the ARRL also
cast serious doubt on the accuracy--and possibly the integrity--of the BPL
system's FCC-required six-month report, filed more than two months late.
Its review of the report from system operator Electric Broadband LLC (EB),
the League said, indicated inconsistent test results demonstrating that
ambient noise conditions at the test sites "were clearly misstated."
"To be blunt, as can be easily determined from the EB report itself," ARRL
General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, wrote in a cover letter to the ARRL's
technical analysis, "one of two things occurred: either (1) EB altered the
data to suit its false conclusion that the system is operating in
accordance with FCC rules; or (2) its technical consultants were not
qualified to conduct the tests and glaringly misinterpreted, among other
things, the source of noise generated internally in their own test
equipment."
Imlay called the EB test results "completely compromised" and said they
can't be used to determine whether or not the system is operating legally.
"ARRL has previously established that the system is operating
substantially in violation of Part 15 rules," he said, "and is causing
actual interference" on ham bands.
The ARRL said that EB's report further indicates that in the low-VHF
Public Safety allocation at 30-50 MHz, "the BPL system is operating at
radiated emission levels significantly in excess" of Part 15 limits.
In its report EB claimed to have spent "significant time and effort"
looking into interference complaints from hams, running tests and "taking
steps to mitigate any possible interference" the system was causing. It
even invited the FCC to come and see for itself.
EB and utility APS have been operating the BPL experiment at two Yavapai
County, Arizona, sites since June under a Special Temporary Authorization
(STA) the FCC granted EB in March. The League pointed out that the STA now
has expired "but the system apparently continues to operate nevertheless."
In its technical analysis, the ARRL said EB continues to deny any
interference issues associated with its system, despite continuing
complaints and "detailed and accurate" technical showings submitted by
Cottonwood-area amateur licensees. Testing done in early September shows
clearly "that BPL signals were present at various sites on frequencies
where APS and EB claim it was not," the ARRL analysis asserted. The League
also charges that EB's test methodology was flawed and not up to industry
or regulatory standards.
The FCC prompted release of EB's six-month report in a September 1 letter
that took note of "several complaints" alleging interference to amateur
operations from the experimental system. It also mentioned ARRL's August
request, filed on behalf of Cottonwood-area amateurs, that the FCC shut
down the system, revoke its STA and fine the system's operators.
The first Amateur Radio complaint, filed in June, cited testing by the
Verde Valley Amateur Radio Association (VVARA) in the 1.8-30 MHz range. It
asserted that BPL interference makes attempts at ham radio communication
useless. VVARA submitted a comprehensive report to the two companies and
the FCC in late July detailing interference issues.
In late September, the VVARA BPL Interference Committee met with
representatives of APS and Mountain Telecommunications (MTIO, which
handles system operations. According to VVARA, APS and MTI indicated that
the BPL system operators had decided to proceed with "notching" amateur HF
frequencies. A representative from Electric Broadband was not at the
meeting, VVARA says.
Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.
K3EKO
10-23-2004, 08:19 AM
Now we just need action by the Commission!!
Quote[/b] (k3eko @ Oct. 23 2004,01:19)]Now we just need action by the Commission!!
It is puzzling the the ARRL counsel states two explanations for the data: 1) it is fudged; and 2)the measurers were incapable of making the measurement.
It is possible, of course, that the document has a typo and this could easily have led to misintepretation. Ergo there is no flaw in the data itself, nor in the measurers ability to take it.
My favorite typo is from a colleague's thesis, where he opened up a new approach. The last line was supposed to read:" ...and we can see this is now possible." It was printed as:" and we can se this is not possible". Somehow, I don't think he was fudging nor an incompetent observer.
I point this out, as my opinion, because realities are often more complex, or different, than those posited by advocacy groups/ activists (and I am more than willing to have my opinion corrected--based on facts I have not seen(if they exist), showing that the ARRL is NOT acting in this capacity in this manner).
I also note that the FCC was invited to check it out.
I think it is possible that there is a typo regarding which of the two traces is which. I think there may be alternative explanations.
My opinion is that there is no present interference-despite the claims made--to fixed station amateur radio in the area, nor to public service mobile. Where is the evidence? Who has made the present complaints? Where are they?
Again:Where are those EXISTING complaints?
Why follow up on an alleged violation, if there is no violation?
Potential is not reality.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ Oct. 22 2004,21:58)]The ARRL again has asked the FCC to immediately shut down a broadband over
power line (BPL) field trial in the Cottonwood, Arizona, area that it says
is interfering with Amateur Radio communication. The League's second
shutdown request, sent October 11,...
In late September, the VVARA BPL Interference Committee met with
representatives of APS and Mountain Telecommunications (MTIO, which
handles system operations. According to VVARA, APS and MTI indicated that
the BPL system operators had decided to proceed with "notching" amateur HF
frequencies. A representative from Electric Broadband was not at the
meeting, VVARA says.
So, in late September, the BPL folks did the reasonable thing, and initiated an effort to notch amateur frequencies.
And on October 11, we see the League response to that effort to cooperate by calling for an immediate shut down and fine....in part, because the ARRL alleges that the special permit is no longer valid...and that the BPL system is operating without authorization.
We don't know, from this report, if the BPL folks requested an extension, for example, so that they could implement the very fix that they wished to render to 'hams'. These things don't happen overnight, you know.
This does not, in my opinion, look like an effort to cooperate with the BPL folks. It looks like an effort to kill the technology (again, my opinion).
Perhaps better care should be taken in the consideration of the wording of such publicity, at the least, as the apparent inconsistencies do not reflect well on radio 'hams' overall, again my opinion.
73,
Chip N1IR
KT0DD
10-23-2004, 12:23 PM
Chairman Michael Powell must protect his special interests for the future CEO position he will get once he leaves govt. office. Now is not the time for him to bite the hand that will give him a $10 million golden parachute. You can bet Amperion, UPLC and others are keeping a chair warm for him.
Now is the time to keep detailed records of background noise levels, log any interfering signals, keep track of the number of times you have to complain before getting anyone to respond etc. We will need this info to file future lawsuits against this monster. As Yamamoto once said, "We have awakened a sleeping giant."
N1IR, please troll somewhere else. Despite all the info W1RFI has given, along with the fact that there are plenty of places on the Internet you can go yourself to to find complaints, you refuse to accept the real evidence that is out there. www.vvara.org is one for instance. Your refusal to accept the current evidence is damaging any credibility you may have. Many here, including myself think you are quite foolish. 73. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:41)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,07:02)]It is puzzling the the ARRL counsel #states two explanations for the data: 1) it is fudged; and 2)the measurers were incapable of making the measurement.
Not puzzling at all if you read the actual report that is referenced.
The BPL provider shows some graphs in their report of noise levels they claim to have measured with BPL Off and BPL On.
According to them, background noise levels with BPL On tend to be much LOWER than noise levels with BPL Off!!
So basically, in making their measurements they used different gain or bandwidth settings or something for the two cases. They measured noise with BPL Off, then measured it with BPL On and found that it exceeded the Part 15 limits or saturated their instruments, so they fooled with the settings of their instruments until the measurements looked better.
And the amount of tweaking or adjustment they made varied on each of the half dozen or so graphs, in such a way that it always showed the BPL signals just below the Part 15 limits.
Either they did that deliberately to get the answer they wanted; or else they just didn't know what they were doing.
Dear OM,
Somehow, apparently, you managed to reference a snippet of my post, without actually reading that post. If you read it, you will see there is an alternative explanation included. IMO, the most likely explanation --as opposed to measurement incompentent or fraud.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:55)]If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
I am sorry that you don't care for my comments here, Charlie, but I do believe that it has provided some potential insight. Kindly demonstrate the flaw(s), if any, and educate me if you wish, as opposed to making an attempt to stifle what appears to be a valid and dissenting opinion and interpretation.
Best wishes,
Chip N1IR
KT0DD
10-23-2004, 01:51 PM
N1IR,
Allow me to help you find what you seek. There is a wonderful site where you will find the stimulating, dissenting argumentative replies any troll would want.
It's called E-Ham. It can be found at www.eham.net.
Please go there. and, don't go away mad, just GO AWAY!
Quote[/b] (KT0DD @ Oct. 23 2004,05:23)]N1IR, please troll somewhere else. Despite all the info W1RFI has given, along with the fact that there are plenty of places on the Internet you can go yourself to to find complaints, you refuse to accept the real evidence that is out there. www.vvara.org is one for instance. Your refusal to accept the current evidence is damaging any credibility you may have. Many here, including myself think you are quite foolish. 73. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I appreciate your opinion.
I must confess that I raised points that have not received valid or appropriate responses, including this one from you, OM.
This is not an issues of the messenger, but the message.
A most important question that remains unanswered by the ARRL, and I assume by others interested in anti-BPL deployment advocacy/activism (and it sures looks that way, IMO) is:
How many fixed station , active HF radio hams are likely to be affected by harmful interfference in BPL deployment?
1? 10? 100? 1000?
Why does no one have an answer to this? Why is there not a good range and a valid geusstimate?
If you don't know the answer, and can't undertake a sensitivity analysis (I asked Ed, W1RFI from the ARRL to do this and he quoted me a dBm/M! He, apparently, does not understand what a sensitivity analysis is, in the context I so presented it; a very standard approach in POM, project management, and so on), then the problem is ill-posed and should not be addressed by BPL management, IMO.
If you can't plan then you can't implement. And it makes more sense in that case to ignore all 'ham' complaints and plow ahead.
Are there fixed- station cases of BPL interference rendering 'ham' HF inoperable now in the Cottonwood deployment? Whose QTH is affected--right now? If such interference is present, have the BPL folks had the opportunity to implement their mitigation measured? If not, then why not?
73,
Chip N1IR
w3tua
10-23-2004, 02:10 PM
The FCC will not do a thing to help us since they ignored the reports of the NTIA.
We don't have the enormous amount of money it would take to make this problem go away. Bottom line.
73,
Korey--KA5VCQ/4
Ft. Bragg, NC
Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Oct. 23 2004,07:16)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,08:38)]Somehow, apparently, you managed to reference a snippet of my post, without actually reading that post. If you read it, you will see there is an alternative explanation included. IMO, the most likely explanation --as opposed to measurement incompentent or fraud.
Again, if you'd read the actual report in question and look at the actual graphs, it is obvious that it cannot be merely due to a typo.
FWIW - I did read your entire post. I just ignored the parts of it that were nonsense.
Why not?
It's pretty easy to have someone make a typo on labelling which graph is which. The rest follows.
Again, why is it nonsense?
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,06:41)]Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:55)]If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
I am sorry that you don't care for my comments here, Charlie, but I do believe that it has provided some potential insight. Kindly demonstrate the flaw(s), if any, #and educate me if you wish, as opposed to making an attempt to stifle what appears to be a valid and dissenting opinion and interpretation.
Best wishes,
Chip N1IR
What led you to believe he was talking about you, Chip?
Quote[/b] (k7fd @ Oct. 23 2004,08:05)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,06:41)]Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:55)]If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
I am sorry that you don't care for my comments here, Charlie, but I do believe that it has provided some potential insight. Kindly demonstrate the flaw(s), if any, #and educate me if you wish, as opposed to making an attempt to stifle what appears to be a valid and dissenting opinion and interpretation.
Best wishes,
Chip N1IR
What led you to believe he was talking about you, Chip?
My apologies;
I cannot discount the possibility that he was referring to you, for example. Why don't you ask him for a direct answer?
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,08:20)]Quote[/b] (k7fd @ Oct. 23 2004,08:05)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,06:41)]Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:55)]If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
I am sorry that you don't care for my comments here, Charlie, but I do believe that it has provided some potential insight. Kindly demonstrate the flaw(s), if any, #and educate me if you wish, as opposed to making an attempt to stifle what appears to be a valid and dissenting opinion and interpretation.
Best wishes,
Chip N1IR
What led you to believe he was talking about you, Chip?
My apologies;
I cannot discount the possibility that he was referring to you, for example. Why don't you ask him for a direct answer?
73,
Chip N1IR
You didn't answer the question, Chip. Again, what led you to believe Charles comment was aimed at you?
It probably was some of Chip's "6-Sigma" deductive logic. lol #(In other words, no one else has been flaming this thread.)
The shoe does fit, he wears it well.
Lee
W6EM
KT0DD
10-23-2004, 04:46 PM
N1IR,
First, do you understand that QRP 5watt signals can work the world under good propagation?
Second, can you think collectively? One interference issue here and there may not warrant shutting down this flawed technology that we do not need. But we are also approaching a solar minimum. If BPL is deployed in many locations allbeit in nanowatt levels, in 2012 or whenever the next solar maximum occurs, the collective propagation effect of many dirty BPL transmissions will be a NIGHTMARE! Rather than collective thinking #maybe I should call it "Hive mentality thinking", because all you'll hear on HF is the +30 over S9 buzzing of a beehive from bpl interference.
Wi-Fi, cellphone access & Fiber Optic are the future. We don't need no stinking BPL! #It's an interfering, redundant, underperforming, non cost effective & unnecessary technology PERIOD!
KT0DD
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,06:41)]Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:55)]If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
I am sorry that you don't care for my comments here, Charlie, but I do believe that it has provided some potential insight. Kindly demonstrate the flaw(s), if any, and educate me if you wish, as opposed to making an attempt to stifle what appears to be a valid and dissenting opinion and interpretation.
Best wishes,
Chip N1IR
Oh "Chippie" you're just a waste of space. I'm not going to allow a useless git with nothing to do with his time to goad me. I recommended that folks on this list ignore anyone who would come here for the sole purpose of upsetting people. Get lost!
I'll follow my own advice - this is the last posting I will make with reference to your or your "bright ideas."
73
CHARLES VE3HBB
Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,09:49)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,06:41)]Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:55)]If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
I am sorry that you don't care for my comments here, Charlie, but I do believe that it has provided some potential insight. Kindly demonstrate the flaw(s), if any, #and educate me if you wish, as opposed to making an attempt to stifle what appears to be a valid and dissenting opinion and interpretation.
Best wishes,
Chip N1IR
Oh "Chippie" you're just a waste of space. I'm not going to allow a useless git with nothing to do with his time to goad me. I recommended that folks on this list ignore anyone who would come here for the sole purpose of upsetting people. Get lost!
I'll follow my own advice - this is the last posting I will make with reference to your or your "bright ideas."
73
CHARLES VE3HBB
Chip? Chip Who?
Oh wait, is that the person who seems to have the sole purpose of making as many people angry as possible?
I don't even bother to read them anymore.
Though nonsense is funny at times, it is getting to be a bit tiresome.
Some folks just can't take a hint....
W6NJ
Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,09:49)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,06:41)]Quote[/b] (ve3hbb @ Oct. 23 2004,05:55)]If we are smart. we will ignore the lid who is incessant in his attempts to flame on this topic. He has already totally screwed up one news item and it appears he is out to do it here as well.
73 Charles VE3HBB
I am sorry that you don't care for my comments here, Charlie, but I do believe that it has provided some potential insight. Kindly demonstrate the flaw(s), if any, #and educate me if you wish, as opposed to making an attempt to stifle what appears to be a valid and dissenting opinion and interpretation.
Best wishes,
Chip N1IR
Oh "Chippie" you're just a waste of space. I'm not going to allow a useless git with nothing to do with his time to goad me. I recommended that folks on this list ignore anyone who would come here for the sole purpose of upsetting people. Get lost!
I'll follow my own advice - this is the last posting I will make with reference to your or your "bright ideas."
73
CHARLES VE3HBB
Oh, with a little surfing, I think Chip does have some things to do. #He's a physicist-turned commodities speculator, according to what can be found with a little surfing.
Now, on to Chip's former, well, maybe still-current interest: Fractal antennae.
So, looking quite profusely, I see the "doily-stripline" creations pasted about. #And, with wideband SWR data from 2:1 to almost 5:1, that's quite a display. #If log periodic antennas offered such performance, well......
Looking at several fractal "antennae", they appear to be vaguely familiar to stripline. #In fact, assertions that small depositions of copper on a dielectric surface can approximate capacitors and inductors (and replace discrete components in a tuned circuit) is a discovery worthy of a patent? #Quite frankly, it sounds an awful lot like a revisit of stripline to me.
Come on, Chip, let's get technical and explain why fractal is not just stripline.
Also, I didn't see any reference to any IEEE technical papers having been published on the subject. #Please do provide us with same. #Peer review is a wonderful thing....
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL
ve7ngr
10-23-2004, 05:31 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,07:32)]It's pretty easy to have someone make a typo on labelling which graph is which. The rest follows.
Chip is right. It is quite easy to mislabel a graph. Of course, as an engineer who has written lots of technical reports, I would lump this in the "incompetence" category, especially for something of such importance to them, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
If the graphs were mislabelled, then it shows that BPL is radiating signals up to 30dB above the noise floor.
So yes, there are three possible explanations: the incompetence or fudged data suggested by the ARRL, or Chip's explanation that EB's BPL system raises the noise floor by 30dB and causes harmful interference.
See? I told you Chip was right!
kb1gck
10-23-2004, 05:58 PM
Just Imagine what a BPL mess we would have if there were no ARRL, their effort in controlling BPL and making our hired servants (the FCC) stick to their own RFI rules has been a super effort!!
I am still limiting the dough I spend on HF in case it passes and everyone's gear becomes a door stop that can't be given away.:(
Quote[/b] (kb1gck @ Oct. 23 2004,10:58)]Just Imagine what a BPL mess we would have if there were no ARRL, their effort in controlling BPL and making our hired servants (the FCC) stick to their own RFI rules has been a super effort!!
I am still limiting the dough I spend on HF in case it passes and everyone's gear becomes a door stop that can't be given away.:(
Hi,
I am mostly a PSK31 op. I don't have a lot of research to support me, but I have a really strong hunch that PSK31 sigs will get through this muck. So, I'm not about to ditch the rig.
When I first got going with PSK31, I would place the computer mike next to the speaker in the rig. The print would appear on the screen. I would then shout, clap my hands, play music LOUD right by the mike. The print didn't even flinch!
I am running an inexpensive ICOM 718 and so, even if the bands become totally blocked up, its not like I will lose a great deal.
CU on 14.07
73
Charles, VE3HBB, London Canada
As reported in ARRL Weekly News:
"AT&T, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC DISSOLVE BPL PARTNERSHIP
A BPL field trial in Menlo Park, California, where FCC Chairman Michael K.
Powell had extolled the technology's virtues earlier this year, has been
aborted before getting very far off the ground. The demonstration of BPL
technology was co-sponsored by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and
AT&T. ARRL learned this week that AT&T has decided to direct its business
energies elsewhere, however, and pole-mounted BPL equipment has been
dismantled. PG&E Director of Business Development Toby Tyler confirmed
that his company and AT&T no longer were involved in the Menlo Park BPL
pilot.
"AT&T pulled out as a result of their strategic shift away from consumer
markets," Tyler told ARRL. "Without a telecom partner, it didn't make
business sense for PG&E to continue with a trial."
AT&T spokesperson Michael Dickman said his company had "redirected its
focus on serving enterprise customers," and, under the circumstances, has
"limited involvement with BPL."
When Powell visited the Menlo Park BPL pilot project in July, he applauded
AT&T and PG&E for "leading the way for this innovative technology" that he
claimed "holds the great promise to bring high-speed Internet access to
every power outlet in America." The chairman reiterated those sentiments
October 14, when the FCC adopted new Part 15 rules to govern the
deployment of BPL.
ARRL Santa Clara Valley Section Official Observer Coordinator Andy Korsak,
KR6DD, told ARRL that AT&T pulled down the Main.net BPL boxes that he and
his team had been monitoring in Menlo Park. "We heard only sparse Geiger
counter-like clicks, indicating only perhaps system housekeeping between
the four Main.net boxes I identified up on power poles," Korsak said.
When Powell spoke at Menlo Park this past summer, he said the future was
bright for BPL. His optimism, at least in the case of the PG&E-AT&T BPL
partnership, now appears to have been ill-advised."
This is certainly good news for hams.
Alvin, W6WJ
Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ Oct. 23 2004,10:31)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,07:32)]It's pretty easy to have someone make a typo on labelling which graph is which. The rest follows.
Chip is right. It is quite easy to mislabel a graph. Of course, as an engineer who has written lots of technical reports, I would lump this in the "incompetence" category, especially for something of such importance to them, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
If the graphs were mislabelled, then it shows that BPL is radiating signals up to 30dB above the noise floor.
So yes, there are three possible explanations: the incompetence or fudged data suggested by the ARRL, or Chip's explanation that EB's BPL system raises the noise floor by 30dB and causes harmful interference.
See? I told you Chip was right!
Yes,
I think that is the case. Thank you for finally pointing this out to those who refused to want to see it. It was obvious to me that this was/is the most likely explanation. I find it very unlikely that fraud or measurement incompetence was/is the issue.
It's not a measurement problem. Its an interpretation problem, because of a typo on the labelling...
So the relevant question is : what will 25-30 dB of attenuation through a notch filter do? And I suspect that's where the real situation now stands. Good idea to let the utiility work on it in cooperation with any effected local hams--if there are any.
Just step back and think and you'll likely get the most accurate picture...venting and hyperbole won't do that for you(a general you).
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 23 2004,10:10)]Oh, with a little surfing, I think Chip does have some things to do. #He's a physicist-turned commodities speculator, according to what can be found with a little surfing.
Now, on to Chip's former, well, maybe still-current interest: Fractal antennae.
So, looking quite profusely, I see the "doily-stripline" creations pasted about. #And, with wideband SWR data from 2:1 to almost 5:1, that's quite a display. #If log periodic antennas offered such performance, well......
Looking at several fractal "antennae", they appear to be vaguely familiar to stripline. #In fact, assertions that small depositions of copper on a dielectric surface can approximate capacitors and inductors (and replace discrete components in a tuned circuit) is a discovery worthy of a patent? #Quite frankly, it sounds an awful lot like a revisit of stripline to me.
Come on, Chip, let's get technical and explain why fractal is not just stripline.
Also, I didn't see any reference to any IEEE technical papers having been published on the subject. #Please do provide us with same. #Peer review is a wonderful thing....
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL
Hi Lee,
I traded stock options, rarely commodities. My brother traded commodities at one point. Bad web searching.
Your comments are so rife with error, that it's hard to decide what to do when you then segue over to a mixture of truth(a bit here and there) with nonsense.
For example: I have said many times that I am a disinterested party and that I own no stock in BPL or utility companies. Do you know something--factually- different? If so, tell us.
Conventional microstrip. Yawn. State of the art 20th century technology.
I do publish on occasion, but my customers keep me a bit too busy for the usual publish or perish idiocy. These days I do respond to requests for invited papers from peer-reviewed journals (I have another one due in the late Fall), and I also give invited talks. Just gave one yesterday.
And, by the way, at this point you might describe me as a technologist: antenna 'guru' is not complete.
So much for the messenger. Let's get back to the message.
73,
Chip N1IR
ve7ngr
10-23-2004, 07:37 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,12:12)]So the relevant question is : what will 25-30 dB of attenuation through a notch filter do? And I suspect that's where the real situation now stands.
Based on attempts to date by various utilities, I'm not optimistic about this, but maybe they can pull it off. The problem, of course, is that the more they notch out, the lower their bandwidth becomes, and we are not the only users of HF.
Personally, I feel that a system that uses wires to carry data, should use wires to carry data! If you're going to use RF, then use RF. A system that uses wires, but radiates RF all over the place as a side effect is not, IMO, a very good system.
Quote[/b] ]Good idea to let the utiility work on it in cooperation with any effected local hams
Yes, but I think we need to be careful that they don't say "we're working on it" while they let the system run with no improvement for months on end, all the while causing harmful interference to other services. Let's say I had some consumer electronic appliance in my house that was radiating and interfering with some licenced service or other. I would be expected to stop using that appliance until I was able to fix the problem. I would not be allowed to keep using it for months while I "worked on it". Why the special treatment for BPL?
Quote[/b] ]effected local hams--if there are any.
Ah, yes. If a tree falls in the forest, and noone is there...
I'm not sure that allowing the system if there are no affected local hams is wise. What happens when a ham moves into the area, or a current resident becomes a ham, and the BPL system is already established?
Is it ok for my ham radio to transmit spurious signals out of band as long as they're not interfering with another service? The answer, of course, is no. Why the special treatment for BPL?
What happens when BPL signals start propagating, causing interference to spectrum users worldwide?
Chip: #Ha. Well, then I guess you ought to fix your 'vitae' listing over at Fractal Antennas. #Sure sounded like your recent vocation was a trading scheme. #Options, commodities. #They're all derivatives.
Please supply us with published IEEE Technical Papers #that have been submitted to and accepted for publication by the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Group, not sales pitch presentations you've recently made or "pay for publication" magazine articles. lol
Even the Patent Office can be fooled, since most attorneys aren't too technical, and making claims of replacing discrete circuit components with what constitutes stripline as something new, well, what an eye opener. #Ultra Wideband Radar is but a recent example of how the USPO can be fooled. #Yes, stripline is decades-old technology. #www.fractenna.com (http://www.fractenna.com) #Maybe that's why the "Recent News Releases" button was last updated in 2003.
Do provide us with some peer-reviewed technical literature from the IEEE on your subject expertise in fractal antennas. #We'd all like to read about it and see what others have had to say about them.
Why, since you weren't old enough to retire, did you leave your teaching position? #To sell stripline antennas?
Or, was it to sell BPL?
73,
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ Oct. 23 2004,12:37)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,12:12)]So the relevant question is : what #will 25-30 dB of attenuation through a notch filter #do? And I suspect that's where the real situation now stands.
Based on attempts to date by various utilities, I'm not optimistic about this, but maybe they can pull it off. The problem, of course, is that the more they notch out, the lower their bandwidth becomes, and we are not the only users of HF.
Personally, I feel that a system that uses wires to carry data, should use wires to carry data! If you're going to use RF, then use RF. A system that uses wires, but radiates RF all over the place as a side effect is not, IMO, a very good system.
Quote[/b] ]Good idea to let the utiility work on it in cooperation with any effected local hams
Yes, but I think we need to be careful that they don't say "we're working on it" while they let the system run with no improvement for months on end, all the while causing harmful interference to other services. Let's say I had some consumer electronic appliance in my house that was radiating and interfering with some licenced service or other. I would be expected to stop using that appliance until I was able to fix the problem. I would not be allowed to keep using it for months while I "worked on it". Why the special treatment for BPL?
Quote[/b] ]effected local hams--if there are any.
Ah, yes. If a tree falls in the forest, and noone is there...
I'm not sure that allowing the system if there are no affected local hams is wise. What happens when a ham moves into the area, or a current resident becomes a ham, and the BPL system is already established?
Is it ok for my ham radio to transmit spurious signals out of band as long as they're not interfering with another service? The answer, of course, is no. Why the special treatment for BPL?
What happens when BPL signals start propagating, causing interference to spectrum users worldwide?
Thanks for taking a rational view here--it is refreshing given what else we've seen.
I think you've hit the main points. It should be obvious this BPL provider wants to kick in the filters and see the results, for real hams at real locations.
As I've said, they don't appear to be the uncooperative party here...
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ Oct. 23 2004,10:31)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,07:32)]It's pretty easy to have someone make a typo on labelling which graph is which. The rest follows.
Chip is right. It is quite easy to mislabel a graph. Of course, as an engineer who has written lots of technical reports, I would lump this in the "incompetence" category, especially for something of such importance to them, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
If the graphs were mislabelled, then it shows that BPL is radiating signals up to 30dB above the noise floor.
So yes, there are three possible explanations: the incompetence or fudged data suggested by the ARRL, or Chip's explanation that EB's BPL system raises the noise floor by 30dB and causes harmful interference.
See? I told you Chip was right!
Mislabeling? #A scant possibility, at best. #And, of course, our buddy Chip is grasping at straws once again.
Take a close look at Electric Broadband's graph: EB Graph (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/21/1/BPL-Cottonwood-Fig7-lrg.jpg)
There is quite a discontinuous drop at just above 16MHz. #About 30dBuV below the fairly continuous red trace above it. #Then, at about 19MHz, a similar, almost discontinuous step up of 30dBuV. #That, friends, is NOT what one would expect from noise spectra, IMO. #Actually, its probably EB's example of a notch. #But, of course, makes no sense whatsoever, as stated, since its below the noise level.
Examining data, instead of hypothesizing, usually will clarify what's what. #
By the way, you mentioned three possibilities. But, fudged data and incompetence (mislabelling) are only two. What's the third? A fractal slip?
I can appreciate honest mistakes, but, EB and even the Commission have had ample time to see it and correct it if it weren't correct.
Sorry, but the honest error excuse doesn't fly.
73,
Lee
W6EM
WA5ICA
10-23-2004, 10:52 PM
When it comes to BPL, this FCC has shown itself to be thoroughly corrupt, so don't expect much relief there. (And n1ir, I don't need any of your FCC apologetics, thanks)
Quote[/b] (WA5ICA @ Oct. 23 2004,15:52)]When it comes to BPL, this FCC has shown itself to be thoroughly corrupt, so don't expect #much relief there. (And n1ir, I don't need any of your FCC apologetics, thanks)
Insiders say the NTIA was specifically told to 'lighten up' on their initial report, which makes one wonder doesn't it...
73 John K7FD
ae6rq
10-23-2004, 11:31 PM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 23 2004,14:55)]Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ Oct. 23 2004,10:31)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,07:32)]It's pretty easy to have someone make a typo on labelling which graph is which. The rest follows.
Chip is right. It is quite easy to mislabel a graph. Of course, as an engineer who has written lots of technical reports, I would lump this in the "incompetence" category, especially for something of such importance to them, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
If the graphs were mislabelled, then it shows that BPL is radiating signals up to 30dB above the noise floor.
So yes, there are three possible explanations: the incompetence or fudged data suggested by the ARRL, or Chip's explanation that EB's BPL system raises the noise floor by 30dB and causes harmful interference.
See? I told you Chip was right!
Mislabeling? #A scant possibility, at best. #And, of course, our buddy Chip is grasping at straws once again.
Take a close look at Electric Broadband's graph: EB Graph (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/21/1/BPL-Cottonwood-Fig7-lrg.jpg)
There is quite a discontinuous drop at just above 16MHz. #About 30dBuV below the fairly continuous red trace above it. #Then, at about 19MHz, a similar, almost discontinuous step up of 30dBuV. #That, friends, is NOT what one would expect from noise spectra, IMO. #Actually, its probably EB's example of a notch. #But, of course, makes no sense whatsoever, as stated, since its below the noise level.
Examining data, instead of hypothesizing, usually will clarify what's what. #
By the way, you mentioned three possibilities. But, fudged data and incompetence (mislabelling) are only two. #What's the third? #A fractal slip?
I can appreciate honest mistakes, but, EB and even the Commission have had ample time to see it and correct it if it weren't correct.
Sorry, but the honest error excuse doesn't fly.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Hi folks,
I simply can not believe that this is a matter of mislabeling a graph #- i.e. this can not be a typo. #See: #EB Graph (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/21/1/BPL-Cottonwood-Fig7-lrg.jpg)
IMO, this data is clearly not a manually generated graph, but a direct print-out/capture from the measurement instrument (Spectrum analyzer) and therefore there is no possibility for typographic errors except in the human enterable fields such as "Sawmill first pole mount". # You do not manually enter the text that you want to appear for relevant settings of the analyzer - however you have the instrument set is what is shown. #
Without knowing anything of the specific setup, but knowing a thing or two about antenna measurement, isolation measurement, and RF test engineering, I theorize that the discontinuity around 16 MHz and then again at 19 MHz is due to a separate antenna that was switched in as the frequency was swept from 13 - 23 MHz. #The sweep time of 3.4 seconds is more than adequate to switch in new antennas, and the broad bandwidth of this sweep and the presumption that this data was acquired from a mobile system (and not some big huge broadband HF antenna) indicate that they had to have used multiple antennas to acquire this data.
If I were taking this data, to show BPL on/off comparisons, I would have done a A minus B trace (where A is BPL on and B is BPL off), in addition to the absolute levels required for the FCC. #I would also be sure to have averaging turned on for both these measurements. #
-Dave
W9LQI
10-23-2004, 11:34 PM
This a good thread on the subject. My concern is that I'm not hearing any comments from those in Az or NY that are bearing the brunt of the BPL ramp up. Gotta be some out there who are harmed.
What are the clubs in AZ and NY doing. Looks to me like it is a time when we should be capturing base line data, as much as possible, credible as possible. Who is leading the charge on that account?
Who can we inlist to help us? Ought to be an independent source, a court neutral if you may. Think.
The crux is proving up interference and that hams users of the HF spectrum have been harmed and robbed of their quiet enjoyment of the air waves. Any emotional distress out there in radio land?
Finally, I 've followed the comments of N1IR with great interest. He has consistantly "Chipped" away at all logic that would support the obvious. Mr "Chip" has steadfastly contended that he is not an investor in the Corporations that mean to do us harm, and I say mean to do us harm because they know good and well what they are doing. Mr. "Chip" claims that he has no conflict of interest, yet Mr "Chip" is "Chipping away at anything supporting the licensed users of the HF spectrum.
I am a CPA, an Appraiser and a California Probate Referee. I appear in Courts from time to time as an expert wittness. I deflect "Daubert challenges" to my credibility as an expert because of my 35 years experience as a cpa, accountant and appraiser and my long list of letter credentials.
I am left to wonder if mr Chip's" game is that of a wanna be opposing expert for the Corporations. Afterall he claims to be big man on the block when it comes to "faulty fractals" or was it stripline radiators?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Antennas, things that radiate.
Wouldn't it be nice to show the courts how Mr "Chip" chipped away at all of the poor stupid hams out there, pointed out the emporer has clothes "Gawd Bless His Naked, Lying Born Again Unelected Ass", and showed that parallel wires just don't radiate, why they just conducts they does. Afterall all what the BPL dudes did was "inject" their broadband on them conducting wires. They weren't a radiating now were they? Wouldn't it be neat to have a self appointed wanna be stand up in court, claim he is a ham, big man on the block in antennas, why he even has a phony patent, and sells fractals to all that are "wise enough to see they are useful", big man on the campus and then proceed to sell us all out.....for a little $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Just a thought from a broken down old bean counter gone appraiser and Assistant Scout Master of a BSA Troop selling as many boys as possible on the possibilities of ham radio before, uh, Good Ole "Chip" sells us all out.
Technical Hams, I call upon you, please consider this thread when you are choosing to address or not address this guy's comments. Certainly not me, I'm just a poor old broken down dxer ham with about 45 years of hamdom under my belt, but I'm not a self proclaimed wanna genious in radiators. I'm therefore not qualified to say the boughten weazle words for the BPL Industry, because of the Duabert Ruling regarding expert wittness.
Dear ARRL and other interested and harmed parties considering filing law suits, please take note and please consider this thought
Please don't let this phony "Chipper" make his mark on the top of this thread and over our backs.
Thanks Guys,
Hutch
W9LQI/6
Hutch:
Extremely well said....
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL
Quote[/b] (ae6rq @ Oct. 23 2004,16:31)]Without knowing anything of the specific setup, but knowing a thing or two about antenna measurement, isolation measurement, and RF test engineering, I theorize that the discontinuity around 16 MHz and then again at 19 MHz is due to a separate antenna that was switched in as the frequency was swept from 13 - 23 MHz. #The sweep time of 3.4 seconds is more than adequate to switch in new antennas, and the broad bandwidth of this sweep and the presumption that this data was acquired from a mobile system (and not some big huge broadband HF antenna) indicate that they had to have used multiple antennas to acquire this data.
If I were taking this data, to show BPL on/off comparisons, I would have done a A minus B trace (where A is BPL on and B is BPL off), in addition to the absolute levels required for the FCC. #I would also be sure to have averaging turned on for both these measurements. #
-Dave
Dave: #Two separate traces on the same screen? #Perhaps the noise trace was stored, or visa versa. #The BPL trace was stored. #I wouldn't rule out some scaling factors. #Especially if the data were in some file format that could be downloaded.
Now, on to the switching of antennas out and in. #Well, if that were the case, assuming identical test conditions for both the sweep for BPL signal and ambient noise, then wouldn't one expect to see similar discontinuties (from switching, etc.) in the noise trace? #Me thinks so.
Also, if you did A trace minus the B trace, what relevance would signal A, being the BPL trace, since its well under the noise trace B, produce anyway? #
73,
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.
Quote[/b] (W9LQI @ Oct. 23 2004,16:34)]Finally, I 've followed the comments of N1IR with great interest. #He has consistantly "Chipped" away at all logic that would support the obvious. #Mr "Chip" has steadfastly contended that he is not an investor in the Corporations that mean to do us #harm, and I say mean to do us harm because they know good and well what they are doing. #Mr. "Chip" claims that he has no conflict of interest, yet Mr "Chip" is "Chipping away at anything supporting the licensed users of the HF spectrum.
I am a CPA, an Appraiser and a California Probate Referee. #I appear in Courts from time to time as an expert wittness. #I deflect "Daubert challenges" to my credibility as an expert because of my 35 years experience as a cpa, accountant and appraiser and my long list of letter credentials.
I am left to wonder if mr Chip's" game is that of a wanna be opposing expert for the Corporations. #Afterall he claims to be big man on the block when it comes to "faulty fractals" or was it stripline radiators?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Antennas, things that radiate.
Wouldn't it be nice to show the courts how Mr "Chip" chipped away at all of the poor stupid hams out there, pointed out the emporer has clothes "Gawd Bless His Naked, Lying Born Again Unelected Ass", and showed that parallel wires just don't radiate, why they just conducts they does. #Afterall all what the BPL dudes did was "inject" their broadband on them conducting wires. They weren't a radiating now were they? # Wouldn't it be neat to have a self appointed wanna be stand up in court, claim he is a ham, big man on the block in antennas, why he even has a phony patent, and sells fractals to all that are "wise enough to see they are useful", big man on the campus and then proceed to sell us all out.....for a little $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Just a thought from a broken down old bean counter gone appraiser and Assistant Scout Master of a BSA Troop selling as many boys as possible on the possibilities of ham radio before, uh, Good Ole "Chip" sells us all out.
Technical Hams, I call upon you, please consider this thread #when you are choosing to address or not address this guy's comments. #Certainly not me, I'm just a poor old broken down dxer ham with about 45 years of hamdom under my belt, but I'm not a self proclaimed wanna genious in radiators. #I'm therefore not qualified to say the boughten weazle words for the BPL Industry, because of the Duabert Ruling regarding expert wittness.
Dear ARRL and other interested and harmed parties considering filing law suits, please take note and please consider this thought
Please don't let this phony "Chipper" make his mark on the top of this thread and over our backs.
Thanks Guys,
Hutch
W9LQI/6
Hutch,
Being the nice fellow I am, I will discount the personal descriptions you have mentioned, the unsavory ones obviously being false..
This forum exists for us to discuss issues in a constructive way. I am sorry if you, or others, have not seen my comments in that light. But, they do represent a point of view, which I firmly believe, mirrors the very issues that we face. Being in denial and/or blaming the messenger accomplishes nothing positive.
It is quite true that I see no reason why HF ham radio and BPL cannot co-exist. It is also true that I fear a demise of HF ham radio, based on our failure to drive innovation nowadays: the continuing telecom revolution has passed us and is leaving us in the dust.
What we have shown as a public face is tragic. In support of a point of view, a vocal minority of hams have resorted to propaganda, and some have and attacked the messenger.
Unfortunately, all this is off-focus to the issues at hand.
Indeed, such attacks, IMO, actually may work against us, by showing that thoughtful dissent is not tolerated by this vocal minority of hams.
You seem to be quite concerned about my comments regarding the ARRL. I understand your statements. I am of the opinion that the ARRL does not provide a worthwhile approach to solving the BPL issues for the greater community of US amateurs. I do not believe I am the first person that has stressed a distaste for the the League in its stance on issues of interest to the US radio amateur community, through the years.
Do I think the ARRL has the potential to resolve this dispute with BPL amicably? Yes, I believe it does. No, I do not see evidence for that at this time, however.
Instead I see, IMO, a running battle against both the BPL industry and the FCC and I find this most unnecessary. Witness the latest: the statement that Mr. Powell was "ill-advised" about the future of BPL last Spring, because ATT backed out of Palo Alto this Fall. How, pray, was Mr. Powell supposed to have known that ATT would have a 6.8 billion dollar loss last quarter; and retreat back to its core businesses, thereby moving out of initiatives like BPL? This has nothing to do with BPL. It has to do with business survival: businesses go back to their core competencies in spades when times get tough.
This had nothing to do with advise--good or bad. So why are we left with the statement that Mr. Powell WAS ill-advised? Why is there this apparent desire to undermine the advisement provided to Mr. Powell, himself a bright, fair, and hard working public servant?
Ed Hare has been approached by the BPL industry to cooperate in resolving ham concerns. I think this is just terrific. Truly. But--seeing things in black and white terms will never, ever be helpful, and is likely to have use discounted in future proceedings on BPL. IMO, I have acquainted Ed with several of the issues he clearly had not considered from another viewpoint.
If you carefully follow my comments, you will see that I have actually agreed with the ones that are rational and well-thought. Kindly forgive me if it is my preference to pay attention to those distinctly.
BTW, I doubt I would have an interest in being an expert witness for either side and had not considered it before. But thanks for pointing out what a lack of cooperation may lead to in such a dispute over BPL.
Note to our host (AA7BQ). If you are concerned about my posts, drop me an e-mail and I will be happy to accommodate your requests. And I thank you for allowing an unbiased forum among hams.
Hutch, if you believe there are particular false statements made in attempts to defame others, then kindly point them out and I will gladly retract them. I do hope you understand that opinion, however, is not the same as a false representation of facts for malicious intent. I have no malicious intent, nor desire to misprepresent facts.
But--I do have an intent in expressing a relevant opinion.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,17:28)]But--I do have an intent in expressing a relevant opinion.
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip:
All we've heard thus far from you on BPL on any thread has been irrelevant opinion.
But, you're entitled to express it, in the interest of free speech. #lol
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 23 2004,17:51)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,17:28)]But--I do have an intent in expressing a relevant opinion.
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip:
All we've heard thus far from you on BPL on any thread has been irrelevant opinion.
But, you're entitled to express it, in the interest of free speech. #lol
Lee
W6EM
Thanks Lee,
And I appreciate that you are shying away from making incorrect statements relative to who I am, what I've done, and my character.
I strongly disagree with you, but I do not disrespect you because of it.
73,
Chip N1IR
ke4pjw
10-24-2004, 01:11 AM
Hey Chip,
Since you are a disintrested party, why is it you only post on QRZ.com when the BPL issue comes up? I have not seen you elmer anyone in the Q&A section of the site, nor have I seen you post in Talk and Opinion. I would love to see you have a pleasent post about your fractal antennas. Someone might even present some prior art on this technology.
n2obm
10-24-2004, 01:12 AM
Be true and loyal to the Code..or be a sell out.
Chip?
Please respond to me direct...if you wish.
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,17:57)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 23 2004,17:51)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,17:28)]But--I do have an intent in expressing a relevant opinion.
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip:
All we've heard thus far from you on BPL on any thread has been irrelevant opinion.
But, you're entitled to express it, in the interest of free speech. #lol
Lee
W6EM
Thanks Lee,
And I appreciate that you are shying away from making incorrect statements relative to who I am, what I've done, #and my character.
I strongly disagree with you, but I do not disrespect you because of it.
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip: #Nothing that I've said had to do with your character. #Only questions with respect to your opinions and why they were offered and how. #And, what your background and experience have been.
Right or wrong, all were questions why and on what basis, or a request for information. #A little supposition, I suppose, based upon earlier thread exchanges with me. And, yes, about your challenge of the data and observations of the ARRL and staff in the way that you worded it. #And, many of my questions of you are still unanswered.
Your opinions and your investments are yours and no one elses. #We are all under no obligation to disclose anything deemed personal, including our interests in businesses. #Or, are you under any obligation to answer my questions about fractal antennas or your former career as an educator. #Your choice.
I have a small interest in and many friends still with PGandE, and so, I tend to be more sympathetic of power industry problems than most hams. #But, at the same time, I certainly let my contacts know what the BPL salesmen didn't. #Well, all's well that ends well.
As I said in the other thread, with fiber optic cables soon to be at residences in so many areas, the potential for a reasonable return on BPL investment will be vastly diminished in urban areas. #And, will undoubtedly be very low in rural areas.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL
Quote[/b] (ke4pjw @ Oct. 23 2004,18:11)]Hey Chip,
Since you are a disintrested party, why is it you only post on QRZ.com when the BPL issue comes up? I have not seen you elmer anyone in the Q&A section of the site, nor have I seen you post in Talk and Opinion. I would love to see you have a pleasent post about your #fractal antennas. Someone might even present some prior art on this technology.
I confess I am a little slow in seeing all the good stuff on qrz.com. I provide info on antenna-related subjects elsewhere; might do it on qrz.com (obviously not on this subject-topic) sometime.
I've posted (on qrz.com) on things beside BPL, BTW.
I am well-versed in the prior art on matters of interest to me, BTW. If you'd like to drop me a line off-forum, I will be happy to pass it along to the relevant folks, if you wish.
Many thanks of thinking of me, but perhaps we should get back to the message rather than the messenger.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n2obm @ Oct. 23 2004,18:12)]Be true and loyal to the Code..or be a sell out.
Chip?
Please respond to me direct...if you wish.
I am delighted to respond.
First, the green print is enchanting, but weary to the eye after a few seconds. It is also the color of money...or used to be. As a disinterested poster, I have no interest in money regarding BPL.
I hope you will forgive me if I express the opinion that I have acquired some wisdom with age, and do not believe it is so simple to characterize the issues as you pose. To wit: I am a ham, and I do not believe the 'party line' is correct. That does not fall into your two categories.
73,
Chip N1IR
W9LQI
10-24-2004, 03:21 AM
Mr Chip:
Thank you for your thoughts. My comments were not meant to be a personal attack, I just think in colorful ways and terms.
You bring up some interesting points.
"Being in denial and blaming the messenger brings nothing positive".
"I fear a demise of ham radio based on our failure to drive innovation nowadays, the telecom revolution passed us and is leaving us in the dust"
And so on (my click and drag pararphraser doesn't work so well).
I am in agreement that we ought to have a well thought out idea of what's happening to us and where we want to be going.
Definitions of terms are troublesome to me.
I could give some but would probably make a fool out of myself. I am not an engineering expert.
we need clear definitions of terms that express the problem at hand.
So clear that we can use them in court and to a jury that is more ignorant than me. That's real important. I am confused by what I am reading now.
The concept that BPL is some new innovation is not right. It's anything but that.
The concept of unintended blanket radiation over a spread spectrum over a very large area is very troublesome to me. How do you get away from it? In the days of the "Woodpecker" I tuned away from the pulse, sometimes I could effect it with my cw keyer and make it move. Now what?
How are we to innovate if our medium becomes a polluted wasteland?
What is good and bad about BPL?
For example in my opinion:
Good
Mass connection to the internet just a wall plug away.
The promise of some level of broadband.
New devices to use. i.e. your refrig butler tells you what it needs.
Bad
Wipes out the HF spectrum for anyone near or at times far. Violates the treaty conventions.
Is a very poor technical solution
We now have a radio jammer around and through the U.S. Thus, we can no longer hear from other news and opinion sources (very bad for us now).
Orwellian control of the masses.
The refrig is your snitch. Only your wall socket knows what's going on in the former privacy of your home (Orwellian)
Data is being broadcast near and far, lots of it.
I can now harvest your data for fun and profit. Time to order my new subscription to Hackers Quaterly.
Really bad people now have open access to your data.
Maybe we can go for a free ride on the old bpl just hook up and hack in
Loss of a valuable natural resource. A really valuable resource.
The new part 15 allows for an unlicensed to simply take over my spectrum. I can no longer enjoy radio from my car, my home and such. I now have to go to the Sierra where no power lines exist.
I can think up new fun and amusements under the more relaxed part 15. Gee what mischief can I think up and get away with? Broadband square wave close proximity injectors at four watts or so, let's see square wave generator powered up but below the new relaxed part 15 rules. Use it to control my what ever, spread spectrum for my say, hobby car out front in the street. Spread spectrum model airplanes and so on. What fun. Why even spread spectrum wireless communication devices. heck why pay for a cell phone, what fun.
They are fixing it so we have to pay for anything transmitted. No more free radio. They also have most of the media controlled....Orwellian.
What makes it tolerable?
They move it to above the HF spectrum. How about the tv allocation of frequencies and above? There is a vast spread of rf spectrum that no one geographic area uses much of. It's just laying there in waste. Why not use it. Allocate where tv channels are not. That's simple enough. Limited unwanted free space transmission
Move to the microwaves, use the lines as a sort of wave guide.
Develop phasing devices that null out the transmission effect of BPL, out of phase signal somehow cancells the unwanted component. Make it harmless.
So Mr Chip you are right we need a dialog. But to nay say about our lack of innovation while turning our spectrum allocations into a polluted wasteland makes not one bit of sense to me, unless it's about big bucks Corporations doing what they seem to be doing best these days, running over the top of existing conventions, processes, resources and medium and attempting to paper over it with a happy face. Something smells on the paper and I think it's the way big corporations think or don't think. They simply wait for us little guys to innovate then steal it or they plunder a natural resource with little or no thought about impact or implications. Hardly what I would call good capitalism (an oxymoron of sorts).
So my issue is; where's the dialog other than dry up and blow away because big bucks sez so.
Meanwhile we need terms defined simply, and a game plan for the next stage, the law suits and the courts, which I'm sure are just around the corner.
Hutch
W9LQI/6
This whole thread is interesting, but in the end it will be handled in the courts.
The big power companies may have money, but deep pockets are a lawyer's dream for a class action suit.
And it may not just be hams, but also public service groups along with Boeing, major Air Carriers, and marine groups that join into a class action.
So argue all you want, but if it gets bad, I'll be spending my energies involved in the litigation. Not here listening to a bunch of nonsense from a certain person who has no interest on the BPL subject, but has to post over and over and over again with the same BS Spin on BPL.
Find a mainstream subject (MR. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif), and get a job on Fox News...CNN... MSNBC. They pay for slick talking BullChippers.
No debate left now. The FCC either enforces their decision, or the lawyers will bleed the BPL using utilities dry.
Then the ratepayers will have new rates to pay for the noble experiment.
I know that money has influence, but the great thing we have in this country is the Jury. And in a civil case, you only need the majority for the verdict. And they love to screw big business.....
I am quite sure, that if BPL starts interfering with any emergency communications including ham radio, those juries will be handing out BIG judgements against the power companies, that will end BPL in short order. Major point in the trial? Loss of life!
So again, argue about does it or doesn't it, but the Holy Commissioners have decided to open the gate.
I really hope that they can make it work without interference. I am 99% sure that they can't, but I'll give 1% of hope.
If it does interfere, then you can bet on a bunch of lawyers making a bunch of money. And they can keep my share.
I'm not selling my HF rigs. Do you really think that this will stand up? It won't.
Don't make this a ham thing. It involves HF airbands, marine bands, and SWL. Do you really think that SW listeners won't go to the ACLU when BPL blocks the American public from listening to broadcasts from other countries. Doesn't that sound like the Soviet Union, if SW broadcasts are blocked? There are a few hundred more angles that will be used to fight this.
A resource like 1-80Mhz is not going to be compromised, so that some money grubbing dipweeds can make a few more bucks. Not going to happen.
Yes our government has made some really stupid decisions on this. Yes, it is politics as usual. The same old pandering. Dumb statements like: "Every AC socket will have broadband" Promise the world. I won't keep the promise, but I don't have to, because I am a government leader, and we all LIE. I'm no worst then my running mate.
Our elected dimwits think that they just throw a switch, and America is online.....
Oh, you forgot that you have to get an internet connection to the feedpoint within the last mile. Why not put up wireless there?
Why, because the BPL marketers have a bunch of lame brained politicians that will buy into the "Every AC Socket Connected" scam. They are too busy collecting money/votes from any available lobby or group, to actualy do their jobs.
All I can say to all of you that think there is no hope, is that I had the pleasure of joining the effort, to get rid of Grey Davis. California's ex-chief of special interests. All of the BS then, sounded just like the BS I hear now from a certain poster. But in the end, he is gone. Just like BPL will be gone.
We have the courts to overturn those stupid decisions.
I just wish that this was the worst problem from our brilliant leaders. As many may know, this ain't nothin'
So get your butts out Nov 2 and vote for you favorite panderer. I know I will, but still taking a barf bag just in case I have a moment of conscience.
W6NJ
ae6rq
10-24-2004, 05:13 AM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 23 2004,16:52)]Dave: #Two separate traces on the same screen? #Perhaps the noise trace was stored, or visa versa. #The BPL trace was stored. #
I wouldn't rule out some scaling factors. #Especially if the data were in some file format that could be downloaded.
Now, on to the switching of antennas out and in. #Well, if that were the case, assuming identical test conditions for both the sweep for BPL signal and ambient noise, then wouldn't one expect to see similar discontinuties (from switching, etc.) in the noise trace? #Me thinks so.
Also, if you did A trace minus the B trace, what relevance would signal A, being the BPL trace, since its well under the noise trace B, produce anyway? #
73,
Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.
Hi Lee,
Touche - you are correct, and I am too rusty, so I'll stick with my software job for a little while longer. There _should_ be similar discontinuities in the noise plot and the BPL plot, assuming identical antennas, but there aren't any. That in itself points to bad data - no matter what the cause.
Also, it's interesting that the close-in, peak-to-peak variation in the BPL plot is far less than that in the noise plot. If my mind doesn't slip again, I seem to recall that using a different number of sweeps for averaging could account for that? At a sweep rate of 3.4 seconds, there is a lot that would fall thru the cracks using averaging - especially if the noise were pulsed.
Thanks for your clear thinking Lee,
Dave
AE6RQ
ve7ngr
10-24-2004, 06:16 AM
Wow... this discussion is degenerating in a hurry, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Like several others, I don't think this is a case of the cases being swapped - the "BPL on" trace does not look like a noise signal to me, while the "BPL off" trace does. However, as I already pointed out, even if the traces were accidentally swapped, it still doesn't support EB's case - on the contrary, it makes it look like BPL will be 30dB above the noise floor. So - no matter which explanation is correct, it supports our case and not EB's.
Now, I hate to defend Chip, as he rubs me the wrong way just as much as he does the rest of you (sorry Chip!), and I disagree with a lot of what he posts, but when I pointed out the above, he did agree with me that no matter which way you slice it, it makes EB's BPL implementation look bad. I think some of you are bashing Chip purely out of habit!
W1RFI
10-24-2004, 11:02 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 22 2004,06:02)]Quote[/b] (k3eko @ Oct. 23 2004,01:19)]Now we just need action by the Commission!!
It is puzzling the the ARRL counsel #states two explanations for the data: 1) it is fudged; and 2)the measurers were incapable of making the measurement.
It is possible, of course, that the document has a typo and this could easily have led to misintepretation. Ergo there is no flaw in the data itself, nor in the measurers ability to take it.
With all that you had to say, you didn't evey read the EB report or ARRL's technical analysis? #Surely you don't expect anyone to give much credence to your analysis of a report you haven't even read...
Quote[/b] ]Again:Where are those EXISTING complaints?
http://www.vvara.org
Ed
Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 24 2004,04:02)]With all that you had to say, you didn't evey read the EB report or ARRL's technical analysis? #Surely you don't expect anyone to give much credence to your analysis of a report you haven't even read...
Quote[/b] ]Again:Where are those EXISTING complaints?
http://www.vvara.org
Ed
Hi Ed,
I have read it.
If there is some inconsistency in a report, with data, it does not automatically mean that the folks who made the measurements are incompetent, or that someone is acting fraudulently. It can easily mean that someone else in the process made mistakes that then propagated.
It would have been more accurate and inclusive to describe it as flawed, without some deterministic, bimodal assumption about two possibilities. Ergo, I am sure, to your disappointment, I stand by my comments.
The Verde web site is excellent: there is a lot of factual info and I did not see any propaganda. However, there is not any information showing existing complaints from interference happening NOW. If you did not understand that the present tense was alluding to the interference, as opposed to the physical medium transmitting words of a complaint, please understand that now.
What radio amateur(s)are now experiencing interference from this BPL test? If they are, how has this changed as the notch testing is being implemented? If they were mobile, then why were they mobile? Is this an area they commonly work near, drive near, operate near? Did they not have the option to drive away and enjoy their hamming a ways down the road? In other words, how artificial is this premise of past complaints?
Do you have an estimate--again, a sensitivity analysis is fine; do you need a reference in "sensitivity analysis"?--of how many hams will be curtailed in their fixed-station HF mobile activities from this deployment? As far as I can see, the answer is: "none".
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,04:35)]Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 24 2004,04:02)]With all that you had to say, you didn't evey read the EB report or ARRL's technical analysis? #Surely you don't expect anyone to give much credence to your analysis of a report you haven't even read...
Quote[/b] ]Again:Where are those EXISTING complaints?
http://www.vvara.org
Ed
Bob Shipton (K8EQX)'s Sept letter to the FCC is excellent, but, IMO, flawed.
Unfortunately, it does not provide an example of interference to radio amateurs in bona fide conditions: the data is taken in 'ham' mobile conditions; this mobile monitoring is done quite near the power lines, specifically with the intent of searching for alleged interference.
The fact is that there is no documented case where any radio amateur was prevented from HF communications, either at their fixed station location, nor in their typical HF mobiling environment.
Hence, BPL in this test deployment has not interfered with the amateur radio service.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,04:48)]The fact is that there is no documented case where any radio amateur was prevented from HF communications, either at their fixed station location, nor in their typical HF mobiling environment.
Hence, BPL in this test deployment has not interfered with the amateur radio service.
73,
Chip N1IR
Let me expand:
There seems to be a profound emphasis on whether (and how)BPL deployment will provide harmful interference to HF mobile (by this I mean hams being vehicular at HF). So far, I see hams acting as measurers of emissions via mobile rather than as victims of harmful interference at fixed stations. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but the reports clearly emphasize mobile.
Perhaps some of the lawyers on here might provide informal opinions on whether municipalities can pass laws than ban such activities within their boundaries, in order to curtail an alleged 'public nuisance'. Now, I don't believe that you or I are public nuisances, but let's consider the case where it may be viewed in that fashion.
Federal law regulates transmissions, but it is my impression that there is quite a bit of wiggle room for municipalities to restrict transmissions, indirectly, within their boundaries: for example, microphone statutes while driving, and so on.
I fear that if we emphasize mobile issues regarding hams at HF, then municipalities have the ability to effectively ban them.
I certainly don't think that municipalities with no active HF hams are likely to take kindly to hams from out of state, who deliberately drive in, telling them what they can and cannot do.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,07:39)]Now, I don't believe that you or I are public nuisances...
This may be debatable http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,07:39)]The fact is that there is no documented case where any radio amateur was prevented from HF communications, either at their fixed station location, nor in their typical HF mobiling environment.
Hence, BPL in this test deployment has not interfered with the amateur radio service.
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip:
Only to happy to oblige your 'lapse' of at least one of your senses.....
"Ongoing, unresolved HF interference from the system to retired engineer Jim Spencer, W0SR, and other amateurs prompted the ARRL to file a complaint to the FCC on Spencer's behalf demanding it be shut down."
"Thomas A. Brown, N4TAB, of Wake Forest. Brown had complained of BPL interference to his amateur HF mobile station emanating from a Progress Energy Corp (PEC) BPL field trial in the Raleigh area."
"Michael Kinney, KU7W, filed the first Amateur Radio complaint in June. It cited testing by the Verde Valley Amateur Radio Association (VVARA) in the 1.8-30 MHz range showing that BPL interference makes attempts at ham radio communication useless.
"Energy East--a cooperative of New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas & Electric--decided against deploying BPL in its Western New York service area. Energy East based its decision in large part on the high levels of radio frequency interference that an engineer and company officials observed during a visit to the Penn Yan field trial."
**from ARRL News**
73,
Lee
W6EM
kb6ssn
10-24-2004, 04:56 PM
Gentlemen,
The bottom line is, when you have money and government in the same category, you have corruption. Both money and government belong to the People. If we do not excercise this Right, we will be stuck with another Nanny agency stuffing their corruption down our throats. I believe this case illustrates that entirely.
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,07:39)]Federal law regulates transmissions, but it is my impression that #there is quite a bit of wiggle room for municipalities to restrict transmissions, indirectly, within their boundaries: for example, microphone statutes while driving, and so on.
I fear that if we emphasize mobile issues regarding hams at HF, then municipalities have the ability to effectively ban them.
I certainly don't think that municipalities with no active HF hams are likely to take kindly to hams from out of state, who deliberately drive in, telling them what they can and cannot do.
73,
Chip N1IR
Again, a case of 'selective' reading.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Chip, the books are full of legal case precedents and FCC opinions as Declaratory Rulings which reiterate that Congress intended that the FCC, not the states or local governments regulate telecommunications. #Sorry, Chipper. #Nice try.
Prohibiting using a cell phone, or even a mobile microphone as I believe New York has, isn't the issue of regulating telecommunications, its keeping both hands on the wheel. #Of course, if you smoke, you don't keep both hands on the wheel all the time either.
Public nuisances, well, perhaps the locals can start with their local radio and TV station towers radiating signals. #Aren't they capable of getting onto power lines and causing widespread RF 'infections' of appliances such as audio equipment and fluorescent lamps? #Again, nice try.
I'm no attorney, so just my reading things. My opoinion. #Perhaps some in our pastime that are will post on the subject.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions posed about your 'doily-stripline' antennas. #And, that 21st century 'breakthrough' of replacing discrete capacitors and inductors with metallic traces........
73,
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 24 2004,11:02)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,07:39)]Federal law regulates transmissions, but it is my impression that #there is quite a bit of wiggle room for municipalities to restrict transmissions, indirectly, within their boundaries: for example, microphone statutes while driving, and so on.
I fear that if we emphasize mobile issues regarding hams at HF, then municipalities have the ability to effectively ban them.
I certainly don't think that municipalities with no active HF hams are likely to take kindly to hams from out of state, who deliberately drive in, telling them what they can and cannot do.
73,
Chip N1IR
Again, a case of 'selective' reading.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Chip, the books are full of legal case precedents and FCC opinions as Declaratory Rulings which reiterate that Congress intended that the FCC, not the states or local governments regulate telecommunications. #Sorry, Chipper. #Nice try.
Prohibiting using a cell phone, or even a mobile microphone as I believe New York has, isn't the issue of regulating telecommunications, its keeping both hands on the wheel. #Of course, if you smoke, you don't keep both hands on the wheel all the time either....
RE: telecom regs--We both agree. I was quite clear that I wasn't asking that. I was asking informal legal opinion on whether the municipalities have recourse that would amount to the same result. For example: you may wish to use your HF in a blasting area, but if you do, then imagine issues arise that have nothing to do with FCC reg of telecom.
I am dreadfully sorry that you didn't understand that.
Your other comments are a tad off topic. Maybe some other time.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,11:10)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 24 2004,11:02)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,07:39)]Federal law regulates transmissions, but it is my impression that #there is quite a bit of wiggle room for municipalities to restrict transmissions, indirectly, within their boundaries: for example, microphone statutes while driving, and so on.
I fear that if we emphasize mobile issues regarding hams at HF, then municipalities have the ability to effectively ban them.
I certainly don't think that municipalities with no active HF hams are likely to take kindly to hams from out of state, who deliberately drive in, telling them what they can and cannot do.
73,
Chip N1IR
Again, a case of 'selective' reading.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Chip, the books are full of legal case precedents and FCC opinions as Declaratory Rulings which reiterate that Congress intended that the FCC, not the states or local governments regulate telecommunications. #Sorry, Chipper. #Nice try.
Prohibiting using a cell phone, or even a mobile microphone as I believe New York has, isn't the issue of regulating telecommunications, its keeping both hands on the wheel. #Of course, if you smoke, you don't keep both hands on the wheel all the time either....
RE: telecom regs--We both agree. I was quite clear that I wasn't asking that. I was asking informal legal opinion on whether the municipalities have recourse that would amount to the same result. For example: you may wish to use your HF in a blasting area, but if you do, #then imagine issues arise that have nothing to do with FCC reg of telecom.
I am dreadfully sorry that you didn't understand that.
Your other comments are a tad off topic. Maybe some other time.
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip: #Your mental selectivity is getting to you again. #You can't read (or remember) what even your post contained.
Well, banning mobile operation was what you referred to. #Not being asked to not transmit in a specific area at a specific time, as is the case while some explosives use might be underway. #Your point was to infer that you thought municipalities could somehow ban #amateur mobile operation. #Plain and simple. #How ridiculous.
The FCC, in fact, in its rather famous state scanner law preemption opinion several years ago, made just the point that they do not want states or municipalities telling an amateur travelling through from another state that they cannot operate amateur equipment on amateur frequencies. #
Go argue with the mirror, as it fits your convoluted physics ego. #And, while you're at it, throw in one of your thesis-topic lenses. #You might see the world differently through a kaleidoscope.
Maybe it is a character flaw, after all. #Each time you refuse to respond to the simple questions for you to defend a claim that your '21st century stripline' isn't really stripline, and to produce peer-reviewed opinion from a competent and expert technical society that that is the case, you look like the obvious....
Cheers,
Lee
W6EM
WA3KYY
10-24-2004, 07:57 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,07:00)]How many fixed station , active HF radio hams are likely to be affected by harmful interfference in BPL deployment?
1? 10? 100? 1000?
The potential number of amateurs likely to be affected by BPL is 100% of those who are active on 160-6M and live within 2 miles of an Access BPL device. That is somewhere between 200-300,000 based upon current FCC license figures.
This assumes BPL is deployed everywhere which is what the BPL industry wants and some of the FCC Commissioners hope for based upon published comments and the systems are operating at part 15 limits. There is an abundance of theoretical analysis and actual measurements to support this guesstimate.
The severity of the interference will be dependant on the actual distance from the radiated signal, the gain of the receiving antenna and the strength of the interfering signal that is being radiated. All very elementary RF principals to understand.
BTW, taking measurements of actual radiated levels in various areas to determine interference potential is prudent behavior, especially on the low VHF emergency services bands. Isn't it better to find out now, before BPL is widely deployed, what type of interference can be expected by mobile radio users of the same spectrum before the communications are needed in an emergency?
Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Oct. 24 2004,12:57)]BTW, taking measurements of actual radiated levels in various areas to determine interference potential is prudent behavior, especially on the low VHF emergency services bands. #Isn't it better to find out now, before BPL is widely deployed, what type of interference can be expected by mobile radio users of the same spectrum before the communications are needed in an emergency?
Careful. #Chipper will tell you that public safety radio interference is 'off topic', as he did to me on another thread.
Thanks for posting it again. #Since the FCC didn't take direct action to protect non-federal frequencies from egregious BPL radiation in their prologue to their report and order on the subject, it is of utmost importance that this point be made over and over and driven home. #Even if its only on a forum as limited as this thread.
With a little effort, it should be quite straightforward for the ARRL, APSCO (Association of Public Safety Communications Officials), and others to file suit in #Federal Court to protect all licensed communications services from BPL interference, just as the federal frequencies or bands were selected for protection by the FCC. #One of the Amendments to our Constitution, in fact, guarantees equal protection under law..
73,
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Oct. 24 2004,12:57)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,07:00)]How many fixed station , active HF radio hams are likely to be affected by harmful interfference in BPL deployment?
1? 10? 100? 1000?
The potential number of amateurs likely to be affected by BPL is 100% of those who are active on 160-6M and live within 2 miles of an Access BPL device. #That is somewhere between 200-300,000 based upon current FCC license figures.
This assumes BPL is deployed everywhere which is what the BPL industry wants and some of the FCC Commissioners hope for based upon published comments and the systems are operating at part 15 limits. #There is an abundance of theoretical analysis and actual measurements to support this guesstimate.
The severity of the interference will be dependant on the actual distance from the radiated signal, the gain of the receiving antenna and the strength of the interfering signal that is being radiated. #All very elementary RF principals to understand.
BTW, taking measurements of actual radiated levels in various areas to determine interference potential is prudent behavior, especially on the low VHF emergency services bands. #Isn't it better to find out now, before BPL is widely deployed, what type of interference can be expected by mobile radio users of the same spectrum before the communications are needed in an emergency?
How did you set the lowest limit of 200? Also, going from 200 at a low to 300,000 at a high is a huge range: more than 3 orders of magnitude. What factors went into your sensitivity analysis please?
Two hundred sounds like a possible order of magnitude. Does your analysis reveal why it could not be even less?
Kindly share the analysis and we can weight each factor for sensitivity.
I'm sure that many reading this are deeply grateful that someone got the ball rolling in making a geusstimate. Your reasonable comments give the low number estimate more credibility than the (alternative) avoidance of estimation we have seen otherwise.
73, and good work: please share.
Chip N1IR
WB4MDX
10-24-2004, 11:36 PM
Does anyone know if the BPL signals have some sort of identifying "burst, ID, morse, etc.? I'm guessing not, since it is "'complying' with Part 15 Rules". How would we know if during a band opening, the low "QRP" Part 15 signals are in fact traveling many thousands of miles? Who could we say was interfering if we cannot identify their signal to the source? Any particular HF frequencies we should keep a listen for? Should the FCC require some sort of ID with these signals?
Just looking for some answers.
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,16:14)]How did you set the lowest limit of 200? Also, going from 200 at a low #to 300,000 #at a high is a huge range: more than 3 orders of magnitude. What factors went into your sensitivity analysis please?
Oh, how adept we are at putting the wrong words in someone's mouth. #
I believe the gentleman meant 200 thousand to 300 thousand colloquially, Mr. Chips, not your ridiculous assumption of a range of three orders of magnitude from a meer 200. #Get real, Chipper.
And, please do a sensitivity analysis on yourself. #You need one.
Perhaps WA3KYY will speak up and clarify for us.
I am also interested in an important number: The ratio of BPL users/Complaints-- or "B/C".
I would like to estimate the B/C for the aggregate BPL deployments to date. Anybody know how many homes (i,.e.'users') have been serviced today in BPL trial deployments?
Next, let's consider the relevant complaints. How many complaints come from radio amateurs trying to undertake HF communications from their fixed stations in BPL deployed neighborhoods, and experiencing harmful interference from (unfiltered) BPL?
Just to show a number for illustration--and not representing the actual data--let's assume 1500 users have been serviced, and there are 4 bona fide complaints--as opposed to vehicular complaints which are actually measuring stations. That yields:
B/C= 0.0027
In this case, again for illustration, we might expect 1350 complaints against unfiltered BPL for 500,000 actual users.
Of course, the B/C now is highy biased because of some are possibly aroused to make complaints. Some of those are legit, others may fall into the 'monitoring' category. Thus it is likely that at this stage, any B/C estimated will represent the high end of the real number over time.
My guess--and like us all, I need data to get a viable estimate-- is that the number of effected hams will be of order hundreds for a million plus users; that is,
B/C=0.001 or less.
Some help so we can get this B/C now, and then track it with time? It will give us a better handle on just how big a problem BPL might represent moving ahead.
I hope we all agree that having some handle on this number dramatically shapes how to handle any problems in the future, and factors in how best to cooperate with the BPL providers.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,16:57)]Anybody know how many homes (i,.e.'users') have been serviced today in BPL trial deployments?
Pardon;
That should read: "serviced to date".
73,
Chip N1IR
ve7ngr
10-25-2004, 12:20 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,16:57)]How many complaints come from radio amateurs trying to undertake HF communications from their fixed stations in BPL deployed neighborhoods,
Chip,
Please provide a reference to where it states that Part 15 devices may cause harmful interference to non-fixed licenced stations.
Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ Oct. 24 2004,17:20)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,16:57)]How many complaints come from radio amateurs trying to undertake HF communications from their fixed stations in BPL deployed neighborhoods,
Chip,
Please provide a reference to where it states that Part 15 devices may cause harmful interference to non-fixed licenced stations.
I am certain that it does not say this. Not sure its relevant (and we spell it 'license' in the States BTW:-)
My point? If there is a bona fide problem, then what is it's magnitude? It makes a huge difference on how it can and should be dealt with, from both sides. I feel strongly that this shapes how the FCC will deal with it.
73,
Chip N1IR
ve7ngr
10-25-2004, 01:02 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2004,17:41)]I am certain that it does not say this.
Then why do you keep saying that interference to mobile stations is irrelelvant and not a source of legitimate complaints? If it interfers, it interfers - end of story.
Quote[/b] ]My point? If there is a bona fide problem, then what is it's magnitude? It makes a huge difference on how it can and should be dealt with, from both sides. I feel strongly that this shapes how the FCC will deal with it.
I don't know what the magnitude is, but I believe it is small. So are current BPL deployments; these are just trials. If there are no/few hams in a trial area, then of course there will be no/few complaints. When/if it becomes widely deployed, it will undoubtedly affect a lot more people. Should we just ignore the trials and wait until BPL becomes widely deployed, then try to fight interference problems?
The whole point of a trial is to try the system out and see how it performs. You know - take measurements and what not. Taking a mobile station to the trial site and taking measurements, then complaining if it behaves poorly, seems completely legitimate to me. Again, that's the point of a trial - to test the system and see what works and what doesn't.
Quote[/b] ]and we spell it 'license' in the States BTW:-)
I'm not in the States.
ke4pjw
10-25-2004, 01:34 AM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2004,18:41)]My point? If there is a bona fide problem, then what is it's magnitude? It makes a huge difference on how it can and should be dealt with, from both sides. I feel strongly that this shapes how the FCC will deal with it.
Chip, is it your opinion that these unlicensed BPL implementations be allowed to cause "some" interference to licensed users? Based on your past postings, that appears to be your opinion.
BTW, the way the FCC will deal with these problems is based in law. If the FCC does not follow the law, you better believe the lawsuites will start being filed.
My opinion is that the BPL providers will install their systems and the FCC *WILL* fine the ones that get complaints. There will be sort of a BPL tax. I say this due to an experience I had with some FCC field engineers during the mid 90's. I was working for a 2-way company and we were contracted by the FCC to remove the remote monitoring system the FCC used here in Nashville. After completing the work, the engineers asked me and my supervisor if we knew of any leaky segments in the CATV system around town. They *REALLY* wanted to find a way to fine the local CATV company.
IMHO, fining the BPL providers fits in with the bureaucratic mindset of pleasing the boss, expanding your authority and protecting your budget. (Not necessarily in that order)
n4zou
10-25-2004, 02:02 AM
The time has come to admit that the ARRL as presently operated as a non-profit and non-political origination can no longer have the desired effect on the FCC or our political representatives. We amateurs MUST form a PAC (political action committee) with no ties to the ARRL. Leave the ARRL to the business it does well like printing books and shuffling QSL cards (paper and electronic) around and running it's contests and certificates. We must have real help in dealing with not only the FCC but also the politician's in Washington D.C. Otherwise; we will see more failures like the BPL debacle that has just ended with it being approved. Even pushing hard to change CC&R rules to allow antennas was a total failure. I personally can't do it having just gone through major brain surgery and have major disabilities from it. Simply put; someone who is already an amateur radio operator and a politician will need to step up to the plate and start swinging PAC money at the politician's. I know; it's sounds terrible but in this day and age just being Mr. Nice Guy taking a Senator out to lunch just will not take care of the amateur radio society any longer.
AB8RU
10-25-2004, 02:10 AM
The Engineering groups who are Hams also are monitoring results as well and if it affects them their owners of Am Broadcast probably will respond. nothing like a local John Doe Citizen who likes AM Sports, Talk Shows will call in and say .. Why is my radio making all of this noise ?, #I am waiting on complaints myself.
I'll point out to blame the FCC and go call their congressman, reason is, I told a person once to go ask their comissioner about something, resulted in a inspection by Hams volunteering, and maybe a cat -n- dog fight at the politics table.
ole saying goes Contact your local Politician ( tell them you are a voter if you are over 18 and apply the sauce on thick ! ) #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
write a five dollar check to their campaign and be done with it.
W1RFI
10-25-2004, 10:21 AM
Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 23 2004,20:02)]The time has come to admit that the ARRL as presently operated as a non-profit and non-political origination can no longer have the desired effect on the FCC or our political representatives. We amateurs MUST form a PAC (political action committee) with no ties to the ARRL. Leave the ARRL to the business it does well like printing books and shuffling QSL cards (paper and electronic) around and running it's contests and certificates. We must have real help in dealing with not only the FCC but also the politician's in Washington D.C. Otherwise; we will see more failures like the BPL debacle that has just ended with it being approved. Even pushing hard to change CC&R rules to allow antennas was a total failure. I personally can't do it having just gone through major brain surgery and have major disabilities from it. Simply put; someone who is already an amateur radio operator and a politician will need to step up to the plate and start swinging PAC money at the politician's. I know; it's sounds terrible but in this day and age just being Mr. Nice Guy taking a Senator out to lunch just will not take care of the amateur radio society any longer.
BPL was not approved in this rulemaking action. It had been legal under existing Part 15 rules. The rules added significant new restrictions on BPL. Back when the FCC first opened a Notice of Inquiry about BPL, Commissioner Abernathy said that she felt that most of the rules restricting BPL could be removed. This rulemaking didn't remove any restrictions, but has added additional restrictions on BPL; will create a step-by-step procedure to address BPL interference and will require this industry to keep a public database of BPL locations and contact information.
I don't think that Amateur Radio could outspend the BPL industry; the ~$300,000 ARRL raised in the BPL drive to cover some of its spectrum related expenses would not even cover the necessary walking around money.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-25-2004, 10:48 AM
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 23 2004,17:51)]I believe the gentleman meant 200 thousand to 300 thousand colloquially, Mr. Chips, not your ridiculous assumption of a range of three orders of magnitude from a meer 200. #Get real, Chipper.
Anyone whp has watched Chip bring news://rec.radio.amateur.antenna to a rolling boil will note a very similar progression of style. I was especially amused to see the "I am disinterested" stage, with the usual response, "If you are disinterested, why are you posting?"
I wonder if we will get a visit from the "user" Phil, who used to post a lot under Chip's AOL account, saying things far less eloquantly than Chip did. :-) I haven't watched Chip on RRA.antenna in while, so I don't know if his pattern is more sophisistcated than it was a few years ago.
Anyone interested can do an advanced groups google search on http://groups.google.com/ using a few keywords (Phil, lawyer, etc.) to get a view of why he is "disinterested" in BPL.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 25 2004,03:48)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 23 2004,17:51)]I believe the gentleman meant 200 thousand to 300 thousand colloquially, Mr. Chips, not your ridiculous assumption of a range of three orders of magnitude from a meer 200. #Get real, Chipper.
Anyone whp has watched Chip bring news://rec.radio.amateur.antenna to a rolling boil will note a very similar progression of style. #I was especially amused to see the "I am disinterested" stage, with the usual response, "If you are disinterested, why are you posting?"
I wonder if we will get a visit from the "user" Phil, who used to post a lot under Chip's AOL account, saying things far less eloquantly than Chip did. :-) #I haven't watched Chip on RRA.antenna in while, so I don't know if his pattern is more sophisistcated than it was a few years ago.
Anyone interested can do an advanced groups google search on http://groups.google.com/ using a few keywords (Phil, lawyer, etc.) to get a view of why he is "disinterested" in BPL.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ah, if it were so EASY to solve a problem merely by trying to discredit(unsuccessfully) the messenger:-)
You know Ed, I knew that going into tech develoment was going to be challenging, as well as interesting. It took a long time to understand the sociobiology aspects though, but I'm feeling pretty good about it.
I feel in no way put out by your attempted character attack here, but I am happy to repeat, yet again, that the motivation is to point out the flaws inherent to a vocal minority enforcing a view (on BPL), and also to point out the issues and opportunities that are happening in COOPERATING with the BPL industry to fix them.
The time Ed, is now. You are the 'man of the moment', so to speak, according to your statements about the BPL folks approaching you. It is likely, IMO, that the actions you take may result in either resolutions for both sides, or create a huge legal setback for some in the amateur radio community. I am strongly of the opinion that if the present stance is taken, nothing will be truly gained: changes will be implemented in the amateur radio service; HF numbers--already dwindling--will die off; and a huge number of growing telecom initiatives will render the ham service as secondary users in some bands. This will also, possibly, render the demise of the ARRL as a force in amateur radio, as the base goes far more to the side of VHF and has no interest in HF fights.
I find these discussions very stimulating; my impression was that this forum was provided, in part ,for just such discussions. But, yet again, I remind you that the discussion topic is BPL, not N1IR; you can discuss --me--it if you wish, but it only makes others wonder why you are doing so. It might also irritate our host; who knows?
If I am abusing this forum, kindly articulate the details of that abuse so that I may make amends.
Have a great day!
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 25 2004,03:21)]Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 23 2004,20:02)]The time has come to admit that the ARRL as presently operated as a non-profit and non-political origination can no longer have the desired effect on the FCC or our political representatives. We amateurs MUST form a PAC (political action committee) with no ties to the ARRL. Leave the ARRL to the business it does well like printing books and shuffling QSL cards (paper and electronic) around and running it's contests and certificates. We must have real help in dealing with not only the FCC but also the politician's in Washington D.C. Otherwise; we will see more failures like the BPL debacle that has just ended with it being approved. Even pushing hard to change CC&R rules to allow antennas was a total failure. I personally can't do it having just gone through major brain surgery and have major disabilities from it. Simply put; someone who is already an amateur radio operator and a politician will need to step up to the plate and start swinging PAC money at the politician's. I know; it's sounds terrible but in this day and age just being Mr. Nice Guy taking a Senator out to lunch just will not take care of the amateur radio society any longer.
BPL was not approved in this rulemaking action. It had been legal under existing Part 15 rules. The rules added significant new restrictions on BPL. # Back when the FCC first opened a Notice of Inquiry about BPL, Commissioner Abernathy said that she felt that most of the rules restricting BPL could be removed. This rulemaking didn't remove any restrictions, but has added additional restrictions on BPL; will create a step-by-step procedure to address BPL interference and will require this industry to keep a public database of BPL locations and contact information.
I don't think that Amateur Radio could outspend the BPL industry; the ~$300,000 ARRL raised in the BPL drive to cover some of its spectrum related expenses would not even cover the necessary walking around money.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed,
The real question is: what impact did that $300K have? I have asked you this before, and will do again so now--what is the evidence that efforts from the BPL fund had specific impacts on Docket 4-37? Kindly correct me, but I am aware of nothing there that clearly points out that the BPL fund efforts changed anything.
If the ARRL claims to be an important player in representing radio amateur interests in this matter, then to speculate on the ability to impact future efforts, you need to see how successful the past ones were.
This is a great opportunity for you to show what these were so far, or learn about what does and doesn't work-- as you (presumably)enter the heavy responsibility of working with the BPL industry to resolve BPL interference matters.
Also, I still don't know the answer to:
"More than just BPL!"
What does THAT means?
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n4zou @ Oct. 24 2004,19:02)]I personally can't do it having just gone through major brain surgery and have major disabilities from it.
I am sorry to hear of your illness--as I am sure others here also feel--and we all wish you the best in a speedy recovery.
Get well!
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (W1RFI @ Oct. 25 2004,03:48)]Anyone interested can do an advanced groups google search on http://groups.google.com/ using a few keywords (Phil, lawyer, etc.) to get a view of why he is "disinterested" in BPL.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Hi Ed,
Not sure why anybody has to go to that trouble. Could you kindly tell us 'why I am disinterested'? How does that differ from what I've already said on this forum?
If I have a different 'agenda', then go ahead and say it; easier to either confirm or pick apart that way, wouldn't you say? You may pose an opinion or speculation; I see no problem with that, especially if it's easily corrected when wrong.
Why leave folks in ambiguity land? Say what you mean, OM.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
73,
Chip N1IR