eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
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



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?

Charles (KC8VWM) on October 13, 2003
View comments about this article!

Will BLP Cause Other "Unforeseen" Interference Problems?

I recently saw the videos on the ARRL website and one concern I had with respect to BPL was obviously in the fact that it hindered amateur radio communications very seriously.

If that is the case, then it would be necessary for Amateur Radio operators to increase their output power levels perhaps to the permissible 1500 watts in order to compensate for the communication & reception problems.

The FCC maintains that Amateur Radio operators may use the power output level required to establish communications with another station.

The fact is that Amateur Radio operators in most cases are presently only required to use a few watts in order to achieve these communications.

Stations running the permissible 1500 watts in their communities on a full time basis to combat BPL related communication problems would undoubtedly radiate much undesirable RF energy into their communities.

This will be caused as a direct result of BPL implementation. This mode of forced operation in itself, will cause a wave of "indirect" interference problems.

However, it is interesting to point out that hams would be operating according to the FCC regulations under these circumstances. We would simply have to do this without any choice of reducing power output levels if our intention is to communicate with another station.

Is the FCC considering this mode of forced operation as another potential interference problem to communities caused and initiated by the implementation of BPL?

BLP not only creates interference problems to Amateur Radio Operators, but we will also see the trickle down theory occur.

Currently the FCC is attempting to initiate manufacturers of consumer household electronics to produce higher standards of shielding and RFI protection for household electronics.

I don't think these efforts by the FCC are going to make any significant strides in reducing any radio interference problems if radio operators are forced into the position of increasing output power levels to a all time high because of BPL over power lines.

My only question would then be, who will get the blame for the interference caused in the communities?

Will it be the manufacturers that have complied with new FCC requirements for better shielding of consumer electronics?

Will it be the power companies?

Or, perhaps YOU will be blamed for the interference caused by the implication of BPL...

Charles Bushell

KC8VWM

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by N6TGK on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"The FCC maintains that Amateur Radio operators may use the power output level required to establish communications with another station."

While that may be the case, I know of several operators who run 1500 watts ALL the time. To them, you're not putting out a signal unless you run an amp all the time.

Anyway, the issue at question BPL... and yes, I agree amateurs, who your neighbors will refer to as "the CBer down the street" because they don't know the difference, will get the blame. It won't matter that we're operating under the guidelines set forth by the FCC. People don't like to think that THEIR equipment is the problem. They don't understand part 15. All they know is that they paid "good money" for that TV or stereo that sounds great when you're not on the air so it must be YOUR equipment that's faulty. Now that your local police department has been given some powers by the FCC, when your neighbor complains the police will tell you to stop because you're creating a disturbance and they don't know how part 15 works either. What it will take is an FCC official to come out and tell your neighbor that it's THEIR equipment that's faulty... not yours. Or in this case it'll take an FCC official to come out and tell your neighbor they (the FCC) was stupid for letting BPL go through and has been nothing but a headache for them ever since. At least that's how I see the future of BPL. The FCC will allow it to go through... amateurs will compensate by running 1500 watts, interference to BPL will be rampant and the FCC will have a major problem on their hands. Let them deal with the headache... they created it and I hope it happens that way if they allow BPL to go through.
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KW9R on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Ah...the cynic in me wonders if, in the long run, the FCC will indeed accept responsibility for the mess they may create when or if (I'm still hopefull) comes into full bloom. I'm reminded of the adage "money talks." The power companies have bushel baskets of it. And, regulations change. Will the FCC move to change the current regulations to protect BPL, the ugly child it is, to move blame for the fiasco from the FCC to ..... you and me?
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by K0BG on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Mr. Mitchell, I wish it was just a few hams running 1,500 watts all of the time. Fact is, it isn't just 1,500 watts. Sometimes it's a lot more, and adding insult are high mic gain settings and the use of too much compression, and a great lack of dynamic range in their selected linear. Even worse, if you try to tell them, their response is profane.

And you are correct, as the background noise level goes up, so will the power, mic gain, compression level, and distortion.

Alan, KBG
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KB5DPE on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I think the whole BPL issue is being blown way out of proportion. If BPL is implemented, and it is facing some strong opposition now with the government (NTIA) and broadcasters raising serious concerns, electronics manufacturers will merely produce dedicated "noise blanker" like devices to remove the interference. If the past is any indicator, these devices will initially be only moderately effective, but, with time, will probably become quite good at removing the offending interferenc.

As far as the general ham community running extreme power levels, there are a great many of us that could not afford the equipment or the electric bill to do so.

My advice is to relax, enjoy the hobby, and deal with the issue when, AND IF, it happens.

73 Tom KB5DPE
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by K9IUA on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Not only might we cause interference to BPL and
other Part 15 users by raising power, just think
of the international implications. Besides U.S. hams
putting out that much more power into the ether, we
will interfering all the more with DX bacause we
won't be able to hear them against the BPL noise.

I know in my comments to the FCC regarding this
issue, I definitely made the point to comment on
this very issue of needing to raise power to compensate
and how it would be within our rules however impolite
to do so.

But then again I hope this doesn't happen. As both
a shortwave listener and amateur radio operator, I'd
be out on two hobbies by BPL should it happen to
extent possible.

Kevin
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by K0RGR on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
The purpose of the current Inquiry that the FCC has put out is not to determine IF BPL should be allowed. Under Part 15, it is already allowed. The question they are asking is "how can we amend the rules to ensure that the rules do not hinder the development of this new technology". In other words, should the Commission support the requests of BPL advocates who want to further raise the emissions limits, and possibly revoke the protections for licensed services from Part 15 interference?

The old bromide that "No man's life, liberty, or property is secure so long as Congress is in session" is very true here! FCC can make the rules whatever they want them to be.
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by K1CJS on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I think we're jumping the gun a little here. BPL is still in the experimental stages (even though current regulations allow it) and more and more spectrum users are lining up against it.

The power companies themselves are largely ignorant of the effects of BPL on their own radio systems in the HF bands (30 to 50 mhz range) which they rely on to dispatch their trucks and other service units.

We haven't yet heard anything about the potential interference to the existing cellular phone systems either. One may think the frequency differences may protect them, but the transmitted power from most cellular handsets is less than half a watt. The signal levels from BPL would possibly overwhelm such a weak signal -- most analog handsets have a rough time transmitting an understandable signal now.

I believe we won't see BPL implemented the way its proponents want it to be, but we still should stand ready to protect our bands from its threat--especially if the Fowled-up Communications Commission continues its backwards approach to the potential mess it would create.
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by K2WH on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Lots of you guys are missing the point here. The FCC in its infinite wisdom will/may allow BPL. If the FCC allows BPL through a modification of the rules, whats to stop them from modifying the Amateur Rules to allow BPL and Amateur Radio to coexist ??????

Gotcha thinking?

Scenario:

BPL is allowed with higher injection strength than is now permissable. Amateur rules are changed so no more the 100 watts is allowable on any amateur band in order to prevent or limit interference to BPL. A 180 degree shift in rules!!!!

Oh, and another thing. A KD5 something or other posting prior to mine said "Don't worry" "Be happy" or something like that. Let BPL happen and then bitch about it. Sorry but once BPL has its hooks into frequency or territory, it would be like getting shrapnel out of wound. Wise up. Complain now, loudly and clearly.

K2WH


 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by NI0C on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KB5DPE expressed faith that "noise blanker like devices" (yet to be developed) might solve the problem of interference from BPL. That's not a technically sound solution. Using a noise blanker to live with interference is like wearing a gas mask to live in a polluted atmosphere. The FCC may need to be reminded that its primary role is preventing the pollution of the EM spectrum, not facilitating commercial schemes for making money. Corporate greed knows no bounds today.
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W9GOC on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Folks, planning to run the legal limit power to overcome interference isn't viable, I'm afraid. While most hams haven't encountered it, one of the ham-focused remedies in the FCC toolkit is the imposition of 'quiet hours', where your legally-operating-but-interference-causing transmitter can be prohibited from use during a specified time window.

Another choice would be for the FCC to (as implied by another poster) change the amateur frequency allocation from 'Primary' to 'Secondary', where we'd have to accept interference from the primary licensee, possibly a BPL provider.

Our license to operate transmitting equipment is a 'privilege', not a 'right'.

Sassy talk about turning up the power is specious, as well. You can't hear the DX station any better no matter how high you turn your transmitter power. If you're radiating 100W ERP and the powerline is radiating 100mW ERP, the DX station can hear you just fine - - but you won't hear him until you turn on your BPL-synchronized smart notch filter. :-(

Please write your elected representatives, and educate them on the risks BPL represents to EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, and show them the ham community is on the side of the angels [or at least Homeland Security].
Our pockets aren't deep enough to out-lobby the financial interests in the pro-BPL camp. We CAN, however, help educate our elected representatives on the technical issues which the BPL camp is glossing over.

Thanks,
Frederick/W9GOC
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
The CBers who have to run 1KW or more to be able to keep talking to their CB friends will be causing most of the interference.

Oooops. Unless they discover migrating to VHF/UHF is easier?

Bob

 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W1RFI on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"I think the whole BPL issue is being blown way out of proportion. If BPL is implemented, and it is facing some strong opposition now with the government (NTIA) and broadcasters raising serious concerns, electronics manufacturers will merely produce dedicated "noise blanker" like devices to remove the interference. If the past is any indicator, these devices will initially be only moderately effective, but, with time, will probably become quite good at removing the offending interference."

That is not very likely. BPL is very noiselike and any techniques to filter it will come at the expense of quality and the ultimate communications effectiveness of the channel. If the channel capacity is already full compared to the signal you want to work, you are not going to get it back. Any filtering would require that your filtering system know everything in advance about the nature of the desired and the undesired signal.

People have been trying to filter conventional power-line noise for years and after decades of trying, no effective filter for most power-line noise has been developed.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI


 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W1RFI on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"Folks, planning to run the legal limit power to overcome interference isn't viable, I'm afraid. While most hams haven't encountered it, one of the ham-focused remedies in the FCC toolkit is the imposition of 'quiet hours', where your legally-operating-but-interference-causing transmitter can be prohibited from use during a specified time window."

Quiet hours are imposed only in cases of interference to TVs of "good engineering design." This is the FCC's way of saying that the interference is not caused by fundamental overload, but by spurious emissions from the transmitter.

In my 17 years at ARRL HQ, I know of only one case of quiet hours imposed on a ham for interference that was not his fault, and the ham was somewhat non-cooperative with the FCC.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W1RFI on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
To partially answer the question, see:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html and scroll down to the AMRAD reply comments.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W6EZ on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I think we should all go out and buy three or four legal limit amplifiers before they are outlawed for causing interference to BPL.

Remember those "scary" assualt weapons?

Now we will have pre ban amplifiers.

HAR!
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by K3NG on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"BPL is allowed with higher injection strength than is now permissable. Amateur rules are changed so no more the 100 watts is allowable on any amateur band in order to prevent or limit interference to BPL. A 180 degree shift in rules!!!! "

This is a very good point. We had a warning shot from the FCC several months ago. Did you all catch it ?

When the FCC was petitioned for an Amateur LF allocation they denied it because of existing low frequency powerline carrier devices (PLC) already operating there under Part 15. This is not BPL, but the control and telemetry stuff that been in operation for years. The point is not that this is on power lines, but it set a precedence that a Part 15 device could be given preference over a licensed service. All you have to do is squat on a frequency and claim that the service you provide needs to be protected from interference.

If the FCC guts Part 97 this NOI from Powell becomes a just funny story at the next company Christmas party for the lobbyist organization he jumps to.
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KD7EFQ on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
We gotta get them darn Republicans outta office! They always prostitute themselves to "Big Business". They won't outlaw amplifiers like assault rifles, they'll outlaw RF transistors and Electron tubes like they wanted to outlaw primers for ammunition. :-) 73.
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KZ9G on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
All,

The amateur radio service is at a "crossroads" right now. Recent FCC commissioner statements and actions favoring BPL have indicated a propensity to placate those with deep pockets. I personally feel that FCC actions in the next 3 to 5 years, as well as that of active amateur licensees, will determine the eventual outcome of ham radio as we know it. The FCC is facing monumental decisions on whether to continue with past rulings and enforcement measures, or to placate those powerful interests that promise to spread technology to everyone's home.

I'm all for technology, as I am involved with it on a daily basis as a network engineer and consultant in the telecom industry. Obviously, there's a growing need for high speed data comms to outlying homes and businesses. If the FCC remains true, thoughtful and informed decisions should allow longstanding services to remain somewhat interference free (no BPL). If they don't, I believe ham radio is doomed. Continue to use your computer to fight for, or communicate, our interests; you can be sure that big business is doing the same to promote greater internet services, as well as their burgeoning profits.

73.



 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KL7IPV on October 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Remember how the FCC "handled" the CB problem with running over power? They made the amps illegal for purchase with 10 meters included. WE paid the price because the FCC couldn't stop the illegal ops. Remember how the FCC "handled" the illegal ops on CB operating without callsigns? They just said that licenses weren't needed anymore. And now you expect the FCC to see the BPL inteference correctly or logically? Don't go betting your ham license on that happening.
73
Frank
KL7IPV
 
Is there a BPL proposal in Canada?  
by W2IRT on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
As a Ham licensed in both Canada and the U.S. (Canadian citizen with permanent resident status in the U.S.) I'm wondering if there's any move to implement BPL technology north of the border? Should I ever need to move back to Canada, I'm hoping this isn't one demon I'll need to face. From what I understand, the CC&R situation isn't much of an issue there either.

73
Peter
W2IRT/VE3THX
 
RE: Is there a BPL proposal in Canada?  
by N6TGK on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Ah, yes... the dreaded CC&R issue. I wish Congress would hurry up and address that issue. The bill was introduced last year but Congress went on recess (like they ever actually work) and the bill was introduced AGAIN... we're coming up on recess again and still no action. But I digress... the CC&R issue isn't what this discussion is about and if BPL wins the whole subject of spectrum protection and CC&Rs becomes moot anyway.
 
RE: Will BPL interference be blamed on hams?  
by KB5DPE on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
NI0C said "using a noise blanker to live with interference is like using a gas mask...". True, but if you can't change the environment it sure beats NOT using the mask!

Ed Hare refers to a noise blanker type device as a "filter". In a loose sense, I suppose it may be thought of that way, but its function in no way resembles a filter. Essentially, it senses an impulse noise, applies a delay to the incoming signal, and attenuates the burst of "noise" before it is detected (an oversimplification, but close). As another poster suggested (albeit cynically) a "smart" noise blanker could, theoretically, be quite effective in muting such impulse type noise. Comparison of the BPL type noise to other forms of "power line noise" is also basically flawed as the nature of the BPL signal much more closely resembles impulse type (eg. ignition) noise. With "RFI" as a callsign, these differences should be fundamental!

73 Tom KB5DPE
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by N3NL on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
The high power amateur operation will directly
interfere with BPL itself and amateurs will be
blamed for the whole problem. Even a much lower
power ham station will block BPL operation.
As a result of this, the power limit for ham operation
will be greatly reduced. Ham operation will cease in
areas "served" by BPL.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KE4ZHN on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
KL7IPV Hit it right on the head. Everytime there is an interference issue, the hams pay the price, not some big buisness interest with truck loads of money to toss at politicians with open hands.
 
RE: Will BPL interference be blamed on hams?  
by K0XU on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
The audio you hear may sound like impulse type noise, but the carrier part is not. "Blanker" type circuits introduce distortion into the signal path by causing discontiuities. So if your "smart" blanker is going to shut the receiver down whenever there is noise, it will be shut off a lot. "Blankers" are truely NOT the type of noise reduction for this type of interference, there is a carrier present there that is not at all similar to the impulse type interference that power lines normally cause.

BTW, Ed probably knows more about this than any 10 people you know. And certainly more than you.


"Ed Hare refers to a noise blanker type device as a "filter". In a loose sense, I suppose it may be thought of that way, but its function in no way resembles a filter. Essentially, it senses an impulse noise, applies a delay to the incoming signal, and attenuates the burst of "noise" before it is detected (an oversimplification, but close). As another poster suggested (albeit cynically) a "smart" noise blanker could, theoretically, be quite effective in muting such impulse type noise. Comparison of the BPL type noise to other forms of "power line noise" is also basically flawed as the nature of the BPL signal much more closely resembles impulse type (eg. ignition) noise. With "RFI" as a callsign, these differences should be fundamental!

73 Tom KB5DPE"
 
RE: Will BPL interference be blamed on hams?  
by W1RFI on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
> Ed Hare refers to a noise blanker type device as
> a "filter". In a loose sense, I suppose it may be
> thought of that way, but its function in no way
> resembles a filter. Essentially, it senses an
> impulse noise, applies a delay to the incoming
> signal, and attenuates the burst of "noise" before
> it is detected (an oversimplification, but close).
> As another poster suggested (albeit cynically)
> a "smart" noise blanker could, theoretically, be
> quite effective in muting such impulse type noise.
> Comparison of the BPL type noise to other forms
> of "power line noise" is also basically flawed as
> the nature of the BPL signal much more closely
> resembles impulse type (eg. ignition) noise.
> With "RFI" as a callsign, these differences should
> be fundamental!

If BPL noise were indeed no more than impulse noise, I would have addressed it as such. Only one of several systems in operation resembles impulse noise in the ultimate bandwidth of the receiver -- the Main.net system, which uses a spread-spectrum system. I think that is a frequency hopper, but another ham who works in the spread-spectrum industry suspects it may be direct sequence. Either way, although under some circumstances, it can be somewhat impulse-noiselike, in the system in Emmaus, the width of the pulses varied and they occurred in random-like intervals, for random-like durations. And occasionally, as a longer download was observed, a "braaaaaaaaap" sound was heard, not at all noiselike by my read. The noiseblanker in the Kenwood and the Icom radios had almost no effect.

And seeing as noise blankers work by sampling the signal in wide bandwidth, then using that sample to blank the resultant narrower bandwidth signal after filtering, for a spread spectrum signal, increasing the bandwidth would result in wider, not narrower, pulses, as more and more of the spread signal were included in the noise-blanking detection process. Under those circumstances, a noise blanker would not work, nor could conventional noise-blanker techniques be made to work, IMHO.

And most of the BPL signals that are in use are OFDM, essentially multi-carrier signals. Some, like the HomePlug standard used by Current Technologies, modulate those carriers so fast that the end result sounds just like broadband noise. No noise blanker help there. Others, like the Ambient and Amperion, have slower modulation rates on each carrier, so the end result is quite coherent, sounding like a series of birdies that are very tunable. I didn't even turn on the noise blanker for those.

I don't know what kind of filtering could help with this type of noise, but "help" is as good as it gets and seeing as no classic noise-blanker technology should work with spread-spectrum or OFDM signals, had I used the term "noise blanker," it would have been technically incorrect. Some type of adaptive DSP filtering might help some, but in many cases, any such filtering throws away much of the desired signal energy, so it is not a very effective way to improve communications effectiveness. Anyone who has used a "denoiser" type DSP filter knows that it does help make somewhat noisy signal sound somewhat better (at some price in fidelity and intelligibility), but such filters, in my experience, are not capable of helping a weak voice signal buried in the noise.

I stand by my original choice of words, because noise blankers are not the solution to BPL interference.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI


 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by AA9YU on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
No.
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KN8AW on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
"FCC can make the rules whatever they want them to be."

Nonsense. The FCC cannot make any rules or regulations as they see fit any more than you or I. The utilities are not trying to butter up the FCC. They are going to Congress. You are all complaining to the wrong party. Write your congressmen. THEY are the ones that will ultimately write legislation for BPL emission levels, etc. Even the NTIA is subservient to Congress. The NTIA is making their case known to Congress as well as the FCC. If enough of the licensed users community complain enough to their elected representatives, only then will Congress take a second look at the situation. If everybody complains only to the FCC, then Congress will think there is no need to look into the issue as there will appear to be no opposition. Please, write Congress and inform them in layman's terms of the situation.
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W9GOC on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
W1RFI precisely pointed out in response to my previous posting that imposition of 'quiet hours' has rarely been done.
I cede that point.
In past, we also didn't have BPL, and hams threatening to run legal limit power to be heard. :-((

The same rule that permits imposition of 'quiet hours' goes on to state:

97.121 Restricted operation.
(a) If the operation of an amateur station causes general interference to the reception of transmissions from stations operating in the domestic broadcast service when receivers of good engineering design, including adequate selectivity characteristics, are used to receive such transmissions, and this fact is made known to the amateur station licensee, the amateur station shall not be operated during the hours from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., local time, and on Sunday for the additional period from 10:30 a.m. until 1 p.m., local time, upon the frequency or frequencies used when the interference is created.

(b) In general, such steps as may be necessary to minimize interference to stations operating in other services may be required after investigation by the FCC.
----
I call your attention to paragraph (b), which could be read to allow protection of BPL from those 'nasty old hams' running their licensed equipment.
With the current FCC administrators doing the interpretation, the outcome of an FCC investigation may now have weighting factors other than the technical best practices that are the hallmark of a well-operated station.

other teeth in the part 97 rules that could bite us:

97.27 FCC modification of station license grant.
(a) The FCC may modify a station license grant, either for a limited time or for the duration of the term thereof, if it determines:


(1) That such action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity; or
(2) That such action will promote fuller compliance with the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or of any treaty ratified by the United States.

(b) When the FCC makes such a determination, it will issue an order of modification. The order will not become final until the licensee is notified in writing of the proposed action and the grounds and reasons therefor. The licensee will be given reasonable opportunity of no less than 30 days to protest the modification; except that, where safety of life or property is involved, a shorter period of notice may be provided. Any protest by a licensee of an FCC order of modification will be handled in accordance with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. 316.
------

I suggest that if BPL is adopted with favorite son status we may find that HF ham radio will be technically more challenging and may suffer burdens imposed from an administrative venue, as well.

Please, help educate those electors who will be making decisions that will affect ham radio.

Frederick/W9GOC

 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W7ITC on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Yes this is a issue that must be watched. However to get a true preceptive of what is going you must go to the technical forum on site such a http://www.dslreports.com the "techie's" understand what the problems are with this delivery system and the ones with the knowledge, not the kiddie gamers, know BPL backers are feeding them a line of bovine scatology. This system will not work as advertised.
It is pushed as manna from heaven for rural users but in order to make money with this system it will have to be deployed in cities that already have multiple
broadband delivery systems. Many government stake holders of the HF spectrum are voicing their concerns.
When it the condition of the Power Grid reared it head in the form of the massive eastern blackout. I suspect the the power companies are going to be told to spend the money on improving the power grid not spend it instead on a digital delivery system that has bombed in every country it has been tried in. Be watchful but don't loose any sleep over this. I am sure this is going to bomb. Remember when Bill gates and his crew where going after 70cm for the LEOS, Low Earth Orbiting Satellites for wireless digital transmissions. That one was stillborn as well.
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by AB2OS on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Seems to me it would make more sense for the power companies to run optical fiber on the poles and provide internet service that way. It would cost more but be more secure.
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KZ9G on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I'd like to see optical drops to selected neighborhoods and business parks, too. Then, wireless technology similar to Motorola's 5.8 GHz "Canopy" system could be deployed to homes and businesses to cover that last mile, or two.

This is by far a much better solution to rural and suburban interests than BPL.

73.
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by N5LB on October 14, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
It won't take 1500 watts to crash a nearby BPL system. Probably as little as 100 watts, depending on frequency and proximity should do it.
BPL advocates are attempting to defy and deny that Maxwell existed. Power lines are not transmission lines at HF, they are pretty good antennas. As such they'll be equally good (or bad) both ways.

However, with this particualr FCC chairman, money talks and good engineering walks. This is a case of any means are justified by the ends as defined by Powell and others. The engineers at the FCC are out of the loop apparently. Now we see what politicians can do to really mess up technology.

If left to these politicians amateur radio will be shutdown on HF if we cause too much interference. Logic and science mean nothing.

Think about this when you get the chance to vote in national elections. Guess who appointed this nitwit. Certain national incumbents have already lost my vote and that of anyone I can influence.
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W1RFI on October 15, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
That is not only better from a security and EMC point of view, it is also the technology with the fastest ultimate speed capacity. The bandwidth inside the fiber is virtually unlimited -- the limits are in the technology to get the signals into and out of the fiber. As our computers increase in speed and function, that technology will evolve right along with it.

IMHO, it makes little sense to implement a "new" technology that is behind the power curve right from the getgo. Remember when a 9600-baud modem was considered to be the cat's meow? How will 1 MB/s look 10 years from now, as we expect our computers to share more and more data to get done what the next generations of computers will be capable of doing?

Some systems are already hybrid, using fiber to get to a neighborhood, power lines as a last mile and IEEE 802.11 to get from the poles to nearby homes. Why not eliminate the weak link in that chain and bring fiber to that neighborhood access point and be limited only by the technology to couple into and out of the fiber and 802.11 speeds? Under that scenario, it would be easy to upgrade speed by bringing the fiber to individual homes and businesses that were willing to pay the premimum to fund it.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI


 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by W1RFI on October 15, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
> Nonsense. The FCC cannot make any rules or
> regulations as they see fit any more than you or I. > The utilities are not trying to butter up the FCC.
> They are going to Congress. You are all complaining
> to the wrong party. Write your congressmen. THEY are
> the ones that will ultimately write legislation for
> BPL emission levels, etc.

This is just plain wrong. The FCC writes its regulations, subject to loose Congressional oversight in their appointment of Commissioners. Congress may enact law that requires the FCC to write regulations to match that law, but I think it unlikely that Congress will get directly involved with Part 15.

This is in the hands of the FCC as a Notice of Inquiry and that is exactly where amateurs' concerns should be addressed.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by WA2JJH on October 15, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Sure some people will play the blame game. At an old QTH, my ham radio operation was thought to have all sorts of bull effects. Cable TV outages, Power outages, and telco problems all looked at me first!
Guilty, until you humiliate them with where the real problem came from!

I have not owned a linear amp for 20 years.
I just bought a boat wreck off of ebay. HEATHKIT HL-2200. Legal limit, if I bother to add new graphit 3-500z tubes and harbach power supply mods. I know brute RF out is not an answer.

We all know some use the HENRY EXPORT AMPS -3KW OUT!
That will create more problems, if all hams have that attitude. That will not help much with BPL anyway. I guess if the ham at the RX end has BPL problems, then QRO.

New QTH, No problems with 800w PEP out. I live in NYC.
Most people get their broadband internet thru a cable modem.

I did notice at a Radio-shack near me, they do sell
broadband routers that work thru the power lines. Does anybody know how bad they are visa-vi interference?

All that stuff is made by linksys. I set up a network using their ultra cheap wireless cards and 2.4 gig repeater/router/diversity receivers.

Their new stuff that works thru the power lines, look like trouble. Why go thru the power lines, when the 2.4 gig wireless has plenty of range.

I am curious if anybody with a new rig with I.F DSP
,has beeb able to get any BPL reduction.

I Guess maybe new rigs will have to have a special DSP function for BPL reduction. A simple filter will not do. If one can WRITE an algorythme to reduce BPL, then a DSP chip can be designed. In theory anyway!
 
Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KE4ZHN on October 15, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Of course it will! When the chicken banders ran wild in the 80`s and bought linears like candy, who paid the price for that? Thats right, hams did! You have to butcher a brand new amp if you want 10-12 mtrs. in it because some clown wiping TV`s out for 20 miles talking to "Bubba" on channel 19 got away with it for years with not so much as a slap on the wrist. Why must amateurs be penalized for the actions of cb`ers? Not that its any big deal to clip a wire, but why should you buy a brand new amp and be forced to yank the cover to nip out the "cb" guard built into it? And does the FCC actually think that cb`ers are so stupid that they too cant clip a wire? What a joke! Funny how a cb`er can go out and buy a multi kilowatt amp and just plug it in, but as a legally licensed amateur, you have to open your brand new amp and clip or unsloder stupid wires that are there to supposedly stop some moron from tuning it up on cb. So, when this BPL thing arrives on the scene, who do you think will be blamed for any TVI or RFI that results? The hams of course! Anytime there is a tower nearby, it doesnt matter if the amateur is on the air or not, THATS the cause of interference in most peoples narrow minds. What amazes me is the FCC is always quick to come up with stupid logic in supposedly dealing with illegal amplifier use, but instead of punishing illegal users of those amps, punishes the amateur community by forcing companies to put silly input grounds on the 10-12 mtr. taps of all commercially builts amps. The same will go for this BPL crap. No sooner will it come out, then youll hear of people whining that hams are wiping out their porn downloads on the internet. So who will pay the price? You got it...hams.
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KC8VWM on October 16, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
>>>"So, when this BPL thing arrives on the scene, who do you think will be blamed for any TVI or RFI that results? The hams of course! Anytime there is a tower nearby, it doesn't matter if the amateur is on the air or not, THATS the cause of interference in most peoples narrow minds."<<<<

Bingo!

This will be the case when the little old lady down the street is listening to her favorite old country station that she listened to for the past 35 years on the AM band.

Her radio (and other neighbors radios) will suddenly start sounding like the radio interference heard on your favorite Kenwood HF Rig. Suddenly, all heads will turn and be looking at YOUR tower.

Not only will you have to endure the noise levels yourself, but neighbors will be doing a lot of finger pointing in your direction, while BPL carriers will be laughing all the way to the bank at your expense.

For a good demonstration of what BPL interference will sound like on grannies favorite old radio, cut and paste the following URL in your browser:

http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg
for those with broadband access

http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-small.mpg
for those with slower access

Secondly, I would like to commend Ed Hare and the technical staff at the ARRL for the tremendous work they are doing in protecting our bands from BPL interference, and Eham for inclusion of this article in the interests of protecting our bands.

Now is the time to step up to the plate and preserve your Amateur Radio privileges. Get involved, Do your part!


73

Charles Bushell

KC8VWM



 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by KC8VWM on October 16, 2003 Mail this to a friend!

Yes, I do believe the FCC has opened up a Pandora's box of unprecedented proportion if they allow widespread BPL usage.

What we fail to understand here in the BPL trials is that it is a trial.

When we put 100,000 users or more on those same BPL lines after the "trial studies", it only takes simple math to understand that the interference levels will increase dramatically.

For the short term they may benefit from the power companies spent money.

In the long term the FCC may lose on this issue because they will have a wave of interference complaints from not only special interest groups such as amateurs or SW broadcasters, but also from the PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

These complaints will be of such proportion, that they will dwarf amateur radio operator complaints altogether.

I would suspect they may simply be unable to provide the already thin resources to investigate all the BPL related interference complaints.

The FCC does have a responsibility in investigating such complaints. My concern as a taxpayer (not an amateur) is that it will cost us significantly more money to fund these interference investigations.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the FCC already does a great job investigating and resolving interference complaints.

I am concerned about the future implications that BPL will have on departmental resources to provide solutions and their ability to resolve an increased workload of public inquiries about BPL related interference complaints.


Charles Bushell,

KC8VWM
 
RE: Will BPL Interference Be Blamed On Hams?  
by N3EOP on February 6, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
> We gotta get them darn Republicans outta office!
> They always prostitute themselves to "Big Business".
> They won't outlaw amplifiers like assault rifles,
> they'll outlaw RF transistors and Electron tubes
> like they wanted to outlaw primers for ammunition.

Yes, those "darn Republicans" like Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, and the like. (It was Clinton who signed the ban on military-looking small arms.)
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles
For These Vets, Amateur Radio Remains Alive:
Ham Radio Fest is Saturday in Austintown:
Ham Radio Operators Compete in Devens in Worldwide Contest:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #28 de K7RA:
Nikola Tesla Museum $1M Donation: