No 136 kHz for the USA
John Crowder (G0GDU)
on
September 15, 2003
View comments about this article!
I read in RadCom (the journal of the RSGB) that the FCC has decided not to allocate 136 kHz to US Amateurs.
It seems strange that the reason given is because of worries about interference to and from power-line signaling systems.
Is this a sign of what is to come? Is it officially recognized that amateurs (and others) will experience interference from power-line signals? If so I sincerely hope that this will be restricted to the US.
Any thoughts or opinions?
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by 2INTEREST on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is also interesting to note that the power companies think that the allocation of 136 mhz to amateurs will cause interference to their control systems, but think that BPL (Broadband internet over Power Lines) will cause little or no interference to amateurs stations.
Typical hypocritical money mongers the power companies are turning out to be.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by K0BG on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It reminds me of a draft horse with blinders on. He knows only what's in front of him and that he will get fed if he keeps plodding along. The problem is, the product of all of this work is what comes out at the end. Pure, unadulterated....
Alan, KØBG
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You got that right Alan! I find it so ironic that the power companies are concerned with interference to their so called control systems when they plan on wiping out spectrum with this bpl crap. Guess its all about $$$$$$ Its already bad enough that you have to just about wage war with these greedy SOB`s to get them to fix ancient insulators and old corroded connections that generate so much RFI that you cant hear on any band from DC to daylight! Now they want protection from amateur interference to their grid? Talk about hypocrites!!!
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Commissioners of the FCC have, on the whole, very little technical experience in engineering. They are mostly lawyers. They're not experts in EMC issues, but they're not dunces either. When presented with the facts, they can apply the law that Congress has given them to operate under and come up with reasonable decisions.
Our challenge is presenting the facts.
In the case of the ARRL's request for an amateur allocation at 136 kHz, very few hams filed comments with the Commission. The power industry did, saying that we *might* interfere with their carrier current systems used to maintain and control the grid. Since we did not show the Commission any facts to counter the industry's suggestion of a problem, the FCC acted rationally by putting the security of the nation's utility infrastructure ahead of our hobby activity.
I hope we've learned a lesson from the result of our inaction--and it appears that we may have. Thousands of hams filed comments on the BPL issue. A few hundred of us even filed them correctly and in a timely manner so that they will be a part of the official record of the Commission's Notice of Inquiry.
If you read most of the comments related to the BPL NOI, you'll find that most simply say things like "this is a bad idea." However, dozens go on to say why and offer factual information (and, in the ARRL's comment, hard data) to explain our position. This is the way to fight these regulatory battles.
Now, the FCC has real world facts to weigh in the BPL matter. We should expect that our interests will be more strongly considered on BPL than the 136 kHz issue.
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
THE ALMIGHTY POWER COMPANIES ACT AS THOUGH ALL 700'000 HAMS ARE GOING TO FIRE UP ON 136KHZ.when exactly that this is not the CASE. the are bunch of HAMS that are known AS LOWFERS and their main interest IS VLF and obviously THERE ARE NOT VERY MANY OF THEM. I sincerely hope the POWER COMPANIES GET KNOCKED DOWN ON THEIR DRIVE TO GET BPL.but they spend big bucks to squash the 136 KHZ band that only a small group HAMS MIGHT USE. so some day in the near future we can TRY AGAIN TO PETITION FOR A 136KHZ allocation. BUT NXT TIME WE CAN GET OUR ACT TOGETHER. AS THESE GUYS DESERVE A BAND OF THEIR "OWN". 73 DE N2NZJ TOM.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KZ9G on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4ZHN,
This past Saturday, I called in a DC to daylight arcing insulator on a specific medium voltage line not too far from my house. Guess what... it was fixed on Sunday! The best thing was that I didn't even have to mention that I was a ham with RFI issues either. I call this wonderful service from the Snohomish County PUD - a northern Seattle suburb.
I suppose the Union guys needed some overtime...
73.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KC7YRN on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you talk to someone with a clue at the power company, they'll realize that arcing equipment is equipment that's about to fail and cause a maintenance issue or even an outage. Fixing those things is in their own interests.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by W7COM on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've notice that SnoPUD seems to have the highest number of antennas per vehicle of any utility that I've seen. It would be interesting to inspect their radio shop.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KC5NYJ on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In the defense of power companies concerns... All it would take is one instance of interference at the wrong time to potentially start a domino effect like we saw happen recently in the NE.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KZ9G - Your very lucky man! I had an RFI issue with Florida Power and light and fought with them tooth and nail to try to get them to fix it. After about 3 months of calls and letters they finally came out with a crew, and did exactly nothing to fix the problem! I even let the so called technician listen to the frying in my rig and he claimed he could not find anything wrong on the pole! He didnt even go up to it in the bucket truck to actually look at it! Beats me how he could tell from ground level if the connections are fine standing 35 feet below them! He probed around with some sort of sniffer device and you could hear the frying in it also, but he claimed this is normal! Normal???? Since when is a 7800 volt line supposed to fry and make noise? I had an ancient pole pig right literally in my backyard and it was arcing something terrible with varying conditions.(either dirty insulators of just rotten corroded connections at the high voltage side of the pole pig) No visible arcing mind you but it would put frying noise from dc to daylight in my rigs. On real bad days it actually would generate those small spots like you see from armature brush noise on the TV picture! Sometimes after a good rain it would stop. I have since moved so this isnt an issue anymore (thank goodness for underground wires!) but I guess it varies with regions and companies. I have since learned the best way to get them to do anything is to threaten them with the Public Utilities Commission. Boy does that light a fire under their arses! Wish I had known about that before but I was told by a good ham friend who had a similiar problem that it worked miracles for him with a similiar interference issue. Seems that some of these utility companies will do anything to save from fixing something unless its literally on fire or lying in the street arcing and popping!
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KE1MB on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A story from the distant past. I heard of a CB guy who was fed up with a arching insulator near his house. After a dozen calls and no action from the power company he decided to take action on his own, with a bolt action hunting rifle to all the insualtors on that pole. Needless to say it did not take them long to replace them. Is this a true story or urban legand?
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by W8JI on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA Reply
by KC5NYJ on September 15, 2003
In the defense of power companies concerns... All it would take is one instance of interference at the wrong time to potentially start a domino effect like we saw happen recently in the NE.>>
Do you know that to be factual, or are you just speculating??
Although it's been years since I've hung around with a friend who worked on controls and metering, in the past nothing critical was switched or monitored on power line carrier systems.
He used to give me old pulled out filters, I used them in homebrew CW receivers. My favorite types had 15 ferrite resonantors, and would produce about 100Hz bandwidth as an IF filter in the 100kHz range. They could be padded down to 50kHz easily.
I'd wager the system is not critical. If it were, we would have been in deep doodoo long ago. Lightning, defective components, arcing insulators or switches, my friend said that stuff was a constant problem.
I doubt a few low power transmitters would have more FS into the power line than a loose wire arcing someplace.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KZ9G on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W7COM:
Yep, they sure do. In fact, a good friend of mine in the Air National Guard works for the two-way shop of the Snohomish County PUD. He really likes working there, and says it seems like a good organization -- they proved it to me with their prompt action. Oh, this same Air Guard friend turned me on to a radio systems management job with King County just last week. Looks interesting...and I could make the jump easily. I love networking!
As said here already, customers of other power companies around the country aren't so lucky. Like anything, learning to push the right buttons sure helps!
73.
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KB2SEO on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My fraternal brothers and sisters,
Would'nt it be fair to say this?
If the FCC is going to allow a P.O.S. system like BPL to interefere with us, Shouldn't we get even odds?
Let us have the frequency too!
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA / Urban legend
|
|
|
by N1RWC on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First off, The theory of Interference isn't to Amateurs but to the Relay System on the Electrical Grid. Unfortunately no one has been able to test the theory because We don't have an Allocation down there.
As for the Urban Legend of the guy with the 30-06, I know several folks who had problems with one major Electric Company one winter. To solve the Interference problem, they went out, disconnected the power at the end of the street, and took out several poles near the interference with some huge equipment, ie Snow Plow Trucks. It took them a whole day to replace all the poles and insulators. Funny part was the Power COmpany never questioned what happened, they thought it was the Sub Contractor who plowed the street, but couldn't prove it.
I think after the dust settles at the FCC with the CW vs Non CW, Reallocation Proposals, BPL, etc, we Amateurs should petition the FCC to set up an Experimental Tests to see if there is interference, then see if they are willing to grant us an allocation.
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KN4LF on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I spent allot of time experimenting on 136 KC, including learning how to use a large variety of DSP software. Needless to say I was very dissapointed when we were not given 2200 meters spectrum.
Basically nowadays the FCC is comprised of political hacks instead of radio engineers, etc. like the old days so they often have no clue. They denied the licensed Amateur Radio service radio spectrum in favor of power company part 15 operations. Part 15 operations are supposed to accept interference and produce none of their own.
Fully expect the FCC to approve Part 15 BPL operations too.
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on September 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The power companies object to an amateur allocation on 136 kHz because of the potential of interference from amateur transmitters that might affect the communications and control functions of the power grid. Nothing is proven, mind you, and non-licensed experimenters on this band and on the 1950 meter band have never been proven (or to my mind alleged) to have caused interference. But, for the sake of the fragile power grid, no allocation.
Yet BPL, which tests have proven cause a massive level of HF interference (which detrimentally affects amateur, military, commercial, SW broadcast, CB, R/C, etc., almost to the point of uselessness) will probably be rubber-stamped by the non-technical lawyers running the FCC in the near future. And I'm sure the courts will say that they wouldn't have ruled that way, but the FCC was within their rights to do so, so the new regs stand -- just like the HF amplifier ban.
Lovely, isn't it?
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by K0ZN on September 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems to me that the loss of 136 KHz might not be as bad as it sounds because there may be a chance that an allocation a little higher in frequency might become available and that would likely be more useable for communications due to increased antenna efficiency.
One can hope this idea has occured to "someone".
re: getting response from electric utilities....
Methods to "expedite" customer service at a power company.
1. If the power company does not respond, Complain to the Public Utility Commission.... I had a problem with SBC (a telephone issue). After calling the PUC and filing a formal complaint, the telephone company called ME trying to make me happy. ALWAYS mention in your comment to the PUC that you believe the Utility company is NOT entitled to more revenue/profit until they improve their customer service/response and that the arcing/leaking noise source is a WASTE of energy and money by the Utility. ALWAYS tell the Utility that you are going to say this to the PUC. In most states, formal PUC complaints can work against them in a rate increase case; the Utility knows this and will work to avoid that....even if they don't really care about the RF noise problem.
2. If the above fails... there is a "Rural Legend" story about a guy who "happened to notice" that the offending (RF noise source) pole was ON FIRE. Like, Big Time on fire! He was kind enough to call the power company and tell them their pole was on fire. It seems they had to replace the pole and install new hardware. Interestingly, the noise was gone. Amazing.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by WB2EWB on September 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It is very common in shore areas of NJ to have arcing insulators.. clearly audible and visable blue arcs of 6" to 12" long! And yes everyonce in a while the poles do light up on fire! (yes... by the arcing with no assistance!) The response of the power company is "wait till it fails".. it seems there is so much to repair they simply cannot get to it all.. I can understand both sides of this argument (until my house burns up!)
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by W3JJH on September 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Different companies operate with different philosophies. Our local utility (Baltimore Gas & Electric) has a strong program of preventive maintenance. They believe that they get the best return for their shareholders by running an efficient system. Except in cases of wide spread storm damage, I have never had to wait more than a few hours for a crew to respond to a problem.
The only time I have even noticed any QRM was when a corroded neutral connection on a pole pig failed across the street from my house. The problem was easy for me to spot because of the red glow on top of the transformer. Even though it was after 11 pm, there was a repair truck out front in less than 15 minutes.
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KL7XL on September 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am the warehouseman for the local electric utility. Our utility is a member of the Northwest Public Power Assn, as is the Snohomish County PUD.
SnoPud has a good reputation within the organization, and the stores - purchasing & warehousing - folks I meet with annually are real professionals.
My utility does maintenance (job security for me!), whereas some utilities wait for something to fall down before fixing it. Probably determined by corporate philosophy and ownership. Overtime aside, our linemen prefer to fix something during the day rather than a black, cold, stormy night.
BPL is not a topic of discussion for us. We are a self-contained utility. Don't know if that will last, as there are on-again, off-again plans for an intertie system.
Interesting "urban legends" mentioned above. We occasionally have people shoot out street lights because they don't like the light shining in their windows. Kind of a radical solution to a problem that can be resolved with a phone call...
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on September 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT AFTER THE CHIPS FALL AND SETTLE with the CW REQUIREMENT ISSUE and the BPL/WI-FI ISSUE we should resume a new PETITION for an allocation in the 136 khz/2200 meter band. we should present a solid case proving that this small group of HAMS (lowfers)will not cause harmful INTERFERANCE to the GRID CONTROL SYSTEM.the power companies did they prove this or did they just say we might cause INTERFERANCE????.so in any case i suggest we REFILE at a later date. so best 73 to all N2NZJ TOM.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on September 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess I have to wonder why we can affect the 136KHz portion of the spectrum and yet not affect the 2MHz to 80MHz portion they want to use for BPL. If the FCC says they can use it for their stuff, we then ought to pump the heck out of the spectrum with our own signals and really see how they are affected. I would venture to guess that if it became unusable due to RF that we legally put into their BPL, maybe they will go away. Maybe we could try using an interface that would allow us to put our RF into the network for communications over the wires instead of over the air. Use modems to interface our radios and then we wouldn't have to worry about snspots and stuff like that. Kind of like using Echolink or IRLP over the wires. Maybe?
73
Frank
KL7IPV
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KD7VDB on September 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
you know also , why the heck would we want that low of a frequency. Your antenna would only be about a quarter-mile LONG!!!!!!
hey if you got a lot that big go for it! but there aint enough of us with lots that big.
73's KD7VDB
JJ SCOTT
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
2Interest did hit the nail on the head when he had mentioned the frigg'n hypocricy of Corporate Amerika's Power Companies!!!
I've had a 1yr. 4mo. complaint lodged against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. here in the Bay Area and the MOFO's still have'nt really done anything about our on-going complaint other than to say "WE'RE WORKING ON IT!"
And they are the same people who want to transmit Digital Data over those same noisey power lines???
ZEIG HEIL!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by NN6EE on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why have'nt we heard out of any of the HAMS who are living within TESTING ZONES of "BPL" whether on the Eastern Seaboard or the Midwest yet???
Ed Hare's presentation was very explanatory on the ARRL's Website about the potential plague of "BPL"!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I saw the videos on the ARRL wesite and one concern I had with respect to BPL was obviously in the fact that it hindered communications very seriously.
If that is the case, then it would be neccesary for amateur radio operators to increase their output power levels perhaps to the permissable 1500 watts to compensate for the reception problems.
Is the FCC considering this as a potential interference problem caused and initiated by BPL?
BLP not only creates interference problems to Amateur Radio Operators, but we will also see the trickle down theory occur in our neiboring communities.
Who will get the blame for that? The power companies?
KC8VWM
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by W9SZ on September 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Following a project at work that uses these frequencies, I started getting interested in LOWFER activity. I was really excited about the possibility of having that 136 kHz speck of spectrum to play with.
I guess I'll be limited to receiving or very low power transmitting in the 160-190 kHz band. Maybe a few of us locals can get our QRP lowfer signals a few miles. But I'm going to be putting up a loop outside very soon to see what I can hear on 136 kHz. Maybe one of those European hams with the kW and QRSS will make it into my receiver.
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on September 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
lol@kc8skx
<<<<"Why have'nt we heard out of any of the HAMS who are living within TESTING ZONES of "BPL" whether on the Eastern Seaboard or the Midwest yet???" >>>>>
'Cause most of us are here on eham causing BPL interference by logging on and discussing CW.
Ever since the CW argument started on eham I have been recieving nothing but a 60+ db or more QRM noise level at my location.
|
| |
|
No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on October 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Will not ruin my day! Do you have any idea how long a 1/4 wave antenna is for 136khz! Do the math, you will have a good chuckle!
The one good thing about 136khz or any LF freq is how easy it is to make a high power transmitter.
Take a 500 watt audio amp. Add a chain of frequency triplers. Then use a high power switching MOSFET.
When all is done you can have a nice AM transmitter for 136khz.(HI-HI)
Then use your HF rig for general coverage RX for 136khz. Not too many rigs recieve anything below 300khz
well.
If you have an airplane, you can do what the military does. Have a huge spool of wire with a weight at the end. Once in flight, open the door in the back of the craft. Let the long wire fly out to it's full length! Yes I know you have to have a seperate compartment for the antenna. You do not want to decompessorise the whole craft!
I have also seen designs for transcievers using ne-555 timer chips. QRP on 136khz would be a hard sell!
73 and laughs WA2JJH
|
| |
|
RE: No 136 kHz for the USA
|
|
|
by KX8N on March 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Yet BPL, which tests have proven cause a massive level of HF interference (which detrimentally affects amateur, military, commercial, SW broadcast, CB, R/C, etc., almost to the point of uselessness) will probably be rubber-stamped by the non-technical lawyers running the FCC in the near future."
For one thing, the FCC doesn't take any of the services listed here seriously, other than military and commercial. Overall, they could care less about amateur, SW, CB, and R/C. If they really tried, they could reason that if amateurs WOULD be called into a place like New Orleans in a time of disaster, that the electric would be shut off and BPL would be offline anyway. So say that BPL was in use at the time N.O. was struck, it still wouldn't cause interference to amateurs because those services were off at the time we were helping.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Does Homeland Security OTHR Affect HF?
Hams Want BPL Operation Shut Down: (Discussion Forum Link):
BPL Chip Maker Shows Interference Abatement Improvements to League:
New BPL Complaint Arrives as ARRL Nudges FCC to Answer Earlier Filings:
Ham Radio Blackout
Other General Articles
eHam.net - server performance issues
USS Indianapolis CA-35 Radio Room
Lecher Wire Follow-Up
eHam Hiccup
Icom HM 98 or HM 133 Hand Mic Project
|
