League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report 'Flawed,' 'Misleading':
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 31
on
August 4, 2006
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report 'Flawed,' 'Misleading':
The ARRL has told the FCC it has found a radio interference report filed on
behalf of the Manassas, Virginia, BPL system "flawed in numerous respects."
The League responded this week to a July 17 letter and BPL interference
study the FCC mandated following repeated complaints from local radio
amateurs.
"ARRL objects to the report because it is based on improper engineering
practice and contrary to the instructions provided by your office in your
letter dated June 16, 2006," ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, wrote
FCC Spectrum Enforcement Division Chief Joseph Casey on August 2. In June,
Casey had ordered the City of Manassas and BPL provider COMTek to
investigate complaints from several Manassas radio amateurs of BPL
interference to their mobile operations and report back to the Commission on
their findings. The League, and local amateurs, contend the BPL system is
still causing harmful interference to Amateur Radio operations, despite the
clean bill of health the engineering report purports to present.
"It did so both before and after the tests conducted by COMTek; and there is
no doubt at all that the interference is from the COMTek BPL system operated
in the City of Manassas and not from any other source." The League
reiterated its demand that the system be shut down immediately.
"Unless the Enforcement Bureau is willing to do that, you are going to have
to send Commission staff to observe this interference and conduct their own
measurements in the presence of both COMTek and the local Amateur Radio
operators who are receiving the interference," Imlay asserted. Manassas
radio amateurs who have complained to the FCC about the BPL interference
also have suggested that the FCC must investigate the problem firsthand.
The League maintained that COMTek "has filed incorrect and misleading
reports" and has "manipulated the BPL system to show false readings." In
particular, the ARRL -- and local radio amateurs -- suggest that the BPL
system was not operating at peak user loading during the testing, as the FCC
had ordered. Either that or COMTek and BPL equipment manufacturer Main.net
adjusted system power levels downward for the testing, Imlay told the FCC.
"The Commission is going to have to investigate this matter itself, without
advance notice to COMTek or the City, so that the system is not powered down
or otherwise manipulated to show other than peak loading characteristics at
the power levels typically used in Manassas," the ARRL stated. The League
said it's clear that the FCC can't rely on reports from consultants hired by
the system's operators while excluding the victims of the interference.
In its dealings with the Manassas BPL system, the League concluded, the FCC
has "completely ignored" Part 15 rules requiring a BPL operator, upon
learning of harmful interference, to investigate and resolve it successfully
within a reasonable time. "The recent submission of COMTek and the City have
produced no resolution of the interference at all," ARRL said. "Rather,
COMTek and the City have shown a complete inability, and now, by their
denials, the unwillingness, to resolve the interference."
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 25, No. 31
August 4, 2006
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report 'Fla
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I couldn't find any flaws.
The REPORT is sound. The alleged 'flaw' relates to the ARRL/NAAR assertion that the system wasn't being tested at near full capacity.
Here's my take-away:
* Attenuation at ham frequencies was MEASURED at close to 30 db (WOW!);
* Peak signal was about 11.5 MHz (outside of ham bands)
* The measurements indicated compliance with Part 15.
If the ARRL/NAAR wants to allege FRAUD rather than FLAW (because of the claimed non-peak capacity signal), then let's see the evidence for it. As it stands, there are no "flaws".
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by NN4RH on August 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> I couldn't find any flaws. <<
Come on Chip, you know the rules. If it doesn't result in the "right" answer, then it must be flawed by definition. Simple.
It's like UFOs. Actually it's VERY MUCH like UFOs. They never seem to be around when you need to prove they exist ... but there are a lot of people who honestly believe in them.
|
|   |
|
League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report 'Fla
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pleasure to hear from you Ron. Hope you like the new call.
Best 73's,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
eHam's radar is active and has acquired target. Standby for missile lock.
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>The REPORT is sound. The alleged 'flaw' relates to the ARRL/NAAR assertion that the system wasn't being tested at near full capacity.
Capacity is a valid concern for non-OFDM based spread spectrum systems like Main.net's system (which is in Manassas). The system simply has less emissions when less data is transmitted, thereby skewing any results if it's not full loaded. Revised FCC regs require it.
> Attenuation at ham frequencies was MEASURED at close to 30 db (WOW!)
Do any weak signal CW work? 30 dB below part 15 emissions limits would be around S4, give or take. 30 dB is a good thing, but not a silver bullet.
> Peak signal was about 11.5 MHz (outside of ham bands)
So?
> The measurements indicated compliance with Part 15.
There's more to Part 15 compliance than just emissions limit compliance.
|
|   |
|
League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report 'Fla
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
These are valid questions--I submit to you they are, at present, theoretical ones.
Could you kindly cite a fixed station example of harmful interference from BPL to a bona fide Part 97 two-way tranmission?
I suspect you REALLY don't want to defend a CW contact while driving mobile:-)
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Could you kindly cite a fixed station example of harmful interference from BPL to a bona fide Part 97 two-way tranmission?
Is it only harmful interference if you're in QSO from a fixed station? Is it harmful interference if you can actually partially hear the other side through the interference? What if you can't hear anyone? If you can't establish a two way QSO, then it's really not interferring with a bonafide Part 97 two-transmission. What if 20 meters is trashed but 30 meters is OK? Is it harmful? You're going down the same slippery slope the BPL proponents have in their FCC filings.
Even if a bona fide Part 97 communication isn't taking place, finding an S9 emission across multiple HF bands in an area precludes it from being used for amateur communications, mobile or fixed, anytime soon. Should the burden of having usable spectrum in an area be on the licensee? Is it reasonable to ask licensees to request clear spectrum from a local power company before moving or travelling in an area? While this isn't an issue today, with ubiquitous BPL coverage it's a very possible reality.
>I suspect you REALLY don't want to defend a CW contact while driving mobile:-)
For the purposes of doling out NALs, no. :-) For the current BPL landscape (one neighborhood trial deployments) and showing what will happen in a widespread deployment, mobile operation is often necessary. Unfortunately the BPL companies haven't designed these trials with quantifying the effects to licensees in mind. This isn't a big problem, until it's in front of your house and you're the one attempting the CW contact from a fixed station. (BTW, there are people that do mobile CW :-) )
|
|   |
|
League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report 'Fla
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, I was kinda hopin' for an answer to my question...
Are there NO fixed station complaints?
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Are there NO fixed station complaints?
I don't have access to each and every compliant, but I know Cedar Rapids, Iowa had a fixed station complaint (that system was ultimately shut down), and I personally knew of one in PA. I think Cottonwood, AZ had one. ARRL has kept track of complaints, call them to get information.
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by NN4RH on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> I don't have access to each and every compliant, but I know Cedar Rapids, Iowa had a fixed station complaint (that system was ultimately shut down), and I personally knew of one in PA. I think Cottonwood, AZ had one. ARRL has kept track of complaints, call them to get information. <<
Why should we have to individually pry the information about BPL complaints out of the ARRL one at a time? If BPL interference to fixed/home stations really was a problem, then I would think we'd be reading shrill news items about it practically every week on the ARRL website, like we are with the Manassas mobile complaints.
There used to be a link to an ARRL database with details of various BPL complaints but it seems to have gone dead - I just tried to check it. In fact I cannot find any ARRL link anymore to any specifics of BPL complaints, except for a handful that were filed as FCC comments ...
Hopefully, there is a still a link to this information somewhere but I just haven't found it it yet. I would hope that the ARRL hasn't decided to hide this vital information from the ARRL membership and licensed amateur community in general, who obviously need it to make informed opinions about BPL. The only reason I can think of for hiding the facts, would be to prevent amateurs from being able to make informed opinions about BPL - surely they wouldn't want that.
In any case, the last time I was able to mine the database, earlier this year, I could only find a few fixed station complaints at all, and all but one of them had been resolved at that time.
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Why should we have to individually pry the information about BPL complaints out of the ARRL one at a time?
I'm not saying you or anyone should. I'm just telling Chip that he can find out for himself. I'm not going to spend hours digging up detailed information he can find, providing numbers for an argument I don't feel is very relevant.
As I've said here several times, I don't think it's accurate to guage BPL's threat based on the absolute number of station complaints, fixed or mobile. The coverage is so small that you can't gather meaningful statistics. The only real information is the technical aspects of it (emissions limits, how it radiates, notch behavior, vendors' system characteristics, etc.). This coupled with the industry's big plans, their well-funded lobbying effort, and FCC support make it a threat. Until something major happens like the unlikely event of the FCC declaring 40 dB ham band notches as mandatory, an outright ban of the technology, or the several vendors with lousy interference track records go away or clean up their acts, it will continue to be a threat. This is even more apparent when you study the application of BPL in grid management and its entirely different business model.
|
|   |
|
League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report 'Fla
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So..
We conclude that there may be ONE fixed station Part 97 complaint to the FCC--but we don't know who it is. Do we?
So much for the threat of devastation to ham radio by BPL...
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
|   |
|
RE: League Calls Manassas BPL Interference Report
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>So much for the threat of devastation to ham radio by BPL...
Do you actually read any of the responses to your posts?
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial:
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority, Court Filing Says:
Malicious Interference Cases Top FCC List
No 136 kHz for the USA
Spectrum Protection Act Cosponsor List Tops 100:
Other News Articles
Middle School Looks to Start Ham Radio Club:
Mile High Radio Club Connects the Mountain:
DX News -- ARRL DX Bulletin #47:
This Week on the Radio:
FCC Looks to Revise, Clarify Vanity Call Sign Rules:
|