Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interference Abatement:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 17
on
April 24, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interference Abatement:
In an e-mail this week to the FCC, an electric utility testing broadband
over power line (BPL) systems in the Raleigh, North Carolina, area has
drawn a virtual line in the sand on how far it plans to go to mitigate
interference to Amateur Radio. Responding this week to the FCC about BPL
interference complaints from hams, Progress Energy Corp (PEC) told the FCC
that his company has eliminated any harmful interference from its BPL
trial site and now complies with FCC rules.
"It is PEC's position and interpretation of the FCC's rules with regard to
'harmful interference' that any interference that may still exist is not
'harmful' as that term is defined by the FCC's rules," Len Anthony, PEC's
attorney for regulatory affairs, told James Burtle, chief of the FCC's
Experimental License Branch. "This level of interference does not
seriously degrade ham radio operation or transmissions or cause repeated
interruptions." Some, but not all, of PEC's BPL field trials are covered
by an FCC Part 5 experimental license.
The FCC defines as "harmful" any interference that "seriously degrades,
obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating
in accordance with the Radio Regulations."
Anthony claimed that since PEC can modify its Amperion BPL system to
totally eliminate interference to fixed stations, "the only impact of any
kind upon ham operations is upon mobile operators." PEC concluded that
since BPL interference to mobiles would be "very short lived," the company
is not causing harmful interference and is in "full compliance" with FCC
Part 15 rules.
ARRL North Carolina Public Information Officer Gary Pearce, KN4AQ,
suggests PEC has a bit more work to do. He is among local amateurs closely
monitoring BPL deployment in the test zones and cooperating with PEC and
Amperion to work out any interference issues. Pearce says interference
remains on the top end of 20 meters in an overhead-line field trial
neighborhood where PEC recently had tweaked its system.
"Nothing had changed," he told ARRL after visiting the neighborhood in the
wake of Anthony's e-mail. "They were still covering up the top end of the
20-meter band." Interference to 17 and 12 meters had been notched out, but
beyond that, BPL interference persisted from 14.290 to nearly 17 MHz, he
said, and "fringe" carriers still encroached some 100 kHz into the bottom
of 15 meters. Interference had not been mitigated at all in neighborhoods
with underground power service, he said.
Progress Energy has been operating its "Phase II" trial in three
neighborhoods south of Raleigh since early January. The area, in Wake
County, is largely rural or lightly settled.
No hams live in the underground-wired neighborhood, so none complained,
Pearce said. The handful of BPL interference complaints eventually lodged
with the FCC came from amateurs living closer to the overhead-wired
neighborhood, and some were from mobile operators.
Pearce said PEC's stance regarding mobile stations "sets a new bar" in
interpreting harmful interference. "Hams have never been asked to accept
that level of interference before," he said, noting that mobiles driving
by a power line can hear the signal for "a mile or so."
The ARRL's BPL strategy calls for the League to seek a radiated emission
limit sufficient to protect the estimated 70,000 Amateur Radio mobile
stations in the US. ARRL field observations using typical amateur
equipment have documented BPL interference to mobile stations located
hundreds of meters from BPL interference sources.
Pearce says the North Carolina hams will respond to Progress Energy and
the FCC to disagree with its interpretation of "harmful interference" and
its conclusion regarding interference to mobiles.
While he maintains that controlling BPL in a small trial area like his
should not be that difficult, "having BPL buzzing across all the power
lines in a large city is another story entirely, and that's what we're
worried about."
ARRL CEO David Sumner framed the situation another way. "If BPL emissions
block weak signals that otherwise would be usable, that is harmful
interference and they must remedy it," he said. "Progress Energy has as
much as admitted that they can't. The only thing left for them to do is to
shut their system down and get back to their basic business of supplying
electrical energy."
Additional information about BPL and Amateur Radio is on the ARRL Web site
http://www.arrl.org/bpl/.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 17
April 23, 2004
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by K0RFD on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This doesn't worry anybody besides me?
The unlicensed Part 15 user seeking to define what is or isn't interference to the licensed service? Huh?
Interference is any increase in my noise floor that causes me to not hear another station. Period. It is what it is. The unlicensed Part 15 users don't get to say what it is.
Please file your comments on the BPL NPRM by the due date, which I believe is May 3. Otherwise, you can see by this article how easy it is going to be to get utilities to clean up the messes they make.
|
| |
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by N0MLR on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well it sounds like the Utility Company has indeed drawn a line in the sand.
Perhaps if all Hams used and was up on band conditions and the quirks of HF there would be more meaningful comments filed with the FCC on the issue. But a large majority will have to leave it to the Few who are using HF now. Its hard to comment on something you have never experienced and have no working knowledge of.
If the BPL issue is still being kicked around when they drop the Code requirment I would be glad to file comments after I have used the Bands a Bit. I am sure others would to.
73
Greg Dunn / N0MLR
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What "protects" us from increased noise when mobile now?
The ARRL has made a big mistake by trying to enforce Part 15, based on ?70,000? mobiles. If you notice, one of the PECo people is a ham. All he had to do is go back to the office & tell the legal team "they are lying, get a definition of harmful..." & the argument is done.
Rather than focus on mobiles, why are they not trying to prove fixed stations are not protected? No trial on that? All that is mentioned is the manufacturer says they can eliminate all fixed interference. Who can tell if they really can since the dopey ARRL keeps focusing on a MICROcosm of amateur operations?
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by K0RFD on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Buried in the full text of the article is the information that fixed stations aren't quite protected either. The utility company has not successfully notched out ALL of the Ham bands.
The focus on mobiles may be a little problematic, but it also calls attention to something that MAY be the whole idea for looking at mobiles in the first place--that the power companies "hand picked" test areas to be relatively Ham-free so as to be able to say "nobody is complaining". If the power companies are trying to bias the data, mobiles aren't quite so easy to design away from.
|
| |
|
BPL Utility Draws 'Line in Sand': ARRL Suicide Bom
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sorry but if anyone is "trying to bias the numbers", it is the ARRL by claiming 70,000 amateur mobiles.
How are they qualifying that, a day, a week, a month, total existing...? If my mobile is parked in my garage, is it counted as interfered with? It has to be at that high a number. I guess they are finally counting non-members, at no charge?
I actually thought they were smarter than to get into numbers but this is ridiculous.
Bill
|
| |
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by WO7T on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ahh, the old ploy of redefining the terms that convey the issue in hopes of turning data to myths. What is "serious", or "noise" or "obscene" after all?
Until a human dies at sea that could have been rescued via Maritime net, or an ambulance cannot be summoned in time after a power grid outage over the HF/VHF bands and resultant families gain $100Million libel judgements against the "interference" contributing parties this is all going down a very predictable politically pushed path. Once proponents actually feel the loss outstrip their gains, we'll see the almighty $$$ redirectly the game.
What still surprises me, is the covert powers that be in our CIA, NSA, Armed Forces, would not have quietly shut down this pursuit that would even "slightly" risk the ability to "listen" from the countless "monitoring facilities" worldwide that have probably billions of taxpayer money invested.
Since this all appears to be moving forward anyway, maybe we could request they do their notch redirecting up to 40 channels around 26/27Mhz.
;)
|
| |
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by K0RFD on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OK. Never mind. Chalk up NE1Z as a vote *for* BPL.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by WI4CW on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Okay - PEC
1. Here's a copy of the FCC authorized band allocations. Go ahead and notch every one of those bands....
2. Mobiles: whoah now!!! If the interference is there - then it is there and must be dealt with - regardless of what means (fixed or mobile) of observation.
3. Folks - we need to crank up the heat on our congressfolksen and shut this crap down. The FCC should have quite a few engineers on staff.... What's their take on all this ....???....
|
| |
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a wireless advocate but I strongly disagree with the current BPL "defense" because it has hurt us.
Negotiation is an art of agreement & can't employ force or deception. I see both in the PECo report.
It seems to me PECo was the only one openly willing to work with amateurs as I recall & I see they have a ham employee involved. What is clear is a certain nit-picking attitude of 'all or nothing' to a standard not there. The prescribed test method is a mobile? Not by my understanding.
You ever hear "be careful what you ask for..."?
Just think of the shock & "duh" if the FCC says mobiles aren't to be protected, even under Part 5. It isn't a typo of 15 either, look up Part 5.
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by L1D on April 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The BPL people don't understand RF. They think their signal stops within several feet of their line. They are stupid, amperion is stupid. But I'm just a stupid hamster what do I know.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by K1CJS on April 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If the BPL issue is still being kicked around when they drop the Code requirment I would be glad to file comments after I have used the Bands a Bit. I am sure others would to."
As its been stated elsewhere, how much you wanna bet BPL is pushed through before the FCC takes action on the amateur restructuring? The crock known as BPL will be fully approved and running way before that happens.
_______________
And just how much interference will be heaped on the airwaves when a city or locality is fully wired for BPL? The utilities have the nerve to tell the FCC how to interpret their rules--for the small test area. If the utilities are allowed to do this now, the die will be cast, and when it comes to an entire city full of interference, they'll have the prior approval to fall back on when they tell us to bug off. The FCC ought to squash this attempt flat and tell the utilities the FCC will decide when the interference levels are acceptable.
Of course, the chances of that actually happening can be calculated by just thinking--two. Slim and none.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on April 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Part of the "test" is for the lawyers to TEST how much interference they can get away with.
What folows from their clim that interferance to mobils is OK, is that interferance to aviation is also OK.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by KF7CG on April 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill,
The problem at this stage is quite simple. The test locations have been placed (strategically or not) so that fixed Amateur stations are not within the footprints of the limited test deployments. Ergo, mobile and/or portable stations are the only ones that can be positioned within the interference footprint.
No mobile measurements means that the interference can't be measured until BPL installations have grown to included fixed stations. At this point the cancer may have spread too far to be stopped.
The only solution for the ARRL and the people of the area is to buy or lease a home within the test area and then set up a test station there. How long will this take?
And by mobile do they mean mobile by location or by frequency? I personally listen 98% and transmit 2%. I make full authorized frequency listening sweeps from 1.8 mhz through 450.0 mhz I look for signals just above the noise floor in each band. Therefore anything that increases the noise floor of any Amateur band within the frequency span mentioned earlier is harmful interference it destroys my ability to hear and possibly communicate with weak signals. I employ omni directional antenae so the FCC remark about my antenae being oriented away from powerlines is not valid.
If I lose 10% of the weak signals that I am interested in is that harmful interference? How about 25%? 50%? What about seasonal variations when the noise floor is naturally lower, doesn't that require deeper notching of the BPL interference?
I believe that until BPL can be brought to the state where its radiation is undetectable at a distance of greater than 25 feet from the power line it will constitute harmful interference. Just as surely as open sewerage flowing in the streets constitutes pollution.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by KT0DD on April 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE1Z Wrote:
>I am a wireless advocate but I strongly disagree with the current BPL "defense" because it has hurt us.
The term "Wireless" does not apply to BPL, because BPL is transmitted to the Computing device via it's power cord plugged into the wall socket.
Anyway, it's become tradition in this country to change definitions of words to suit the purpose of whatever special interest group is trying to "Get their way". I fear we will have BPL interference for a while, until "Completely Wireless" 802.11, !burst, & cell phone internet access etc. become mainstream, and advance to the point of making BPL obsolete. Then lack of subsriptions / interest will kill BPL. We may have a fight on our hands for awhile. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>It is PEC's position and interpretation of the FCC's rules with regard to 'harmful interference' that any interference that may still exist is not 'harmful' as that term is defined by the FCC's rules," Len Anthony, PEC's attorney for regulatory affairs, told James Burtle, chief of the FCC's Experimental License Branch. "This level of interference does not seriously degrade ham radio operation or transmissions or cause repeated interruptions. <<<
When did the utility companies suddenly become the FCC ?
Leave the interpretation of "harmful interference" to the agency responsible for enforcing the rules.
Simply put, If any utility service causes harmful interference with my station, temporarily or otherwise - they will be considered to be operating that utility service in violation of the law.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Len Anthony, PEC's attorney for regulatory affairs, told James Burtle, chief of the FCC's Experimental License Branch. "This level of interference does not seriously degrade ham radio operation. <<<
Hmmm. what do they consider "serious" interference?
Serious interference according to the FCC is what exactly?
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by W1RFI on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Rather than focus on mobiles, why are they not
> trying to prove fixed stations are not protected? No
>trial on that? All that is mentioned is the
> manufacturer says they can eliminate all fixed
> interference. Who can tell if they really can since
> the dopey ARRL keeps focusing on a MICROcosm of
> amateur operations?
The "dopey" ARRL (what a juvenile choice of words, Bill. Surely you can behave better than that...) has been working with amateurs on fixed, mobile and portable interference issues, in a number of test cities. But arguably (and the argument will be made), the FCC proposal to require the BPL equipment to be designed to move spectrum and change power level in response to interfernce complaints could offer some protection to fixed home stations. But nothing in the present or proposed rules offers any protection to mobile or temporary portable stations. Progress Energy's position makes that patently clear, as they know that they cannot avoid the use of amateur spectrum in their entire deployment.
If this were of the same ilk as the occasional mobile noise encountered on the road, truly a localized interference potential, one could argue that mobile operation has to just live with it. When this system is deployed in an entire service are, many miles-long semgents of the overhead power lines will have interference on the entire portions of one or more amateur bands. Those sections that don't have interference on one band will probably have it on another.
I think the only reason that this is acceptable to you is that it lets you rail about ARRL. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill there is a big difference between line noise and other point source emitters that only cause problems over a short range and the distributed BPL noise over large areas emanating from the power lines.
It is easy to live with a noisy neon sign as you drive past it and it disrupts your QSO for minute or less. It is quite another to find blocks and blocks of a neighborhood with the entire band blanked by BPL noise until you are quite a ways away from the power lines carrying the BPL signals.
Also, I would expect that mobile operators who regulary experience noise in a given location within their routine operatiog area do complain about the noise source and expect it to be corrected if the noise disrupts routine communucations for more than a short time.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by KT0DD on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The next donation drive by the ARRL should be to specifically fund lawsuits against BPL providers, and the FCC, for failing to observe the rules of the IARU, ITU etc. regarding spectrum use, and failing to observe the current part 15 rules, before someone starts to change the rules. I would gladly donate. It's time to stop pussyfooting around on this issue, and start making it expensive for them to continue with this technology. May I suggest a good fellow Wyomingite attorney, Mr. Jerry Spence to represent us.(Hi Hi)
Hitting them in the pocketbook is the only way to get their attention. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"nothing in the present or proposed rules offers any protection to mobile or temporary portable stations..."
Then I stand by the use of "dopey" since you have foolishly caused a lawyer to define blanket technical terms that are crucial to the argument. The definition was called into question when no one except the PECo people could stick to the prescribed test procedure or use prescribed test equipment. Not sticking to the script makes it appear like a jihad, trying to prove "WE know it ALL".
I sincerely hope the FCC rules in our favor but based on past experience, it won't. Ed, nothing will cause me to rail against the ARRL like sitting in my home in 2005-6, listening to BPL wipeout 500KW shortwave broadcasts & thinking "if it hadn't been for Ed Hare & his mobile marauders..." or "if Ed Hare had only made a video with an analyzer & not an S-meter, like the Austrians...", we'd have had a chance..." !
Protection starts at home, home stations... Not mentioning details about that abatement effort makes it appear as though they are not even addressed.
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by K0RFD on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wanna get the public spun up about BPL?
Remember the "Telescreen" in 1984? It could see and hear everything you said and did, and there was no place safe from them?
Once we have bidirectional data, video, and audio capability connected to every electrical outlet, all that stands between society and the telescreen is a few secret chips in every piece of consumer electronics.
Man that idea is way too "lunatic fringe" even for me. I can't believe I posted this.
Wait--has Ashcroft weighed in on BPL yet?
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by W1RFI on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> nothing in the present or proposed rules offers any >> protection to mobile or temporary portable
>> stations..."
> Then I stand by the use of "dopey" since you have
> foolishly caused a lawyer to define blanket
> technical terms that are crucial to the argument.
Lawyers attempt to redefine terms all the time, Bill. He is wrong; the present rules do not make any distinction at all between home or mobile stations.
> The definition was called into question when no one
> except the PECo people could stick to the prescribed
> test procedure or use prescribed test equipment.
> Not sticking to the script makes it appear like a
> jihad, trying to prove "WE know it ALL".
Can you say that a different way using words that are related to each other in a coherent way? I read it three times and still don't understand what you mean.
> Protection starts at home, home stations... Not
> mentioning details about that abatement effort
> makes it appear as though they are not even
> addressed.
The interference reported was to both mobile and home stations, Bill. What are you suggesting, that we pretend the mobile interference was to a home station? That would be pretty "dopey" indeed.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by K4IA on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This idiotic position is to be expected from those who do not understand HF propagation. That temporary interference to a mobile might (will) also be heard hundreds and even thousands of miles away by fixed stations.
At a distance, it is not identified or indentifiable so who is able to complain? Where is it coming from? Who caused it? Who is accountable when the interference from BPL in Idaho causes a plane to crash in Tokyo?
I can even imagine, a BPL provider claiming they are not the cause of local interference -- it must be some other un-named and unknown provider on the other side of the country.
BPL is lunacy and it is a violation of international treaties governing the spectrum. I suspect it is nothing more than a way to separate foolish investors from their money.
|
| |
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As long as power company lobbyists keep funneling $$$ into greedy politicians pockets, BPL is here to stay, like it or not. The FCC, like any other government entity is run by people who think with their wallet, not with their own common sense. The only thing we can hope for is this technology dies of its own shortcomings as new WiFi systems are developed that can operate cheaply and more effectively. The simple truth is, this idea is idiotic to pump rf into unshielded lines and spew rfi all over creation, but if you pay enough $$$ to the right people up in Washington, you can get about anything you want short of legalizing anarchy.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can get the feel the overall spirit at the PECo trials just by viewing the picture of the spectrum analyzer & sampling loop. I have a feeling there was no ARRL analyzer to compare calibrations against? Plenty of radios on scene though, right?
Sorry Ed but if I were the FCC, I'd toss all you shadetree jihadists out on your butts for obvious mission creep by not following the prescribed method of measurement. The sole purpose of your mobile agenda is to further prove the point that anything BPL is unacceptable. They will remind you, you are not the FCC, nor did they ask you to be a proxy. It is not your decision to dictate the scope or modify the methods prescribed for proper measurement.
You have now allowed the fingerpointing to escalate to the point where a referee is called into the fray & I hope you are ready for the call. That's all many of us have been saying but at no time will you hear us from your ivory tower of babble.
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by N7UQA on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The cold hard fact is that the power company executives and investors are clueless when it comes to radio frequency transmission lines and propagation. Sending broadband RF down power lines is one of the worst ideas in the sad history of bad ideas. BPL just cannot be deployed on HF. What is going to stop me from sitting out in my car with my laptop, an SDR radio, and with the appropriate software, watch the packets fly by on the screen while sniffing for passwords, credit card numbers, bank account numbers or simply launching a “denial of service attack” simply by transmitting.
The FBI, CIA, or even your local law enforcement officials wouldn't even need a physical “wiretap” to collect information on you, they would just simply drive into the area. If the power company ever deploys this in my area they can count on two things.
1.The never ending complaints from their customers because of my “legal” amateur radio transmissions disrupting their broadband service.
2.My complaints to the FCC and the power company about BPL interference.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by WI4CW on April 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see -- a mobile parked 200 feet or more from a power line (yes - some hams' antennas are that close) -and taking properly documented measurements. If interference can be noted - then it should be reported. If a ham home is not in a particular area - what's to say that a ham won't locate there in the future.
Someone set me straight - but another item - is that most mobile antennas are vertically polarized... whereas power lines are mostly horiz polarization. Now - if the mobiles can still measure decent levels of interference - even considering the differences in polarization - then - dam!
Point is - is that if the interference levels are too high - then it's a non starter - go back and re-engineer.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by W1RFI on April 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It is not your decision to dictate the scope or
> modify the methods prescribed for proper
> measurement.
Actually, there is an IEEE C63 working group that is discussing the use of spectrum analyzers to make EMC measurements. There are a lot of pitfalls in doing so, and they are not the instrument of choice for evaluating field strength.
The instrument that should be used is a calibrated EMC receiver, tuned to the spectrum of interest. That was not shown on the video, but was used in Briarcliff Manor, Emmaus, Whitehall and Manassas to make "real" measurements.
Those real measurements do not document interference. Interference is best documented using -- gasp -- a real receiver. Not to do so will only feed the industry position that "We meet Part 15, so there can't be any interference." Real interference to a real receiver is the most telling aspect of this at all. In fact, the industry chant all along has been "there have not been any reports of interference from the BPL trials." Measurements made with test equipment have been done all along -- by the industry itself. What they claim is lacking are real reports of interference. At this point, we are at 50 and counting.
Do you think that all hams should buy a spectrum analyzer so they can make reports you won't think are part of a jihad?
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on April 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE1Z wrote:
"I can get the feel the overall spirit at the PECo trials just by viewing the picture of the spectrum analyzer & sampling loop."
Bill, exactly what does this tell you about the level of interference to other users of the HF spectrum involved? Where signals present on the spectrum analyzer before BPL was activated and where they still observable after BPL was turned on? What is the minimum usable signal strength for the incumbant users and hows does that compare to the Part 15 limit signal strength?
While a radio cannot tell you if the observed BPL signal meets Part 15 emissions requirements, meeting Part 15 requirements in no way guarantees the Part 15 deivce will not cause harmful interference. The radio however is a very easy way to demonstrate harmful interference without resorting to a lot of technical discussion. A signal that was cleary copiable before BPL was turned on is obliterated by the BPL signal. Sure the spectrum analyser can show that, but the untrained observer may not understand what they are seeing. Even an untrained obserever can hear the effects of BPL on a radio.
73,
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on April 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE1Z wrote:
"I can get the feel the overall spirit at the PECo trials just by viewing the picture of the spectrum analyzer & sampling loop."
Bill, exactly what does this tell you about the level of interference to other users of the HF spectrum involved? Were signals present on the spectrum analyzer before BPL was activated and were they still observable after BPL was turned on? What is the minimum usable signal strength for the incumbant users and hows does that compare to the Part 15 limit signal strength?
While a radio cannot tell you if the observed BPL signal meets Part 15 emissions requirements, meeting Part 15 requirements in no way guarantees the Part 15 deivce will not cause harmful interference. The radio however is a very easy way to demonstrate harmful interference without resorting to a lot of technical discussion. A signal that was cleary copiable before BPL was turned on is obliterated by the BPL signal. Sure the spectrum analyser can show that, but the untrained observer may not understand what they are seeing. Even an untrained obserever can hear the effects of BPL on a radio.
73,
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by WD4HXG on April 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AC lines have to be one of the most HOSTILE transmission media ever encountered. Every blow dryer known to man is a wideband noise source that will take Johnny offline when Sissy decides to dry her hair. And when Mom starts up the mixer in the kitchen there goes the live audio from the distant radio internet feed. Of course that does not take into account the faulty heating element in the water heater which will create a hash that will wipe out everything from DC to 100 MHz on the AC power line. Multipy all that by 100 Million homes! I can hardly wait until the FCC starts sending individual homeowners NOV's, and NAL's because their hot water heater is generating hash which causes BPL provider's problems. I would love to see the FCC go tell my neighbor he has to fix his damn infernal wideband 20 over S9 flourescent light because it is generating hash.
Take your AC Power electric drill and use it. That will trash the line for blocks. Add in those pesky power strip noise suppressors that are used in every power strip marketed these days which suppresses anything above a couple of kilohertz and will trounce the BPL signal in the dwelling. Those pesky noisy switching computer power supplies are going to be BPL's hemmorhoids. Just wait until Harry Homeowner has to replace his $9.99 PC Power Supply with a $150.00 Noise Suppressed Switching Supply just so he can get BPL to the PC. It will take hours if not days for the average techncian to implement changes in the electrical distribution system of the average existing home just to accomodate getting the BPL signal into the dwelling. Want to see the look of horror on the prospective BPL users face when told he has to pay for parts and time to get it to work reliably? Can you say $50.00 per hour time 30 hours plus parts? It will take a federal subsidy!
The BPL proponents think that by spreading the signal and raising the power by 3 - 10 dB they can overcome what countless previous design groups have tried. In the last 20 years there have been multiple attempts to use every conceivable modulation technique, with microcontroller processing and dynamic control of the modulation to overcome the power line noise. Each has walked away defeated because it simply had to many cases that they could not get it to work because there were simply to many variables to control.
When you consider the distribution of Mercury Vapor (wideband noise source), Sodium lamps(another gas discharge noise source), bad insulators, faulty connections, marginal transformers, arcing relays, electrical storms, and other utility owned and operated defective equipment, they are going to have a jolly good time getting 10 kBPS with 100 watts down thier lines. When you add in the broadband noise sources from all their consumers you have a nightmare that will give any knowledgeable engineer a break from reality. How will they keep the racket from commercial building from propagating down their lines to the consumers?
Short of taking down street lighting or switching back to incandescent bulbs the only way to eliminate the broadband noise from those sources is to run separate lines. The BPL trials right now are only in "SELECT CONDITIONED AREAS!" When the bean counters discover they are being hoodooed by slick marketers operating in an almost pristine conditioned line situation they will ditch this witch.
Also to hope to get it to work outside of the "SELECT TEST BEDS" the utilities will have to clean up their own dirty lines (Just drive down Route 28 through Manassas and try to listen to your AM radio in the car) They will be fighting gremlins they already propagate. Talk about ROI (Return on Investment)? When they start having to spend big bucks to clean up their own dirt you can look to see BPL jammed up the Slick Marketer's Dark Side of the Moon. The really unfortunate part of all this is the cost to build out the albatross will be passed on to the consumer in higher electric bills.
Until then we have a fight on our hands.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by W0FM on April 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's a question that I have been asking since BPL was first mentioned on this site. There is an entire industry built around X-10, the ability to send digital control signals over your home power lines to turn lamps on and off as well as dim them, adjust your thermostat, start your washing machine and set the stereo up for home theater. X-10 Home Control is a fairly good sized industry that includes names like IBM, Leviton, Westinghouse, etc:
www.smarthome.com/x10map.html
I asked one of the tech support people what his industry is doing regarding the BPL threat. He didn't even know what BPL was.
I have a couple dozen X-10 controllers controlling the lighting in and around my home. They get funky from time to time when the local powerlines get noisy. I would think that the X-10 companies would be out of business due to BPL.
Ed, do you, the League or anyone know if the X-10 home control industry has officially taken a stance on BPL?
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interferen
|
|
|
by CWTITAN on April 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING. THE END IS IN SIGHT FOR NORMAL HAM OPS. MONEY TALKS, HAM RADIO WALKS...REAL SIMPLE...
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Draws 'Line in the Sand' on BPL Interf
|
|
|
by KF7CG on April 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill,
There is no direct measurement requirement for interference. Their is a maxmimum allowed radiation limit in the absence of interference. The FCC specifically states that this is the case in part 15.
§ 15.15 General technical requirements.
(a) An intentional or unintentional radiator shall be constructed in accordance with good engineering design and manufacturing practice. Emanations from the device shall be suppressed as much as practicable, but in no case shall the emanations exceed the levels specified in these rules.
(b) An intentional or unintentional radiator must be constructed such that the adjustments of any control that is readily accessible by or intended to be accessible to the user will not cause operation of the device in violation of the regulations.
(c) Parties responsible for equipment compliance should note that the limits specified in this part will not prevent harmful interference under all circumstances. Since the operators of part 15 devices are required to cease operation should harmful interference occur to authorized users of the radio frequency spectrum, the parties responsible for equipment compliance are encouraged to employ the minimum field strength necessary for communications, to provide greater attenuation of unwanted emissions than required by these regulations, and to advise the user as to how to resolve harmful interference problem (for example, see § 15.105(b)).
Given this direct quote from part 15, it is patently obvious that interference to an Amateur receiver of modern and adequate design (arguably the receiver section of most transceivers) that reduces or prevents the reception of the desired signals is harmful interference. There is not a line in the ether maximum signal level they are allowed to radiate. They are allowed the specified power only if they do not interfere.
The BPL providers are even specifically warned to avoid operation near Amateur stations. So a normally operating Amateur is just a burden they have to bear.
§ 15.17 Susceptibility to interference.
(a) Parties responsible for equipment compliance are advised to consider the proximity and the high power of non-Government licensed radio stations, such as broadcast, amateur, land mobile, and non-geostationary mobile satellite feeder link earth stations, and of U.S. Government radio stations, which could include high-powered radar systems, when choosing operating frequencies during the design of their equipment so as to reduce the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference. Information on non-Government use of the spectrum can be obtained by consulting the Table of Frequency Allocations in § 2.106 of this chapter.
Did you notice that Land Mobile stations are specifically mentioned?
There are a lot more goodies in Part 15 that specify the behavior of other devices that can interact with the BPL devices in a way that will not beneficial to reliable BPL.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Calls For Clarification of Term
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"There is no direct measurement requirement for interference"
Is that why the NTIA suggest further defining methods of measuring interference? Is that why PECo had a loop antenna & an analyzer? Is that why Ed himself admits trying to modify the methods used?
Yes, right. What are you talking about? Blah, blah, blah... Anyone can quote rules. It seems like 98% of hams have this programmed into their souls. Getting to your point is priceless.
Spend time reading the NTIA BPL volumes I & II. You will learn much more than any other presentation to date.
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Calls For Clarification of Term
|
|
|
by KF7CG on April 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill,
Sometimes you are so expert in overlooking the obvious that it is comical.
Very simply, if the maximum permitted emissions can be set low enough and the measurement methods defined precisely enough, then and only then will the number of interference complaints be reduced to a managable level for both sets of concerned parties.
If you were to examine the emissions limits allowed and recommended in other countries some of which have now completely banned BPL or its relatives you would find that they are at least an order of magnitude lower than what is allowed here.
Until it is changed Part 15 is the defining rule and it suffers from being overly open to interpretation. It is the rule though. It does well occassionally to bring parts of the defining rules into the conversation to reduce speculation. The NTIA's suggested measurement scenario looks more like the ARRL setup anyway. Rod antena, measure e-field, scan entire length of transmission line for maximum, and work at the height of the transmission line.
What is very telling in Part 15 is the direct instructions to avoid Amateur radio installations and to watch out for land mobile routes.
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Calls For Clarification of Term
|
|
|
by KC8WSC on May 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think everyone knows that money talks and the rest of us sqaulk. Between the possiblity of no required CW and nation wide BPL, I think the hobby will take quite a hit.. I hope I'm wrong...
|
| |
|
RE: Utility Calls For Clarification of Term
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HXG:
Where did you get this info about home devices trashing BPL? I'd be very interested to hear more.
Tnx
PHILIP
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
'Twas The Night Before BPL Ruling
JARL Administration Says 'Yes' to PLC:
Using a HF transceiver over the Internet
PowerHam.Com Internet Scam Info.
Did I Just Work a DX Station?
Other News Articles
New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:
Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:
Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):
Cuba Facilitates Equipment to Amateur Radio Operators:
ARNewsline # 1684 -- Nov. 20 2009:
|
