View Full Version : Broadband over Powerline
The link below goes to a PDF file from a recent speech by Micheal Gallagher, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. This is a good read for several reasons. In particular it clearly shows the government's view of BPL and why they are championing it.
It contains information that is hard or impossible to come by from other sources. For example, on Page 15 is a comprehensive map of current BPL deployments. There are at least 50 trials, as well as four existing commercial deployments. We hear so much about the Manassass, Virginia, installation that it's easy to get tunnel vision and fail to realize just how widespread BPL deployments are.
On the growth of BPL, page 19 notes that the BPL market is expected to grow from $57 million in 2004 to $4.4 billion by 2011, and the number of subscribers will more than double every year and by 2012 one third of all new broadband customers will be BPL as well as 13% of existing customers.
It does briefly cover interference issues, but amateur radio is not mentioned specifically. The speech concludes with the bullit "Careful design and operation of BPL systems are essential to successful coexistance with nearby radio communications".
This speech is something that all hams should read, so that everyone will fully realize the magnitude of the BPL issue, and how the government sees it.
Gallagher Speech on BPL (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2005/MG_BPL_09162005.pdf)
K8YZK
10-24-2005, 11:12 AM
The beginning looked like a Polticial Ad for Bush, Well come to think of it the whole thing did. 99% of it was how great BPL is for the country and how the Bush has made this country better and with BPL it will get even better. However it did not say how BPL has and is still causing problems and how the companies are working out the troubles. Wait if I have heard and read correctly there are no problems.
Sound like Mr. Gallagher was trying to blow smoke up someones' you know what.
73
Kurt
WA8VBX
k2jag
10-24-2005, 12:26 PM
Here in Penna.,as of last week, PPL has reportedly dropped all plans for broadband.
I have no problem with BPL as long as the technology used will NOT cause harmful interference. From what little I've read, it appears that Motorola has come up with a viable option -- now it's time for the FCC to strengthen the interference requirements and shut down those trials that are not equipped with the best equipment.
Why? Broadband is good for this country. So is HF,(amateur radio, FEMA, Red Cross, Military frequencies, etc) You cannot have one at the expense of the other.
ke4sky
10-24-2005, 01:18 PM
FCC gets BPL complaint
By TORY N. PARRISH
tparrish@potomacnews.com
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Manassas city officials may be touting the benefits of the city's new high-speed Internet service, but not everyone is singing its praises.
The National Association for Amateur Radio has filed a Federal Communications Commission complaint calling for Manassas' broadband over powerline service to be shut down.
The association is citing a year of complaints from members of a local amateur "ham" radio operators' group alleging that the service is causing frequency interference.
"Our effort is to try to highlight this and cause the FCC to realize that this is a bigger aggregate problem than they probably thought was going to be," said Christopher Imlay, general counsel for the association, also known as the American Radio Relay League Inc.
Last year, the city partnered with Chantilly-based Communication Technologies, or COMTek, to become the first in the country to begin implementing citywide broadband-over-powerline service -- high-speed Internet service through an electrical connection, rather than phone or cable lines. That rollout was completed early this month.
Manassas, which contributed $400,000 to the $2 million project, provides the staff to install and maintain the technology, while COMTek owns and operates the BPL network.
Imlay says that both the city and COMTek have been unresponsive to fixing the interference issues, and said COMTek's claims that it fixed band segments with "notches" are either false or those devices have been removed.
COMTek and city officials have been responsive to complaints by addressing past interference issues and meeting with local ham operators several times, countered Walter Adams, COMTek's vice president of new technology, and John D. Hewa, Manassas' director of utilities.
Most of the problems are isolated incidents or not related to BPL, said Adams, who said the company does not comment on specific action it is taking to correct the interference issues.
"From the city's standpoint, we remain sensitive to the use of the radio spectrum by all parties," said Hewa.
The FCC investigates all complaints per its enforcement guidelines, said FCC spokesman David Fiske.
Following past complaints from some ham operators in Manassas, the FCC directed COMTek, the city of Manassas and local hams to work to resolve their issues before it would intervene.
Some local hams will be meeting with COMTek and city utility officials to monitor a designated area for interference on Oct. 28, said local ham operator George V. Tarnovsky.
BPL service, which is $28.95 a month in Manassas, is often touted as being less expensive than other types of high-speed Internet service.
Of the 12,500 households and 2,500 businesses in Manassas that have access to BPL, 700 customers had purchased it and 95 percent of those were residential, as of Oct. 6.
The FCC has been promoting BPL as an alternative to broadband service offered by cable and phone companies, particularly in rural areas that may not have access to it otherwise.
The ARRL's filing complaints at BPL trials nationwide is preventing the technology from becoming more widespread, said Nicole Klein, an analyst with the Yankee Group, a Boston-based market research group.
There is no standard guideline for BPL equipment, although the FCC has enacted some guidelines regarding interference, said Klein.
"So [equipment vendors] can have their own way of dealing with interference," said Klein.
This story can be found at: http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet....7646754 (http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN/MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128767646754)
wa3vjb
10-24-2005, 01:29 PM
Thanks for posting what appears to be a speech or presentation in Denver last month. Is there any way to characterise the audience?
Picking through the flowery promotion of the system, I wondered whether there was any caution or balance about shared use of spectrum.
Sure enough, the top of an item down near the bottom had these words referencing "licensed radio operations." Too bad the follow up concerns ONLY public safety, and it erroneously gives the impression government users are a solitary category of such "operations". The FCC's rules did the same thing, correctly giving mitigation priority to public safety, but not really focusing on other potential users who also could suffer interference.
This is why it was important for the people in Newington to achieve alliances with users beyond the radio hobbyist community, and why the story from Manassas. posted here, again isolates "ham radio" and undercuts valid points at hand.
Quote[/b] ]
Broadband over Power Lines:
The Six Things You Need to do to Comply
Access BPL systems must be designed and operated in a manner
that avoids harmful interference to licensed radio operations.
Before initiation of service:
1.Use equipment authorized by the Commission for this application.
2.Supply all required information to the Access BPL Database manager, and to the State Public Utility Commission(s).
3.Consult with local public safety users, and with federal users in areas designated as consultation areas.
4.Be aware of and avoid operating at frequencies in use within areas designated as exclusion zones.
During operation:
5.Address cases of suspected interference in a timely manner.
6.Cease operations immediately at the location where interference to public safety services is suspected.
ei5ja
10-24-2005, 02:44 PM
Does not wireless broadband render BPL obsolete?
73. Ed http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
aa1mn
10-24-2005, 02:52 PM
Quote[/b] ]Does not wireless broadband render BPL obsolete?
No, it does not. Not anymore than cordless phones corded phones obsolete or cell phones making cordless phones obsolete. Television didn't make AM or FM radio obsolete either. FM didn't make AM obsolete either.
BPL is just another option for broadband, cable, wireless or otherwise. And an excellent option too.
Chuck, AA1MN
The speech starts off with a false comment, and goes downhill from there.
The goal of government is NOT to create wealth. #In fact, government CANNOT create wealth, it is impossible. #In B-school, basic economics teaches that only mining, manufacturing and agriculture create wealth (and since agriculture is a specialized form of manufacturing, there are only two, actually).
Major fluff piece, really, catering to the ignorant.
Remember, the ignorant VOTE too. #We must do a better job of getting the whole picture out. #Not only how it effects Ham Radio. # Is their any examples available (I'm sure their are) where other organizations (spectrum users) are experiencing interference? #Police and Fire especially, these need to have a spot light shown on them to get a broader audience in the public.
My oppinion
Rob - W8YRB
wa3vjb
10-24-2005, 04:18 PM
That's my point, Rob, the other users who suffer interference from these systems could have become allies with the group in Newington as they presented their technical case. Maybe we should help draw the ARRL's attention to other victims of this stuff since they seem to overlook or consciously spurn such an alliance beyond "ham radio."
I got a laugh just now at a very League-like response to a query I made of the power industry. Check this out. Guess I'll have to try to become a member of THEIR group too !
Rgds
Paul
Quote[/b] ]
Dear Mr Courson,
We acknowledge receipt of your request, and we thank you very much for your
interest in the PLCforum Association. We kindly inform you that all public
information is available on the PLCforum website: www.plcforum.org.
More detailed information is only available to the members of the PLCforum
Association. You can check the details on how to join the PLCforum
Association at: http://www.plcforum.com/frame_join.html
With Best regards,
--------------------------------
Julie Dufour
The PLCforum Secretariat
Homega Research, a Division of Sigma Consultants
Tel: +33 (0) 493 001 550 - Fax: +33 (0) 493 001 560
1240, route des Dolines - BP 287 Valbonne
06905 Sophia Antipolis Cedex - France
<http://www.homega-research.com> - <http://www.sigma-consultants.fr>
--------------------------------
------ Message transféré
De: Paul Courson
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:55:42 -0400
À: <info@plcforum.org>
Objet: BPL question
Hello,
As a utility customer in the United States, I wish to know the
industry's position on a newer type of distribution strategy for
powerline telecommunications. This system is being developed by
Motorola and Circuit Technologies, among other companies.
Key to my interest is whether the industry may adopt the interference
supression this strategy appears to include as a benefit.
I monitor the shortwave radio bands as part of my profession, and the
use of overhead powerlines on the street is reported to cause noise
disruption at the frequencies where I monitor.
Could you provide a discussion of the matter?
Regards,
Paul Courson
------ Fin du message transféré----
ei5ja
10-24-2005, 04:19 PM
Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Oct. 24 2005,07:52)]Quote[/b] ]Does not wireless broadband #render BPL obsolete?
No, it does not. #Not anymore than cordless phones corded phones obsolete or cell phones making cordless phones obsolete. #Television didn't make AM or FM radio obsolete either. #FM didn't make AM obsolete either.
Chuck, AA1MN
I am sure that somewhere in the USA there is a farmer operating an old Allis Chalmers tractor running on TVO and pulling a pin harrowacross his acres. By todays farming standards that tractor is obsolete but still quite useful to the farmer.
To quote cell phones Vs corded etc; I think misses the point.
Although all that you wrote is correct in it's esence. The fact remains that cellphone technology has had a significant effect on the revenue stream of landline. The same goes for TV Vs radio. This can be demonstrated by noting the difference in cost for an advertising slot on either
I thought that all the fuss about BPL was it's interference with the radio spectrum and I would have thought that a system which is a reasonable alternative and does not have the same problems would be more acceptable to all except those with a vested interest in one over the other.
One of the advantages listed was to bring the internet to those areas out of the range of line broadband.
That was a problem here and wireless broadband provided the answer.
I am sure that there are other arguments for one and against the other but there's my tuppence worth.
73 Ed #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
BPL is already in Boise Idaho...appears to be working fine, with no apparent problems with interference on the air....
It does appear that BPL is gonna be a part of our future life. :rock:
KC8VWM
10-24-2005, 05:05 PM
the BPL market is expected to grow from $57 million in 2004 to $4.4 billion by 2011, and the number of subscribers will more than double every year and by 2012 one third of all new broadband customers will be BPL
-----
Something tells me these projections look much better on paper than in actual practice.
I am sure BPL in 2012 will be right up there with technologies we have already seen in back in 1999.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Oct. 24 2005,04:12)]What happens if the market predictions turn out to be true, but #it does not "successfully coexist with nearby radio communications"? Will the FCC go by the letter of the rules and shut down a potentiallly $4.4 billion industry that provides broadband service to one third of the country, on account of interference to a relative handful of hams?
Of course not.
Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 24 2005,09:18)]That's my point, Rob, the other users who suffer interference from these systems could have become allies with the group in Newington as they presented their technical case. Maybe we should help draw the ARRL's attention to other victims of this stuff since they seem to overlook or consciously spurn such an alliance beyond "ham radio."
ARRL doesn't have a good history on that subject. Look how we carved exception to the "scanner laws" for ourselves, instead of teaming with other users (and the general public) to get them thrown out altogether - as they should have been.
W9WHE
10-24-2005, 08:12 PM
Why worry about BPL?
ARRL has told us that "BPL is a flawed technology" that "won't work" anyway. 60,000 BPL subscribers in Cincinatti only THINK that BPL works. They are mistaken. ARRL knows better.
So don't worry, be happy!
W9WHE
Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 23 2005,14:20)]Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 24 2005,09:18)]That's my point, Rob, the other users who suffer interference from these systems could have become allies with the group in Newington as they presented their technical case. Maybe we should help draw the ARRL's attention to other victims of this stuff since they seem to overlook or consciously spurn such an alliance beyond "ham radio."
ARRL doesn't have a good history on that subject. #Look how we carved exception to the "scanner laws" for ourselves, instead of teaming with other users (and the general public) to get them thrown out altogether - as they should have been.
W1RFI, Ed Hare said over #on eHam:
As to 30-50 MHz use, at last we have one of your "probably's" that actually has some basis in reality. (The laws or probability at work?) ARRL's standing is to speak for Amateur Radio, Lee, and if it starts speaking for all other services, its credibility to speak for Amateur Radio will be harmed. Even in what ARRL has said about not using BPL on overhead lines below 30 MHz, the industry response is that ARRL has no business asking for more than the ham bands, and they are already saying that those on other spectrum are not concerned, so ARRL must be making up the interference issues.
There are a number of factors on the table for low VHF, Lee. First, the emissions are lower because the rules require lower limits above 30 MHz than they do below 30 MHz. 30-50 MHz use is sporadic across the country, and, if spectrum is chosen carefully, it is possible in most areas to avoid the parts of that band that are used locally. And again, those users MUST speak for themselves and do 10% of what ARRL has done for Amateur Radio. If ARRL speaks for them, their silence is used to undermine ARRL's ability to address the issue at all.
Lee
W6EM
kb3mng
10-24-2005, 09:14 PM
Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 24 2005,11:20)]ARRL doesn't have a good history on that subject. Look how we carved exception to the "scanner laws" for ourselves, instead of teaming with other users (and the general public) to get them thrown out altogether - as they should have been.
I don't know what you are referring to. Could you give a brief summary?
Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 23 2005,10:54)]The speech starts off with a false comment, and goes downhill from there.
The goal of government is NOT to create wealth. #In fact, government CANNOT create wealth, it is impossible. #In B-school, basic economics teaches that only mining, manufacturing and agriculture create wealth (and since agriculture is a specialized form of manufacturing, there are only two, actually).
Major fluff piece, really, catering to the ignorant.
I'm not too surprised. #Gallagher was rumored to be a strong candidate for Bush's second-term Secretary of Commerce.
Preaching to the Choir is usually a piece of cake. And, its always one with the right frosting. #:-)
Lee
W6EM
Thanks for putting up the link Ron.
I think Mr. Gallagher did a great job on it.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 24 2005,14:12)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 23 2005,14:20)]Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 24 2005,09:18)]That's my point, Rob, the other users who suffer interference from these systems could have become allies with the group in Newington as they presented their technical case. Maybe we should help draw the ARRL's attention to other victims of this stuff since they seem to overlook or consciously spurn such an alliance beyond "ham radio."
ARRL doesn't have a good history on that subject. #Look how we carved exception to the "scanner laws" for ourselves, instead of teaming with other users (and the general public) to get them thrown out altogether - as they should have been.
W1RFI, Ed Hare said over #on eHam:
As to 30-50 MHz use, at last we have one of your "probably's" that actually has some basis in reality. (The laws or probability at work?) ARRL's standing is to speak for Amateur Radio, Lee, and if it starts speaking for all other services, its credibility to speak for Amateur Radio will be harmed. Even in what ARRL has said about not using BPL on overhead lines below 30 MHz, the industry response is that ARRL has no business asking for more than the ham bands, and they are already saying that those on other spectrum are not concerned, so ARRL must be making up the interference issues.
There are a number of factors on the table for low VHF, Lee. First, the emissions are lower because the rules require lower limits above 30 MHz than they do below 30 MHz. 30-50 MHz use is sporadic across the country, and, if spectrum is chosen carefully, it is possible in most areas to avoid the parts of that band that are used locally. And again, those users MUST speak for themselves and do 10% of what ARRL has done for Amateur Radio. If ARRL speaks for them, their silence is used to undermine ARRL's ability to address the issue at all.
Lee
W6EM
The ARRL/NAAR does NOT speak for amateur radio. IMO, that is an outrageous claim. Instead the ARRL/NAAR speaks for a point of view which it assumes represents it's membership--itself debabtable.
The membership of the ARRL/NAAR constitutes approximately 20% of the radio amateurs licensed in the US. Hence the goofiness of claiming that:'The ARRL SPEAKS FOR AMATEUR RADIO'.
There are almost 600,000 radio amateurs in the US it does NOT speak for.
Almost 80% of US radio amateurs it does NOT speak for.
Just some clarification...
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 23 2005,20:15)]The membership of the ARRL/NAAR constitutes approximately 20% of the radio amateurs licensed in the US. Hence the goofiness of claiming that:'The ARRL SPEAKS FOR AMATEUR RADIO'.
There are almost 600,000 radio amateurs in the US it does NOT speak for.
Almost 80% of US radio amateurs it does NOT speak for.
Just some clarification...
73,
Chip N1IR
Excellent point, Chip, but what makes you think they speak for all of the 20% of us who opened our wallets?
Just because we've sent them a few bucks for a QST subscription, that doesn't automatically give them that right.
I'm not afraid to speak up or speak out to question or to give them my opinion, irrespective of whether I'll earn a *de-merit* badge for doing so.... #:-)
Perhaps that's goofy. #I've never been one of those who proudly says "I fully support the ARRL, unequivocably." #The magazine is OK and the manuals are useful products.
Thanks, Ron, for starting the thread. #Healthy debate.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (kb3mng @ Oct. 24 2005,14:14)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 24 2005,11:20)]ARRL doesn't have a good history on that subject. #Look how we carved exception to the "scanner laws" for ourselves, instead of teaming with other users (and the general public) to get them thrown out altogether - as they should have been.
I don't know what you are referring to. #Could you give a brief summary?
Several states (Pennsylvania is one, there are others) prohibit people from having scanners to listen to what their police and other governmental services are doing. Most have exceptions for licensed ham operators, which is what I object to. A scanner law has one purpose: to facilitate a secret police. We should have campaigned to block such laws from being passed, rather than carve exceptions for ourselves.
I'm not talking about laws prohibiting people from using radio to facilitate a crime or interfere with public service. Only the laws that prohibit innocent citizens from knowing what their police are up to.
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2005,17:15)]The ARRL/NAAR does NOT speak for amateur radio. IMO, that is an outrageous claim. Instead the ARRL/NAAR speaks for a point of view which it assumes represents it's membership--itself debabtable.
The membership of the ARRL/NAAR constitutes approximately 20% of the radio amateurs licensed in the US. Hence the goofiness of claiming that:'The ARRL SPEAKS FOR AMATEUR RADIO'.
There are almost 600,000 radio amateurs in the US it does NOT speak for.
Almost 80% of US radio amateurs it does NOT speak for.
Just some clarification...
73,
Chip N1IR
Since that is the only voice we have, and you claim they do not speak for us, please explain the merit of having no voice in governmental affairs.
Technology has nothing to do with BPL. The BPL lobbyists contributed big bux to the Bush election war chest; now payback time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
The ARRL can't win these battles because there are few $$ from us to grease the political wheels nor could we ever financially compete with industry lobying even if we took out second mortages. I think ARRL's endorsement of the Motorola technology is the best we can do; leverage the financial clout of a large ham friendly corporation.
Greg
Quote[/b] (ai4cb @ Oct. 24 2005,06:46)]I also notice that utility applications, not just broadband service per se, are highlighted in this talk.
Page 18 - #
* BPL-enabled electricity meters that enable time-of-day and real-time-pricing through automated meter reading.
#* Load control devices that allow for enhanced load management functions.
#* Automated outage and restoration detection.
#* Preventative maintenance by monitoring the distribution network for problem signs before they result in power outages.
#* Enhanced utility applications are seen as the key driver for utilities to consider BPL deployment
Of course he's talking to a group of utility operators so he'll want to make them feel good about themselves ... but it almost seems like a bait & switch. #First we hear how BPL is supposed to deliver broadband service to the everyone using existing infrastructure #.. then we find out that the "key driver" is really utility applications.
Do we really need broadband to monitor the utility network & bill customers? Seems like there's not all that much information that would be needed and some simple narrow band telemetry would do. And I thought they already ways of remotely reading meters - I have never seen a meter-reader walking the neighborhood but I still get an electric bill every month.
And what happens if the utilities come to rely on BPL to control the utility network, and they start experiencing interference from amateur stations?
Hi, Ron:
Exactly why I submitted my comments to the FCC in the BPL proceedings.
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) has been in wide use on distribution systems for years. #Its conduit varies from telco lines to point to point and packet radio. #And, it provides the control and necessary information talked about. #But, it does not go to each and every customer revenue meter.
Why not? #Not cost effective and not really all that necessary.
Basic kWH meters cost about $25 each. #Really a bargain in today's marketplace. #kWH meters with demand registers, time clocks with memory cost about $500 each. #The cost of manually reading these from a portable instrument or some such is about 10 cents per meter per month.
Now, to the value of knowing if a given customer is on or not. #Since there are distribution devices every so often on a distribution line that can sense voltage on all three phases, only to the point of knowing whether a few customers on a few transformers are on or not. #How much revenue is lost to the utility (if they're off line)? #Not a whole lot. #Besides, they'll call up on their phones and caller ID software quickly tells the utility where they are and ties into circuit locations.
Load management? #Well, those systems are already around, using FM broadcast subcarriers, customer phone lines, etc.
Plus, these approaches don't require replacement of that cheap meter with some custom BPL version that would probably cost thousands of dollars each, since each BPL vendor probably is using a unique approach. #Quite a bit to pay just to gain information that isn't that valuable.
Also, from a control perspective, does it make sense to impress the control signal on the very lines controlled? #In transmission line VLF PLC implementations, multiple conductors are used, and automatic back-up schemes exist in the event of loss of signal. #And, today, most of VLF PLC is for non-critical control. #Critical control is telecommunicated via fiber optic or microwave paths and are self-healing redundant ring configurations. #SCADA is not that sophisticated and is usally just a radial system. #Perhaps with sufficient spares or overlap to cover individual component failures.
Unless BPL uses a different path to arrive at the point needed to switch to restore or reconfigure power, it will not be able, under many usual line fault conditions, to operate or retrieve information. #So, the argument for use as a control medium is a very weak one. #And, smacks of smoke........ and mirrors.
73,
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (w7my @ Oct. 24 2005,08:46)]Technology has nothing to do with BPL. The BPL lobbyists contributed big bux to the Bush election war chest; #now payback time. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
The ARRL can't win these battles because there are few $$ from us to grease the political wheels nor could we ever financially compete with industry lobying even if we took out second mortages. I think ARRL's endorsement of the Motorola technology is the best we can do; leverage the financial clout of a large ham friendly corporation.
Greg
Hi, Greg:
Couldn't resist a comment. #The ARRL can't win because, once again, it doesn't use all it has to combat the lobbyists effectively. #Or, maybe it doesn't want to win. #I don't know, at this point, which it is.
How so? #You would think that if the very powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, (the one that writes communication law and oversees the fCC) is from the Dallas Texas area, and the ARRL's President is too, well, that they would have at least met once, by now, right? #Nope, it hasn't happened. #If it had, it would have been plastered all over QST. #
How convenient. #Jim Hainey could gather a few fellow area hams that are constituents of the Chairman, Joe Barton, and all pay him a visit at his Arlington or Fort Worth Texas offices. #Tell him about amateur radio and ask for his help with, BPL, with CC&Rs, and whatever else that's important to the future of amateur radio. #Bills that the League wants might just FLY through the E&C Committee.
Has that happened? #Nope. #Has the idea been suggested to the ARRL or Jim Hainey directly? #Yes. #On at least two occasions as far back as two years ago.
Lobbyists buy lunches in Washington and#Jim Hainey gets his picture taken with a couple of congressmen in Washington. #But, not with Joe Barton. #Constituents #are the bottom line to members of Congress, and would be an approach worth trying, iMO.
Perhaps, Greg, if you and others reading this suggest that Jim Hainey try this approach, maybe he will. #He obviously has dismissed my suggestions.
73,
Lee
W6EM
W2NJS
10-25-2005, 07:31 PM
Since the FCC so far has refused to take action against the BPL abusers, we are in a position that there is effectively no FCC at all. That being the case, the power companies and the BPL equipment sellers have a free hand to do whatever the hell they want to do. If the ARRL can ever get the FCC to enforce the FCC's own rules on Part 15 signal levels then perhaps the current conventional BPL systems will work, but as of now it's a mess. ARRL says they have a Motorola system that works fine for BPL, but as long as the FCC ignores the ARRL things ain't about to get better very soon.
The only things that causes the power companies to give up BPL are economics and low investment return, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with interfering with anyone's radio reception.
When it comes to the FCC and BPL we all might as well be living in the Wild West of the 1850s where there was very little law in existence or, much less, enforced.
W2NJS
KC8VWM
10-26-2005, 04:42 PM
When it comes to the FCC and BPL we all might as well be living in the Wild West of the 1850s where there was very little law in existence or, much less, enforced.
--------
I find that comment particularly interesting to mention. I recently read something about the FCC throwing in the towel on the idea of micromanaging radio spectrum.
These ideas were presented by a think tank group in Washington who proposes that spectrum management can be equally achieved by using better technologies to prevent interference issues from occurring in the first place.
More "intelligent" technologies incorporated into devices (like the "V" chip for example) would mean radio devices would automatically comply and operate within a certain threshold limit and eventually lead to the idea that the FCC would no longer be a necessary component in certain areas of spectrum management enforcement.
Also consider technologies like wifi, people don't need the FCC to tell them which
frequency to use or to issue licenses. All those related functions are already incorporated into a box of electronics that are already built into their computers.
The result is that Wifi technologies allow more people to use the same amount of spectrum than older technologies do.
While this all sounds good on the surface, we need to realize at the same time this also eliminates the need for detailed FCC regulation.
...Do you see where this is going?
73 Charles - KC8VWM
n0xmz
10-27-2005, 08:02 PM
Various comments based on other comments:
* "The FCC has been promoting BPL as an alternative to broadband service offered by cable and phone companies, particularly in rural areas that may not have access to it otherwise."
And yet not one single BPL installation I've read about is actually in a rural area. Gee, I wonder why? I suppose cost has something to do with it (repeater required every 1000 ft. or so).
There was an article I read about a Wi-Fi hot-spot that covers a good portion of Oregon. Now THAT is interesting. THAT is technology that can really serve the rural folksv without costing a fortune to deploy.
* "BPL is just another option for broadband, cable, wireless or otherwise. #And an excellent option too."
Chuck, AA1MN
Why do Chuck AA1MN and Chip N1IR always stick up for BPL? #
As far as public safety goes, most police and fire depts. are already on 460MHz or 800 MHz bands. Very few still use low-band VHF.
* "The only things that causes the power companies to give up BPL are economics and low investment return, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with interfering with anyone's radio reception."
This is true. In most computer & broadband forums I've seen on the web (such as zdnet, cnet, pcmag, dslreports, etc.) BPL is hardly ever even mentioned. The computer users want SPEED (BPL is what... 700 kbps - 1 Mbps?) and portability (think Wi-Fi and Wi-Max).
Support your local Wi-Fi / Fiber / Cable / DSL .... how many more options do you need?
n0xmz,
A happy Comcast customer (at 5 Mbps)
kb2vxa
10-27-2005, 09:41 PM
Hi guys,
Let's shed some light on a few salient points.
"Here in Penna.,as of last week, PPL has reportedly dropped all plans for broadband."
OK, PP&L is but ONE PA power company, PECO just may go into competition with a city wide wireless network being built in Philadelphia. Possible, only a small percentage have wireless.
Page 18 -
* BPL-enabled electricity meters that enable time-of-day and real-time-pricing through automated meter reading.
Read fire the meter readers and save labor costs. Read "redundancy" since in many areas PLC technology is already in place.
* Load control devices that allow for enhanced load management functions.
HUH? It's been SOP since the first grid was built, but BPL to the rescue. I can see it now, the headline reads "Amateur Radio to blame for massive power outage". This is enhancement? (Or is it revenge, hi.)
* Automated outage and restoration detection.
Ever hear of automatic circuit breakers? Ever hear of telemetry and control? What can BPL do that existing equipment can't? (Yeah, experience greater and more frequent failures, see above. Muahahahahaaaaa.)
* Preventative maintenance by monitoring the distribution network for problem signs before they result in power outages.
Uh, didn't I say "telemetry"? Then again someone has to ACT on these problem signs in timely fashion. Ask yourself how long it takes a work order to go out after you report arcing tree branches in the lines messing up your reception. I know, when they burn through and fall or start a fire they'll do something. Don't laugh, it HAS happened more frequently than you think. Just a couple of years ago JCP&L waited until the Point Pleasant feeder failed completely........
* Enhanced utility applications are seen as the key driver for utilities to consider BPL deployment.:p
See above. Yeah, I totally agree with the icon, pretty stupid to replace PLC with BPL considering the fact they perform completely different functions AND the power companies have seen the shortcomings so most are now using fiber optics along the right of way.
I see a few knowledgable posts and I'm in agreement since I have a smattering of knowledge concerning power generation and distribution myself. I'm no expert so I just may brush up by consulting a good friend and world class ham who just happens to be an engineer for Connectiv in southern NJ. Hmmm, I wonder what he thinks about the possibility of his company firing up BPL right in front of his QTH, hmmmm. I know, next time he goes to Borneo he'll stay there! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] (K4WGE @ Nov. 06 2005,17:52)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 24 2005,20:46)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2005,17:15)]The ARRL does NOT speak for amateur radio.
Since that is the only voice we have, and you claim they do not speak for us, please explain the merit of having no voice in governmental affairs.
It makes as much sense as saying the NRA doesn't speak for gun owners...
I agree. Zero sense.
KF6IRK
11-08-2005, 05:59 PM
In many suburbs in and around Los Angeles, there are so many different types of interference affecting Amateur radio communications that it boggles one's mind.
The local cable TV and Ma Bell companies claim 'their' wiring is not the source of any interference in my neighborhood.
I've recently seen local TV commercials for "Verizon's" wireless broadband network (internet), and I wonder if it's propogated through the electrical power lines (BPL) ... I need to call both "Verizon" & "So. Cal Edison" for more info.
"Smart" electric blankets (imported from China) are causing a ticking/scraping interference at my QTH, from below 18mHz to above 30mHz, with the highest levels (sometimes exceeding 15 'S' units) experienced between 21 & 24mHz.
It seems that every few months or so, a new "noise" appears on the frequencies. I believe the newest interference I'm hearing might be emmiting from a battery charger for a cordless tool.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of tracking down interference and then dealing with the idiots who are buying all the inferior imported cheap crap that's flooding the market these days. The consumers of this junk don't have a clue about the interference this causes (let alone community values) and when confronted, do absolutely nothing to correct the issue(s).
The FCC should be watching for potential interference problems before they are mass-marketed here in the states, whether the products or services are "Made in the USA", or imported from some other Third-World Country.
But then again, I think someone else has already posted what might be the real issue ... ECONOMICS.
As for BPL, the FCC will side with Internet Service Providers and power utilities because they provide tax revenues and other economic opportunities (did I read: 4-billion/year?), rather than side with the Amateur Radio Community who operate on the affected frequencies for FREE.
w4fjf
11-10-2005, 10:35 PM
To the people who think that "BPL" isn't such a bad thing, I ask, why did western european countries drop the BPL plans they had? Even if the Ham bands are "notched" out, this technology has the ability to make other parts of the spectrum completely unusable. Police, fire, rescue units here in Alabama wonder if they will be affected, along with the many SWL listeners we have that are worrying too. I'm going to add my opinion rather bluntly: BPL in any form "sucks". If you state that I have a closed mind on this technology, guess what? You're RIGHT! The local power company knows my thoughts on their use of BPL in no uncertain terms. BPL is a technological horror they had better not loose on us. If the cable companies can "leak", what about the power companies maintenance on BPL, as it will equal the normal maintenance they spend on the regular transmission of power to our homes, indifferent at best. Lots of broken and cracked insulators, carbon tracked, and arcing, yet they take forever to fix them, if they ever listen to your polite complaints. Yes, there are some "good and responsive" power companies out there, but they are few and far between. Lucky you are to have one. BPL is not a workable technology, I'll stick with my dial up! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Gallagher's speech says that the GDP grew 3.6% for a 4 quarter growth, and that this is higher than the past 3 decades. However, in 1999, the GDP grew 4.2%. In fact, the GDP grew over 4% for 4 years.
This report is flawed.
N9XR
Quote[/b] (AE4TM @ Nov. 10 2005,13:46)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Oct. 24 2005,17:15)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 24 2005,14:12)]Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 23 2005,14:20)]Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Oct. 24 2005,09:18)]That's my point, Rob, the other users who suffer interference from these systems could have become allies with the group in Newington as they presented their technical case. Maybe we should help draw the ARRL's attention to other victims of this stuff since they seem to overlook or consciously spurn such an alliance beyond "ham radio."
ARRL doesn't have a good history on that subject. #Look how we carved exception to the "scanner laws" for ourselves, instead of teaming with other users (and the general public) to get them thrown out altogether - as they should have been.
W1RFI, Ed Hare said over #on eHam:
As to 30-50 MHz use, at last we have one of your "probably's" that actually has some basis in reality. (The laws or probability at work?) ARRL's standing is to speak for Amateur Radio, Lee, and if it starts speaking for all other services, its credibility to speak for Amateur Radio will be harmed. Even in what ARRL has said about not using BPL on overhead lines below 30 MHz, the industry response is that ARRL has no business asking for more than the ham bands, and they are already saying that those on other spectrum are not concerned, so ARRL must be making up the interference issues.
There are a number of factors on the table for low VHF, Lee. First, the emissions are lower because the rules require lower limits above 30 MHz than they do below 30 MHz. 30-50 MHz use is sporadic across the country, and, if spectrum is chosen carefully, it is possible in most areas to avoid the parts of that band that are used locally. And again, those users MUST speak for themselves and do 10% of what ARRL has done for Amateur Radio. If ARRL speaks for them, their silence is used to undermine ARRL's ability to address the issue at all.
Lee
W6EM
The ARRL/NAAR does NOT speak for amateur radio. IMO, that is an outrageous claim. Instead the ARRL/NAAR speaks for a point of view which it assumes represents it's membership--itself debabtable.
The membership of the ARRL/NAAR constitutes approximately 20% of the radio amateurs licensed in the US. Hence the goofiness of claiming that:'The ARRL SPEAKS FOR AMATEUR RADIO'.
There are almost 600,000 radio amateurs in the US it does NOT speak for.
Almost 80% of US radio amateurs it does NOT speak for.
Just some clarification...
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip,
Although you have a PhD in physics, I have both a PhD in physics and a MD in medicine-only 200 people in US history have obtained both! As a professional, I disagree with your comment above. Here are some interesting references why:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/11/14/101/
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html
Ed
Neither one of your links support your disagreement with Chip's opinion. #ARRL does just as he says, except, perhaps, the opinions expressed by the ARRL often support just some flush and vocal minorities within its overall minority membership of US amateurs.
Its interesting to note that your first cite drives home my reason for re-posting Hare's flippant comment: #ARRL has supported the findings of other BPL-affected spectrum users. #Actually by doing so, they solidify helpful constituencies that may later reap huge rewards. #Such as, sharing of data, experience, etc. #In other words, not having to reinvent the wheel.
In fact, Hare chairs an IEEE committee or sub-committee, as I recall. #One of the purposes of the IEEE committee structure is to share experience and to develop standards based on the consensus expertise and experience of members. #If nothing is supported or shared, and kept to themselves, well, the results would speak for themselves. #APS probably operates the same way.
Lee
kd7ykb
11-20-2005, 04:37 AM
Quote[/b] (ei5ja @ Oct. 24 2005,07:44)]Does not wireless broadband #render BPL obsolete?
73. Ed http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I've had wireless broadband at two different homes, both times they worked great after fixing the bugs, but in one of the instances the speeds and cost weren't any better then what I could have gotten from Cable or DSL if they had been available to me; which they weren't, thus the wireless. #In both instances the wireless has more problems then in all the experiences I've had with DSL.
Wireless will never be as fast as a wired connection with both running under optimal configurations. #Last I check wireless speeds were up to 108Mbs at best, and Ethernet over Cat5e was boasting about 10Gbs speeds being just around the corner. #Of course wireless, under optimal conditions with the right equipment can span longer distances then Ethernet.
All technologies in the ISP and data networking businesses have their advantages and disadvantages, so it's really a matter of what will work best for your particular situation.
As for BPL, I'm sure it'll evetually find it's market, so long as it's not terribly flawed.
This kind of reminds me of the first song ever played on MTV, "Video Killed the Radio Star", but we all know that didn't happen. #personally I've only watched MTV on very few occasions, and have listened to AM stations quite a bit too. #AM stations even have advantages over FM stations.
kd7ykb
11-20-2005, 04:49 AM
Quote[/b] (W2NJS @ Oct. 25 2005,12:31)]When it comes to the FCC and BPL we all might as well be living in the Wild West of the 1850s where there was very little law in existence or, much less, enforced.
W2NJS
Now wouldn't that be a nice breather from all the controls we have over our lives?