|
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
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
from
Bob Olsen, KK7WN
on
January 7, 2004
View comments about this article!
Is Amateur radio doomed because of BPL? Remember David and Goliath?
Recently many eHam followers have made cogent comments about the threat of BPL to Amateur radio. Before we get too despondent and focused on negative outcomes, I would suggest that we keep the following in mind. Just as David defeated Goliath, scientists in many different disciplines now stress that large changes (outcomes) are more likely to be caused by an accumulation of small imperceptible prior events (causes) than one large precipitating event (part of Complexity theory). For example, microbes cause disease; large traffic jams can be caused by one driver suddenly slowing down on a busy highway, etc.
What does this have to do with the BPL issue? The relevance to BPL is that the decision process itself is subject to the same "small influence" or butterfly effect (as some scientists call it). This means that we do not have to have the size of an Industry Goliath to come out whole on this issue. What we have to do is initiate a number of well placed small efforts and constantly nudge and monitor the decision path of the FCC. In this regard I would suggest the following:
Individuals should direct their effort toward contacting appropriate elected representatives. These folk are the most likely to be influenced by personal appeals. Writing to the FCC is fine but keep in mind that the decision that is to made is more a political one than one primarily based on purely technical considerations. As we recently saw, politicians can strongly influence the position of the FCC. However, when it comes to the technical side of the issue, the FCC is not going to pay much attention to technical points made by separate unaffiliated individuals. They will primarily be guided by the advice of "experts" representing large constituencies. Some may not like it, but that for us that is the ARRL. They will need our support.
We will get nowhere asserting our rights to have Amateur radio as a hobby. In this regard we should bundle our appeal with those of other services who make use of the same spectrum space. The loss of many separate services to one service (Internet) will have a greater impact on decision makers. The long history of the Amateur service can have a positive impact on our position provided it is framed not as a "right," but as an asset to the public welfare.
We should be prepared to compromise and be flexible. Who knows, we may have to surrender some historical ground, but the alternatives offered might actually be better! Keep an open mind.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by AI4CB on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Which "historical ground" did you plan on us surrenduring? 20 meters?
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N8YV on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Is amateur radio doomed because of BPL?"
Short answer: NO
Long answer: (look elsewhere)
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KT0DD on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
David & Goliath? Wouldn't a better description be "Godzilla VS. Bambi" ? :-) 73.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Doomed? I don't think so. Even if BPL does go forward, it won't deploy overnight and it won't be used absolutely everywhere. In the long run, I believe it will be overtaken by better technologies, ranging from fiber-to-the-home, to fiber-802.11 hybrids, with BPL possibly serving some role. In the short run, although not everyone will be affected, those hams who do have BPL on the lines outside their houses may see a significant impact.
How much impact? It depends. In Briarcliff Manor, NY, although by happenstance, there are no active hams living on the few streets involved in the 12-home marketing trial, I can guarantee that there will probabably BE no new hams on those streets, because most of the prime HF real estate their is severerly impacted.
In other cases, such as Potomac, MD, the impact will be that shortwave listening, WWV, 5 MHz will be affected, and any future band-allocatiion changes will probably not be at all compatible with those changes. The particular neighborhood in Potomac is an area with a relatively high ambient noise level -- S3 or so, by my recollection.
In quiet-rural areas, even those BPL systems that don't use amateur spectrum would probably degrade the capability of the the amateur station by several to tens of dB, depening on how far down the BPL out-of-band emissions were suppressed. (Most now achieve about -30 dB outside the spectrum they actually use. 30 dB below S9+ is still pretty strong.) One exception would be the Corridor BPL system, which uses a 5 GHz surface wave on the power lines, although I haven't seen any public indication that they have solved the inevitable technical problems associated with splices and junctions, which at 5 GHz are a significant discontinuity.
In some cases, again in relatively noisy neighborhoods, at least one manufacturer was able to address a reported case of interference by moving the frequency of the BPL system out of the ham bands altogether, to someone else's spectrum, of course.
And in Emmaus, PA, in the areas of overhead electrical wiring, the noise level was around S9 from about 5 to 25 MHz, if memory serves correctly, everywhere in the trial area, pretty continuously. This is one of two systems that probably best represents the interference potential of BPL operating at the FCC limits.
Perhaps the question to ask is if the BCM or Emmaus system were operating on the lines outside your house, would your amateur HF operating be doomed? Even if it were a "flash in the pan," lasting only a few years, what would the impact on your amateur operating be, and the ability of amatuer radio to attract new hams in the community where HF BPL were deployed.
So, how is the issue going? I have mixed feelings. Although I believe that ARRL, AMRAD and others have convincingly made a technical case that the laws of antenna physics are correct and that 30 uV/m on continuous swaths of spectrum on systems as big as entire communities will result in S9+ noise levels to nearby antennas, the BPL industry is continuing to assert that these claims are unscientific and unproven, and that they have received no reports of interference. (See http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc#reports for information to the contrary.)
Technical people won't buy their asseratations that no interference will result, but this may be a political decision and, as a minimum, by the new marketing trials springing up, the BPL manufacturers are doing a fair job of convincing the utilities involved that they don't have to worry about the issues that ARRL has raised.
Do I think that "right" will prevail? Yes, I do, but ARRL and amateurs are going to have to continue to steadily press the issues. The list of those concerned about BPL is growing, with FEMA and DERA having recently filed their concerns about BPL. NTIA has completed a series of measurements in the same trial areas I have seen, and several other studies are underway imminently. Internationally, there are a number of BPL proposals on the plate, at the ITU and CISPR levels. Most of these are for levels that are tens of dB below FCC, which presently has permitted emissions tens of dB higher than elsewhere in the world.
But one important concern is about what may happen in the interim. Although a hurricane may come and then go, the sunny skies afterward often reveal harm from its passing. ARRL will continue to work this issue, with HQ Lab staff, the DC Techncial Relations department and ARRL's legal firm each playing their roles. Other organizations, amateur and other, will continue to do the work they can do, and ARRL stands ready to help any of them as it can, but in a way that ensures that each organization presents an independent position.
All of ARRL's work would not happen without the support of amateurs. To me, as one of those who spend the money ARRL takes in, this work is the very reason that the League should exist. When this problem first hit the regulatory plate last May, ARRL was ready for it. The work done right from the start built on the work and contacts ARRL has maintained over a period of years. Fortunately, amateur radio had not waited for the crisis before ensuring that we have a strong national organization ready to move when these issues come up. The financial and political support of ARRL members is what made it possible in the first place. Some amateurs were also able to make additional financial contributions, funding the travel that HQ staff, Jim Haynie or the DC guys have done to various trial areas,industry meetings and international conferences.
I am just the hired gun here, folks. Though I have put in some "personal" time, the reason that ARRL has the resources to do this work and to continue to press the case of amateur radio and HF communications is that 160,000 of you all chipped in. You guys are the real heros, and as one who is tasked to do a job I love so well, I thank you for helping to make it all happen.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WW8WV on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think that it's going to be the Amateur community that stops BPL. There are Amateur groups that can tell of the technical reasons for why BPL is not good, but there is no Amateur group that has the political power to stop it. Remember, in the world of politics, money talks and you know what walks. And face it, it is going to be a political decision that decides the fate of BPL. Do I think BPL will fail? YES. But because of groups like FEMA and the military etc...Should we as the Amateur community continue to fight BPL? YES. But we need to join up with the people at FEMA and so on and use their political clout.
Just my oppinion that this great country allows me to have.
Jeremy Lewis WW8WV
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA5BHR on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I’m not sure about political power, but we have a number of organizations that have expressed reservations about BPL. This includes: AMRAD, ARRL, AMSAT, ARINC, FEMA, GE Corp., Los Alamos National Laboratory, National Academy of Sciences, National Association of Broadcasters, National Public Radio, Cingluar Wireless, Harris Corporation, Sprint and Verizon to name some of the larger well known ones. Add to this many medium sized businesses, other federal departments and agencys, state government departments, small non-profit groups, local governments and individuals who have concerns. Maybe not political power, but a growing awareness that BPL to some of us is nothing more than group of investors who wish to make a lot of money while polluting the HF spectrum. Sorry BPL guys, we are not walking away from this fight.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by SSBDX on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another "sucker" article to get the usual heated crazy's all worked up.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I’m not sure about political power, but we have a number of organizations that have expressed reservations about BPL. This includes: AMRAD, ARRL, AMSAT, ARINC, FEMA, GE Corp., Los Alamos National Laboratory, National Academy of Sciences, National Association of Broadcasters, National Public Radio, Cingluar Wireless, Harris Corporation, Sprint and Verizon to name some of the larger well known ones. Add to this many medium sized businesses, other federal departments and agencys, state government departments, small non-profit groups, local governments and individuals who have concerns. Maybe not political power, but a growing awareness that BPL to some of us is nothing more than group of investors who wish to make a lot of money while polluting the HF spectrum. Sorry BPL guys, we are not walking away from this fight.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KF7CG on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amateur Radio will survive, but the question is possible damage.
Another question I have about BPL and I have not seen addressed by anyone yet is data security with BPL.
Even if BPL doesn't generate massive interference, it is known to radiate signal containing the data being handled. Doesn't this radiated signal present an excellent opportunity for spying on the data transferred? Can the BPL proponents garauntee the same level of privacy when surfing the nets as is provided by DSL and Cable Modem? Will BPL be used in some areas in such a manner as to compromise privacy and security for those not subscribing to BPL?
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by AD7DB on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The last time I recall the story of David and Goliath applied to ham radio, it was when the ARRL "slew" the EIA's proposal to take away part of our 220 MHz band to create a Class E CB service.
We won that battle but lost the war because UPS (Unmitigated Package Smashers) did it to us anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think a better question is "Is BPL doomed because of Amateur Radio?"
I think that the AMRAD report made it abundantly clear BPL will be at the mercy of other services...to the extent that BPL coverage will be spotty at best--and impossible near (within 1/2 of a mile) of major interstate corridors, ham and CB transmitting facilities (both mobile and fixed), and low band public service transmitters (mobile and fixed).
In all, I'd suspect there's a lot of territory that won't have 24/7 BPL coverage.
Now the question is: will anyone listen??
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WW8WV on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think we are on the same page, we just said it a little different.
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all, we need to continue to support ARRL and their Frequency Defense fund. ARRL appears to be in the lead on organizing the opposition to this.
Rumor has it that our local city-owned utility is planning to offer BPL. Our club is investigating this, and taking steps to fight it if true.
If BPL is implemented locally, I will be prepared to personally verify the AMRAD study results. I've dusted off the never-used linear, and I'm ready to see if all the BPL'ed computers in a radius of 2 miles jump off the table when I key the transmitter. I'm working on a high powered mobile rig that will allow me to test all over town. I suspect that after Windows crashes a few dozen times, local users will rapidly switch back to cable modems, and the local utility ratepayers will eat the cost of implementing this turkey.
This could be so much fun, I might give up Echolink!
I think BPL is going to have real problems in the cities due to all the potential interference sources, not just hams. We've already heard that it really won't be capable of providing service in most rural areas due to the cost of required repeaters, so where will BPL make it?
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The last time I recall the story of David and
> Goliath applied to ham radio, it was when the
> ARRL "slew" the EIA's proposal to take away part of
> our 220 MHz band to create a Class E CB service.
A more recent example:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfiteljx.html
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by G0GQK on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I was reading something, somewhere on the internet a few nights ago and it stated that when radio amateurs were operating within the test site a 100 watts from their transmitters completely "knackered up" the computers in the system. So, don't tear your hair out, just cheer up a bit and forget about it.
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N3DRK on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We are starting to see the demise of BPL. Other agencies are getting involved and have submitted their reports to the FCC, which carry a tremendous amount of more weight than the advocates of BPL. These insidious people of the likes of the Birnbaums and Kilbournes of the world, cannot hide something like this forever. But it goes to show what type of people are out there running these corporations and the types and means of deceit they will go for the almighty buck. For the latest read of BPL go to :
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/07/HNbroadbanddog_1.html
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Can the BPL proponents garauntee the same level of privacy when surfing the net? <<<
Hmmm... I like this approach...
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe we are spending too much time trying to
influence the FCC and should consider paying more
attention to the orginization that is forcing the
FCC into this position. Examine the association
between the current FCC chairman and the Whitehouse.
Dave...
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting Points Made in a News Article:
>>>Current Technologies uses a technology standard called HomePlug, designed to not interfere with other radio signals.
"(Interference) just doesn't exist," Birnbaum said. "They based a lot of their assumptions on outdated noise flow analysis." >>>>
Perhaps they forgot to put bateries in thier measuring equipment before using it.
What a crock this statement is huh? They have this amazing technology that hams seemed to have missed out on for years that actually does not allow interference to occur. What is this new amazing device that doesn't allow interference? An RF choke?
Perhaps thier "new" methods of signal noise measurement won't be capable of recieving my 1500 watt signal interfering with this "homeplug" device either.
>>>>Birnbaum added. Any interference the ARRL is measuring might be coming from other licensed radio devices, he said. <<<<<
What a birdbrain.... Lets point the finger at each other within our own radio spectrum. He seems to be suggesting the logic that FCC licensed devices are permitted to interfere with one another.
Heck, if that was the case then we wouldn't always be complaining so much about that guy calling CQ a few kc's away.
>>>>"If it turns out I'm trying to make a device or sell a device that would cause interference anytime it's used, it kind of belies logic that I could raise money to do that," Birnbaum said. >>>>
Hey that sounds like it's pretty convincing doesn't it?. Are you convinced or are you more confused?
Speaking of logic... This guy seems to have a twisted sense of it.
>>>> "For them to say that (they don't cause interference) shows they don't know what they're talking about," Sumner said of Current's position. "It's a classic case of denial. We'd be glad to go down and show them the interference we've observed on their system."<<<<
I love this guy, This is why I am an ARRL member, he never beats around the bush around these issues... A healthy dose of common sense right in thier faces. I wonder if he ever took up Dave's proposal to find interference?
>>>FCC Chairman Michael Powell (in April 2003) called BPL a "monumental breakthrough in technology."
More like a "monumental enforcement problem" when implemented.
>>>>Our experience in the field contradicts what (the ARRL is) alleging," Kilbourne said. "We're entirely satisfied that there won't be any interference." >>>>
Best bugs bunny voice, "What a maroon, what a nincompoop"
They claim to have this wealth of experience in the field. What field are they measuring interference from?
Perhaps if they could trade in thier "high tech" measuring equipment & devices and use Kenwood, Icom, and Yaesu Ham Rigs instead to measure interference, they might actually find out that their noise measuring devices must be malfunctioning. (or is missing batteries)
Besides, does this moron think that Hams talk to each other using interference measuring or noise flow analysis equipment? ..Hey slowpoke, hams use HF rigs!
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Right now, scanners and receivers are blocked from receiving Cellular Phone frequencies in the USA. This is allegedly to provide some level of security and privacy to cellphone users, since their data and voice signals would otherwise be accessible to everyone.
Since any internet-connected system can carry voice and data calls, and internet-based Voice Over IP is quickly gaining market momentum as an economical Long Distance telephone carrier scheme (FCC is beginning debates on whether it should be tarriffed like "normal" telephone service is), then it stands to reason that somewhere along the line, somebody may attempt to get BPL frequencies blocked from scanners and receivers too.
Better buy your new HF rig before it becomes outlawed!
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Better buy your new HF rig before it becomes
> outlawed!
If you are serious, perhaps you would be willing to take me up on a lobster-dinner wager that at no time in the next 10 years will HF receivers be outlawed in the US or Canada.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I was reading something, somewhere on the internet a
> few nights ago and it stated that when radio
> amateurs were operating within the test site a 100
> watts from their transmitters completely "knackered
> up" the computers in the system. So, don't tear your
> hair out, just cheer up a bit and forget about it.
This is NOT a good thing. Most RFI/breakthrough is similarly not caused by a rules violation at an amateur station, but that is not a conversation that most hams want to have with their neighbors. The AMRAD results are not cause for cheering up at all, IMHO. It is important information and I am pleased that AMRAD did it, but the fact that one BPL system has been proven to be very susceptible to interference from licensed radio services has not seemed to dissuade recent BPL marketing trials by several new electric utilities. Of course, it is quite likely that they didn't know about this aspect of BPL before they undertood the trials.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> "For them to say that (they don't cause
>> interference) shows they don't know what they're
>> talking about," Sumner said of Current's
>> position. "It's a classic case of denial. We'd be
>> glad to go down and show them the interference
>> we've observed on their system."<<<<
> I love this guy, This is why I am an ARRL member, he
> never beats around the bush around these issues... A
> healthy dose of common sense right in thier faces. I
> wonder if he ever took up Dave's proposal to find
> interference?
From ARRL's comments to the FCC in the BPL NOI proceeding:
"ARRL has not received significant encouragement from the utilities sponsoring the field tests in the United States, despite efforts to conduct cooperative studies. With respect to one test site in Maryland, after ARRL staff announced to the sponsoring entity their intention to visit the site to conduct some interference measurements at the test site, the site was, without notice, shut down “for maintenance” at the announced date and time of the tests."
I had also cordially invited them to join me while these tests were being conducted.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WILLY on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Within the last week or so, somewhere I was reading about a new sort of WI-FI or whatever it was called. It was some kind of wireless internet service.
The article was saying that much of what is available today, had a range measured in feet. A couple hundred feet maximum.
It went on to say there is a new type, that has a range of 30 miles. And much greater speed too.
If this is true, wouldn't this sort of service be a direct competion to BPL? I thought that was one of the points that BPL promoters were using - that it would make the internet available to all.
A wireless service, with a range of 30 miles won't reach everyone, but it will make it possible to reach many, if not most. Assuming that more than one isp can do this in the same geographic area, allows for competion. This is a good thing, compared to monopoly by the power company for providing the lines that carry BPL.
Comments?
Corrections?
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on January 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I had also cordially invited them to join me while these tests were being conducted.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI"
++++++++++++++
Ed:
Perhaps you would have fared better if you offered them a lobster dinner? ;-}
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Perhaps you would have fared better if you offered
> them a lobster dinner? ;-}
That would have gone without saying. And that would have been on ME, not on Uncle Hiram! Although much of my travel was funded by ARRL, I have donated my fair share of time, mileage and money to the effort. If I could solve this one with a lobster dinner, I would make it a twin lobster and we could all get back to other things! :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W3JJH on January 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
Here in Maryland we go for crab rather than lobster. If you're back in the area for BPL testing again, the crab cakes are on me.
73 and thanks for the work you're doing,
W3JJH
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on January 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3JJH:
I lived in Annapolis for several years, and developed a keen taste for blue crab. Watermens' wives used to pick it and would sell it in mass quantities, well worth the asking price.
A lot of work, but fresh is best!
I miss that and the history of the place.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on January 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Austria has just shut down BPL because of
all the QRM that it caused to hams, Red Cross,
businesses, government, etc.
I think it won't last long.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on January 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is NOT dead in Austria!
Actually, they shut down the test in ONE town, Ronnie. If you read the rest of the bulletin, the utilitiy companies are looking at moving the operating frequency to 5 GHz OR putting a 100m exclusion zone around each ham's residence. Right!!!!
Lon
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on January 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read that last sentence as a CYA from the power company. There were more complaints from
others, such as the Red Cross, the military,
business users etc.
They would have to set up exclusion zones for
them, too. Also, for mobile ops by all parties.
How could it work it you stopped 100 meters
from every radio user and the roads they
traveled?
I think it is dead and the power company is just
hoping and praying.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on January 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ronnie:
<< I read that last sentence as a CYA from the power company.>>
I agree, but that doesn't change the facts of the article - they cancelled a single test location, not the whole concept --- yet! :)
Lon
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by J1MI on January 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There must be some way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion
I can't get no relief
Businessman they drink my wine....
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on January 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
...Is it me, or is there a purple haze in my hamshack?
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N9XR on January 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed Harris touched on a few very important points. Numero uno is the fact that this is a political problem, and should be addressed as one. The most important action we can do is to load congress with people who are committed to amateur radio, and not to just give lip service. Theoretically, the FCC reports to congress, however when we have ignorance in congress or in the FCC in radio theory, and of the massive potential radio has, our results are poor leadership decisions. It is more important to elect a well educated candidate with their constituents in mind than to choose someone who simply promises to do the right thing. It is not possible to convince a congressman or congresswoman that noise levels over S9 are detrimental if they don’t have a clue as to what an on-off switch is. We need people in congress with the knowledge of the importance of the promotion of technical expertise and the value of the potentials of emergency communications BEFORE a major disaster occurs. From this point we can rebuild our hobby to regain the people and the spectral resources we need.
Numero two-o is the brief mentioning of the NTIA. Mr. Harris mentions NTIA only in the context that it has run tests. Actually the NTIA is an administrative agency reporting to the President. The NTIA was the driving force who designed 60 meters to be the 5 channel band that it is today. Did the rules they proclaimed seem to have much thought given to the details of the power levels or the frequency tolerances? I saw nothing about the take off angle in the 50 W ERP limits. No mention as to how we can legally tune-up on the band as all other services has this option. And there is no mention as to how we are to calculate the 2.8 kHz rolloff or how steep the skirt filtering is to be. These rules were developed by the NTIA, and shot through the FCC without properly defining what the technical requirements were to be, and apparently not knowing how to properly define their desires. These are the people doing the tests for the administrative branch determining the impact BPL has on the radio spectrum. It is scary.
David can’t beat Goliath if he hands Goliath the slingshot and the stone. Let us not hand political power over to those who do not stand for us.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on January 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The tuning is a nobrainer on 60 meters.
Most hams now have not tune radios, just dial
up the frequency and transmit. For those using
the older radios that require tuning and this
is a "DUH", tune using your 50 ohm dummy load
and when your grid drive is right, plate current is right and properly dipped. Diconnect from
your dummy load and connect to the antenna.
This will be close enough for guvment work,
providing you properly measured your antenna
or have a no tune antenna such as a B&W folded
dipole (what I use).
I should think the FCC need not mention this
in the rules, because hams are supposed to
know such things! For those that don't, there
is the catch all failure to follow good amatuer
practice.
As for the other specs, the guvment, other
that DOD, buys off the shelf radios. Even
some DOD radios are off the shelf. So hams
can do the same if they don't have radios
that meet the specs. That is what I did.
I called SGC and bought an export model SGC2020
and it is ok with the specs. Don't buy the
import model from ham stores, because it
doesn't cover 60 meters.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on January 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I forgot to mention that I
talked with the tech people
at SGC before I bought the
radio. They're very helpful.
Found it meets NTIA reqirements
and they even sell some of their
radios to the guvment.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on January 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We'll interfere with BPL by just using our HF rigs as well as other services by using their low band radios. The power companies themselves have low band frequencies for dispatching their trucks! For that reason alone, BPL is more than likely doomed to failure in its present form.
I wonder if anyone has contacted the government's time standard stations (I believe WWV is one of the calls) to get them involved in this discussion? Just a thought on my part--I really don't know who to contact concerning those stations.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by CODEBASHER on January 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I short, Yes.
As Amateur's are fussing about the Code/No-Code issue. BPL slips in and we all lose out!
Senerio:
When the Code is no longer required, The biggest portion of the ARRL members quit ARRL in dusgust leaving ARRL weak and unable to battle the BPL issue. So BPL wins out. Enjoy HF with the noise, We will enjoy VHF/UHF!
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amateur radio has survived two world wars, attempts by commercial interests to reduce ham bands, and the switch from english to metric units.
BPL is just another little bump in the road. If it deploys and it interfers, the hobby will change, but it won't disappear.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Amateur radio has survived two world wars, attempts
> by commercial interests to reduce ham bands, and the
> switch from english to metric units.
> BPL is just another little bump in the road. If it
> deploys and it interfers, the hobby will change, but
> it won't disappear.
The interference levels from BPL observed in Emmaus, PA and Briarcliff Manor NY, to name two systems that are operating at the FCC limits were S9+ over blocks and blocks and across about 15 MHz+ of total spectrum.
In areas where BPL deploys, your opinion is dead wrong. I am basing my opinion on hundreds of pages of technical studies and the observations in the field of dozens of amateurs worldwide, documented in several worldwide studies in areas where BPL is deployed.
On what are you basing your opinion that S9+ noise across entire ham bands in entire communities will not be drastically harmful to amateur radio (if I get your inference from calling this a mere change)? If my QTH changes from noise levels of less than S1 to S9+, ham radio as I know it will virtually dissappear.
You are correct that ham radio has survived numerous challenges, but it did so because amateurs and their organizations took action to prevent it. Those amateurs in those times who did no more than say "Don't worry; we have survived everything before" have never been part of any of the solutions that made their proclamation true.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Senerio: When the Code is no longer required, The biggest portion of the ARRL members quit ARRL in dusgust leaving ARRL weak and unable to battle the BPL issue. So BPL wins out. Enjoy HF with the noise, We will enjoy VHF/UHF!>
Unfortunately, ARRL is apt to lose some on both ends. If they don't support keeping code tests for all HF access, they may lose some pro-code members. If they support keeping a code test for any HF license class, they may lose some no-code members. Anything in the middle would be what most would call a compromise, but some folks will see it differently.
The end effect could be in the direction you describe, except that there will still be enough members to keep things going, I am sure. The BPL issue and other critical spectrum-defense matters would not be compromised much, but other programs and projects would have to be affected if the League were to lose members. People are going to have to think long and hard about what babies may be thrown out with the bathwater.
I can't speak for others, but ARRL will not lose me over a compromise, or even if they were to take one extreme position or the other. They would lose me if they didn't continue to defend amateur spectrum. To me, the other aspects of ARRL are too important to end over what I believe to be a less-important matter like CW testing. Ultimately, the FCC will decide what the licensing requirements are and amateur radio will go on.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI said:
>>Unfortunately, ARRL is apt to lose some on both ends<<
Propose dropping the code requirement and you'll get threats from the life members who paid a couple of hundred dollars for their memberships 20 to 30 years ago saying that they'll leave and never come back, or consider that maybe you get a huge membership increase of new operators who now feel welcome and now see new opportunities available to them. Then you'll have more money to subsidize the longest and most complaining members QST subscriptions and bigger numbers and stronger financial support against BPL.
Test for CW if you want to use the HF CW bands (it will be the most under-utilized test in the history of amateur radio) but why test for phone privileges on HF?
I personally threw the first membership renewal letter for mine and my wife's membership in the trash. Maybe I'll consider joining the ARRL again in about ten years when they get on the ball with the rest of the developed nations as far as keeping amateur radio current with new technology and the current amateurs of today interests but not excluding older and highly valued amateurs too.
73
Dave, KG4YJR
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I personally threw the first membership renewal
> letter for mine and my wife's membership in the
> trash. Maybe I'll consider joining the ARRL again in
> about ten years when they get on the ball with the
> rest of the developed nations as far as keeping
> amateur radio current with new technology and the
> current amateurs of today interests but not
> excluding older and highly valued amateurs too.
So you don't yet know what ARRL's position will be, but you trashed the renewal anyway? And this is what you claim ARRL should bank on for future support and just drop all support for code testing?
It is your choice not to renew for 10 years, but in the meantime, you should at least thank the 160,000 members who will pay for the work that ARRL will do that will help protect the HF you want to use. That is, IMHO, the most important ball ARRL is on, and it will continue to be more important than ARRL proposes to do with the code test.
Do you really think that it doesn't matter at all whether ARRL does the other things it does for the next 10 years, or are you banking on having others cover it for you, so that when you are ready to help, there will be an amateur radio here for you to enjoy?
And seeing as you are publically taking the high moral ground here, let's find out how moral it really is. While you are browsing the web, and you see a news story reposted from the ARRL Web site, are you going to skip reading it? Are you going to visit the ARRL web page and use the information on it? Are you going to be as deliberate about not reading the ARRL bulletins as you are about publically proclaiming that you are not going to help to get them written in the first place? If BPL comes to your neighborhood and ARRL is working with local hams and the local utility, are you going to call them and tell them that you don't want to benefit from ARRL's work, so they can put BPL on HF on the lines in front of your street? If the power lines near your QTH start making noise, are you going to work through the ARRL/FCC program to resolve the noise, or are you going to choose to try to address it without ARRL's help?
Just a few examples that I hope serve to make you think.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed Hare, W1RFI,
Everybody doesn't have to go through the ARRL in the efforts against BPL but it appears that you want people to think it's the ONLY WAY. There are numerous organizations from SWL listeners to government entities that are opposed to BPL and have filed comments with the FCC. I know that this is a very important project for you Ed and I don't believe that I have personally criticized you or your efforts and hard work. I personally do not have a favorable opinion of the ARRL organization as a whole. Trying to brainwash people into thinking that it will be the ARRL and the ARRL only that will save the day and amateur radio forever is an unrealistic, ignorant and limiting statement. If I want to help but choose not to go through the ARRL channels are you saying that's not helping at all? If so you would be suggesting that hundreds or perhaps thousands like myself who want to help but do not want any money getting into the ARRL's hands shouldn't help at all. I know for a fact that the N.A.S.W.A. has filed comments that BPL emissions should be restricted to 30 - 47 Mhz. Quote from Oct. 2003 N.A.S.W.A. Journal: "This suggestion would prevent BPL from negatively impacting important services such as amateur radio and short-wave broadcasting. It would also protect some, but not all, of decameter radio astronomy".
In the past I've stated that it is my opinion that the ARRL has the "our way or no way, your opinions don't count, only ours and we have the power and resources to keep amateur radio the way that we see fit to keep it" mentality that has made my dislike of the ARRL so strong but I did not come up with these thoughts myself. I read letters here publicly from hundreds of amateurs, members and non-members that share these same opinions.
If it is your opinion and official position that myself, and others like me that are not channeling our money and efforts through the ARRL that our money and efforts are being wasted, are unappreciated and do not count? It would strongly prove the "our way or no way" mentality as stated above.
Some thoughts that maybe will make you and your organization think more open mindedly.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The interference levels from BPL observed in Emmaus,
> PA and Briarcliff Manor NY, to name two systems that
> are operating at the FCC limits were S9+ over blocks
> and blocks and across about 15 MHz+ of total
> spectrum.
which 15 Mhz?
> On what are you basing your opinion that S9+ noise
> across entire ham bands in entire communities will
> not be drastically harmful to amateur radio (if I
> get your inference from calling this a mere change)?
Actually, I called it a 'bump in the road', which, compared to having > 1/2 of the available spectrum stripped, which happened once, or being forced entirely off the air for years, which happened twice, it is.
> If my QTH changes from noise levels of less than S1
> to S9+, ham radio as I know it will virtually
> dissappear.
For you, that's probably true. But are you really saying that ham radio as you know it is all there is to ham radio?
> You are correct that ham radio has survived numerous
> challenges, but it did so because amateurs and their
> organizations took action to prevent it.
Actually, none of the three examples I was thinking of were prevented by amateurs. The first big spectrum grab, while opposed, was done. WW-I kept hams off the air for years. So did WW-II.
> Those amateurs in those times who did no more than
> say "Don't worry; we have survived everything
> before" have never been part of any of the solutions
> that made their proclamation true.
So, then, none of the ham who didn't oppose forcing hams off the air for WW-I became soldiers and fought the war?
It must be nice having a QTH where the noise drops to S1. But not many hams I know have that good fortune.
The average noise level on 40m around here is S7 -- and that's *before* the military starts playing with their toys. It's not at all unusual for it to be S9 for most of an evening, with periods of 1/2 hour or longer when the noise is 40db over and there's no way to copy any signals. I've got at least two, probably 3 neighbors who have wi-fi nets that are leaking all over HF, and I can't even figure out who they are.
Sure, if BPL deploys and is noisy, hams will have to stop doing some of the things they do now, and will have to do some of the others differently. But there will be other aspects of the hobby that will still be available and viable.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Martin - AE6IP, brings up some good points.
Is this issue mainly a big cash cow for the ARRL and some of it's members to look important and solicit funds? It is plainly clear that they are opposed to any money going anywhere else except through their doors and with only their approval. Almost like a "How dare you not put your money in our hands to do our work, we know better than you and everyone else, we're the ARRL you peasant!"
I do need to make sure my membership does not get automatically renewed with the ARRL if I don't reply to their letters.
The only amateur radio membership myself and my wife will be renewing this year will be with our local club, NOFARS, and will continue our quarterly donations to the club's repeater fund. We're also planning on joining a new club as far as paying membership dues and making a one time contribution to their repeater fund.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Everybody doesn't have to go through the ARRL in the
> efforts against BPL but it appears that you want
> people to think it's the ONLY WAY.
That is ridiculous on its face. ARRL has gone out of its way to bring in other organizations, amateur and otherwise, and help them with their role in this effort. Can you provide one quote where ARRL has said that it thinks that only ARRL can help amateur radio?
> There are numerous organizations from SWL listeners
> to government entities that are opposed to BPL and
> have filed comments with the FCC.
And how many of them have cited ARRL's work?
> Trying to brainwash people into thinking that it
> will be the ARRL and the ARRL only that will save
> the day and amateur radio forever is an unrealistic,
> ignorant and limiting statement.
Brainwashing? In your mind, ARRL somehow has the power to brainwash hams now? That is unrealistic, ignorand and limiting in the extreme.
> If I want to help but choose not to go through the
> ARRL channels are you saying that's not helping at
> all?
I will gladly acknowledge anyone who has done the many things that need to be done. Seeing as you raised this in public, as it were, can you explain in detail those
things that you have done to help? I would like to make us of your test results and studies and share them with others who can use them in their efforts. If you can, please make them available on a web page and I will add it as a link to ARRL's material. I am sure you have done the same for ARRL's web page and results, so it is only fair.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> The interference levels from BPL observed in
>> Emmaus, PA and Briarcliff Manor NY, to name two
>> systems that are operating at the FCC limits were
>> S9+ over blocks and blocks and across about 15 MHz+
>> of total spectrum.
> which 15 Mhz?
IIRC, in Emmaus, the noise was continuous between about 5 and 25 MHz. In Briarcliff Manor, it ranged from about 10-15 MHz; 20-25 MHz and 32-42 MHz.
>> On what are you basing your opinion that S9+ noise
>> across entire ham bands in entire communities will
>> not be drastically harmful to amateur radio (if I
>> get your inference from calling this a mere change)?
> Actually, I called it a 'bump in the road', which,
> compared to having > 1/2 of the available spectrum
> stripped, which happened once, or being forced
> entirely off the air for years, which happened
> twice, it is.
I agree that the BPL threat is not as serious as being taken off the air altogether, but calling it a "bump in the road" is trivializing the impact. IMHO, if amateur radio were to lose the ability to use HF, it would be pretty serious. To you, it is a "bump in the road." I cannot agree.
>> If my QTH changes from noise levels of less than S1
>> to S9+, ham radio as I know it will virtually
>> dissappear.
> For you, that's probably true. But are you really
> saying that ham radio as you know it is all there is
> to ham radio?
No. Are you really saying that you thought I was? That is a ridiculous conclusion to draw from my words.
>> You are correct that ham radio has survived
>> numerous challenges, but it did so because amateurs
>> and their organizations took action to prevent it.
> Actually, none of the three examples I was thinking
> of were prevented by amateurs. The first big
> spectrum grab, while opposed, was done. WW-I kept
> hams off the air for years. So did WW-II.
Yes, but it was prevented by amateurs from being permanent in both cases. It is my opinion that if amateurs had not worked to get those bans changed after the war, amateur radio would have ceased to exist altogether. Do you disagree and believe that amateurs had nothing to do with getting the use of amateur spectrum back?
>> Those amateurs in those times who did no more than
>> say "Don't worry; we have survived everything
>> before" have never been part of any of the
>> solutions that made their proclamation true.
> So, then, none of the ham who didn't oppose forcing
> hams off the air for WW-I became soldiers and fought > the war?
Huh? I would not trivialize the very real sacrifices made by our WWI and WW2 troops in any way, nor did you. But we are discussing the efforts that amateurs put forth to help restore the use of amateur spectrum. I cannot see how anyone could interpret that the way your paragraph above seems to do so. I can't imagine any stretch of logic that could lead you to think that I believed that no amateurs who didn't oppose forcing hams off the air became soldiers and fought the war. The only thing I can do is to clarify that I didn't intend my words to be taken that way.
> It must be nice having a QTH where the noise drops
> to S1. But not many hams I know have that good
> fortune.
> The average noise level on 40m around here is S7 --
> and that's *before* the military starts playing
> with their toys.
And I don't know many whose noise level is consitently that high. If it is, there are specific emitters in your area that can be identified and addressed. If it is constant S7 across entire HF ham bands, I suspect "conventional" power-line noise.
> It's not at all unusual for it to be S9 for most of
> an evening, with periods of 1/2 hour or longer when
> the noise is 40db over and there's no way to copy
> any signals. I've got at least two, probably 3
> neighbors who have wi-fi nets that are leaking all
> over HF, and I can't even figure out who they are.
Actually, WiFi nets use 2.4 GHz, so it is not likely that they are the source of the problem. Even at S7, Riley would consider that to be harmful interference and would address it as such, if the source can be identified. You could have neighbors with any of a number of devices. If the noise is very broadband, with a strong 60- or 120-Hz component, it is an electrical spark or arc. This could come from power lines or any of a number of devices hooked up to it. If it occurs every 5 to 100 kHz or so, it could be a switch-mode power supply. Other devices, which may include the newer plasma TVs, may generate a plain broadband hash.
Start by looking at the noise on a scope or spectrum analyzer. Its time- and frequency-domain signatures may offer some inforation that can help identify it. You can also make a .wav file of the noise, and process it through software that can analyze it, or email the file to me at w1rfi@arrl.org and I will run it through the software on my office machine.
If it is coming from the power lines, ARRL can help, under the wings of our cooperating agreement with the FCC. If coming from a neighbor, the same process can be used, although that is not as cut-and-dried because of all the "neibhborhood" variables.
It may be necessary to DF it to a particular neighbor's house. The shortcut to that can sometime be to take a handheld HF recevier (Icom R2 is one example) on a walk around your neighborhood. If you can place it anywhere near the electical wiring in the buildings around you, an outdoor light fixture is one way of doing this, it will be MUCH louder at the house involved. Let me know how I can help.
> Sure, if BPL deploys and is noisy, hams will have to
> stop doing some of the things they do now, and will
> have to do some of the others differently. But there
> will be other aspects of the hobby that will still
> be available and viable.
Sure, and if something deploys and makes them noisy, there will be other parts of the spectrum that can be available and viable. And we could continue saying that one piece at a time, or we can collectively try to do something about it, feeling that each issue that diminishes amateur radio should be addressed.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Is this issue mainly a big cash cow for the ARRL and
> some of it's members to look important and solicit
> funds?
No. Why, do you really believe that it is? Do you believe that the ~dozen folks who have been to the trial areas and found the same noise ARRL has found are in on the cash-cow consipiracy? See http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html#reports. The reality here is that ARRL will take in about $300,000 for the BPL special project. I have been at it since May, doing engineering studies and making a number of trips to the BPL trial areas. The ARRL DC staff has been doing similar work in the international arena. ARRL has commissioned outside studies to do independent testing to also bring to the table. Myself and other ARRL staff have talked to reporters and those other organizations you claim that ARRL wants to keep out of the picture, to help them do their own independent filings. Right now, this is a Notice of Inquiry. Word is tat the FCC may go to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking early this year, starting the whole process all over again. The $300,000 will be spent, and then some, I am sure.
Now, let's compare that to the money the BPL industry and electric utilities are looking to make and tell me a bit more about this cash-cow idea of yours...
> It is plainly clear that they are opposed to any
> money going anywhere else except through their doors
> and with only their approval.
That is not plainly clear; it is plainly ridiculous. Do you really believe that? If so, let me clarify right here and now that I and ARRL are in full support of anyone who wants to contribute time or money to this effort, by any means. If you let me know what you are doing to help, I will help you in any way you can.
> Almost like a "How dare you not put your money in
> our hands to do our work, we know better than you
> and everyone else, we're the ARRL you peasant!"
Take a deep breath, relax, and try to reign in that imagination a bit. The things I have said here are not "almost like" that at all.
> The only amateur radio membership myself and my wife
> will be renewing this year will be with our local
> club, NOFARS, and will continue our quarterly
> donations to the club's repeater fund. We're also
> planning on joining a new club as far as paying
> membership dues and making a one time contribution
> to their repeater fund.
That is wonderful, and hams should indeed support their local clubs. Seeing as this discussion is in the context of BPL, though, can you describe what this support will do to help defend amateur spectrum?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on January 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Easy now Ed. At several club meetings there were votes (all approved) for using the club funds for various ARRL projects including the BPL fund. Those funds don't come from the "cash fairy", they come from dues paying members. Some people and clubs out there do nothing at all.
I do wish you the best of luck though Ed and I personally am impressed with your studies, hard work and dedication despite my disapproval of the ARRL organization as a whole. Your replies to my posts are also very thought out and polite, more so than mine but please understand that my disagreements and speculations are not intended as personal attacks against you and I sincerely apologize to you if I have personally offended you directly, not the ARRL as a whole. I'm just an amateur with a different viewpoint than your organization. If you want my help you've got it, if you don't, that's fine with me too. If the ARRL would like the help of every and all amateurs maybe they'll get off their high horse one day and try to bring back some unity to the ham community but remember, It all can't just be on the ARRL terms and only the ARRL's terms and conditions alone. If they feel that way though because they know better than me, then they don't need me as a member with my different ideas and viewpoints and therefore they obviously don't get mine or my wife's personal or financial support.
73
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by K4DJE on January 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If BPL comes to my neighborhood I will set up a 1500 watt beacon set to go off every 2 min. with an Id at every two min. This should PISS off enough people that they will dump the BPL system and go back to DSL or cable.
What would you do if your internet crashed every two min?
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by AE6IP on January 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> IIRC, in Emmaus, the noise was continuous between about 5 and 25
> MHz. In Briarcliff Manor, it ranged from about 10-15 MHz; 20-25 MHz
> and 32-42 MHz.
So 80m and 70cm will become popular.
> I agree that the BPL threat is not as serious as being taken off the
> air altogether, but calling it a "bump in the road" is trivializing
> the impact.
Well, yes. *someone* has to counter the shrill voices screaming the
sky is falling. (You're not one of those, but they're around.)
> IMHO, if amateur radio were to lose the ability to use HF, it would be
> pretty serious. To you, it is a "bump in the road." I cannot agree.
The point under contention is the claim that BPL will be the "death"
of amateur radio. Losing part of the spectrum has been an ongoing
part of the hobby since very nearly the begining.
> Yes, but it was prevented by amateurs from being permanent in both
> cases. It is my opinion that if amateurs had not worked to get those
> bans changed after the war, amateur radio would have ceased to exist
> altogether. Do you disagree and believe that amateurs had nothing to
> do with getting the use of amateur spectrum back?
Probably after WW-I they did. I have trouble understanding the
history of the US from the end of WW-II until the end of the
Eisenhower presidency, but it's not particularly likely that the
"work" done by amateurs to get back on the air amounted to asking and
being told yes. Post war anti-communist attitude made a lot of things
easier.
>> The average noise level on 40m around here is S7 -- and that's
>> *before* the military starts playing with their toys.
> And I don't know many whose noise level is consitently that high. If
> it is, there are specific emitters in your area that can be
> identified and addressed. If it is constant S7 across entire HF ham
> bands, I suspect "conventional" power-line noise.
Ah, you should come to the left coast. There are hundreds of hams
within shouting distance of me who have the same or similar problems.
And no, it's not (all) power-line noise. I wish it were that easy.
> Actually, WiFi nets use 2.4 GHz, so it is not likely that they are the
> source of the problem.
Actually, 2.4Ghz and 5.2 Ghz, but that's their frequency of operation,
not the frequency of the various components that occasionally bleed.
Cheap wi-fi boxes seem to be even worse than PCs or monitors for
leaking RF. I've found that print servers are particularly bad.
> Even at S7, Riley would consider that to be harmful interference and
> would address it as such, if the source can be identified.
Possibly. But 'identified' is tricky around here.
> You could have neighbors with any of a number of devices. If the
> noise is very broadband, with a strong 60- or 120-Hz component, it is
> an electrical spark or arc.
It's not.
> If it is coming from the power lines, ARRL can help, under the wings
> of our cooperating agreement with the FCC. If coming from a neighbor,
> the same process can be used, although that is not as cut-and-dried
> because of all the "neibhborhood" variables.
Yup. And those are only the noises *on top* of the military's noise.
I'm sure the Navy or Air Force would happily send the FCC a nicely
worded refusal, if the FCC were to suggest to them that they stop.
> Let me know how I can help.
Thanks for the offer. It is very much appreciated.
At the moment, though, the main help I need is access to a spectrum
analyser, and I'll see what I can get from my EE buddies.
For Wi-Fi, by the way, there's an easier way to locate the source of
the net. Drive around the neighborhood with a laptop that has a wi-fi
card and the right software. It'll tell you a lot.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I do wish you the best of luck though Ed and
> I personally am impressed with your studies,
> hard work and dedication despite my disapproval
> of the ARRL organization as a whole.
It is that organization as a whole that made the work ARRL has done in the BPL area possible. Other parts of that organization are doing things to promote activity; recruit new hams into amateur radio; bringing amateur radio into the classroom as a teaching tool; supporting the program to bring amateur radio in the space shuttle and schoolkids together; preparing technical articles and information, to name a few examples. Is THAT the whole of which you disapprove? I truly do look at the whole, in great detail, and often, and I keep coming up with the conclusion that it is important to amateur radio that I support it. And I do, with my dues, with my contributions, volunteering time and money to many good causes in amateur radio. (Tonight, I am driving to Philadelphia, PA to do a talk at the Frankford Radio Club. I will get a free dinner out of the deal.)
If you were to tell me that you could not support ARRL because you disagreed strongly with it on an issue or three, I may disagree with your conclusion, but it would at least be something tangible, correctable and something that could be talked about in detail. However, the reasons you have offered for your dislike of ARRL seem to range around things like your statements that ARRL doesn't want anyone to help in the BPL area unless ARRL can be in complete control of them.
How can we even discuss that? How can ARRL do anything about it? Even a cursory examination of ARRL's work in the BPL area would tell you that what you based your vevy public dislike about ARRL in the BPL area simply was not true. Have you examined "ARRL as a whole" to the same degree and found it lacking, or have you made similar assumptions about ARRL in other areas, too?
As I said in my earlier posts, the League has gone out of its way to get other organizations involved. In some cases, ARRL's advice to those organizations has been that it is more important that they do independent filings, not directly allied with ARRL. Yet in spite of that, apparently without checking, you took ARRL to task here for exactly the opposite.
Even after I have clarified that for you here, and gone on record that ARRL does not feel that way, the tone of this post continues along the same vein. Unfortunately, if telling you the truth is not enough to change your mind, it doesn't appear that you want to change your mind at all.
> If you want my help you've got it, if you don't,
> that's fine with me too. If the ARRL would like the
> help of every and all amateurs maybe they'll get off
> their high horse one day and try to bring back some
> unity to the ham community but remember, It all
> can't just be on the ARRL terms and only the ARRL's
> terms and conditions alone.
Did I say that to you? Did ARRL ever say that to you? Can you point to anything that would lead anyone to the conclusion that ARRL doesn't want unity in the ham community of that it wants amateurs to follow only the ARRL's terms and conditions alone? It simply isn't so; I have told you in so many ways why it isn't so, yet here we still are. Just what *could* ARRL do to convince you?
Now, having said that, I want you to ask yourself whether the speculation you have offered here about agendas and high horses and control is something that you would want brought before the FCC in the BPL matter? IMHO, there is no place for harmful and inaccurate speculation in such an arena, and given the choice between having that brought forth to the Commission or having it brought forth through ARRL, I would take the latter. The League has spent a lot of resources to be informed about BPL and I belive that it is best that hams work through ARRL for that reason.
> If they feel that way though because they know
> better than me, then they don't need me as a member
> with my different ideas and viewpoints and therefore
> they obviously don't get mine or my wife's personal
> or financial support.
But "on the ARRL terms and only the ARRL's terms and conditions alone?" Absolutely untrue. I didn't learn about BPL overnight and much of what I know comes from those that were willing to help. Rather than your belief that ARRL always wants help only "on the ARRL terms and only the ARRL's terms and conditions alone," I have learned what I have learned by keeping my ears open and my mouth shut. Yet still, here you are, proclaming that you are displeased with ARRL "as a whole" because they are on their high horse all the time. I don't know how this discussion can stop going back and forth if it is going to remain stuck in one gear.
But several times, you have offered to help and explained how ARRL should recognize the work of hams who want to fight BPL without ham radio, so again I will ask -- what have you done and how can it help? What are you proposing to do and what testing, research or other work can you bring to the table? If you have done such work, I am surprised that it isn't on file as one of the comments with the FCC, or did I miss it?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on January 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4YJR wrote:
"Test for CW if you want to use the HF CW bands (it will be the most under-utilized test in the history of amateur radio) but why test for phone privileges on HF? "
You do realize that you are actually calling for retention of the code test for all HF access and also for resumption of code testing for VHF/UHF and above access? Since the CW bands are every single KHz of every single amateur band (see the FCC rules on permitted modes)your statement makes a code test required for any access. All other modes are restricted to specific sub-bands on most bands but CW is the one mode that is permitted everywhere.
Somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on January 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3ZKP wrote:
"BPL is NOT dead in Austria!
Actually, they shut down the test in ONE town, Ronnie. If you read the rest of the bulletin, the utilitiy companies are looking at moving the operating frequency to 5 GHz OR putting a 100m exclusion zone around each ham's residence. Right!!!!"
Oh yes it is, direct quote from the article:
"The Commerce Ministry Order not only means the end of the Linz BPL pilot project," the Radio Austria report said, "but the end of the deployment of this technology in Austria, especially given the interference to radio communication in places of business." According to the broadcaster, measurements were said to have indicated that radiation from the BPL system exceeded permissible field strength levels by a factor of 10,000."
Now if we could get a similar FCC order here .....
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on January 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess it will depend on where you live.
Ham Radio as a culture, if worse comes to worse all new rigs will have to have an eithernet connector next to the SO-239
For the Lads talking about the best shell fish.
Stone crab taste better than lobster!
|
| |
|
Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N8EKT on January 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a provider of high speed wireless internet and I can say two things for certain.
1: BPL IS coming
2: They are planning to roll out greater speed than dsl, wireless, or cable internet at about $20 a month!
Fight this we must, but in the end the power companies
have way too much influence in Washington to stop this.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on January 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Fight this we must, but in the end the power companies
> have way too much influence in Washington to stop this.
From a November speech by Commissioner Abernathy:
“Regardless of what one thinks about the appropriateness of common carrier regulations or related rules to BPL providers, there should be no doubt that regulators cannot permit new technologies to disrupt the operators of spectrum licensees in adjacent bands.”
“While the FCC has a duty to prevent harmful interference, I believe we should be circumspect about applying *other* types of regulation to nascent technologies such as BPL.”
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
AMATEUR RADIO IS NOT DOOMED BY BPL. THE NTIA WILL COMPLETE ITS FINDINGS. if they found the same problems the ARRL did or more because one would assume they used very high tech equipment to check out the radiation generated by BPL emissions. then it just may be pulled just as australia pulled its BPL project. one would hope this BPL nightmare will soon end. THOMAS S. WRIGHT N2NZJ ARLS #807
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on January 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
CORRECTION ON MY REPLY ABOVE I MEANT AUSTRIAN BPL PILOT PROJECT. (NOT AUSTRALIAN).SORRY. THOMAS S, WRIGHT N2NZJ
|
| |
|
RE: Is Amateur Radio Doomed Because of BPL?
|
|
|
by WX3K on January 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
and at the same time, Does the FCC really care to enforce Part 15 compliance ? Case and point. I had a commerical business about 1/4 mile from my house that had neon lighting all over the outside of their building. This was not a mild case of RFI my friends. At times, depending upon the temperature and humidity levels, I had a S9 noise level on 40 meters through 6 meters from the neon lighting at times. I confirmed this with field strength measurements and the fact that when they turned the lighting off at night, it totally disappeared. The owner refused to cooperate and get the lighting fixed. I wrote a letter to the Langhorne FCC field office. I got their attention and they sent a FCC engineer out to measure the RFI. This FCC engineer told me that he sat in my driveway and heard a minimal signal and shrugged it off as unimportant. Did the FCC field engineer understand that temperature and humidity affected this RFI situation ? Or did the FCC field enginer just not give a sh*t ? I used my antennas systems on my tower, a MOSLEY PRO 95, my 20 meter dipole, and my ten meter vertical. The interference was intolerable at times. Oh sure, I could probably use a MFJ-1026 to reduce the interference or I could use a good DSP equipped receiver. I own vintage ham gear without all these wonderful "features". I suppose BPL noise would be much worse as the power lines are in all directions from my house. But again, Is the FCC really interested in enforcing Part 15 compliance or are they out to line their pockets ? It seems that we, the Amateur Radio community, have to get in their face with the BPL issue to let them know we care, because they certainly have proved to me, they really dont care.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Professional Amateurs
Our Finest Hour?
Where Are We Exactly?
Invite Your Congressman or Congresswoman to Field Day!
ARRL Tells FCC to 'Reconsider, Rescind and Restudy' BPL Order:
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
|
|
