eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interference Report:

from The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 16 on April 21, 2006
Website: http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!

ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interference Report:

In response to a report from BPL operator COMTek that claims its BPL system in Manassas, Virginia cannot be shown to be the cause of ongoing interference complaints by local amateurs, the ARRL has documented the report's shortcomings and again has demanded that the FCC shut down the system until the interference problems are solved.

In an April 14, 2006 letter to two FCC officials, ARRL General Counsel Christopher D. Imlay, W3KD, concluded: "In light of the record of long-standing interference to licensed stations in Manassas, and the failure of COMTek and the City of Manassas to comply with Section 15.615(d), the Commission should require that the BPL system be shut down immediately, and not resume its operation until the facility is shown to be in full compliance with Commission rules regarding radiated emissions and the non-interference requirement of Section 15.5 of the Commission's rules."

The 10 page letter, addressed to Joseph Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, and Katherine Power, of the Spectrum Enforcement Division, sets forth in detail the "tortured history of interference complaints involving the BPL system." COMTek's report was submitted to the FCC in response to a letter from Casey to the City of Manassas and COMTek requiring a "report of system compliance and your report of actions taken to address the alleged harmful interference." The report states, "COMTek believes that the current configuration of the Manassas BPL System is not the source of interference to amateur radio licensees." The ARRL response, citing ongoing interference complaints, called the study "fatally and obviously flawed."

Appended to the ARRL letter to the FCC was a detailed analysis of the technical study prepared by ARRL Lab Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI. The analysis concluded: "…the testing that was performed in no way is sufficient to reach any general conclusions about emissions levels." The analysis goes on to criticize the methodology and conclusions of the tests, which were performed by Product Safety Engineering, Inc. Hare's analysis found a number of deficiencies in the PSE report, including:
The testing was not done in accordance with the FCC's recommended test guidelines;
The test equipment used -- a spectrum analyzer and a passive loop antenna -- was not sufficient to measure notch depth nor to measure the ambient noise levels;
PSE tested only one amateur band at a single location, which was insufficient to establish compliance or non-interference; and
The testing does not follow good engineering practice and is not sufficient to have met the requirements set forth by the FCC for this testing.

The ARRL letter to the FCC concluded:

"…The Manassas and COMTek non-responses to the Commission's directive; their vague assurances to work with the Amateur Radio operators in the future; and their stonewalling on the cause of the harmful interference should not be tolerated by the Enforcement Bureau and will not be further tolerated by the Amateur Radio community in Manassas, or by ARRL."

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 25, No. 16 April 21, 2006

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interference  
by WA1RNE on April 23, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
To all Radio Amateurs and the ARRL:


Considering the amount of data compiled by the ARRL proving that ComTek's system is not in compliance with FCC regulations, along with numerous official requests to force ComTek to comply - versus the amount of action taken by the FCC to force compliance, it would appear that big business has the governments ear and amateur radio is in for a long and frustrating fight which in the end, we may lose.


The glory days of the 1950's through 70's are long gone.


Technology marches on, so we had better start "thinking out of the box" to enhance our capabilities as amateurs. Doing so will better justify our utilization of valuable HF spectrum as truly deserving occupants, as opposed to "grandfathered hobbyists".


If we continue on as "Professional Contesters" and don't give enough back in terms of service to the public or as technologists making advancements in communications technology, as was the case many years ago, we are guaranteed to lose more of these battles in the near future.


Chris, WA1RNE


 
ARRL'S IMPOTENCE  
by W9WHE-II on April 24, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"ARRL has documented the report's shortcomings and again has demanded that the FCC shut down the system until the interference problems are solved".


Ok. This is "demand" number 12 or 13. It no longer matters. ARRL is an impotent paper tiger. Now EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE knows it.


WA1RNE writes:

"If we continue on as "Professional Contesters" and don't give enough back in terms of service to the public or as technologists making advancements in communications technology......we are guaranteed to lose more of these battles in the near future"

I could not agree more. ARRL's push to make hams no-tech appliance operators is just plain wrong headed thinking.

W9WHE


 
ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interference  
by KB2VXA on April 24, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hi all,

"I could not agree more. ARRL's push to make hams no-tech appliance operators is just plain wrong headed thinking."

That and a gazillion other blunders over the years! Speaking of paper tigers, anyone got a match?

Between Newington's blunders and Washington's "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn." attitude I feel we will witness the end of Amateur Radio as we know it in our lifetime. As Rhett walks off into the sunset we hear the theme, Gone With The Wind.

On the positive side, we REALLY SHOULD be thinking "outside the box", our waters have been stagnant far too long. Whatever happened to progressive thinking? For example, why have we let Icom for one corner the market of digital voice using a proprietary standard so it never caught on? What's wrong with P25 that's in common use by public service agencies and it's AMERICAN, not something foisted over on us by the Japanese manufacturers. Then again why has nobody come up with a software codec enabling use of a sound card like we do with most things digital?

OK, enough rant, now I leave you to think about it and hopefully some of you with more knowlege than I will DO SOMETHING about it.

73 de Warren KB2VXA
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by N7UQA on April 25, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K1OU...


I'm sure you have noticed that W9WHE's posts ALLWAYS have some sort of ARRL bashing twist to them. If he isn't bitching about the 'ARRL's inept handling' of BPL interference issues; he's constantly bitching about hams taking advantage of easy upgrades. I first got exposed to Amateur Radio back in the late 70's; but I didn't get licensed till 91 when the 'no code' license was available. I didn't decide to do it just because of the ' no code' license, I did it because I had enough of CB radio.

Even though I had to take my exams at a VE session and not in front of a FCC field agent, it was still intimidating enough. I wanted to 'learn' the material and didn't simply 'memorize' the question pool answers. I remember another post here on eham where another ham criticized a technician about getting HF privileges without taking a code test. He even proudly boasted in his eham profile of waiting till the code requirement got dropped to 5 WPM before he upgraded to extra. WTF???? HELLO... Pot calling kettle black!

As far as the Amateur Radio Service goes today; I would say that it's now how well you understand the rules, regulations and operating practices that govern our service. While some technical knowledge is certainly helpful, it's not the be all end all. You should however have basic knowledge to properly hook up your equipment, test and troubleshoot for proper operation. As far as W9WHE's posts go, I more or less ignore them. They are irrelevant and BORING! It's the same old regurgitated BS all the time.






Craig - N7UQA

A-1 OperaTOR ;)
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by K1OU on April 25, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Craig (N7UQA),

Nice to see your post. I agree with you that it is important to know the rules, regs, and how not to electrocute yourself.

By looking at your station, it looks very impressive! A nice array of test equipment, cool Alpha amp, nice radios!

As I said in a previous post, I know there are people with no code licenses who can run technical rings around me. I think people would get along a lot better once we realize that we can learn a lot from each other, while not bashing people for something for which we are equally guilty. I am sure that there are folks on this board who look down on newer Extras because we had the luxury of a study guide and didn't have to draw an 8 by 10 with pictures and arrows and a paragraph on the back. That is their right. However, to criticize an organization for aiding and abetting in dumbing down requirements while taking advantage of the program to upgrade is more than a bit self-serving and hypocritical.

And, as if the tougher requirements kept KV4FZ, WA4D, K4OKA and WB2OTK from getting an HF license....
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by KG6AMW on April 26, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Wow a really a strange exchange that veered from a parade of anti-ARRL cool aid drinkers back over to mine is bigger than yours followed by generous dose of screw you. I think this is a record!
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by WA1RNE on April 26, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I was hoping that "thinking out of the box" would raise some positive ideas on how to counter some of the opposition we face in our battles to maintain spectrum and keep it QRM free.


Instead, the thread turns into the usual no-code, no-tech rant - the one everyone loves to hate.


Obviously, these forums are not a serious place to brainstorm/debate what may be worthwhile self improvement ideas.


What a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth......


Disappointingly yours,

WA1RNE
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by N7UQA on April 26, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Now on to the original thread:


As long as we have commissioners at the highest level of the FCC who are so easily dazzled by smoke and mirrors and baffled by bull shit; we are ALWAYS going to have problems like this. When confronted by the technical facts their response is that 'there is no problem'; 'your technical facts are flawed and open to debate and interpretation'.

The simple fact is that BPL is an IP delivery method over the WRONG medium. You don't see the cable television company's wanting to deliver TV over power lines. You don't see the phone company's wanting to deliver POTS service over power lines. Power lines were designed to deliver one thing and one thing only, POWER.

Ever since such notable figures like:

Robert Livingston, former Speaker of the House
Terry McAullife, DNC Chairman, leading Democratic fund-raiser and close friend of then-President Clinton
Admiral James Carey, former chair of the Federal Maritime Commission
Michael Powell, then chairman of the FCC

attended a presentation by Media Fusion's William 'Luke' Stewart, were dazzled by unprecedented levels of bull shit. Mr. Stewart claimed his company (Media Fusion) could deliver the Internet over ordinary power wires at exobit plus (billion gigabit) speeds, with end users getting 2+ gigabit connections. The technology was never delivered or demonstrated, and Mr. Stewart was later convicted on money laundering and wire fraud charges. But for some reason, our congress critters rammed legislation through to push deployment of this technology anyway.

So, it's been what, several years now. BPL is at it's best, what, 1 to 2 mega bits; has the interference potential equal or greater than ordinary power line interference. The hams that live in BPL serviced areas are STILL being pummeled by interference; even though the FCC gave endless assurance that interference mitigation would be swift and efficient.

As I have stated all along, when we have such gullible and ignorant officials; we will always have ill conceived ventures like this.

To read more on the history of BPL, do yourself a favor and visit this site.

http://www.dallas.net/~jvpoll/bpl/


Craig - N7UQA
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by W9WHE-II on April 27, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N7UQA writes:

"As I have stated all along, when we have such gullible and ignorant officials; we will always have ill conceived ventures like this".

An arrogant attitude will not defeat BPL.
So many people fail to understand that BPL is NOT about "technical" issues. BPL is about ECONOMICS.

If BPL can prove it is cheaper (or at least competitive) it will be a issue we will have to live with. On the other hand, if it is not ECONOMICALLY competitive, it will not survive.

Technical graphs, charts, and arguments are not going to get you any further then arrl's arguments and demands have. Defeat of BPL will be more likely successful by showing that it is not ECOMOMICALLY VIABLE in a competitive market.

Its time people understand the REALITY.

W9WHE
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by W9WHE-II on April 27, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N7UQA writes:

"I'm sure you have noticed that W9WHE's posts ALLWAYS have some sort of ARRL bashing twist to them"

NEWSFLASH: this article is entitled "ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interference". Why is it a big surprise that arrl's failures would be part of the conversation? Oh, I forgot. Criticizums of the almighty arrl is "VERBOTEN" in the eyes of some arrl supporters. Why is it that its OK to support arrl, but VERBOTEN to criticize?

W9WHE
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by N7UQA on April 27, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I don't think there is a clue bat big enough to convince Jonathan that; ' market' forces should not be the only thing that determine weather a technology should be 'economically viable'. Jonathan also seems to ignore the fact that this technology was banned in other countries because of it's TECHNICAL problems. So, by Johnathan's logic it would be ok to bring back coast to coast rotary spark gap relay stations. Who cares if it lays to waste entire swaths of spectrum with noise, we should let the market decide if it's viable or not.

I will always criticize officials or 'political appointees' who are put into positions they clearly lack the credentials for. They are just a bunch of yes men and ass kissers looking to further their political career. They are the perfect prey for guys like William Stewart; who like I said, baffled the likes of Michael Powell with pure BS.

Putting 'political appointees' as FCC commissioners is a lot like telling an door to door Avon sales lady the following:

"Becky, you have done such a stellar job that we feel it's time for you to move up in the company. We are therefore moving you into a higher paying position in our IT security department. Specifically, we want you to keep the servers on line and grep the mail and apache server logs for scripted attacks. Your job will also require you to modify the access files; rebuild the db files with the new changes, block the sub nets these attacks are coming from and other routine housekeeping chores. We also want you to talk with some of our vendors about finding a suitable replacement for our aging backup systems"

She's going to give you that 'deer in the headlights look', she simply doesn't have the technical competence.

There will ALWAYS be some money hungry marketeer who will try to find some niche market for this BPL abortion. And the sooner the FCC realizes that maybe this wasn't such a good idea and banns it, the better. Because I'm telling you, I'll fight BPL at every turn; because if we had true engineers as FCC commissioners, BPL would of NEVER gotten off the ground.


Craig - N7UQA
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by N2MG on May 1, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K1OU/W9WHE

This article (and website) is not your personal sniping resource. If you wish to attack each other, feel free, but do not use eHam.

Mike N2MG
 
RE: ARRL Documents Flaws in Manassas BPL Interfere  
by K1OU on May 1, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Fair enough, Mike. I do appreciate the service you provide. I'll back off, it's getting old.
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
What is FCC Docket 03-104 Asking?
JARL Administration Says 'Yes' to PLC:
Malicious Interference Cases Top FCC List
No 136 kHz for the USA
Spectrum Protection Act Cosponsor List Tops 100:


Other News Articles
The New Frontier for School Radio:
New Vice Directors in Central, Roanoke Divisions:
New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:
Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:
Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):