View Full Version : ARRL petition favors BPL
wa3vjb
10-20-2005, 01:07 AM
WASHINGTON (QRZ.com) -- The Federal Communications Commission should consider newer systems of using the power lines to distribute high speed internet service as alternatives to those that can cause interference to Amateur radio frequencies, according to a petition filed by a group leading the fight against such interference.
The American Radio Relay League, which also filed as the National Association for Amateur Radio, said recent testing at the group's compound in Newington, Connecticut has shown at least two systems "can be operated without substantial risk of interference to Amateur Radio facilities" including tests involving the group's flagship ham radio station W1AW.
The ARRL had announced it had obtained a system from Motorola for such testing by its staff led by the League's interference guru, Ed Hare, W1RFI. A test in Cincinnati proved the cleanliness of a similar system from the company Current Technologies.
The new systems for the most part avoid using amateur spectrum and outdoor power lines to convey the digital telemetry to the household users.
The group asks the FCC to ban older BPL systems that DO use amateur spectrum and the early distribution path to deliver internet service. Based on the evaluations, the group's lawyer, Chris Imlay, W3KD, wrote "it is no longer the case that all BPL systems inherently radiate high levels of RF energy on Amateur allocations on overhead medium voltage power lines."
The League's petition urges the FCC to effectively mandate the use of the newer type of system where and when utility companies decide to implement BPL-type internet service. It proposes changes in measurement standards that would favor the cleaner methods demonstrated by equipment from the companies cited.
Imlay wrote such a mandate is "a reasonable means of accomodating BPL in a responsible manner, in view of the demonstrated interference potential of the early BPL system architecture, and the relative absence of such potential from certain newer BPL technologies."
The Petition highlights an already documented history of unresolved interference problems in complaints to utility companies and the FCC. The document also returns to several opposition points on technical grounds that the FCC had earlier downplayed when Commissioners voted to move ahead with BPL regulations allowing the earlier, dirtier technology.
The ARRL earlier this year had harsh words for one of the companies it now praises in its filing with the FCC. The non-profit group's CEO, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, told the technology newspaper "InfoWorld" in a January 4 interview that the company's tests in Maryland were causing interference, and that if the company denies the allegation, it "shows they don't know what they're talking about," Sumner was quoted as saying.
In the Petition, the League's lawyer writes that Current Technologies' BPL deployments "make no use of the Amateur bands," except for a few 5 MHz channels, and that the interference potential now is "minimal relative to Amateur Radio facilities." The Maryland system is not referenced in the ARRL's document, and there is no explanation for Newington's apparent change of heart toward the company.
The League's filing can be found as a Petition for Issuance of Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and for Amendment of Regulations received by the FCC in Washington Oct. 18, 2005, and can be found with an internet search on the agency's Electronic Comment Filing System.
The League petition can be found here (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518170218)
This headline is very misleading. ARRL and Motorola have been working together in Newington with a BPL system designed by Motorola for some time so this posting is somewhat behind the times. #The Motorola system has proven itself to be very clean.
The Motorola method of BPL, does not use the overhead medium voltage lines which act like huge long antennas. #This method is used by various BPL equipment manufacturers and is a proven producer of prodigious interference. #The Motorola system injects the signal into the wire drop from the pole transformer to the house. #This greatly reduces the problem of radiating lines across the tops of poles for the most part and the signal footprint is very small in comparision to other manufacturers of BPL equipment.
In addition, the Motorola device was developed with the Amateur Radio service in mind by not using the ham band frequencies at all hence, no "Notching" is required.
ARRL never was against BPL, they were against the interference it causes. #Since Motorola's design is so much cleaner, they are simply saying through technological improvments, and if we must have BPL, the Motorola system is preferred since it is basically invisible to the ham radio operator. #
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" size="+10" color=blue>
K2WH
wa3vjb
10-21-2005, 01:10 AM
Addressing your points --
The Petition was filed a few days ago, making our story timely.
The League favors the newer BPL technology so the headline matches, especially given their opposition campaign citing the interference issues. The body of the text includes the wording "where and when" BPL is implemented, to express what appears to be the ARRL's conditional support of this technology.
Your explanation of the Motorola distribution method seems accurate, so accepted.
Thanks
Paul/VJB
Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 20 2005,14:10)]Addressing your points --
The Petition was filed a few days ago, making our story timely.
The League favors the newer BPL technology so the headline matches, especially given their opposition campaign citing the interference issues. #The body of the text includes the wording "where and when" BPL is implemented, to express what appears to be the ARRL's conditional support of this technology.
Your explanation of the Motorola distribution method seems accurate, so accepted.
Thanks
Paul/VJB
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" size="+3" color=green>
Agreed.
There is one thing I am curiuos about however. How does the internet signal get to the Motorola device in the first place? RF? WiFi?
I believe some sort of device connects to the wire drop into the house. But where does it get its connection to the internet? Gotta be by RF link. I think.
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" size="+4" color=red>
K2WH
WD8OQX
10-21-2005, 01:29 AM
Wait a minute. If I am reading this correctly, there is a medium other than the power lines carrying the internet then it is jumped to the power line leading to the house? Why not finish the job & just run it to the house & not even use the power line? What is gained by doing this? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
k4kyv
10-21-2005, 02:44 AM
Quote[/b] (WD8OQX @ Oct. 20 2005,18:29)]Wait a minute. If I am reading this correctly, there is a medium other than the power lines carrying the internet then it is jumped to the power line leading to the house? Why not finish the job & just run it to the house & not even use the power line? What is gained by doing this? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I agree. Even if it doesn't cause interference to ham radio, what about international broadcasting, MARS, WWV and many other non-amateur services of interest to shortwave listeners?
Also, it is mentioned that no protection is provided for the 60-metre band. I recall that when the band was in the rulemaking proposal stage for a REAL amateur band in the vicinity of 5 mHz, HomePlug commented to the FCC that it should place a moratorium on any changes to HF allocations because this could cause interference to Part 15 divices that deliver digital signals over the house wiring. They specifically opposed the creation of the proposed 60m band.
Although the Motorola system appears to be a big improvement over the so-called "access BPL" as far as amateurs are concerned, my impression is that it still would trash large segments of the HF spectrum, and that remains unacceptable..
This is the BEST that ARRL can do--a year after the issuance of the FCC R&O, and a year into explosive growth of BPL? Suggest this embarrassing #ARRL position be ignored, my opinion--yours may differ.
The objective of the petition, apparently, is to drop one filed in favor of another: if this one is accepted, drop the first. Goofy, IMO.
IMO, this #new petition is trash. The FCC is not given the role of choosing companies for new technologies, nor playing favorites for hams. The FCC should not BACK Motorola--or anyone else. Instead, it should let that fine company, and OTHER fine companies, fight it out in the market place by defining clear and fair rules for the governance of the airwaves with respect to BPL.
IT has done this--clearly-- with the October 2004 R&O. The fact that it has stood for a#year now is indicative to the careful and fair effort that went into it.
The Motorola system may, very well, prevail. However, this will NOT be because it has some fatuous approval of the ARRL, nor is allegedly 'ham friendly', IMO. If it does, it will be because it has superior performance within the legal qualifications of Part 15.
Incidently, the ARRL, very clearly, stated a position that shows it is ANTI-BPL:
" The League said the lingering ... BPL situation underscores
the "fundamental incompatibility" between Amateur Radio HF operation and
"unlicensed (and apparently unregulated) operation of BPL systems."
Quote from January 2005.
You will see the position was defined and the negative reaction, IMO, has forced them to backtrack. This hypocritical change in position-'oh, we are NOT anti-BPL' is,apparently, in contradiction to this statement. #
73,
Chip N1IR
ad4mg
10-21-2005, 02:31 PM
I think Chip is accurate ... this is somewhat of a flip-flop approach. #I could agree about letting the companies duke it out in the marketplace if and when the FCC begins real enforcement of Part 15 regulations as they apply to BPL systems. #The impression is such that no enforcement has been displayed at any of the trial locations.
The free market system is very capable of sorting this out, but only if the ground rules which have been established are adhered to. #If the FCC is going to ignore radiation limits established for this type of Part 15 device (system), then the playing field is anything but level, and amateurs should be in a very large group of organizations that should and will fight these deployments tooth and nail.
Chip, you have pointed out that the ARRL should allow this technology to go forward based on it's own merits. #How about we hold the FCC to the same standards? #By ignoring interference issues, they bias the outcome in favor of the BPL providers. #Granted, it appears that fixed station complaints will carry far more weight than these mobile reports, and I am as puzzled as anyone as to the lack of interference complaints filed by fixed amateur radio stations.
My $.02 worth.
73,
Luke
>>Incidently, the ARRL, very clearly, stated a position that shows it is ANTI-BPL, in mid 2004. Go check your notes. It said 'amateur radio HF operation is incompatible with unlicensed BPL', to paraphrase. Go check for the exact wording. You will see the position was defined and the negative reaction, IMO, has forced them to backtrack. This hypocritical change in position-'oh, we are NOT anti-BPL' is,apparently, in contradiction to this statement.
-----
This is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. #
The League only got involved in the whole subject of BPL when the original BPL proposals would obviously cause lots of interference to the Amateur bands. #Protecting the existing Amateur bands is one of the missions of the League. So if newer technology can provide BPL without interfering with the Amateur Bands, then it makes sense for the League to try and get the FCC to encougage the newer technology. #
It's a good approach to bring to the FCC's attention that technology now exists that can both provide BPL and not interfere with the licensed Amateur Service. #It makes it that much harder for the FCC to justify allowing interference to continue when a non-interefering technology exists for the purpose.
As for SWL's and MARS problems, that's for SWL clubs and DOD to worry about as it's not in the League's charter to worry about other services allocations, just as APCO just worries about the public safety bands.
73
Gary, K2GW
KD6NIG
10-21-2005, 02:38 PM
Quote[/b] (WD8OQX @ Oct. 20 2005,18:29)]Wait a minute. If I am reading this correctly, there is a medium other than the power lines carrying the internet then it is jumped to the power line leading to the house? Why not finish the job & just run it to the house & not even use the power line? What is gained by doing this? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
My theories:
1) Electrical wiring in homes has to meet certian standards, so its likely to be in pretty good shape.
2) Electrical wiring goes into every room in the home, so no "outlets" have to be installed.
3) Because of #2, no holes have to be drilled, unsightly wiring attached to the home, etc etc (works well in real strict HOA communities)
The electric companies don't want to be another provider like phone or cable that requires a seperate drop to the house. #They want to be able to tell the homeowner that they can do it with the existing wiring in the home, which should drive the installation cost down to nearly nil. #Also, like DSL has done with existing phone wiring, its likely the install could occur without the customer waiting for a 4-hour window to be home, and the modem could be mailed to the customer. #Plug it into the wall, hook up the computer and you're online. #Perfect for today's average consumer-and since all you need is an electric plug, and so does the computer, the connection will be wherever your computer is. # I could see a market that this would definetely appeal to.
When I used to install cable tv long ago, they would complain about me running wires, me not being able to put an outlet on the inside wall without a significant charge, etc. So I would guess this is the reasoning behind why they want it going into the home via the power drop.
kr1st
10-21-2005, 02:55 PM
Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 19 2005,14:07)]The American Radio Relay League, which also filed as the National Association for Amateur Radio, said recent testing at the group's compound in Newington, Connecticut has shown at least two systems "can be operated without substantial risk of interference to Amateur Radio facilities" including tests involving the group's flagship ham radio station W1AW.
If I were an ARRL member I'd request the ARRL to be more open about the current petition and how it came to this petition. As a member you are entitled to know their considerations. To me it sounds a bit like they are wheeling and dealing on this issue. They are willing to withdraw one petition for this one... Maybe there's a bit of corporate sponsorship going on? Who knows..
Think about it. When BPL interference issues arose we heard audio recordings of the interference, saw video reports on the interference, records of antenna models, field strength calculations and measurements etc. And now, nada. No records, no data, nothing, just a petition. Out of the pretty blue sky. Now you have to take the ARRL on its word that this is what you as a member want.
There's not even any indication on what is considered acceptable interference. They only speak of "without substantial risk of interference", which is a meaningless phrase. Sounds good, but is meaningless with out qualifying and/or quantifying it. #Is what the ARRL finds acceptable, or not substantial, acceptable for you?
I don't know about you, but I'd like to hear and see and read some data before I'd support a petition submitted by an organization that is supposed to represent me. I for one think that the ARRL is seriously lackin in the information provision department. Don't forget, they've been begging you for money on this and you responded in very good numbers and donated your hard earned dollars and they are asking you for even more. You are entitled to hear more about this than just an announcement about a system that has been installed and the filing of a petition.
I'm not saying that what the ARRL is saying isn't true, I'd just like to see some proof. Just like proof was gathered on the interference in the first place, one can deliver proof of non-substantial interference they speak of.
On a side note. Assuming it's all true and no interference will occur in the AR portions of the MF/HF/VHF spectrum, how much will that increase the market value of these AR portions?
73,
--Alex KR1ST
http://www.kr1st.com
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Oct. 21 2005,07:31)]I think Chip is accurate ... this is somewhat of a flip-flop approach. #I could agree about letting the companies duke it out in the marketplace if and when the FCC begins real enforcement of Part 15 regulations as they apply to BPL systems. #The impression is such that no enforcement has been displayed at any of the trial locations.
The free market system is very capable of sorting this out, but only if the ground rules which have been established are adhered to. #If the FCC is going to ignore radiation limits established for this type of Part 15 device (system), then the playing field is anything but level, and amateurs should be in a very large group of organizations that should and will fight these deployments tooth and nail.
Chip, you have pointed out that the ARRL should allow this technology to go forward based on it's own merits. #How about we hold the FCC to the same standards? #By ignoring interference issues, they bias the outcome in favor of the BPL providers. #Granted, it appears that fixed station complaints will carry far more weight than these mobile reports, and I am as puzzled as anyone as to the lack of interference complaints filed by fixed amateur radio stations.
My $.02 worth.
73,
Luke
Sure Luke;
I agree--if there are bona fide violations, then enforce the rules.
73,
Chip N1IR
The Motorola system uses what they call a "wireless canopy" which is essential a base station transmitting the data via wireless to the equipment on the pole.
The ARRL has stated and as far as I can tell has always stated that it is not anti-bpl. It's anti interference, which it should be.
I think it is wise strategically to endorse any bpl system that does not cause havoc in the amateur bands because it takes the argument away that the league and hams are anti BPL.
In the case of Manassas (sp?) VA where widespread interference is being reported. It would be much easier to fight a battle to get the city to switch to a better bpl solution than it would be to force them to close down the system altogether. It would allow the city to save face, and to continue with their BPL system.
Unfortunately, even though it is black and white and as plain as day to us, the systems that pollute should be immediately shut down. The FCC has yet to be convinced of that.
So, supporting this amateur friendly bpl system will allow the League and hams in general to seem less radical and not anti-bpl and will give those operating a BPL system an alternative to shutting the entire system down.
I don't understand why the FCC is asleep on the issue of BPL interference. Have the higher ups been advised that any interference on their part to BPL will result in a visit to the unemployment line or at least transferred out of where they would have any influence over BPL?
Something is definately wrong.
Therefore, in my opinion it is fairly obvious that the playing field is far from being fair and level and is stacked heavily in favor of the BPL industry.
In that case, the best that may be hoped for is a compromise, get the companies to use the Motorola system that does not bother our bands although I agree fully with the person who stated that any RF garbage in any spectrum is unacceptable. He's right, it is.
73
Scott
KT1B
I have to believe that any scheme to send data over power lines is doomed by the nature of power lines. We are lucky here in New Mexico if they get power over the damn lines, far less a decent digital signal.
I sure would not want to invest in a company that thinks any for of BPL is going to work. Power lines (duh) were not made for what amounts to RF
Quote[/b] (KT1B @ Oct. 21 2005,09:13)]The ARRL has stated and as far as I can tell has always stated that it is not anti-bpl. It's anti interference, which it should be....
73
Scott
KT1B
No. Please see earlier post. What was said by #The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) aka National Asssociation for Amateur Radio (NAAR), less than a year ago, regarding Broadband over Power Lines (BPL):
" The League said the lingering ... BPL situation underscores
the "fundamental incompatibility" between Amateur Radio HF operation and
"unlicensed (and apparently unregulated) operation of BPL systems."
Quote from January 2005.
It left no room at that time for any doubt about it's stance on BPL--with no 'outs', no maybe's....
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (KD5PSH @ Oct. 21 2005,09:25)]I sure would not want to invest in a company that thinks any for of BPL is going to work. Power lines (duh) were not made for what amounts to RF
An interesting point of view. To calibrate your opinion--as a seasoned investor--could you kindly provide some insight into what firms, or even sectors, you are presently invested in?
73,
Chip N1IR
wa3vjb
10-21-2005, 05:26 PM
Gary -- to your point --
As for SWL's and MARS problems, that's for SWL clubs and DOD to worry about as it's not in the League's charter to worry about other services allocations
A strict interpretation of this approach could be harmful rather than helpful to ham radio.
The League's charter has never constrained the people in Newington when they see fit to weigh in on regulatory or political matters with tangental links to Amateur radio. For example, in the FCC 03-108, the same attorney filed Comments for two of his clients, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, and the ARRL.
The proceeding had to do with "Cognitive Radio Technologies." As with BPL, here was a proposal that didn't specifically mention ham radio, but could affect what we do within our spectrum.
Conversely, by limiting itself to "just" ham radio matters, the ARRL in the BPL matter created an opportunity for detractors from the utility industry to paint the League and "ham radio" as obstructionist when it came to industry promotion of the technology.
Had the Newington people broadened their approach, especially by applying the fine research done by Ed Hare, the League's interference expert, they may have won allies and associations with other HF users that face the same potential problem as radio hobbyists.
As it was, it was fairly easy for the industry and certain FCC folks to isolate and portray those opposed as oddball ham radio complainers and undercut the otherwise valid points made.
--Paul/VJB
K0RGR
10-21-2005, 05:38 PM
I'm a bit concerned about the position ARRL is taking.
First of all, one of the systems that they're endorsing as 'ham friendly' has been found to be considerably less than that in independent testing conducted in Europe and elsewhere. The Homeplug solution may be less a problem than the horrendous garbage implemented in Manassas and tested here in Rochester (sorry Chip - I've seen and heard that garbage with my own gear!). But it will still be the bane of weak signal operators. According to a study by the Austrian government, it can't meet European requirements by over 10 dB.
I'm afraid that the FCC will ignore this proposal, and the real bad guys will go forth with their cheap and dirty junk, while using the ARRL's proposal to discredit any claims of interference.
As for the 'freemarket' straightening out this mess - dream on! Cheap and dirty wins the race, absent regulation. Without meaningful regulation, these guys would be pumping megawatts of RF down the powerlines today. The incidental radiation would be strong enough to give you a suntan.
But, if the ARRL endorsement of the three different methods gets most locatlities to avoid putting HF signals on the medium voltage lines, using VHF, microwaves, or over-the-air microwave as in the systems they've endorsed, that's a big improvement over the systems they hope to outlaw. With the Motorola system, there is also an actual possibility of providing service to rural customers, unlike the other systems.
Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Oct. 21 2005,10:38)]I'm a bit concerned about the position ARRL is taking.
First of all, one of the systems that they're endorsing as 'ham friendly' has been found to be considerably less than that in independent testing conducted in Europe and elsewhere. The Homeplug solution may be less a problem than the horrendous garbage implemented in Manassas and tested here in Rochester (sorry Chip - I've seen and heard that garbage with my own gear!). But it will still be the bane of weak signal operators. According to a study by the Austrian government, it can't meet European requirements by over 10 dB.
I'm afraid that the FCC will ignore this proposal, and the real bad guys will go forth with their cheap and dirty junk, while using the ARRL's proposal to discredit any claims of interference. #
As for the 'freemarket' straightening out this mess - dream on! #Cheap and dirty wins the race, absent regulation. #Without meaningful regulation, these guys would be pumping megawatts of RF down the powerlines today. The incidental radiation would be strong enough to give you a suntan.
But, if the ARRL endorsement of the three different methods gets most locatlities to avoid putting HF signals on the medium voltage lines, using VHF, microwaves, or over-the-air microwave as in the systems they've endorsed, that's a big improvement over the systems they hope to outlaw. With the Motorola system, there is also an actual possibility of providing service to rural customers, unlike the other systems.
The only way the FCC will ever be convinced of the 'alleged' BPL menace, is to present facts. No misinformation; no lies; no extrapolations; no hype; no propaganda tactics.
The next time you state as fact that BPL will give you a suntan from it's radiation, let me know: if verified I will buy you a case of SPF 40 sun block--and lobby very hard to get BPL shut down.
73,
Chip N1IR
n0xmz
10-21-2005, 07:50 PM
Why is it that us hams seem to be the ONLY ONES complaining about BPL? When it comes to the shortwave broadcasters & ham radio equipment manufacturers, their silence is DEAFENING. My simple question is "why?"
I would think that the shortwave broadcasters would care. I would think that Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, Alinco, MFJ, Elecraft, etc. would care. How about the antenna manufacturers? I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.
What gives? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Quote[/b] (n0xmz @ Oct. 21 2005,12:50)]Why is it that us hams seem to be the ONLY ONES complaining about BPL? When it comes to the shortwave broadcasters & ham radio equipment manufacturers, their silence is DEAFENING. My simple question is "why?"
I would think that the shortwave broadcasters would care. I would think that Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, Alinco, MFJ, Elecraft, etc. would care. How about the antenna manufacturers? I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.
What gives? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
It would be imprudent to imply that ALL hams are against BPL.
In fact, some of us are only concerned about the legal use of Part 15, and it's enforcement. In that sense, BPL is no less important than washing machines or plasma TV's, or touch lamps...
It is certainly NOT any more important than any other source of harmful interference, if and when it is radiating harmful interference.
Now some general comments:
Basically, BPL is none of our business, for the simple reason that it is Part 15; not Part 97.
If you have a bona fide case of harmful interference, then report it to the FCC. Don't make a case for causing the next world war just because BPL merely EXISTS...
73,
Chip N1IR
Thank you Chip, I stand corrected.
73
Scott
Haverhill, MA
Quote[/b] (KT1B @ Oct. 21 2005,15:53)]Thank you Chip, I stand corrected.
73
Scott
Haverhill, MA
Hi Scott,
If the ARRL had taken the tact of: 'Hmmmm...maybe we were wrong; maybe we should publicly recant our previous view', it would have gone a LONG way, IMO, to getting hams taken seriously, moving forward, in the BPL issue. As it stands, we have been effectively written off, as a group, IMO. And google/Morgan dumpz $200M into BPL... That buys a LOT of 'due diligence', BTW.
I am sure the honest and cogent reporting of bona fide harmful interference DOES get taken seriously, and will continue to be a defining issue as BPL grows. The burden is on the BPL provider, not the ham. Why don't some of us get this?:-)
73,
Chip N1IR
If they "let them duke it out in the marketplace" the only ones getting beat up will be us and other spectrum users.
Quote[/b] ]Hi Scott,
If the ARRL had taken the tact of: 'Hmmmm...maybe we were wrong; maybe we should publicly recant our previous view', it would have gone a LONG way, IMO, to getting hams taken seriously, moving forward, in the BPL issue. As it stands, we have been effectively written off, as a group, IMO. And google/Morgan dumpz $200M into BPL... That buys a LOT of 'due diligence', BTW.
I am sure the honest and cogent reporting of bona fide harmful interference DOES get taken seriously, and will continue to be a defining issue as BPL grows. The burden is on the BPL provider, not the ham. Why don't some of us get this?:-)
73,
Chip N1IR
The reports that I have read, the video's that the League put on it's web site and the testimony of hams in bpl areas indicates that the interference is real and severe.
Therefore I would have a hard time arguing with anyone down at Newington that their predictions of severe interference were wrong.
I have had a lot of fun working qrp stations on cw and psk31 who were running only a few watts or less into wire antennas so I am aware of what low power into a simple antenna can do.
I have seen that tuning into a dummy load with thin or not very good coaxial cable connecting it to the radio results in a signal that can be heard for miles.
I have worked repeaters 30 miles away with a handheld and rubber duck antenna. Granted they were very high repeaters.
I have also sat in front of the radio working weak signals with a pair of "cans" trying to pull the signal out of the noise.
Three things are readily apparent.....
1. Hf is very susceptable to interference, especially when you're working a weak station where the s/n ratio is in the single digits. That means an equally weak signal can cause harmful interference.
2. You put a signal, even a very weak signal into a wire and it will radiate surprising distances. We generally use very sensitive receivers no-adays.
3. For those of us who work dx and other weak signal work, it doesn't take much of a signal to cause us harmful interference.
By harmful interference I mean putting a stop to communications or making them very difficult.
So, again, I can't make a phone call to Newington and tell them they were wrong. They're correct, BPL is bad news to HF users, in particular those that work with weak signals.
Regarding the honest and bonafide reporting of interference...
I could not make a case that it has even been listened to at the fcc, let alone acted on.
The FCC appears to be totally deaf to reports of complaints, the BPL providers appear to know this, and they too are for the most part deaf or unable to correct the problems.
The only positive note that I can see is that in many news articles, radio interference is at least mentioned.
I use Google to send me news articles as they appear to my mailbox and a surprising number cite radio interference. The ones that don't, of course, are press releases from the BPL equip manufacturers.
The burden is supposed to be on the BPL provider but I haven't seen any evidence of this in the real world.
When I see a report of an interference problem corrected and / or a system shut down for causing harmful interference then maybe I'll believe that the burden is really on the BPL provider, right now the fcc seems to have taken on the role of shielding the BPL systems from interference complaints.
Quote[/b] (KT1B @ Oct. 21 2005,22:07)]Quote[/b] ]Hi Scott,
If the ARRL had taken the tact of: 'Hmmmm...maybe we were wrong; maybe we should #publicly recant our previous view', it would have gone a LONG way, IMO, to getting hams taken seriously, moving forward, in the BPL issue. As it stands, we have been effectively written off, as a group, IMO. And google/Morgan dumpz $200M into BPL... That buys a LOT of 'due diligence', BTW.
I am sure the honest and cogent reporting of bona fide harmful interference DOES get taken seriously, and will continue to be a defining issue as BPL grows. The burden is on the BPL provider, not the ham. Why don't some of us get this?:-)
73,
Chip N1IR
The reports that I have read, the video's that the League put on it's web site and the testimony of hams in bpl areas indicates that the interference is real and severe.
Therefore I would have a hard time arguing with anyone down at Newington that their predictions of severe interference were wrong.
I have had a lot of fun working qrp stations on cw and psk31 who were running only a few watts or less into wire antennas so I am aware of what low power into a simple antenna can do.
I have seen that tuning into a dummy load with thin or not very good coaxial cable connecting it to the radio results in a signal that can be heard for miles.
I have worked repeaters 30 miles away with a handheld and rubber duck antenna. Granted they were very high repeaters.
I have also sat in front of the radio working weak signals with a pair of "cans" trying to pull the signal out of the noise.
Three things are readily apparent.....
1. Hf is very susceptable to interference, especially when you're working a weak station where the s/n ratio is in the single digits. That means an equally weak signal can cause harmful interference.
2. You put a signal, even a very weak signal into a wire and it will radiate surprising distances. We generally use very sensitive receivers no-adays.
3. For those of us who work dx and other weak signal work, it doesn't take much of a signal to cause us harmful interference.
By harmful interference I mean putting a stop to communications or making them very difficult.
So, again, I can't make a phone call to Newington and tell them they were wrong. They're correct, BPL is bad news to HF users, in particular those that work with weak signals.
Regarding the honest and bonafide reporting of interference...
I could not make a case that it has even been listened to at the fcc, let alone acted on.
The FCC appears to be totally deaf to reports of complaints, the BPL providers appear to know this, and they too are for the most part deaf or unable to correct the problems.
The only positive note that I can see is that in many news articles, radio interference is at least mentioned.
I use Google to send me news articles as they appear to my mailbox and a surprising number cite radio interference. The ones that don't, of course, are press releases from the BPL equip manufacturers.
The burden is supposed to be on the BPL provider but I haven't seen any evidence of this in the real world.
When I see a report of an interference problem corrected and / or a system shut down for causing harmful interference then maybe I'll believe that the burden is really on the BPL provider, right now the fcc seems to have taken on the role of shielding the BPL systems from interference complaints.
Some general comments in response--
I am certain that there have been cases of harmful interference from BPL to hams. I am certain that these bona fide cases (almost all mobile) can be counted on one, possibly two hands; I am certain the FCC is more than aware of them and has taken prudent action to make the violators aware of the downside.
Now: are you aware that, in the last year, the number of RFI cases from electric fences and washing machines has dwarfed bona fide BPL complaints? Are you aware that a sensitivity analysis reveals that, in the worst case scenario, many dozens--not hundreds of thousands--of hams could possibly experience harmful interference from unlicensed BPL?
Are you aware that the RF #from BPL in a typical case uses MICROwatts?
Are you aware that the system temperature of an HF receiver is dominated by sky noise, not receiver noise--and this has essentially been true for 35 years in ham circles (ham radio receivers have been sensitive for decades)?
Are you aware that the #BPL issue has been used by the ARRL/NAAR to garner dollars under a 'Spectrum Defense Fund' ('It's more than just BPL!') . Obviously it was focusd on BPL if you have to 'defend' it as being something more than that...
Are you aware that The ARRL/NAAR has the position to be a wonderful conduit to assist hams that experience RFI and interface with the FCC in that regard? So why be more than that?
Now: how did we, as a community--get to this weird position of being seen as #malcontents and hyperbolic complainers? How did a bunch of people who are friendly and cordial on the air, become seen as this special interest group dipped in the #propaganda tactics of a cult? How did a minor annoyance in the context of #700,000 licensees become a 'death of ham radio' and the call to make the ham bands the equivalent of a national park?
That's what the BPL has done to ham radio in the last 24 months. Incredible.
We can do better than this...
73,
Chip N1IR
sQuote[/b] (ai4cb @ Oct. 22 2005,05:52)]So if I have this straight - the ARRL is not opposed to Broadband over Powerlines - provided that it does not use power lines and is not really broad-band? # Sounds OK to me. So what's the problem? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hi Ron--
There isn't any problem:-) IMO it's a fundraiser piece for the ARRL/NAAR. The latest in the Spectrum Defense Fund says: 'Katrina proved it! 9/11 proved it! Wildfires proved it!' The implication is that we have to defend ALL OUR HAM BANDS against all comers (including BPL) to do our job as a public service. Ergo, BPL threatens our ability to be a public service. Got that;-)? If so, explain it to me.
Yet, in fact, all these new #examples prove exactly what a teensy tiny sliver of our present allocation we really need to do this. The bulk of Katrina traffic was on 144 and 430 MHz bands, with some minor 20,40, and 75M activity at specific frequencies--not the whole bands. Virtually no CW was used in the ecomms and HNW comms. That means the huge allocations of HF spectrum to CW went virtually unused in key emergency use of ham radio. Ooodles and ooooodles of MHz of ham allocation had no impact on our ability to help in these examples. Why, how many of these wonderful volunteers--who truly did a great job--are even aware we have a 200 MHZ(!) allocation at 3300 MHZ, let alone use it in emergencies?
In my 50 years, I have never, personally, seen an organization --the ARRL/NAAR--so out of touch with reality. That's my opinion--yours #(a general 'you') may differ. That's OK.
It is axiomatic that ham radio is worth defending. How the ARRL/NAAR arrived at this , IMO, weird stance on defending it is bizarre.
Nice to CU Ron. We'll keep these guys honest:-)
73,
Chip N1IR
Gee Chip! I will be sure to list my portfolio here for you to see. (Is that cow chip?)
In the meantime, I don't understand your statement that BPL is not our business. I have been around BPL and it radiates and interferes something awful. I have also spoken with a power company engineer that said the effectiveness "sucks", which I seems to be the latest generations expression of denegration.
w4fwl
10-22-2005, 03:56 PM
Chip is still "chip" after all of these months ... still hung up on Part 15 emissions. '... what Paul Simon said. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ivan Cook, K4SRB
Tallahassee, Florida
Quote[/b] (KD5PSH @ Oct. 22 2005,08:16)]Gee Chip! I will be sure to list my portfolio here for you to see. (Is that cow chip?)
In the meantime, I don't understand your statement that BPL is not our business. I have been around BPL and it radiates and interferes something awful. I have also spoken with a power company engineer that said the effectiveness "sucks", which I seems to be the latest generations expression of denegration.
Ahhhhh!
When the message is clear, cogent and compelling, then try to shoot the messenger. Insult him; try to get him riled so he says something that's foolish and discrediting.
Nice try...
See what I said about tactics?
OM--if BPL is as bad as you say, then just let it die. Trying to scare off investors is not part of the Part 97 I learned.
Yes; it IS none of our business:-) We are amateurs; we have no business. Our only and legitimate recourse is to bring violations of Part 15, when it DOES affect us, to the FCC. That's it. Case closed. None of this 'special interest' nonsense.
And, BTW, the very next day after your 'wouldn't invest in BPL' comment, Google, the largest investor in BPL, had it's stock hit a record jump.
So, what sort of impact do you think a few vociferous hams have had in the last year?
Where do you see this going--other than the perceived value of ham radio eroding even further?
I'd honestly like to know.
And, if BPL DOES go further, and has minimal effect on hams, then why should anyone listen to us in the future?
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 22 2005,09:53)]Yes; it IS none of our business:-) We are amateurs; we have no business. Chip N1IR
Correct only under the most severe and limiting interpretation of the word "business". (Webster has more definitions than the one being used....)
So I will rephrase for all of us. It is definitely our CONCERN and our interest if (actually "when" is more accurate) BPL destroys the usefulness of our bands, as it has been shown to do beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 22 2005,11:45)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 22 2005,09:53)]Yes; it IS none of our business:-) We are amateurs; we have no business. Chip N1IR
Correct only under the most severe and limiting interpretation of the word "business". #(Webster has more definitions than the one being used....)
So I will rephrase for all of us. #It is definitely our CONCERN and our interest if (actually "when" is more accurate) BPL destroys the usefulness of our bands, as it has been shown to do beyond a reasonable doubt.
If that was actually happening, I would strongly support you in this regard--but its not.
It hasn't.
If this happens in the future, I will strongly support you in this regard--but it won't.
73,
Chip N1IR
kb2vxa
10-22-2005, 07:24 PM
Hi guys,
Ordinarily I wouldn't comment further on BPL beyond my initial statements but this sure caught my eye.
"The FCC should not BACK Motorola--or anyone else."
The FCC already HAS by mandating the Motorola AM stereo modulation which killed the (IMO) superior Kahn full carrier DSB system which has a distinct advantage, exalted sideband which may be used to protect an adjacent frequency. Who says the government doesn't take sides in the so called "free" enterprise system? OK, you said "SHOULD not" but just WHEN does the government DO not what it should not? LOL!
It sure DOES and WILL, political lobby (read big money) is Superman in his never ending battle for.........the American way!
"Johnny's in the basement mixin' up the medicine, I'm on the pavement thinkin' 'bout the government. Look out kid, no matter what you did, just that you did and you're doin' it again."
Dylan, Subterranian Homesick Blues.
Hoover had me on his list in the 60s and still there is his ghost in the machine, so here we go again.
"Oh mama, could this be the end? To be stuck inside a mobile with a busted mic again."
(Sorry Bob.)
Well, I've made my points. Either show them to be false or continue with hyperbole and misinformation. Hey--we're AMATEURS!
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 21 2005,05:50)]Quote[/b] (KT1B @ Oct. 21 2005,09:13)]The ARRL has stated and as far as I can tell has always stated that it is not anti-bpl. It's anti interference, which it should be....
73
Scott
KT1B
No. Please see earlier post. What was said by #The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) aka National Asssociation for Amateur Radio (NAAR), less than a year ago, regarding Broadband over Power Lines (BPL):
" The League said the lingering ... BPL situation underscores
the "fundamental incompatibility" between Amateur Radio HF operation and
"unlicensed (and apparently unregulated) operation of BPL systems."
Quote from January 2005.
It left no room at that time for any doubt about it's stance on BPL--with no 'outs', no maybe's....
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip,
The president of ARRL has stated many times (publicly), that the ARRL is not against BPL, they are against the interference it causes. That little snippet you posted is misleading.
This is not back tracking or a switch of tactics. It is simply an attempt to publicize the Motorola advantage to the public and the FCC which has its head in the sand.
K2WH
Quoted NI1R:
"So, what sort of impact do you think a few vociferous hams have had in the last year?"
I would imagine that continuous number of failing BPL test sites that have shut down and will not be returning, was simply because of economics and not because just a "Few" disgruntled amateurs voiced opposition? I guess that had nothing to do with it.
K2WH
Nice to see a BPL thread once again. #Hello, again Chip, and Ron. #Interesting observation that Chip, you haven't posted to QRZ in about 2 months. #Lo and behold, a BPL thread shows up and here you are. #Welcome back (Kotter).
Thanks for the accurate quotation of the ARRL former position on the technology. #I, too, am perplexed by the selective acceptance and unsubstantiated claims of the League concerning Current Technologies Access BPL and Ma /\/\'s entry into the in-house distribution arena.
While I have a great deal of respect for the work Ed Hare has done depicting the potential damage to HF communications; I am totally baffled that neither he nor his management have presented one thread of technical data to defend this latest turn of cheek by the League.
Strange behavior, indeed. #As was the League's recent 'hoof in mouth' affliction while presenting prepared testimony before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
So, Chip, I now am perhaps in closest agreement yet with your position. #Simply because, clearly, the ARRL has demonstrated its appetite for hype, sans technical data to back it up. #Selective hype, I might add.
As a member of ARRL, exactly two weeks ago, I asked Dave Sumner for an explanation why their recent testimony before Congress contained not a hint of any obstacles to the future ability of amateur radio to provide a similar degree of assistance that it did in Katrina's aftermath. #No response, as of today.
So, to those who wish to ask the League about the new BPL Petition, go ahead. #I suspect the lights are on in Newington, but nobody's home.......
73,
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 22 2005,13:21)]Quoted NI1R:
"So, what sort of impact do you think a few vociferous hams have had in the last year?"
I would imagine that continuous number of failing BPL test sites that have shut down and will not be returning, was simply because of economics and not because just a "Few" disgruntled amateurs voiced opposition? #I guess that had nothing to do with it.
K2WH
Nope.
At least not in a way that anyone would, presumably, be allowed to present as evidentiary. Too many confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, I would speculate;-)
Ergo, it's economics. Or show us otherwise.
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Oct. 22 2005,13:15)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 21 2005,05:50)]Quote[/b] (KT1B @ Oct. 21 2005,09:13)]The ARRL has stated and as far as I can tell has always stated that it is not anti-bpl. It's anti interference, which it should be....
73
Scott
KT1B
No. Please see earlier post. What was said by #The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) aka National Asssociation for Amateur Radio (NAAR), less than a year ago, regarding Broadband over Power Lines (BPL):
" The League said the lingering ... BPL situation underscores
the "fundamental incompatibility" between Amateur Radio HF operation and
"unlicensed (and apparently unregulated) operation of BPL systems."
Quote from January 2005.
It left no room at that time for any doubt about it's stance on BPL--with no 'outs', no maybe's....
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip,
The president of ARRL #has stated many times (publicly), that the ARRL is not against BPL, they are against the interference it causes. #That little snippet you posted is misleading.
This is not back tracking or a switch of tactics. #It is simply an attempt to publicize the Motorola advantage to the public and the FCC which has its head in the sand.
K2WH
Right!! It's worse than misleading--it's hypocritical!
Of course -- I -- didn't say it: it is straight from the ARRL Letter, reprinted on QRZ.COM Fred, AA7BQ, in January, 2005;-)
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 22 2005,13:29)]Nice to see a BPL thread once again. #Hello, again Chip, and Ron. #Interesting observation that Chip, you haven't posted to QRZ in about 2 months. #Lo and behold, a BPL thread shows up and here you are. #Welcome back (Kotter).
Thanks for the accurate quotation of the ARRL former position on the technology. #I, too, am perplexed by the selective acceptance and unsubstantiated claims of the League concerning Current Technologies Access BPL and Ma /\/\'s entry into the in-house distribution arena.
While I have a great deal of respect for the work Ed Hare has done depicting the potential damage to HF communications; I am totally baffled that neither he nor his management have presented one thread of technical data to defend this latest turn of cheek by the League.
Strange behavior, indeed. #As was the League's recent 'hoof in mouth' affliction while presenting prepared testimony before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
So, Chip, I now am perhaps in closest agreement yet with your position. #Simply because, clearly, the ARRL has demonstrated its appetite for hype, sans technical data to back it up. #Selective hype, I might add.
As a member of ARRL, exactly two weeks ago, I asked Dave Sumner for an explanation why their recent testimony before Congress contained not a hint of any obstacles to the future ability of amateur radio to provide a similar degree of assistance that it did in Katrina's aftermath. #No response, as of today.
So, to those who wish to ask the League about the new BPL Petition, go ahead. #I suspect the lights are on in Newington, but nobody's home.......
73,
Lee
W6EM
No; I was posting the middle of last month. The 'blame game' stuff on the Katrina discussions was getting too hateful for my tastes. And yours too, I suspect:-)
I think the ARRL does a great job on RFI stuff, and a lousy job in positioning with the FCC. First-class-poor. My opinion.
I am content to wait until there is a re-org there; I speculate within the next year. Just my opinion, yours is welcome to differ. I have my renewal/re-join all set to go here, just sitting in the out bin. Stamp and all!
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 21 2005,17:10)]I think the ARRL does #a great job on RFI stuff, and a lousy job in positioning with the FCC. First-class-poor. My opinion.
I am content to wait until there is a re-org there; I speculate within the next year. Just my opinion, yours is welcome to differ. I have my renewal/re-join all set to go here, just sitting in the out bin. Stamp and all!
73,
Chip N1IR
True, IMO. #Add to that a lousier job positioning with Congress as well. #Missed strategic opportunities are incredibly costly.
I certainly hope that your prediction is accurate. #The cliquishness needs to go. #Big time. #ARRL appears to follow the money, irrespective of its source, and not the majority of its membership.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Folks,
Let's not abandon the coalition here.
I mean, if we want broadcasters, SWLs et al to remain on 'our side', let us also remain on theirs.
NO BPL on ANY HF segment!
Fiber all the way!
72.
Bill, N4QA
The people--united--will n-e-v-e-r be excreted!
Quote[/b] (n4qa @ Oct. 21 2005,19:14)]Folks,
Let's not abandon the coalition here.
I mean, if we want broadcasters, SWLs et al to remain on 'our side', let us also remain on theirs.
NO BPL on ANY HF segment!
Fiber all the way!
72.
Bill, N4QA
Bill: #I'm with you, buddy. #My brother in law just signed up for Verizon's fiber to the curb service in Tampa and loves it. #Extremely fast, and will have TV shortly.
Of course, y-a-w-n, I do own a little stock in Corning Glass Works.
:-) #Chip should take note........
DSL's getting VERY affordable. #Under $30 in some markets.
A suburban home we are purchasing that happens to be 7 miles from town on a country road has DSL. #Even though no cable TV. #And, almost hilariously, two executives from the Southern Company will be neighbors and they both have DSL!!!
So much for BPL.
73,
Lee
W6EM
WD8OQX
10-23-2005, 02:19 AM
Quote[/b] (n4qa @ Oct. 21 2005,17:14)]Folks,
Let's not abandon the coalition here.
I mean, if we want broadcasters, SWLs et al to remain on 'our side', let us also remain on theirs.
NO BPL on ANY HF segment!
Fiber all the way!
72.
Bill, N4QA
Fiber all the way!
I said that from the very beginning - & I still think it is the only way that makes any sense all the way around. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 22 2005,12:03)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 22 2005,11:45)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 22 2005,09:53)]Yes; it IS none of our business:-) We are amateurs; we have no business. Chip N1IR
Correct only under the most severe and limiting interpretation of the word "business". #(Webster has more definitions than the one being used....)
So I will rephrase for all of us. #It is definitely our CONCERN and our interest if (actually "when" is more accurate) BPL destroys the usefulness of our bands, as it has been shown to do beyond a reasonable doubt.
If that was actually happening, I would strongly support you in this regard--but its not.
It hasn't.
If this happens in the future, I will strongly support you in this regard--but it won't.
73,
Chip N1IR
It has, it is, (Mannassas is not just a WBTS site), and it will. Unless stopped. Somehow.
Or is it: 'Cconfused people united can n-e-v-e-r be repeated'?
I don't remember this too well. It was one of those goofy chants I used to hear at Brandeis, usually from the same goofs who told me not to go to my physics classes because physicists make hydrogen bombs...
73,
Chip N1IR
The medium Motorola uses to bypass the powerlines is their Canopy System which is essentially WiFi, then to the Homeplug devices to get in into the house. It bypasses the pole mounted transformers. So the BPL is on the LV (low voltage) lines from the transformer to the house. So if you have the Canopy System in the area, why not use it all the way? Not sure. Maybe it is a way to extend the range of the canopy system. The system was developed by a ham at Motorola so it has our best interests at heart. But motorola, as ham friendly as they may be is still a business so they have to make money too. I think it's a good solution for a system (BPL) that will eventually die anyway as other systems are developed.
Quote[/b] (K9COE @ Oct. 23 2005,06:22)]The medium Motorola uses to bypass the powerlines is their Canopy System which is essentially WiFi, then to the Homeplug devices to get in into the house. It bypasses the pole mounted transformers. So the BPL is on the LV (low voltage) lines from the transformer to the house. So if you have the Canopy System in the area, why not use it all the way? Not sure. Maybe it is a way to extend the range of the canopy system. #The system was developed by a ham at Motorola so it has our best interests at heart. But motorola, as ham friendly as they may be is still a business so they have to make money too. I think it's a good solution for a system (BPL) that will eventually die anyway as other systems are developed.
It is a good system, and may be a viable solution.
But it should be the marketplace that decides-- under the guidelines of Part 15--not some ARRL/NAAR dealey on swapping petitions and mandating a specific company's approach before the FCC.
Who's to say other systems won't prove even better and cheaper?
That's what competition is about and what makes America great. We all win--even HAMS!
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] ]Paul: Paul: The proceeding had to do with "Cognitive Radio Technologies." As with BPL, here was a proposal that didn't specifically mention ham radio, but could affect what we do within our spectrum...
Good catch, Paul. And look at this press release by IEEE on Cognative Radio (http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_80222.html) for a real eye-opener. For the A.D.D. bunch, the IEEE leader for this effort is NCI Executive Director Carl Stevenson (http://www.nocode.org/board.html). With the removal of telegraphy testing and the exodus to HF, what frequencies will receive less use and be ripe for stealing? Mr. Stevenson has a history (http://ieee802.org/18/Meeting_documents/2002_May/18-02-005r1f-IEEE_802_Cmts_02-98.pdf) of fighting to use Amateur Radio for commercial interests that goes back several years. You have to admit the idea is brilliant to use hundreds of thousands of NCTs and their hatred of CW to ultimately get more spectrum from Amateur Radio for these commercial projects if that is indeed what happened.
Quote[/b] ]Skip: The latest in the Spectrum Defense Fund says: 'Katrina proved it! 9/11 proved it! Wildfires proved it!' The implication is that we have to defend ALL OUR HAM BANDS against all comers (including BPL) to do our job as a public service. Ergo, BPL threatens our ability to be a public service.
Even more interesting is that when anyone mentions that the ARRL should poll members on their opinions regularly to better represent their views, the first thing you hear is about the cost of doing this. Yet, I have received no less than 3 fund raising letters this year from them. And what would the cost have been to include an opinion post card (responder pays postage) in one of the mailings? The bottom line is the ARRL does not want to know what members want. Then the bigshots would have to do the right thing. Perhaps an audit of all these "funds" would be in order? Maybe a line by line review of expenses...
P.S. Edit: I fixed the "has a history" link to the IEEE comments above...
Quote[/b] (K9COE @ Oct. 22 2005,09:22)]The medium Motorola uses to bypass the powerlines is their Canopy System which is essentially WiFi, then to the Homeplug devices to get in into the house. It bypasses the pole mounted transformers. So the BPL is on the LV (low voltage) lines from the transformer to the house. So if you have the Canopy System in the area, why not use it all the way? Not sure. Maybe it is a way to extend the range of the canopy system. #The system was developed by a ham at Motorola so it has our best interests at heart. But motorola, as ham friendly as they may be is still a business so they have to make money too. I think it's a good solution for a system (BPL) that will eventually die anyway as other systems are developed.
OK. #If /\/\ uses "Home Plug's" approach, then what parts of the spectrum are being polluted, if not the amateur bands? #The ARRL should have provided that information. #Also, what means will be employed so that not every other home attached to the same power distribution transformer secondary will not receive the same signals? #An inline trap of some sort on the service drops of subscribers? #Those won't be cheap. #Especially since they'll have to be capable of 100A, 200A and 400A standard service entrance ratings.
Also, Current Technology's approach supposedly uses spectrum above 30MHz for ABPL. #Will it trash 6M? #What about the public safety band from 30-50MHz? #And, broadcast TV channels 2, 3 and 4? #Surely, the ARRL has some data on what frequencies will be affected, if not those below 30MHz.
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] ]DSL's getting VERY affordable. Under $30 in some markets.
73,
Lee
W6EM
UP here in New England Verizon has an entry level package for $14.95 per month. 768k/128k. Excellent value for the money. DSL at dialup prices.
I prefer the 6mbits that Comcast is currently delivering. Understand it's going to 8mbits soon. We shall see. It's fast.
73
Scott
Haverhill, MA
Chip N1IR[/quote]
Quote[/b] ]It is a good system, and may be a viable solution.
But it should be the marketplace that decides-- under the guidelines of Part 15--not some ARRL/NAAR dealey on swapping petitions and mandating a specific company's approach before the FCC.
Who's to say other systems won't prove even better and cheaper?
The ARRL believes and has demonstrated in videos that there is a lot of interference from systems that put RF on the medium voltage power lines. I listened to ARRL audio news and Newline this weekend and the ARRL was quoted as recommending at least three systems.
I think they are correct to recommend against practices that are likely to cause widespread interference.
Basically they are trying to insure some semblance of "good engineering practice."
Of course putting RF on lines that are not able to properly contain the RF is not "good engineering practice" but at least they're trying for the best possible outcome.
Questions for Chip....
I'm surprised at the amount of pro-bpl comments I have seen.
I was wondering if Chip or anyone else works for or has an interest in any of the BPL equipment manufacturers?
I just did a search find out roughly how much transmitter power the bpl systems put into the MV power lines and haven't found an answer yet. I was wondering if Chip or anyone else had a link to such information?
Chip, if I am to understand you correctly, your position is that the BPL threat is vastly over-rated, it is no different than any other point source radiator and should be treated as such. I am guessing that since you were comparing it to other part 15 devices, you consider BPL to be a point-source, rather than a line-source radiator? Is that a fair statement of your point of view?
Have you been to any of the areas served by access BPL that uses the MV power lines? If so, what were your observations? I have not.
Quote[/b] ]In fact, some of us are only concerned about the legal use of Part 15, and it's enforcement. In that sense, BPL is no less important than washing machines or plasma TV's, or touch lamps...
It is certainly NOT any more important than any other source of harmful interference, if and when it is radiating harmful interference.
Now some general comments:
Basically, BPL is none of our business, for the simple reason that it is Part 15; not Part 97.
If you have a bona fide case of harmful interference, then report it to the FCC. Don't make a case for causing the next world war just because BPL merely EXISTS...
Couple of issues here, anything that radiates or has the potential to radiate in the ham bands is very much our business. Part 15 does not give the device the right to radiate a certain power level regardless of whether or not it causes interference or not. Part 15 allows a certain power level and has the requirement that interference not be caused to licensed users. That makes part 15 very much our business.
As for BPL versus other part 15 devices....
Part 15 was intended for point source radiators. BPL by it's design is a line-source radiator. The problem with that is that the line source radiator can cause interference over a very wide area and still be within the part 15 limits. Therefore, BPL can't be put in the same category as a simple point source radiator.
A point source radiator such as the computer noise coming from a bank is going to cause some interference when I drive by. It's only ina small area so chances are there is no need for me to fight that interference.
A line source radiator such as BPL may cause interference for miles or whatever the length of the wire is.
Watching one of the W1RFI videos indicates that this is the case.
That is one more reason why BPL can't simply be treated like one more point source radiator.
The ARRL is correct in being as fierce as it can in this battle because a mobile operator is just as entitled to protection from harmful interference as a fixed operator.
It's not practical to have to complain about every single point of interference in a BPL system. The system should be engineered like a cable television system where leakage is the exception rather than the rule.
Basically if an HF operator drives thru the whole BPL deployment area and can only tell that the system is operating in a handful of places, that's not a big deal, the people in charge of the BPL system can clean up those areas but if it's like what is in the W1RFI videos where you are constantly bombarded by interference, that's totally unacceptable.
The system needs to be operated in a manner that makes it unlikely for the HF mobile operator to even know that the system is in use.
We expect nothing less from the cable and phone companies. BPL should be no different.
RE: KT1B
I am not associated with any BPL company. I have no vested interest. I am disinterested, although I make it a point to be well informed.
Obviously I do, on occasion, make valid points of interest--that just happen, on occasion to counter a prevailing view in these exchanges.
Please don't ask a physicist about the 'angels on a pin argument' regarding point sources--I am likely to start talking about delta function and quoting Dirac by memory....
The power information you allude to is public knowledge. Go ask Ed.
And yes, I did measurements at AGAWAM--I found the ARRL uncooperative. I offered to make public my findings, IF the ARRL posted their data on the web for AGAWAM. They have failed to do so.
Bottom line: no harmful interference found near known, licensed fixed station hams in the small deployment there.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2005,17:08)]Bottom line: no harmful interference found near known, licensed fixed station hams in the small deployment there.
73,
Chip N1IR
Limiting the discussion to fixed stations is not valid. Mobile stations have exactly the same rights under the law as fixed.
Quote[/b] ]I am not associated with any BPL company. I have no vested interest. I am disinterested, although I make it a point to be well informed.
Obviously I do, on occasion, make valid points of interest--that just happen, on occasion to counter a prevailing view in these exchanges.
Please don't ask a physicist about the 'angels on a pin argument' regarding point sources--I am likely to start talking about delta function and quoting Dirac by memory....
The power information you allude to is public knowledge. Go ask Ed.
And yes, I did measurements at AGAWAM--I found the ARRL uncooperative. I offered to make public my findings, IF the ARRL posted their data on the web for AGAWAM. They have failed to do so.
Bottom line: no harmful interference found near known, licensed fixed station hams in the small deployment there.
73,
Chip N1IR
Thank you Chip. I am not afiliated with any BPL companies either although there is one over in Andover not too far from where I am.
I am not familiar with the "Angels on a pin" argument so you won't hear me say anything about it.
I will continue doing research to find out how much RF a BPL system puts into the MV power lines.
Agawam MA?
Your last paragraph is quite interesting...
What about interference to mobile stations in the BPL area?
In other words, it is not enough to simply check for interference in the area of a known fixed station. A drive of the entire coverage area of the BPL system is needed because we are not limited to operating from fixed locations.
W9WHE
10-25-2005, 03:56 PM
NOW HOLD THE PHONE HERE.
I thought ARRL told us that we had to donate money to ARRL's spectrum defense fund because if BPL became legal, it would all but destroy ham radio and HF. What gives?
Were ARRL pleas for money based on hyped, over-stated "gloom and doom" predictions in hopes to fill ARRL coffers with money, money, money? Was ARRL just flat out wrong about the #effect of BPL on ham radio? Could it be that ARRL knows alot less about BPL then people like Motorola, IBM and Matshusta? I don't know the answers, but it seems to me ARRL has some explaining to do.
How can BPL not be the end of ham radio as we know it after all that "sky is falling" propiganda comming out of ARRL?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHOULD ARRL RETURN CERTAIN DONATIONS TO THE SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND BECAUSE BPL IS NOT THE HF POLLUTING, HAM RADIO DESTROYING, COMMUNICATIONS DISRUPTING MENACE THAT ARRL TOLD US IT IS?
SHOULD INDIVIDUAL HAMS BEGIN DEMANDING THEIR MONEY BACK?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
W9WHE
Quote[/b] (KT1B @ Oct. 24 2005,21:16)]What about interference to mobile stations in the BPL area?
In other words, it is not enough to simply check for interference in the area of a known fixed station. A drive of the entire coverage area of the BPL system is needed because we are not limited to operating from fixed locations.
The issue of mobile 'harmful interference' is an interesting one, and given my lengthy discussions on that a year ago, I hope you forgive me that I don't wish to repeat myself.
In general, I am not personally sympathetic to the 'menace to ham HF mobile', but understand that others feel differently.
What makes it easy for me to brush aside is the knowledge that this topic is well known at this point to the Commission and I am sure they will take prudent action in it's solution.
I'm happy to read the mail on it, and comment-- should something new come up in this topic.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 25 2005,08:56)]NOW HOLD THE PHONE HERE.
I thought ARRL told us that we had to donate money to ARRL's spectrum defense fund because if BPL became legal, it would all but destroy ham radio and HF. What gives?
Were ARRL pleas for money based on hyped, over-stated "gloom and doom" predictions in hopes to fill ARRL coffers with money, money, money? Was ARRL just flat out wrong about the #effect of BPL on ham radio? Could it be that ARRL knows alot less about BPL then people like Motorola, IBM and Matshusta? I don't know the answers, but it seems to me ARRL has some explaining to do.
How can BPL not be the end of ham radio as we know it after all that "sky is falling" propiganda comming out of ARRL?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHOULD ARRL RETURN CERTAIN DONATIONS TO THE SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND BECAUSE BPL IS NOT THE HF POLLUTING, HAM RADIO DESTROYING, COMMUNICATIONS DISRUPTING MENACE THAT ARRL TOLD US IT IS?
SHOULD INDIVIDUAL HAMS BEGIN DEMANDING THEIR MONEY BACK?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
W9WHE
I am of the opinion that the ARRL/NAAR properly spent the money doing what they said they would do. However, I see no evidence of impact on the issue from such special funding, and think this latest example indicates an ineffectual strategy based upon a faulty premise. Your opinion may differ.
73,
Chip N1IR
KD5NCO
10-26-2005, 06:35 PM
I live 29 road and 17 strait line miles north east of Burnet Texas, a town that has a running BPL set up.
I get zero added noise at my station location.
A drive to Burnet took a while to find the tell tale pole and ground mounted BPL devices. The ones I found were out of town on a county road. I did find interference exactly like the ARRL describes. I noted no obvious Towers or other exterior evidence of ARS activity in the immediate area.
I went home and made a note to not pick those rural locations for any Field or mobile use.
BTW at about 200 feet away, as I was leaving, the interference reduced back to my FT-100's typical noise level in my truck installation.
I seem to recall that some towns who run their own power and light service bought into BPL for simpler billing capability and then added the Internet access into local schools as another cost avoidance benefit.(Federally Mandated Information technology teaching requires networked computers) Any one who believes a small town could possibly afford fiber optic to all the schools and classrooms does not know a thing about rural America. Football is much more important! Well any way in Texas it is.
Of all the 700,000+/- FCC ARS licensees how many might be locally affected by any BPL installation?
Of them, how many are active?
Of those, how many may perform some form of EMCOMS? Fixed? Mobile?
EVEN at a 100% rate, that amount of citizens potentially interfered with in the ARS is very small proportionally to all the rural citizens that BPL could/will provide high speed Internet and other services to.
From what I read BPL can cause interference. I have witnessed this interference first hand. Yes the interference is real. However is is very localized to the lines and a few hundred feet either side and up.
I have no idea what would cause Manassas to seek a BPL solution when ADSL, Cable, WiBand, and other broad band access solutions are a fact of life in that entire region. Ever since I heard of BPL in Manassas I have been real curious as to WHY.
I stay in hotels in Manassas, Woodbridge, Dumfries, Lorton, Fredericksburg, Springfield.... all up and down the I 95 and RT 17 corridors. Every hotel I stay in has high speed Internet in every room.
At my small town county home, I can not get cable or DSL because I am too far from closest town or telephone Central Office
A Shame because I live 700 yards from Hwy 190 and the giant fiber lines between cities run very close to me.
BPL is not likely to take hold now that WiBand is a reality.
This note is sent to QRZ via my $29.99 Pegasus Broad band link that gives me 1Mbps most of the time. I have a sat type dish with a radio transceiver on it at the top of my 40 foot tower. The antenna receives and sends 2.4Ghz RF into Lampasas 9.5 miles away. The radio on the antenna is powered over the Cat 5 cable. #This install and set up took less than 1 hour. If I had not let them use my tower they were prepared to put a 15foot tripod on my roof as part of the $49.99 deal. The install fee was rebated in reduced billing for two months.
BPL to me in a rural environment is the same as bad power lines and transformers that wipe out AM radio for a few hundred yards to a few miles when I am driving. Just another annoyance but not likely to cause me any harm.
If BPL was right in my neighbor hood and affected me and my TV or radios I would seek relief the exact same way I do if it was a bad power line connector, transformer, electric fence, power pole light, or any other arcing sparking noise source.
In the ten years I have had this rural property, my power company has repaired a Mercury vapor lamp in the neighbors yard, and a blown protector resistor on my power pole when I called and complained about the radio and TV interference.
Fear-mongering and militant activism are not attributes we in the ARS should embrace. #IMO
The ARRL has made BPL, Spectrum defense, and CC&R antenna accommodations #top agenda items that ultimately make all of us look and sound silly. IMO
They are all bright fellows so I have no earthly idea why they choose these issues. I suspect N1IR may be correct on the membership and money angle. I sure hope Chip and I are wrong.
I am a ARRL member, I buy the books, I vote, I am more concerned with testing and licensing, adding to the ARS roles, rational band planning, emergency management training, and enjoying a nostalgic past time...
The knee jerk political BS of the day is a waste of our resources and our time. IMO
We do not have a dog in the BPL business, or technical side any more then we do about a new wind powered generator farm coming on line. If there is interference from any installation that exceeds FCC guidelines, regulations or laws then we must seek remedy or relief the good old bureaucratic way just like any other citizen.
It was appropriate for our individual and collective voice to be heard by the FCC relating to any changes to Part 15 rules.
That we don't, and will not ever, band together as comrades and speak with one collective voice is a sad commentary on our ability to find and support an effective leader.
I personally wish the ARRL would shut up and let BPL die a natural death.
I also think they could find much better arguments for spectrum defense that have some rational adjustment of all the spectrum we do not use and probably never will use.
Curious to note that Chip made a rather bold assertion that CW was not a major factor in any of the EMCOMs for the recent natural disasters and not one pro-code proponent challenged him. Very interesting considering how rabid this group usually can get on that subject.
Quote[/b] ]NOW HOLD THE PHONE HERE.
I thought ARRL told us that we had to donate money to ARRL's spectrum defense fund because if BPL became legal, it would all but destroy ham radio and HF. What gives?
Were ARRL pleas for money based on hyped, over-stated "gloom and doom" predictions in hopes to fill ARRL coffers with money, money, money? Was ARRL just flat out wrong about the #effect of BPL on ham radio? Could it be that ARRL knows alot less about BPL then people like Motorola, IBM and Matshusta? I don't know the answers, but it seems to me ARRL has some explaining to do.
How can BPL not be the end of ham radio as we know it after all that "sky is falling" propiganda comming out of ARRL?
MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHOULD ARRL RETURN CERTAIN DONATIONS TO THE SPECTRUM DEFENSE FUND BECAUSE BPL IS NOT THE HF POLLUTING, HAM RADIO DESTROYING, COMMUNICATIONS DISRUPTING MENACE THAT ARRL TOLD US IT IS?
SHOULD INDIVIDUAL HAMS BEGIN DEMANDING THEIR MONEY BACK?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
W9WHE
Last nite I spent a little time viewing the videos on the ARRL's website that show BPL interference.
Based on those videos, it is clear to me that BPL is a problem, a big problem, and one that merits the attention that the League is giving it.
The interference is definately severe, and even in places where it isn't severe, it's so annoying that it's questionable if anyone would want to listen to it for very long. So that gives you a choice of either being unable to operate because the interference is so bad or not wanting to operate because you don't want to listen to it.
Putting RF into non-shielded and non-balanced line will result in quite a bit of that energy being radiated. Most of us use sensitive receivers and antennas that are not far from MV power lines. If RF is coupled into those lines, it is going to radiate and even a very very weak signal from the BPL system can cause very harmful interference because many of us are used to working with weak signals to begin with.
The BPL equipment manufacturers should know more than the ARRL about BPL, it's their business. But, no-one knows better than us hams what constitutes interference to our communications.
Unless you are familiar with our equipment and the way we operate, you're not in a position to know.
A line source radiator, an unshielded and unbalanced long piece of wire with RF coupled into it should send up red flags everywhere and to everyone. No matter how you look at it, it spells RF pollution. The only question is who is going to suffer the ill effects?
I think the ARRL is doing it's best to insure that it isn't us.
The League is non-profit, filling their coffers with money I think is hardly a consideration. Money for them is more like a tool to get things done.
I recommend that, if you have the time or interest, you may want to go over the ARRL information on BPL and then check other sources.
BPL has generated opposition anywhere that it has been introduced. We're not just talking about this country.
Newsline regularly has BPL reports from other countries. The data is all out there.
Even the BPL companies don't always deny that there will be interference to spectrum users.
Quote[/b] ]Fear-mongering and militant activism are not attributes we in the ARS should embrace. IMO
The ARRL has made BPL, Spectrum defense, and CC&R antenna accommodations top agenda items that ultimately make all of us look and sound silly. IMO
They are all bright fellows so I have no earthly idea why they choose these issues. I suspect N1IR may be correct on the membership and money angle. I sure hope Chip and I are wrong.
I don't see where a non-profit is going to benefit from having a full bank account unless it uses the money as a tool to accomplish it's goals. So, I think it is pretty unlikely that they are doing anything just to get money for money's sake.
Money is a tool that they cannot do without.
As for money being spent on spectrum defense, I don't see where you can ever spend too much money on spectrum defense. Spectrum refers to the frequencies that we are allowed to operate on. If we have no spectrum then it would be rather difficult for us to operate. At least in a legal manner.
The CC&R issue is due to another fact of life when dealing with radio. When you are dealing with radio you need something to radiate the signal and you also need something to intercept the wave fronts coming at you and convert them into an electrical current, pass them onto your receiver, and convert them into audio so that you can listen to them.
We usually refer to this device as an antenna. The better the antenna, the better the radio system performs.
Some people, for better or for worse, live in places that do not allow outside antennas. The DBS broadcasters got together and passed legislation that would make it illegal for CC&R's to restrict small dish antennas that the DBS broadcasters subscribers need.
The ARRL got the bright idea of seeing if we can get the same exemption for ham antennas that are of similar size. I think that's the Amateur Radio....Consistency act or something along those lines.
The ARRL is also doing what it can to make sure that CC&R's are not overly restrictive and take into account PRB-1 as much as possible.
Considering the importance of antennas, this seems quite reasonable to me. In fact, if they were silent on the issue they wouldn't be doing their job.
I have to admit to being somewhat split on this issue, if you're a ham you probably would be better off not moving into a place that doesn't require antennas. But if small dishes or small tv antennas are allowed then their is no reason that similar ham radio antennas can't be allowed.
BPL has the potential and has been demonstrated to cause severe interference across a wide area. Reports coming out of Manassas VA indicate that on some bands communications is impossible. See the ARRL Letter or ARRL audio news this last week.
I see no fear mongering or militant activism yet. If someone takes a gun and destroys the BPL equipment on the pole, that is certainly militant activism, but I doubt we'll see that.
I am concerned about BPL because of the testimony of people who have been in the BPL areas and because of the videos I have seen demonstrating such interference and because if you put RF into a wire, the wire becomes an antenna and radiates the signal. So it's a no brainer that nothing good can come from putting wideband RF on unshielded and unbalanced lines.
KD5NCO
10-26-2005, 10:20 PM
Some implementations of BPL do and will cause harmful interference, true....
In this country we elect representatives and they in turn create entities like the FCC to manage a segment of government for the better good of ALL Americans.
What some of us have been saying for some time now is the the typical BPL implementation can not adequately compete against many of the emerging standards and technologies and ultimately will fail in most densely populated urban areas. As it should, so no real crisis.
In rural environments the density of ARS members likely to be affected by any BPL interference is minimal. The benefit for the OTHER citizens in those areas may out weight the potential harm to a few ARS members. Again certainly not a crisis.
Thus the FCC has an obligation to look at these issues from an entirely different perspective then we would. The FCCs part 15 rules are not unreasonable, and put the burden of effort on the party causing interference to remedy that interference in a reasonable time.
Have you ever seen the letters that the FCC sends to a local power utility requiring a source of interference be corrected? They never demand the utility shut off the power to the customers as the remedy. The always give a reasonable amount of time for the correction to happen before fines will be set. I see no reason why we can not live with these as the same rules for BPL.
CC&R are NOT some evil Government plan to make us all Stepford wifes in cookie cutter houses and neighborhoods. They are entirely the notion of bands of neighbors that over time got tired of their property values going down because of mobile homes and folks who refused to take pride in their property and keep it looking like a nice neighborhood.
To enhance sales, Home builders and Developers found out that if they built 100 houses in a new subdivision and had Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions prohibiting certain types of out buildings, antennas, or other potential defects to property value that they could sell the entire subdivision of houses at a higher cost per unit.
This begets copy cat developers and trust me they would not be doing this if there wasn't some large segment of America ready to buy into exactly these types of developments on purpose.
I will not live in a CC&R area.
What is hideous is the ability for any neighborhood group to band together and invoke CC&R with no real due process for the neighbors who oppose. This is the only area where I see local government intervention as necessary and fair. Unfortunately most localities will not, and they totally abdicate the management of these Home Owners Associations to common citizens with no law or basic rules, either county or state governed. This is usually to the detriment of long time older established neighborhoods. Creates some very bad blood and hurt feelings among neighbors.
I have no sympathy for any one who does buy into a CC&R neighborhood reads, signs, and accepts the rules, and then wants to get the government to change the rules. What about the rights of the other 99 folks who do want the rules? They had to pay more to live were there are those rules and guarantees! Since when is the desire for one ARS FCC licensed citizen more important that 99 or 999 other neighbors?
There was at least some logic in the Federal PRB-1 preemption relating to over air and sat antennas. A preponderance of the affected citizens were asking for the relief and they were supported by the companies that wanted to sell the DirectTV, DishNetwork and C Band systems.
You know intuitively, that the Cable companies fought the Federal preemption tooth and nail. In this case peoples representative government worked and the greater good prevailed.
As to my comments on fear mongering and militant behavior... well all of that can be found right here on QRZ for the last three years. The ARRL has a presence here and has never voiced any opposition to the ARS members who abdicate deliberate and willful jamming of BPL systems. The ARRL has not voiced any opposition to the calls for e-mail barrages to BPL entities and share holders. The ARRL has been conspicuously silent in all the anti social and militant views expressed here on these forum boards. Head in the sand? Don't care? Secretly support some of the ideas? Hell, I don't know, but many of your fellow ARS members here have some very bad ideas on how to deal with BPL.
I think the fear mongering can be laid directly on the ARRL for not speaking up and calming the folks here who believe that BPL will raise the noise floor world wide.
It was the ARRL who suggested that the interference was broad spectrum and wide ranging. This is simply not the entire truth and they know it. Many systems notch out whole bands, and the most offending interference is not sensed beyond 200-600 feet from the source.
There is no more impact of these systems to a mobile ARS unit then the odd power transformer with loose connectors, or a car wash dryer motor spun up. I do not see amateurs hanging out at the local car wash and causing the owner grief because his 240VAC 3 Phase air blowers pump out broad spectrum 40db over hash and squeal!
Every town a Ham has ever driven a mobile HF/VHF/UHF unit through, has pockets of RF trash, hash and, intermod....we deal with it.
If the source directly impact a fixed station we will deal with it. If that means seeking relief from the FCC then thankfully we are a licensed service and logically will prevail.
And please do not shove down my throat the ARRLs assertion that the FCC will not act on current claims of interference... neither you, nor I, have enough facts to judge either side of those allegations.
The FCC has a track record of tracking down interference and causing corrections. No, they are not very responsive, no, they are not very effective, and no, they do not seek added work and grief. What do you expect? They are a government bureaucracy and you and I and other citizens are always bitching about taxes... We can not afford 100% efficiency in a government entity sir, that is a fact.
In my short 50 years I have seen evidence that the FCC can eventually help relieve a licensed service from interferance. Their own rules say they must act. Just because some folks don't like how fast is not a reason to demand an entire industry segment be banished from the market place of competition and good or bad ideas.
Do you have a little thought in the back of your head that if the ARRL had not ticked off the FCC over BPL that the FCC might have seriously considered at least keeping the Element 1 exam for Extra class license as the ARRL petition asked? ... Hummmmm I sure do.
Quote[/b] ]
What some of us have been saying for some time now is the the typical BPL implementation can not adequately compete against many of the emerging standards and technologies and ultimately will fail in most densely populated urban areas. As it should, so no real crisis.
In rural environments the density of ARS members likely to be affected by any BPL interference is minimal. The benefit for the OTHER citizens in those areas may out weight the potential harm to a few ARS members. Again certainly not a crisis.
Thus the FCC has an obligation to look at these issues from an entirely different perspective then we would. The FCCs part 15 rules are not unreasonable, and put the burden of effort on the party causing interference to remedy that interference in a reasonable time.
Have you ever seen the letters that the FCC sends to a local power utility requiring a source of interference be corrected? They never demand the utility shut off the power to the customers as the remedy. The always give a reasonable amount of time for the correction to happen before fines will be set. I see no reason why we can not live with these as the same rules for BPL.
As to my comments on fear mongering and militant behavior... well all of that can be found right here on QRZ for the last three years. The ARRL has a presence here and has never voiced any opposition to the ARS members who abdicate deliberate and willful jamming of BPL systems. The ARRL has not voiced any opposition to the calls for e-mail barrages to BPL entities and share holders. The ARRL has been conspicuously silent in all the anti social and militant views expressed here on these forum boards. Head in the sand? Don't care? Secretly support some of the ideas? Hell, I don't know, but many of your fellow ARS members here have some very bad ideas on how to deal with BPL.
I think the fear mongering can be laid directly on the ARRL for not speaking up and calming the folks here who believe that BPL will raise the noise floor world wide.
It was the ARRL who suggested that the interference was broad spectrum and wide ranging. This is simply not the entire truth and they know it. Many systems notch out whole bands, and the most offending interference is not sensed beyond 200-600 feet from the source.
There is no more impact of these systems to a mobile ARS unit then the odd power transformer with loose connectors, or a car wash dryer motor spun up. I do not see amateurs hanging out at the local car wash and causing the owner grief because his 240VAC 3 Phase air blowers pump out broad spectrum 40db over hash and squeal!
Every town a Ham has ever driven a mobile HF/VHF/UHF unit through, has pockets of RF trash, hash and, intermod....we deal with it.
If the source directly impact a fixed station we will deal with it. If that means seeking relief from the FCC then thankfully we are a licensed service and logically will prevail.
And please do not shove down my throat the ARRLs assertion that the FCC will not act on current claims of interference... neither you, nor I, have enough facts to judge either side of those allegations.
The FCC has a track record of tracking down interference and causing corrections. No, they are not very responsive, no, they are not very effective, and no, they do not seek added work and grief. What do you expect? They are a government bureaucracy and you and I and other citizens are always bitching about taxes... We can not afford 100% efficiency in a government entity sir, that is a fact.
In my short 50 years I have seen evidence that the FCC can eventually help relieve a licensed service from interferance. Their own rules say they must act. Just because some folks don't like how fast is not a reason to demand an entire industry segment be banished from the market place of competition and good or bad ideas.
Do you have a little thought in the back of your head that if the ARRL had not ticked off the FCC over BPL that the FCC might have seriously considered at least keeping the Element 1 exam for Extra class license as the ARRL petition asked? ... Hummmmm I sure do.
Excellent post, thank you, I have not quoted any points you made that I agree with and or have no comment on.
I hope you're right about BPL failing in the real world. The shutdowns of various tests hopefully is a good sign.
Even if there are no interference issues with BPL in rural areas, I still don't see where it will pay for them to serve the rural areas. Basically, if the CATV, DSL, and / or WIMAX people aren't there already, I don't see why the BPL people would be interested. Time will tell.
The only unreasonable part of part 15 is that it puts the burden of tracking down the interference on the licensee receiving the interference. I don't work for the FCC, I don't think it is my place to have to do their work for them.
The FCC seems to do a good job as you say in dealing with interference from other sources such as power line interference, just as you say. I don't have any complaints about that. Riley is doing a fine job. I hear the reports on ARRL Audio News and Newsline.
If the FCC would take care of the BPL issues the same way, I think we would be in reasonable shape.
I haven't seen anyone officially from the ARRL on here. I am relatively new. I'll watch for them.
Intentionally causing interference is not a good idea. Nothing good can happen in cases like that. BPL is very broadbanded, I am not convinced that it will be all that easy to interfere with, even if someone were to try.
My feeling is that in an area with BPL one should continue to operate normally and within the rules of good amateur practice. No driving up to a bpl injector and making one way transmissions and causing more qrm than the BPL system itself.
I have seen the videos from the ARRL where the interference is present for quite some distance. A mile or more. That's a problem.
Mobile operators are entitled to protection, just as fixed stations are.
Even if the worst of the interference is only heard out to 600 feet from the injection point, remember, it doesn't take very much to interfere with weak signals. How far out is the lesser interference heard? From what I am seeing and hearing, it goes on for the length of the radiator. Namely the MV powerlines.
The ARRL has a fine line to walk of not aggravating the commission too much, yet on the other hand it has to stand up for the service. I have no doubt that the FCC has done things to aggravate the League because the League is not afraid to call them to task when they feel it is necessary.
The FCC has done a hatchet job on the licensing structure to the point where it makes absolutely no sense. Not that it made a lot of sense before but the 5 class system with an entry level license and 4 other classes was better than what we have now.
Whether it bothers the FCC or not, the League still has to do what it thinks is right and not be overly worried about what the FCC thinks. I think the so called fine line may instead be a very thick line.
Thanks for the reply.
Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Oct. 26 2005,15:20)]As to my comments on fear mongering and militant behavior... well all of that can be found right here on QRZ for the last three years. The ARRL has a presence here and has never voiced any opposition to the ARS members who abdicate deliberate and willful jamming of BPL systems. The ARRL has not voiced any opposition to the calls for e-mail barrages to BPL entities and share holders. The ARRL has been conspicuously silent in all the anti social and militant views expressed here on these forum boards. Head in the sand? Don't care? Secretly support some of the ideas? Hell, I don't know, but many of your fellow ARS members here have some very bad ideas on how to deal with BPL.
I think the fear mongering can be laid directly on the ARRL for not speaking up and calming the folks here who believe that BPL will raise the noise floor world wide.
It was the ARRL who suggested that the interference was broad spectrum and wide ranging. This is simply not the entire truth and they know it. Many systems notch out whole bands, and the most offending interference is not sensed beyond 200-600 feet from the source.
There is no more impact of these systems to a mobile ARS unit then the odd power transformer with loose connectors, or a car wash dryer motor spun up. I do not see amateurs hanging out at the local car wash and causing the owner grief because his 240VAC 3 Phase air blowers pump out broad spectrum 40db over hash and squeal!
Every town a Ham has ever driven a mobile HF/VHF/UHF unit through, has pockets of RF trash, hash and, intermod....we deal with it.
If the source directly impact a fixed station we will deal with it. If that means seeking relief from the FCC then thankfully we are a licensed service and logically will prevail.
And please do not shove down my throat the ARRLs assertion that the FCC will not act on current claims of interference... neither you, nor I, have enough facts to judge either side of those allegations.
The FCC has a track record of tracking down interference and causing corrections. No, they are not very responsive, no, they are not very effective, and no, they do not seek added work and grief. What do you expect? They are a government bureaucracy and you and I and other citizens are always bitching about taxes... We can not afford 100% efficiency in a government entity sir, that is a fact.
In my short 50 years I have seen evidence that the FCC can eventually help relieve a licensed service from interferance. Their own rules say they must act. Just because some folks don't like how fast is not a reason to demand an entire industry segment be banished from the market place of competition and good or bad ideas.
Do you have a little thought in the back of your head that if the ARRL had not ticked off the FCC over BPL that the FCC might have seriously considered at least keeping the Element 1 exam for Extra class license as the ARRL petition asked? ... Hummmmm I sure do.
My bit of opinionated satire:
Spectrum Defense-- Car Washes Prove it!
-- Plasma TV's prove it!
--Electric Fences Prove it!
No... that won't sell. Say.....what about that BPL thingie? And we can partner with a consultant and change our +++++++++++++MISSION +++++++++++
to include TRAINING TOTALLY UNRELATED to ham radio! Ka-CHEENG! BLING-BING! Why, we can make a ham tie-in by saying that hams that come can operate W1*^ !
Gee...maybe being a nonprofit IS a license to mint money! Maybe even publish it?;-)?
73,
Chip N1IR
I wish to form the 'Society for The Preservation of RF Noiseless Car Washes and Clean Automobile Emporiums' (SPRFNCWCAE) --pronounced
'sprinfincowcay). Will you join me on my quest for the Holy Grail?
KD5NCO
10-27-2005, 02:03 AM
KT1B
Please don't get me wrong sir... I am just as concerned about our spectrum, licensing, RF interference and other potential anti ARS issues.
I just happen to think that the ARRL need not be deliberately antagonistic, over state our case, exaggerate our importance and other wise make foolish and unprovable assertions.
Are there threats to the ARS from industry? Certainly!
Is there potential for us to loose more spectrum? Absolutely!
Should we have a national entity representing us to the government of the US and the International communities? You bet your License we should!
That entity, currently is the ARRL and it needs to do a much better job of representing all the ARS members in my opinion. That entity needs to more carefully pick our priorities and battles. And that entity needs to be legally, factually and technically correct when speaking on our behalf.
BPL, CC&R and Spectrum defense each pose a level of risk, potential for harm, and require thoughtful and deliberate positions presented by us to our representatives and the FCC.
Whipping up the members to a frenzy and making each of these issues to be akin to a loss of second amendment rights is folly, and makes us look like kooks.
I don't think we are a large enough voting block to pose any threat to our representatives, therefore being branded kooks is counter productive to our goals.
To be effective, our numbers must be much greater. We must provide some measurable benefit to the society. We must not be a burden to the government disproportionate to our value. Thus we can not be viewed by the society at large as hobbyists. We must be relevant in America in the 21st century.
In my humble opinion the ARRL would better serve her members and America by actively building bridges between the opposing factions in the ARS, Demonstrating true leadership. They must find a better method of polling the members at large AND provide opportunity for non-members to opine on issues the League intends to pursue with government. The ARRL must actively pursue proposals or initiatives that are general interest but narrow enough to ensure success, instilling faith and confidence in their actions. This will build a stronger, larger, more loyal base. #
The ARRL, with 30,000 members, many of them in direct opposition to league policy, is not in a good position to argue before the FCC or Congress those issues pitting 700,000 ARS needs and desires against 260,000,000 citizens needs and desires.
I will not omit the group who bears the most responsibility in all this... the typical ARS licensee at large who views Amateur radio singularly as a hobby and is conspicuously silent. Those who do not take this service seriously. Those who do not actively contribute in the stated reasons for the ARS to exist. Those members have no standing in this society above any other hobbyist whatever they be, model airplane builder, astronomer, or railroad enthusiast etc. They are not entitled to any special privilege or guarantee, 20 WPM code test or not. Representative government requires active participation, and more than 50% of our ARS membership are mute on all subjects.
k5ktd
10-27-2005, 02:27 AM
Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 25 2005,08:56)]SHOULD INDIVIDUAL HAMS BEGIN DEMANDING THEIR MONEY BACK?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
W9WHE
I did, and they sent me a refund check of my dues.
Fred, thank you for taking the time to write out such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I will reply to your post later on tonite after I get home from work.
73
Scott
K5JIN
10-28-2005, 05:32 PM
Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Oct. 26 2005,11:35)]I live 29 road and 17 strait line miles north east of Burnet Texas, a town that has a running BPL set up.
I get zero added noise at my station location.
A drive to Burnet took a while to find the tell tale pole and ground mounted BPL devices. The ones I found were out of town on a county road. I did find interference exactly like the ARRL describes. I noted no obvious Towers or other exterior evidence of ARS activity in the immediate area.
I went home and made a note to not pick those rural locations for any Field or mobile use.
BTW at about 200 feet away, as I was leaving, the interference reduced back to my FT-100's typical noise level in my truck installation.
Fred, KD5CNO:
RE Your post on Oct. 26 quoted above---What date did you come to Burnet and look for and listen for the BPL installation and exactly where did you find the installation. #You mention it being "...out of town on a county road..."---Which county road and what direction from town? #Also, what kind of interference did you hear on your mobile receiver?
Mike, K5JIN
W9WHE
10-28-2005, 07:57 PM
KT1B writes:
"I don't see where a non-profit is going to benefit from having a full bank account unless it uses the money as a tool to accomplish it's goals. So, I think it is pretty unlikely that they are doing anything just to get money for money's sake"
Might I point out that non-profits have perminant staffs, with sallaries and retirement accounts? The more flush with cash the entity is, the more it can pay its Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer. In other words, the people that run the entity can decide their own sallary.
W9WHE
"
W9WHE
10-28-2005, 07:59 PM
SHOULD INDIVIDUAL HAMS BEGIN DEMANDING THEIR MONEY BACK?
"I did, and they sent me a refund check of my dues".
Notice that rather then send your contribution back, they kicked you out! ARRL has a very low tollerance for dissent. HOW DARE you question ARRL infalabillity!
W9WHE
[/QUOTE]Might I point out that non-profits have perminant staffs, with sallaries and retirement accounts? The more flush with cash the entity is, the more it can pay its Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer. In other words, the people that run the entity can decide their own sallary.
W9WHE
[QUOTE]
That is true in part, but not as much as you think. Take a look at the rules that govern non-profits and you will see that not only do the directors and officers salaries have to be published but they also have to be justified.
If the non-profit is found to be overpaying it's officers then the officers may find themselves sub