Okay. I am curious to see what kinds of responses people get to their notification submissions. If they do get objections, the format and content of those objections will tell us a lot about the process that they are using to vet the notifications. I went ahead and sent in mine, because at those frequencies, you could build radios out of just about anything, including switching FETs, and getting 500W of amplifier output could be almost easy. And given the losses of an antenna that could fit in my yard, it might take power levels like that to get to 1W ERP. But I do have two different power lines within the 1km circle that are large enough to have carriers should they want to. So I'm curious to hear back what they have running on those things, if anything.
I share your suspicion Chip. My online notification seemed to execute properly, however despite including my email address in the data, no receipt was received, yet. I may email the designated UTC administrator later to ask for confirmation. Just in case, I made a screen shot image and saved it as a note to file and as a date-time stamp of its submission. It would surely be nice to see a PLC database map. I wonder if there are denials to hams, will there be any due process, detailed explanation, and/or appeal. 73, John - WØPV
No receipt here either, John. I suspect there is some intern who has a map of PLC installs and plunks the ham coords in to check. IF they even check.... If I get a form rejection--without specifics on installs-- I will ask K1VR to step in, professionally . 73 Chip W1YW
so no confirmation number or anything.... how long until we see some rigs flooding the market for LF operation ??
Because the UTC opted in to this process, they have to document their decision process. It was their option to provide confirmation. Hams' obligation is to request, not to require confirmation.
Good afternoon please when you get a chance please contact me via email at mdina.ariel85@Gmail .com thx...
That is crazy ... passing this info out to the MF community, never considered those self-reporting meters... John WA3ETD
I wonder if the self-reporting meter form of PLC is like the failed broadband-over-powerline debacle; the data connection often dropped when a nearby transmitter was in operation, so the incompatibility was two-way. I'd bet if the power company couldn't read yours and near-by meters whenever you were on the air, they would find a way to fix the problem fast. We have a system here, but it has never caused a serious RFI problem, audible only when I hold a portable radio right next to the meter.
It is my understanding there are several varieties of these "smart" meters. One is the low band PLC communication variety which is used by my co-op, and the other is a 900 MHz wireless version which is extremely popular in more suburban & urban areas due to the more favorable characteristics of that wavelength in an urban environment. 900 Mhz is obviously useless in a heavily forested area, as is the case in my county of residence. In addition to the two "radio" versions, there is a network enabled variety which can be connected to the grid via a broadband or DSL connection. As long as my co-op keeps the communication down to a few minutes once a day, I'm not going to complain. Getting a resolution with my "noisy" meter is something I am going to pursue as time permits.
And when they start sending data over the powerlines (BPL) , what then? I know that my elect co op is planning too do just that in Tn (and northern Ms) Get registered and "approved" now.
I'm not clear on one issue. I just registered, and assuming that I don't hear from them in the 30 day window, my application (registration) is automatically approved and I become a LICENSED user. reading the FCC's statement "“Amateur stations will be permitted to commence operations after a 30-day period,unless UTC notifies the station that its fixed location is located within 1 kilometer of Power Line Carrier (PLC) systems operating on the same or overlapping frequencies,” the FCC said. PLC systems are unlicensed. “This notification process will ensure that amateur stations seeking to operate [on 630 or 2200 meters] are located beyond a minimum separation distance from PLC transmission lines, which will help ensure the compatibility and coexistence of amateur and PLC operations, and promote shared use of the bands.” so, a year later, the UNLICENSED PLC carrier decides to run BPL in my area and it interferes with my LICENSED station. Who has the legal upper hand? The way I read this (see below), it would seem that the PLC is prohibited from any new buildout within one kilometer of my station. New Buildout of Transmission Lines with PLC Systems. If an electric utility seeks to deploy a new or modified PLC system on a transmission line that is within one kilometer of a previously coordinated amateur station, the electric utility must employ a frequency in the 9-490 kHz range that has not been included in the amateur station’s notification. If the previously coordinated amateur station no longer operates in the band, the electric utility may deploy a PLC system in that band.
No. You didn't apply for anything, and your license is valid regardless of their response. You notified them of your intent to transmit, and they can only object to you operating within 1km of an active carrier. If their carrier is within 1km of your proposed operation, your proposed operation was not permitted to start with (47 CFR 97.303). You are a secondary user. FCC said that early on. So you are not protected from QRM by any primary user. When I read the original R&O, I took it to say that if you register, and there is no objection, you are not required to later re-register or cease operation if a new carrier goes online in the same band. If they want to avoid QRM to their own gear, they have to work around you since you registered that location, and they had access to that information before installing their new carrier. Clear as mud, right? It seems to me that it would have been a lot easier for FCC to just say, "no new PLC operation in the two amateur subbands," and then "existing PLC systems have to move away from the two new amateur subbands within 10y" or something similar.
