U.S. Versus THEM
from
Chuck K3FT
on
May 27, 2004
View comments about this article!
***I SUGGEST EVERYONE PRINT OUT THIS POST AND KEEP IT HANDY FOR REFERENCE!***
"U.S. VERSUS THEM"
You'll NOTE (I'm sure!) the PERIODS between the letters 'U' and 'S' in the Topic Description AND the first line of this post. It is IMPORTANT that you recognize that U.S. is not 'US' but 'U. S.' as in United States. If you don't, you'll miss the point.
I ONLY make a pointed, direct, overt reference to it because LOTS of people will 'see' the title, but won't 'see' the periods and will go off on a flame about the 'US' versus 'THEM'. Ok…now that EVERYONE knows its U.S. not US…
When BPL comes to the masses, we'll see interference to a WIDE ranging group of services -- Ham radio, Aviation, Commercial (business), Railroad, HFBC, and others who monitor, operate, and inhabit the HF bands. ARRL and other groups have PROVEN this to be a factual reality.
We'll also see interference FROM a wide ranging group of services - ham radio, CB, mobile stations, fixed stations, broadcast, etc. to BPL. This has been proven to be factually true by AMRAD demonstrations. THESE TWO POINTS ARE INARGUABLY PROVEN.
**BPL SHALL HAPPEN AND IT SHALL BE LAUNCHED**
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!?
Since it is NOT going to be stopped PRIOR to being launched, then it needs to be dealt with AFTER it is launched.
IF YOU ARE INTERFERED WITH -- regardless of your service -- YOU are going to have exert some (sadly excessive) effort to build the case.
1 -- DOCUMENT! DOCUMENT! DOCUMENT!
Logs, recordings, etc.
Make it factual, non-emotional.
Try to stay within your area of expertise. In other words DON'T try to go outside your own level of competence or understanding.
KEEP IS SIMPLE!
2 -- Send them TO the FCC, The ARRL, AND the BPL provider.
You may have to use certified mail to get PROOF of delivery.
3 -- COMPLAIN, via phone, to the FCC and the BPL provider.
Keep NOTES about when (date/day/time) you called.
The number/department/Company/office/agency you called
The name/ID #/dept no of the person you called
A summary of the conversation along with any results or (more likely in the case of BPL provider) any BRUSH OFFS.
4 -- If you operate HF/VHF, KEEP A LOG!!!
IF you have to defend yourself, a LOG showing a HISTORY of your operations will be a MUCH better defense than if you have a sheet of paper you JUST started the day before (or the day of) the notices.
In your log, keep a short summary of any BPL-related items and if you have files, where the files are located.
5 -- COMMUNICATE!
Keep other folks informed -- esp. hams in your area. If you have buddies in the area in other services - Aviation, Commercial, Broadcast, 2-way, whatever, TALK TO THEM! Alert them as to the issue and inform them - if they don't already know. Keep in touch. Collect info.
6 -- BE PATIENT! NEVER GIVE UP!
7 -- OPERATE HF! (if you have the hardware/privileges.)
Be active. Remember the AMRAD study showed that a 100W HF transmitter was shown to be a hindrance to BPL operation.
OPERATE legally and within the rules and authorization of your license! DO NOT GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to harass BPL or BPL folks.
8 -- KEEP YOUR COOL! (REPEAT!) KEEP YOUR COOL!
If you get confronted by a neighbor, BPL provider, etc, DO NOT GET 'SELF-RIGHTEOUS, HAUGHTY, OR BELLIGERANT! BE COOL!! KEEP YOUR COOL!!!
READ part 15 and KNOW what it says! Just explain to them WHAT BPL is and what the problems are. IF you have some information that EXPLAINS BPL and the KNOWN PROBLEMS that BPL will receive FROM **ALL OTHER SERVICES THAT USE THE HF SPECTRUM** give them something that the LAYMAN can understand!
9 -- STRESS THAT **ANY** transmitter in the area that BPL operates on can (and will) interfere with BPL.
STRESS it can be the police/fire department transmitter (they operate LOW BAND 30MHZ), the Commercial BUSINESS who may be on low band, AM Broadcast stations (due to high power), and other stations beside ham radio.
THE GOAL here is to deflect their focus from 'JUST HAM RADIO'. If THEY see that it's MORE than just "YOU -- the ham" you stand a MUCH better chance of escaping their pointed (but misguided) wrath.
10 -- GIVE them the EMAIL address of the ARRL RFI department in Newington and 'suggest' that they contact them for more detailed information. It may not work, but hey, ARRL HAS solid and understandable by the layman info!
KEEP YOUR COOL! FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!
Yes, it's a LOT of extra work, but we're up against a powerful foe and the foe has LOTS of politically powerful friends!
73
Chuck K3FT
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems the NTIA is going to backpeddle in their Phase 2 study somewhat, as posted on the ARRL website.
Yep, its coming. I predict NOTHING will done until there is loss of life or property due to interference to aviation or first responders.
What will the FCC do when they are deluged with thousands of complaints?
If I cannot hear, then I will run a beacon station. I wonder how many new beacons will spring up in affected areas? 10m will be FULL!!!
I gave a recent lecture for IEEE on the BPL issue. Members employed by the local power utilities were strangely silent. I slammed the power utilities pretty hard in my presentation. Being an engineer coordinating power to new facilities, it was good to be on the giving end for a change.
PHILIP
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K0RGR on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, we all need to take the steps Chuck has outlined here. Above all else, get on HF if you possibly can, and document what you are doing and when. An old fashioned logbook might even be better than a computerized one. Make note of the noise levels on the bands you operate now, before BPL moves in.
We have to be very careful and professional in how we behave here. First, hams will be painted as old luddites who are keeping cheap 'Broadband Nirvana' from the masses. Don't be surprised if there is a flurry of spurious lawsuits filed by the BPL companies as a 'warning shot' to scare us off. They might cull through the discussion groups and cite any negative comments toward BPL as an attempt to cost them profits or drive their stock into the ground. So, stick to the facts, Ma'm, nothing but the facts! And don't exaggerate interference reports. We need all the credibility we can get. These guys have junkyard dog killing lawyers on a short leash. And there are so many loopholes in communications law that what clearly looks like a brick wall to thee and me looks like a triumphal arch to them!
Did I mention their political connections?
Also, regardless of which side of the restructuring obsession you're on, please, please, please support the ARRL in this - send them your dollars. They are really leading this fight, and we are all going to need the help!
Personally, I'm hoping to move out in the country where, in spite of the propaganda, BPL will never go...
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N7UQA on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3FT has some VERY good points here, as for me, my will is stronger than the power company's and they WILL lose. You can be rest assured that when this piss poorly designed Internet delivery system fails, they WILL pass on the cost of this failure to their customers as higher electric bills. Now I don't want to stand in the way of the power company to find new sources of revenue, but spewing broad band HF signals onto the power lines is NOT an option that should even be considered. If there was ever an incentive for me to purchase a new full legal limit amplifier this is it. I certainly don't want this crap radiating off everything in my house! I have sensitive test equipment (not to mention all my ham gear) on my test bench, and will now have to choke and bypass all this RF off my electrical wiring.
I guess I should get prepared for all my neighbors to get mad at me because my beacons on 15 and 10 meters will probably be constantly interrupting their Internet access. I just hope they are understanding when I try to politely explain to them the part 15 rules and how the power company let them down. Also how they ignored the studys by the ARRL and NTIA that showed the enormous draw backs deploying this flawed technology, and the fact that other countries banned this technology because of these problems. I also wonder what the millions of Cb'ers are going to do when all 40 channels (and then some) are wiped out with 30dB+S9 of overlapping carriers and or constant popping and clicking of BPL signals. I would guess that some will bootleg in the ham bands where the interference will be less, thanks a lot power company.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by NA4IT on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Let's see, where is my nearest powerline...OH yea, just due east, about 100 feet. HAAT of powerline...around 50 feet. HAAT of triband beam...around 50 feet. TX output...100 watts. CQ CQ CQ de NA4IT.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I guess I should get prepared for all my neighbors to get mad at me because my beacons on 15 and 10 meters will probably be constantly interrupting their Internet access."
My question is, "How will your neighbors know that it is you who is causing disruption to the BPL signal?" They won't be able to hear your callsign like some can with TV RFI. The BPL providers may intiate a smear campaign against local licensed services but they can't touch us legally. Operate HF legally, enter lots of contests, keep documentation, and yes, keep your cool.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone needs to print a brochure to hand to your neighbors banging on the doors which distills Part 15 and the facts of life to them, hitting the salient points succinctly.
You know the power companies aren't going to say a peep about Part 15.
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck,
That was a well written article that really hits the right points.
Let me add a few fine points to it.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is important that we continue to operate our stations, but in a routine way, not intended to disrupt BPL. IMHO, scientifically conducted tests to determine power or frequency thresholds are acceptable, done either on a BPL system installed in your own home or in conjunction with a cooperative neighbor or the utility itself. If you do such tests, share the results with your local utility in a productive way, as they may really appreciate any factual information you can provide. The utility companies are not necessarily the enemy here, as the more astute of them are working with amateurs. (Some then change sides, as it were, saying things such as being said by Progress Energy. PE says that interference is acceptable as long as it doesn't completely render the amateur communication unintelligible and that interference to mobile stations is not harmful interference. They claim that amateurs are in the wrong because hams think that any interference is harmful.)
The AMRAD tests showed as little as 5 watts caused downloads to stop, but that was from a carrier, IIRC. The effect of routine operation may be simply to slow the system down, as data gets through in between the dits and dahs or pauses in SSB transmissions. That may be difficult to distinguish from the routine slowdowns that happen during Internet use, or the slowdowns to be expected as multiple users have to share the available speed. Keep in mind that the AMRAD tests may apply directly only to the Current Technologies equipment that was tested.
If BPL is coming to your area, and perhaps even if is not, baseline measurements of your present noise levels will be important. Ideally, these could be done with real test equipment, although most "real" test equipment used to measure field strength is not sensitive enough to measure the low noise levels present in most of our bands. S-meter readings can be of use, especially to document any change in local noise levels from any source. I have put together information on baseline measurements in the general guidance I have been providing to hams if BPL is expected soon in their area. See:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/Guidance_for_field_trials.doc
Those who want to make more substantive measurements may want to use a test method I developed that gives field-strengh readings from measurements made with a conventional amateur receiver and an RMS-reading voltmeter (or equivalent instrument). When I can find time (hah!), I want to port that over to a sound-card based program to do the calculations, but alas, there is too much to do and too little Ed. But see:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/aria/ARIA_MANUAL_TESTING.pdf
Feedback appreciated.
It is critical that hams who have interference report it to the utility, FCC and ARRL. I have about 50 interference reports on file, but in spite of cajoling on my part, at the time ARRL did its comment filing, only 27 had reported it to the FCC. Others had either just called the utility 800 number or assumed that the utility and FCC already knew about it, so why should they have to report it. Others may have reported it to the FCC, but not told ARRL, so we could not report that we were aware of more than the 27 filed complaints.
It is equally critical that interference be clearly identified as BPL before reporting it.
Information on filing BPL-interference complaints is at http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/complaints.html.
Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Someone needs to print a brochure to hand to your
> neighbors banging on the doors which distills Part
> 15 and the facts of life to them, hitting the
> salient points succinctly.
I would start with the FCC information on the subject:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/eadfaqs.html
This may be more effective than a brochure printed by amateurs.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI posted:
"> Someone needs to print a brochure to hand to your
> neighbors banging on the doors which distills Part
> 15 and the facts of life to them, hitting the
> salient points succinctly.
I would start with the FCC information on the subject:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/eadfaqs.html
This may be more effective than a brochure printed by amateurs."
Ed,
Are there any plans for the ARRL to print a brochure on the subject? I know its not your department, but if the ARRL could print a brochure that just explains the whys and hows of BPL interference and what we as hams can do and cannot do to lessen it, we would have something to actually show the complainers. Yes, I know, it costs money. I think we would dip a little deeper if we could get something like it printed and distributed. Oh, it could also point out how most other countries have outlawed such services because of the interference factors, too.
One thing you can be sure of, the power companies have notched out their section of the band they use for communications with their field units. That is something else we can point to--to the more knowledgeable people, that is.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RFI:
Given the comments recently by the NTIA spokesman, is this just more sunshine on top of the bad news for the Phase 2 study? If I remember correctly, the cover letter for the Phase 1 report was all glowing, but the actual meat of it was BAD news.
In any case, it sounds like the Government is going to damn the torpedoes and worry about the consequences later.
Tnx for the BPL data. My presentation was a slam dunk.
P
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would go one further. I would start recording the bands NOW. After BPL is deployed in a area it will be too late. We need to show how the bands were before AND after BPL rolls out and get good baselines on which to base complaints. This is the only way to demonstrate to the uneducated exactly what hams expect to (and are capable of) working.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would go one step further with the flyers. Don't wait for BPL to be deployed into your area. When it is learned that BPL will be rolled out in your neighborhood, brochures about the negative sides of BPL should be distributed in mail boxes right away.
ARRL should get on the bandwagon here and get a bulleted list about BPL ready for distribution (no pun intended) to affected areas.
I think this is an excellent idea.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In all I've read about BPL thus far, I can't determine if the plans are some huge national deployment or deployments in selected areas to provide service for those perceived to be lacking in service currently.
I guess my question, which our local utilities have declined to answer to date, is: For those living in metropolitan areas and already enjoying easy access to DSL, T-1, cable networks and so forth (where I live, I can choose from any number of high-speed wideband services, all readily available inexpensively -- and so can anyone within dozens of miles in all directions), should we also be hammering our electric companies, neighbors and anyone who will listen -- or will arguments be falling on deaf ears, since there's no immediate plans to deply BPL around here, anyway?
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K3UD on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There will be some warfare between us and the BPL consumer when the consumer realizes that something is interfering with his service.
A likely scenario is that the customer will call the ISP first and be told that there is nothing they can do because their system, under FCC regs, must accept interference from licensed users of the same spectrum.
They might even go further and tell the subscriber that his connection is actually being messed up because when the ham radio guy on Shady Lane is on the air, it screws up the ISPs service, and maybe you need to work it out with him, or possibly call your city council person and file a complaint.
At some point the one of several things happen.
1, The ISP (and others around the country) go the the FCC and congress to demand that their investment in BPL be protected by outlawing RF transmissions on the interfering frequencies. Congress goes along and we are all on 2 meters and up.
2. The FCC takes a stand and tells the ISPs that they knew that their systems could be interfered with by HF transmissions, and being Part 15 devices, they just have to take it and go on.
It is not the FCCs problem that you did not do enough testing to see what could happen and it is not our problem that your engineering was bad.
This leads to open warfare between BPL providers, their customers and Amateur radio ops.
Maybe this leads to coax cutting time and electronic invasion of privacy lawsuits in civil court.
(Anyone here remember the Grid Gridly W4GJO case in the late 60s?)
3. The FCC washes its hands of all of it and allows local jurisdictions to sort it out, kind of what they have done concerning interference from illegal CB ops.
4. BPL providers find out very quickly that their system, operating on 1.8 - 80 mhz is not viable and changes the technology so it uperates in high UHF or in the microwave region.
I really believe that this issue will become a local issue with local councils and courts deciding what the greater good is, and unfortunately it will not be us.
If a mobile on 75 meters can interfere with data transfer at these distances, What does a 1,000 - 50,000 watt AM station in the high end of the broadcast spectrum do?
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yep, get them flyers out BEFORE the system is installed to warn the neighbors. Anonymously. Take your antennas down and run something stealthy. Deny any knowledge, but run that beacon from your attic antenna.
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W6GDK on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We, as hams, have been mostly concerned with radiated interference from BPL. I wonder if anyone has thought about conducted interference, i.e. HF noise on your powerline. I work in a lab where we are working with measurements at noise floor, very low level signals etc. How well do surge suppressors (which typically are only used on the computer systems) with and without noise suppression perform with RF signals from BC Band to 80 MHz. How will test equipment now respond with all this additional BPL noise on the line? How will consumer electronics perform or be affected by all this noise?
I had a wireless FM intercom in my house that became ineffective when I connected an inexpensive VCR that generated considerable powerline noise. With the VCR plugged into a $60 power strip with a noise filter from Radio Shack, the intercom became marginally useful, but not nearly as effective as it was without the VCR.
I know that my company will now have to spend thousands of dollars on noise suppression for all of our test equipment and test benches. I wonder how the bean counters are going to like that?
I suspect that it might be a good time to start investing in companies building noise suppressors for power lines etc.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Ed,
Are there any plans for the ARRL to print a brochure on the subject? I know its not your department, but if the ARRL could print a brochure that just explains the whys and hows of BPL interference and what we as hams can do and cannot do to lessen it, we would have something to actually show the complainers. <<<
Good thought however put yourself in the complainers shoes for a minute and think about this:
Now wait a minute, Here's a guy (you) handing me (Mr. new BPL subscriber) a flyer (propoganda?)published by a national radio association (the ARRL) that represents the same guy (you) who is responsible for interfering with my newly installed BPL service - who is now coincindently telling me that my new BPL service is a bad thing.
Now, you do the math...
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KE6I on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Have we really determined that transmitting on ham bands will interfere with BPL? BPL has the advantage of being able to use any frequency, since they now own the whole HF band. Though I guess maybe their receivers might not have enough dynamic range?
Btw, for warming up the ham spectrum, I suggest forwarding of packet traffic. I've looked into this, and have started putting together a station for forwarding PBBS bulletins on 10Mhz. I have the software and hardware together, though I still have some kinks in my system. When it's going good, the station does transmit pretty regularly bulletins and mail and stuff.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N4KIT on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is an Amateur Radio group (I can't recall the specific organization right now) who did conduct a test using a mobile HF ham station and a fellow who subscribed to BPL service (if I recall, in either the MD or PA test sites). They found that even at low power levels and at some distance from BPL "lit" power lines, an HF transmission would cause the BPL signal to drop. I do not know the archetecture of the BPL system or if that system did some kind of shift to another frequency block and tried for a packet re-send. But HF transmissions will disrupt a BPL system operating in the HF segments.
73, Chris N4KIT
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KI6YN on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Guess I now have a need for a linear. If conditions warrant it, I'll push the throttle to the legal limit and no more. Got to stay legal. Been very happy running QRP most of the time and 100 watts when conditions are bad, now it is going to require a linear. Oh well, hope the folks using the BPL don't mind very very very very ................slow transfers due to a very very very............high bit error rate. Gee, never needed power before cause I only operate CW; my how things change, or do they?
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The idea Charles is to get those flyers in their mailboxes BEFORE the system is up and running...so they won't have any excuse. Of course, don't put your name on the flyer. Don't identify yourself as the source.
Anyway, if a neighbor gets irate after kindly explaining the facts of life to them, I'll kindly request they "GEEEYIT OFF A MY PROPPITY!!!" (hillbilly voice).
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hiya PAN,
How da heck are ya anywayz, ya redneck ya?!
Well, dang it all, you did bring up a good question dere I reckon!
I am not sure if I would handle it at all because the consumer would not likely complain or even recognize the fact that it is Amateur radio equipment that is the source of the "internet connectivity" problem they are experiencing. That is of course, unless they hear that 1.5 KW station from Ohio - KC8VWM calling CQ 6, CQ 6, CQ 6 on 51.110 kilo-sicles over their PC sound card speakers.
I feel they would likely blame the BPL service provider for shoddy service, you know... like when we used to have our modems disconnect and drop our internet connections during the old dial up days.
But hey, dat's just dere my opinion i reck ton.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
(that dere 1.5 KW station) ... wishful thinking I reckon.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM wrote:
"Now wait a minute, Here's a guy (you) handing me (Mr. new BPL subscriber) a flyer (propoganda?)published by a national radio association (the ARRL) that represents the same guy (you) who is responsible for interfering with my newly installed BPL service - who is now coincindently telling me that my new BPL service is a bad thing.
Now, you do the math..."
True enough. However, when Mr. new BPL subscriber is told that you, Mr. ham, got that flyer BEFORE BPL was launched in your area so you would know what will be going on, Mr. new BPL subscriber is likely to get less hostile and more curious about the secure broadband service they have subscribed to--especially when he is told the power companies knew that this (the interference) would happen and went ahead with BPL anyway, and Mr. ham isn't the only radio service that will be causing interference to BPL service.
I guess it all depends on how it would be looked at, won't it? After all, when the BPL subscriber finds out you aren't the only one who will interfere with his internet connection, he'll most likely smarten up and cancel his service in favor of something better.
On the other hand, yea, you'll probably run across some hothead that will try to push things....even if we're in the right as far as part 15 goes......
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL - DONT PANIC EARLY!!!
1. Amateur radio and interference to/from BPL don't even show up on the radar of the power companies or the politicians. Lawyers vs. amateur operators - not a winning formula in DC.
Q: If BPL is such a good idea, and legal under part 15, why isn't everyone doing it already?
A: There are factors other than ham radio that are keeping this from happening. Mostly it has to do with the economics of keeping "internet" on a single unbalanced wire. Would *you* like to support an "open" system like this with heaven knows what devices connected to a huge unbalanced network? How about
doing that *and* competing on price against the twisted pair and coaxial cable services? Oh yeah, there is a little voltage on those lines - careful!
This is a no-go any way you look at it and if you want a laugh, tale a look at the history of Ambient. What's it going to take to "shock" this flatliner to life?
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/intchart/frames/frames.asp?symb=abtg&time=12&freq=2
Something out of this world!
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> There is an Amateur Radio group (I can't recall the > specific organization right now) who did conduct a
> test using a mobile HF ham station and a fellow who
> subscribed to BPL service (if I recall, in either
> the MD or PA test sites). They found that even at
> low power levels and at some distance from BPL "lit"
> power lines, an HF transmission would cause the BPL
> signal to drop. I do not know the archetecture of
> the BPL system or if that system did some kind of
> shift to another frequency block and tried for a
> packet re-send. But HF transmissions will disrupt a
> BPL system operating in the HF segments.
That was AMRAD. See http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html and follow the link to AMRAD.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Are there any plans for the ARRL to print a brochure > on the subject? I know its not your department, but
> if the ARRL could print a brochure that just
> explains the whys and hows of BPL interference and
> what we as hams can do and cannot do to lessen it,
> we would have something to actually show the
> complainers. Yes, I know, it costs money. I think we
> would dip a little deeper if we could get something
> like it printed and distributed. Oh, it could also
> point out how most other countries have outlawed
> such services because of the interference factors,
> too.
At this time, there are no such plans. Although the initial tests show a susceptibility problem, it remains to be seen how routine amateur operation will play out. Merely slowing down BPL may not engender complaints. If it becomes an issue, I am sure we can get a pamphlet together in reasonable order, but right now, every available staff hour is taken up with the upcoming BPL filings.
I think that the info at the FCC site is 3/4 of the way there, and it will be a lot more effective than anything amateur radio can put together.
Also, the general info summary may be of some help if used with the FCC material.
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/bpl-deployment.html
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Tnx for the BPL data. My presentation was a slam dunk.
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/bpl.ppt (1.3 MB)
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> 1, The ISP (and others around the country) go the
> the FCC and congress to demand that their investment
> in BPL be protected by outlawing RF transmissions on
> the interfering frequencies. Congress goes along and
> we are all on 2 meters and up.
We have a strong potential for our fundamental signals to interfere with cable and telephone. Congress has had that opportunity and excuse for decades. They have not taken it and our transmissions that could and do sometimes interfere have not been outlawed.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by NN6EE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As usual K3FT thinks he knows more than anybody else because he's (admitted he loves the FCC) but that's not really important in that the NTIA, FEMA, and even the enlightened factions of the FCC knows that "BPL" is a frigg'n "Bad-Idea!!!"
Besides that's what our system of governement allows is LITIGATION to right GROSS wrongs especially "BPL"!!! So not to worry Guys!!! Whatever Bush's lackey says including (Michael Powell) it AIN't over YET!!!
73,
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by WB5HZE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any way you look at it, BPL below 80 MHz will cause a social problem that will make our lives as hams difficult, not to mention the lives of all others involved (including the customer). Now that we have an extension, why not file an avalanche of reply comments urging that deployment be limited to freqs above 2 GHz? Who says that Part 15 cannot be appropriately amended to accomplish this- BPL is obviously a service for which the existing Part 15 rules are appropriate. If that just happens to favor one particular BPL technology, tough- those folks were the only ones who bothered to put on their thinking caps.
Ron WB5HZE
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by WB5HZE on May 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Correction . . . for which Part 15 rules are NOT appropriate . . .duh.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>when Mr. new BPL subscriber is told that you, Mr. ham, got that flyer BEFORE BPL was launched in your area so you would know what will be going on, Mr. new BPL subscriber is likely to get less hostile and more curious about the secure broadband service they have subscribed to <<
Firstly, I would like to say this is a great message thread and I am learning a lot about everyone's perspective on BPL.
I see your point and I even agree to some extent ab out informing everyday consumers about the negative effects of BPL services used in their homes.
The only reservation I have about publishing and distributing such a flyer campaign sponsored by the Amateur Radio community to our neighbors is in the fact that we might end up doing ourselves more harm if the interference should continue and does not become resolved.
I agree with you on the fact that we might see some initial "positive" responses from a certain percentage of individuals however, even that response would slowly dissipate as your neighbors patience would become short after a while if they are having problems with BPL services. This will happen if the power companies do not quickly respond to interference complaints and subscribers continue having problems with their paid BPL services caused by your Amateur radio equipment ?
This can happen even if it is really being caused by Joe 100 watt CB guy driving down a nearby street while you are 1000 miles away on vacation for 2 weeks!
We will probobly have to start keeping station logs again for legal reasons.
Informing all of our nice neighbors about the fact that you are the local friendly neighborhood Amateur radio operator informing Mr.& Mrs. BPL subscriber about how radio equipment (just like yours) can potentially interfere with their private lives might be like opening a Pandora's box.
Suddenly, every crackle heard on Mr & Mrs. BLP subscribers TV set, and every other electronic device for that matter in their home that doesn't work right will be caused by "that" guy with the strange radio station antenna over there on that roof. You know... the same guy that came over and "educated" us when he brought that BPL information flyer over here last week - I think he calls himself a ham radio station operator or something.
I think the public at large generally has little tolerance for radio interference caused in their homes despite Part 15 of the FCC rules. They usually view radio interference as "offensive." It would be no different in their minds than a loud stereo playing next door late at night. Your friendly and most informative neighborhood amateur radio operator persona suddenly becomes nothing short of a neighborhood nuisance. For the most part neighbors would generally look at your radio interference or "radio signals breaking and entering into their homes" to their BPL services as an unauthorized "invasion" to their private home and everyday enjoyment.
You can educate them about the interference they might experience from radio communications equipment, but I would be very cautious about arming them with the same information that could eventually be used against yourself. You may be shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. This is exactly what the BPL service providers marketing exec's probably want us to do.
That's my $4.69 cents
(...gas price inflation you know)
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Charles, thats why I wouldn't put my name on the flyer and don't advertise the fact that you're a ham.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We have a strong potential for our fundamental signals to interfere with cable and telephone. Congress has had that opportunity and excuse for decades. They have not taken it and our transmissions that could and do sometimes interfere have not been outlawed.
Ed >>>
Hi Ed,
I saw you in Dayton but I did not have the opportunity to introduce myself, perhaps next time.
I have to admit that I strongly support your recent efforts in the area of BPL interference. I am however concerned that if BPL becomes a "prominently subscibed consumer purchased commodity" that Radio Amateurs may be viewed as the "bad guys" I would suspect that BPL service providers might "intentionally" be slow in responding to consumer complaints about BPL interference issues. In effect - prolonging the interference problems to make us look bad.
Any thoughts on how we should position ourselves in the consumers minds on the interference issue.... if we should take any position at all ?
Your thoughts are most appreciated.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Charles, thats why I wouldn't put my name on the flyer and don't advertise the fact that you're a ham.<<<
Hi Pan,
Most flyers that are distributed these days have to indicate some sort of identifier information to be legal. Something to do with Postal Regulations or something.
Maybe we need to look at a non-radio related entity to distribute this information?
Can we create something like "The agency responsible for fair consumer treatment of internet services" or something like that?
My $5.38 cents...
(darn gas prices!)
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KT0DD on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To: Ed - W1RFI
Of course, I feel we should exhaust all avenues in a non-hostile manner first. But if it becomes necessary, is there ANY grounds under U.S. or international law (under IARU, ITU etc.) that would give amateurs basis for a major class action lawsuit against the BPL companies?
Surely, if smokers can sue the tobacco companies, regardless if it was the smokers fault getting Cancer in the first place by choosing to smoke, we amateurs should be able to effect something similar. I fear in the end, with society being litigation minded as it is, this will be the only course that will get their attention. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N1OL on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Check the GoBPL website;
http://www.gobpl.com/
Spread the link!
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I saw you in Dayton but I did not have the
> opportunity to introduce myself, perhaps next time.
> I have to admit that I strongly support your recent
> efforts in the area of BPL interference. I am
> however concerned that if BPL becomes a "prominently
> subscibed consumer purchased commodity" that Radio
> Amateurs may be viewed as the "bad guys" I would
> suspect that BPL service providers
> might "intentionally" be slow in responding to
> consumer complaints about BPL interference issues.
> In effect - prolonging the interference problems to
> make us look bad.
> Any thoughts on how we should position ourselves in
> the consumers minds on the interference issue.... if
> we should take any position at all ?
You should have said hello to me. I usually go to Dayton with Greg Lapin, N9GL. Greg is the chair of ARRL's RF Safety Committee and in that role, he represents ARRL on the FCC's Technological Advisory Council. He also chairs the ARRL Amateur Radio Interference Assessment working group (http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/aria if you are interested), so he and I usually are mixing business with pleasure. I went to Dayton personally, so I did'nt spend much time at all at the League booth. But Greg is fascinated when he walks around Dayton with me by the number of people that I know as we are walking around. One year, it musta' been 200 people said hello t me, and I even remembered most of their names. :-) Next time, indeed.
At any rate, that digresses, but the minute I heard that the BPL NPRM reply comment period had been extended by 3 weeks, I took a vacation day today, so I slept in a bit, so I am still groggy. :-)
Now, to your question. I agree wholeheartedly that when amateur radio interferes with BPL it will not be a good thing. Right now, when I interfere with my neighbor's telephone, the FCC rules are on my side. Interference to a non-radio device is not caused by a rules violation at the transmitter station, but by the fact that the telephone acts improperly as a radio receiver. That is not a conversation that I want to have with my neighbor.
The FCC is not very concerned with interference that is not the result of rules violations. They allow the marketplace to sort that out, and rely on marginal industry standards for immunity instead of regulation (another very long discussion). Neighbors don't know the difference, and no matter what you may may interfere with, in their mind, it must be your fault.
But that has been with us for a very long time, and although it has caused problems, it has not been the ruin of amateur radio. I guarantee that over the next year, there will be 50,000 instances of amateur radio interering with a non-radio device (ARRL will hear directly about 1% of them, if the surveys I have done at radio clubs is any indication. That is still 500 cases a year of this type of interference that the ARRL staff get to deal with, though; it keeps a full-time staffer pretty busy.) There may be a handful of cases of interference to BPL systems, although if BPL goes in place, that will increase. I believe that if we can deal with the first, we can deal with the latter.
The best approach at this time is to position this before the FCC. AMRAD did a fine job of testing susceptbility, and a fine job of documenting this in their filing. ARRL has been careful not to make it a big issue in its dealing with the press, because it is one of those issues that can really be presented in a way that makes amateur radio look bad, if a reporter sets out to do that.
If BPL comes to my neighborhood, I am not going to provide information about its immunity to my neighbors, other than the three I can talk to personally. A single pamphlet would not do anything to change the minds of people who know nothing about amateur radio, and could well get them thinking that if radio transmitters can interfere with BPL, it must be to blame for every crackle that comes out of everything they own. That is a far more likely outcome than the one or two reasonable people who will read the pamphlet and decide not to get BPL because it may not work reliably.
Put yourself in their shoes. The get a golly-gee-whiz pamphlet from their utility that says BPL is wonderful, and a pamphlet from a group of amateur-radio operators that says that amateur radio might interfere with this wonderful new broadband. How will that be seen? Or, if as suggested here, the pamphlet be anonymous and not mention amateur radio at all, they get a pamphlet that doesn't even say who printed it that says that BPL might not be reliable because radio transmitters might cause interference. Will they believe it? No. Will they start looking at that Yagi antenna a few blocks away as the source of every crackle on every piece of equipment?
IMHO, this discussion is a solution looking for a problem, at least at this time. I am not spending time other than this post trying to address interference that hasn't happened yet. I know that the interference TO amateur radio will happen. I know that bringing that to the FCC will be germaine to them, and those are the issues I am going to spend my time on.
If someone wants a pamphlet to give to their neighbor, they may be able to put one together from two sources:
The FCC information I posted earlier and ARRL's general RFI pamphlet. Go to:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfigen.html
and look at the "Information for the Neighbors of Hams" page.
If we do see BPL interference, it may be appropriate to develop such an information package for that problem, but until we do, I am going to concentrate on things that are certain, not possible. There is enough of that for me to do to last the next 6 months.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Of course, I feel we should exhaust all avenues in a
> non-hostile manner first. But if it becomes
> necessary, is there ANY grounds under U.S. or
> international law (under IARU, ITU etc.) that would
> give amateurs basis for a major class action lawsuit
> against the BPL companies?
It is way too early to go there, IMHO.
It has been a devil of a time convincing the FCC technical staff that BPL poses a threat to amateur radio. Imagine trying to convince a non-technical judge or jury. Court should be a last resort, not one that is contemplated before the basis for the suit is even determined.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N0MLR on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM writes........
"You can educate them about the interference they might experience from radio communications equipment, but I would be very cautious about arming them with the same information that could eventually be used against yourself."
Charles has a point here for sure. Remember.... You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can be used against you in a Court of Law, Council Meeting, or at the CC&R Meeting. And..... You are guilty till you prove yourself innocent!
Thats my thoughts whats yours?
Greg Dunn / N0MLR
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KT0DD on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
Ok, Thanks for the reply. While I will continue to support the ARRL with my membership, I am also considering supporting the NAC and Amherst Alliance, after reading the ARRL article that they got the FCC to extend the deadline for comments on BPL. It seems they are taking quite a pro-active approach, and got the FCC's attention. It never hurts to use as many tools as you have at hand if they're useable.
Thanks for all your hard work Ed, & keep it up!
73, Todd
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W5LSD on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1.5 KW will soon be the minimum power necessary
to maintain communications. The neighbors
will just have to live with it.
|
| |
|
Okay Mr. Ed
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NO PAMPLETS!!!
You've convinced me. It makes sense. I have antennas at my house plainly visible and I don't run around saying "Do you have problems?". Only if I get that knock on the door will I respond. And if they are nasty and threatening, then its-
Mr. 12 guage and our motto will always be....
"GEEEEYIT OFF'N MY PROPPITTTY, VARMIT!!!!"
Got to add some humor somewhere's...I'd use proper English of course.
:)
PAN
|
| |
|
RE: Okay Mr. Ed
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How to make a Hillbilly BPL interference detector,
First , cut a forked peach tree branch,(only works if they are from Georgia - ask KA4KOE to send ya one) peel all the bark off it and start witch'in round for BPL interference signals in yer there nay-boar-hood.
It wurks much better if ya Chew some gum from a sweet gum tree and ya'll can walk at the same time.
Be very careful about turspassin'on peoples pryvat prop - erty, when using yer BPL interferance detector.
Our motto in deese parts is that good fences make good nay boars, and NEVER go a 'walkin onto someone else's pivite property without askin for proper permission first. We get right touchy about dem dere turspassers 'cept if it's that Game warden guy. Survivors caught tresspassin' on pryvate property will get the law sic'ced on 'em.
Everyone 'round deese parts has 'dis dere shotgun dat's always inscribed, "The Law" sittin on dare front porches.
If ya can't find the source of inter - fear - ince, then y'all can make a BPL interferance eliminator for yer yay-sue raydio and ateneye. First, take yer coon dog with ya and go down to the crick and catch ya some crawdads. Be very careful not to get covered in chiggers or seed ticks. Second, go home and put the crawdads in yer gamma matcher thing a ma bob. Next put a catfish in yer pocket and climb up yer tower and thie the catfish to yer top of yer HF vertical anten - eye. 'Dat should fix yer problems. If it doesn't wurk den find somebody what knows somebody and purchase a pint jar of real moonshine. Don't drink it all at onct.
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by HAMS_R_FAT_PIGS on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You fools have been more worried about keeping mandatory CW testing than BPL or losing HF frequencies to commercial interests.
You told newcomers and CB users that the only way for them to communicate abroad is to use instant and video messengers over BPL lines that's soon to be available in every home nationwide as per the current administration.
"Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug."
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KT0DD on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh Boy, Here we go... Welcome to the Jerr E-ham Springer show.....:) 73.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KF7CG on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The biggest worry I have about Amateur to BPL interference is that since many of the BPL systems will be franchisees of the local power company, is that local law enforcement will be involved early.
I haven't taken the time to dig back through the ARRL archives, but I do remember the case of an Amateur that was getting into local phone service in either Mississippi or Louisiana. He was arrested and taken to jail for this by the local law. Though he was finally cleared it cost him quite abit of money and some jail time. He is not totally off the hook, the charges were just placed in abeyance until the prosecutor can find a loophole in the Federal pre-emptions.
The arrest and so on came after the local authorities had been informed of the Federal pre-emption.
Once BPL is deployed in wide areas, I suspect we are in for as the old saying goes an "E-ticket" ride. They don't have to win, just cause to many unreimbursed expenses and days off without pay.
I will operate as much as I can when I can and won't go down without a fight all the way. However, that is because I am stubborn, I feel that we are the last defenders of the Alamo. But without Sam Houston in reserve.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by NN6EE on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI/Ed,
Some intutive insights into the impending "BPL' mess!!!
Muchas Gracias Senor!!!
Regards,
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KF7CG on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My memory was just a little fuzzy on the case, but it still illustrates the point of what could happen in every little town that wanted to push things.
Here are the links. What would happen if there wasn't the lower level court like in Mississippi?
ARRLWeb: Mississippi Ham Awaits Court Decision in RFI Case
NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 29, 1999--A Mississippi ham arrested for interfering with his neighbors' telephones is awaiting a decision on his request to throw out the complaint on the grounds that the state court has no jurisdiction in the matter. ARRL member Bennie Stewart, KJ6TY, of Meridian, was arrested and ...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/1999/10/29/1/ 2000-01-05, 5061 bytes
ARRLWeb: Mississippi Telephone RFI Case Tabled
NEWINGTON, CT, Jan 5, 2000--A Mississippi ham arrested for interfering with his neighbors' telephones is breathing a bit more easily today. ARRL member Bennie Stewart, KJ6TY, of Meridian, was arrested and charged September 10 after a neighbor filed a complaint with the Lauderdale County Justice Court ...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2000/01/05/1/ 2000-03-19, 4050 bytes
This is going to be interesting.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K6AER on May 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I have read through 60 some odd postings and so far only Steve, WB2WIK came close to the point. BPL will fail because the business plan is not there. With DSL, Cable, several wireless offerings on 2.4, 5.3 and 5.8 GHz, not to mention the cell phone companies with 3G; none of these requires but just the minimum infrastructure to bring High-speed into the home. BPL customer equipment will cost about $400 in large quantity and the power structure could cost over $200,000 per square mile. If you can not see a return investment on you capital outlay in 2 years the invertors won't fund the operation.
Because the medium is open to RF access, security is a problem. The infrastructure will need to be rebuilt to pass RF. Every power transformer is grounded and passes only 60 Hz, not 6 MHz.
I would much rather the ham communities worry about getting new blood into the hobby than BPL that is not going anywhere.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I would much rather the ham communities worry about > getting new blood into the hobby than BPL that is
> not going anywhere.
Do you think that the hams in the communities where BPL is in operation right now share your views?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KD4DBP on May 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck and others who post articles:
Fellows, please have mercy on a realtively new and isolated ham who does not have an Elmer to talk with.
I am trying to gain some knowledge of my somewhat new hobby by reading these articles regularally. To make this short and sweet: please include at some point in your articles, what the initials stand for. I have no idea what the initials stand for and I'm sure I am not the only one in this boat. Maybe I should be outraged and take some action. But just tell me what I'm outraged about and that way I can go elsewhere and look up info on the matter.
Thanks for being here for me and someday, I may be able to work something besides 2 meters.
Ed
KD4DBP
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K6AER on May 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For all the E-Mails on BPL, I have not read one E-Mail from a ham in the areas where the BPL science projects are being tested. If hams would become more politically active the spectrum would not have been such an easy target.
How many hams that posted here on E-Ham have actually contacted their congressman and senators? I'll bet very few.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N0MLR on May 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K6AER writes....
"If you can not see a return investment on you capital outlay in 2 years the investors won't fund the operation."
They already have their investors. They are called the Electric Consumer who will pay the bill when it comes due. Wheather it works or not!
Get ready for 7 to 9 cent a KW hr electric rates real soon.
Greg Dunn / N0MLR
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N5SX on May 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I THINK ALL THIS "BPL" IS A BUNCHA #&%*@# ! let's write our congressmen, now I'm going outside to see if the sky is falling
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by K3UD on May 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some power utilities who offer ISP, Cable and other business services have the policy of allocating whatever money you send in for you total bill and first to the optional services and whatever is left to the actual bill for the electricity. If you are for some reason, short, the spectre of of having your power cut off comes into play. Of course you still have your internet (and hopefully a generator)
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N0RTU on May 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello All.
While there have been some pretty good suggestions here, and even some good ole boy humor, there are a few rock hard facts in favor of us hams that have not been discussed. BPL is just what it says. Broadband over power line. The key words here are "POWER LINE". ANY interference that originates from a power line is the responsibility of the power provider. In other words, if BPL interferes with your licensed operation, the POWER COMPANY is responsible to fix it! Now, I know what some of you are going to say, "They will just hire a communications company to take care of the problem." Well, it doesn't matter who they hire to fix the problem, the interference will eminate from the power lines so the power company is still primarily responsible! This is something they will not be able to escape. Now, interference is interference. It doesn't matter if it is arcing from high voltage, a lightning arrester on the line going bad, or BPL. If it originates from the power line, the power company will have to make good on the complaint. Just like they have to do now. If they don't respond, you have recourse now and you will in the future. Part 15 provides for protection of licensed services. To my knowledge, nobody has said yet the rules and regs on interference are being waived for BPL. Something else that hasn't been brought up here that is EXTREMELY important is this. The power company that serves you will first have to agree to let the broadband provider use its lines. If you want a chance to stop BPL in your area before it even gets started, how about your local club putting together a presentation that expains the FACTS of BPL and its inherent problems and choosing a few members to present this to your local power provider? Your provider may decide the potential problems and headaches outweigh the potential benefits and choose to turn down any approach from a broadband company. It may also be a good idea to make your presentation to some local news people at about the same time.( I prefer newspapers, things that are written are usually admissable in a court and newspapers keep "archives" for a LONG time!)
Now you may think that contacting your power company is hogwash, but let me tell you something. Power companies hate bad publicity. Many companies have went to great lengths and expense to "save the trees", "save the whales", "save the ____________________" (fill in the blank). They do this to save looking bad in the public eye. If your power company is informed ahead of time of the facts concerning BPL and its problems, you may be able to help shut off BPL before it ever even gets plugged in.
Let's also look at the financial end of this. Power companies will be competing with cable companies, independant ISP's, telephone companies and the like. Common sense should tell you and I that BPL head end equipment is expensive and complicated. Consumers will not switch to BPL unless there is some financial incentive. Plainly put, BPL will have to be significantly cheaper than existing services before a "mass migration" of consumers will occur. For BPL to be significantly cheaper than existing services, it will have to "win over" the majority of the audience. Something it is not likey to do in the short run. I just don't think that people will immediately say, "Oh boy, BPL, let's get some!" If your power provider doesn't see some pretty decent profits from BPL in a short time, I don't think you'll see broadband on the power lines either.
Next, what happens to BPL when linemen are out working on the lines? Linemen must maintain our power lines every day. (Usually during business hours...........Do you want interruptions during business hours? Interrupting your viewing of eHam at 8:00 pm at home is one thing, but interrupting your business at 10:00 am? and possibly for several hours or even days?) Also, can BPL interfere with the power company circuit protection equipment and voltage regulating equipment? I'd bet that it could because lots of this equipment in now digital! Have you ever tried to inject 10 volts peak to peak of rf into the serial port of your laptop or desktop computer? I'd be willing to bet a substantial chunk of change that your computer and the power companies protective relays and equipment won't like it either! There are literally hundreds of things that will have to be dealt with with BPL comes to town. Power lines were never designed to carry radio signals or digital information. They are designed for 60 Hz AC power. Hundreds of complications are brought into play when you try to force a system designed for one thing, to do something else.
I think alot of the ideas and suggestions presented in the previous posts here have merit and are worthwhile. However, maybe having a BPL comittee within your club would be worthwhile also.
The club I presently belong to has close ties to Fire departments, Police departments, etc. If your club has such associations, you may find scheduling a meeting with your power provider to educate them and express your concerns may be alot easier than you think! If the "powers that be" in your power company are informed of the facts of BPL (remember now, JUST HARD, PROVEN FACTS. NOT SPECULATION , HERESAY, or YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS) and its potential to interfere with many different types of communication services, you may never have to worry about convincing anyone else that BPL is a bad thing. The power company may never allow broadband on their system at all!
Just one more thing here folks, and this is the main topic that shoud be stressed to your power company. ANY interference that eminates from a power line is responsibility of the power company, not the bpl provider. You might ask your power provider if they are prepared with equipment and manpower to respond to problems created by bpl. Not only the communication problems, but possible problems with the power protection circuits, etc.
Maybe with a little help from hams and others, the "wheels" at your power company will "see the light".
Some thoughts from a Lineman/Substation Technician.
73 and Safe hamming to all
Mike
N0RTU
N0RTU@yahoo.com
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N4DFP on May 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another GREAT defensive point.... Join MARS (Army, Air Force, Navy-Marine), And get ACTIVE! These services have nets running 24 hrs. a day. MARS current charter goes FAR beyond health and welfare traffic. MARS works closely with FEMA, Homeland Security, National Guard, and Reserves. If you are active in MARS you are not just trying to protect a "Dying Hobby"; you are aiding in the National Defense. MARS requires logs, and operates in interagency exercises. These are irrefutable proof of the value of Ham Radio. Check out this URL http://www.asc.army.mil/mars/default.htm . This is the Army MARS website, but it has links to Air Force, and Navy-Marine, as well as links to each states Army MARS program.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW, after my IEEE presentation, one of the people in attendance handed me a flyer on a BPL conference to held in Orlando, Florida, July 28, 29 of this year.
All roses and sunchine, just geared to the investors.
Keynote by
Bill Habermeyer, CEO, Progress Energy Florida
Susan Story, CEO, Gulf Power
http://www.iqpc.com/cgi-bin/templates/genevent.html?event=4929&topic=233
PHILIP
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey guys here is a quick little scenario to consider. You have lived in a neighborhood for 10 years been active with your Amateur Radio the entire time and never caused any interference.
BPL comes to the area and causes no interference to anyone (I know impossible, but humor me).
Now when ever you transmit there is wide spread interference to neighborhood TV and FM radio service. The channel and strength of the interference is directly influenced by the band you choose. It is amply proven to occur only when you transmit.
Is your clean station responsible for the interference?
Is BPL responsible? How do you prove it? What will the FCC say?
Is it some device in your home or one of the neighbors homes that can tolerate the signal level of BPL or Amateur Radio but not both? How do you find the device? Whose responsibility is it to repair it; device owner, BPL provider, Amateur? What will be the FCC stand on this?
Just some food for thought.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> You have lived in a neighborhood for 10 years been active with your Amateur Radio the entire time and never caused any interference. >>>
KF7CG,
I brought a similar question up once.
"What happens when BPL is causing the interference, but the finger is pointing at you?"
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Is it some device in your home or one of the
> neighbors homes that can tolerate the signal level
> of BPL or Amateur Radio but not both? How do you
> find the device? Whose responsibility is it to
> repair it; device owner, BPL provider, Amateur? What
> will be the FCC stand on this?
If a device is non linear and creates harmonics or other intermod from nearby signals, the operator of that non-linear device is responsible. The FCC has generally been supportive in the few instances where hams weren't able to help their neighbors resolve it directly.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
The question arises when the non-linearity only shows up when a non-subscribed to signal appears on a persons home wiring. Is that person now responsible because someone added something to his wiring without his consent (BPL signal on non-subscriber wiring), especially when that something is under Part 15 rules?
Here is a hypothetical that could happen to some poor Amateur. You live in a CC&R restricted neighborhood that mandates a certain make and model of yard lamp (must be purchased from HOA) be working on your property. (This does exist.) You have a working agreement with the HOA for a stealth vertical, it has worked well for a couple of years. Now BPL signals are applied to the local power distribution wiring and your yard lamp generates interference to the neighbors. You own the device. You can't easily change the interfering device. How do you get the BPL signal on the home wiring removed? Do you simply get ruled off the air?
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W6DLF on June 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would seem very important that regulated public utilites NOT be able to pass the investment cost of BPL on to rate payers. This is easy to say now. Lets not wait until we start paying for the broadband equivalent of decomissioned nuclear reactors. 8-)
Dave
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You have a working agreement with the HOA for a
> stealth vertical, it has worked well for a couple of
> years. Now BPL signals are applied to the local
> power distribution wiring and your yard lamp
> generates interference to the neighbors.
If it it generated interference from the BPL signals, it would also have done the same from the RF signal from the stealth vertical.
Let's answer that question in reverse. You live in an area without an HOA and you put up a legal vertical. You apply a legal signal to that vertical and it radiates it as intended. One of your neighbors has a yard lamp that picks up your legal signal and generates interference. Should you have to correct every non-linear device in your neighborhood because you are operating a legal amateur station?
How do you intend to keep your signal from being picked up by the electrical wiring and conducted to your neighbor's lamp?
The BPL signals are equally legal on the line. The utility has followed every FCC rule on the books.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry for the plug here, but while we are on the subject of BPL, don't forget (if you have not already done so) to file your BPL concerns with the FCC:
1) Visit website to file your comments here:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
2) Refer to: ET Docket number 04-37
3) Write your brief concerns and explain why you don't think BPL would be good in the long term. Avoid coming across like you are angry. Be very constructive and forward thinking.
File before the new extended Deadline: Tuesday, June 22
FCC Extended Comment Period BPL - Full story:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/05/27/101/?nc=1
Now back to your your regularly scheduled website.
Thank you for your support.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
You are missing the threshold effects. BPL signal alone doesn't exceed threshold. Amateur signal alone doesn't exceed threshold. Combined the threshold is exceed and the device causes problems.
It is the straw that broke the camel's back problem. In the torte case for the destroyed camel who is responsible. The last person to add straw, the first person, all the persons, or a higher power?
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me add to the BPL interference and powerline problem. Isn't the "normal" BPL signal impressed on a powerline significantly greater than the Amateur signal received by a power line?
If this is the case, the Amateur signal would have had adequate headroom on the power line until the additional BPL signal came along.
As I see it the home segment with BPL signals on it is a vast fertile ground for intermodulation and harmonic generation in any of the home devices attached. If you now add an additional strong signal from any source you have a nightmare of interference probabilities and the source that will be blamed will most likely be the most easily identified one.
My other argument about holding BPL providers responsible for wiring in the buildings served is that this wiring is a portion of a distributed Part 15 device and the signal is not an artifact of extraneous reception but is an integral part of the Part 15 device itself.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by NO9E on June 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I bought a $50 13 inch TV from Walmart. With QRP on 20m, the screen collapses to a small rectangle. No filter on power cord or the antnna input helps. The older 13 inch TV is completely immune.
BPL is just the tip of the iceberg. With fewer hams, interference from poor-quality home electronics or from sparcing powerlines is mostly unchallenged. The solution is to increase the number of active hams. With antennas mostly hidden, we do not promote the ham radio. Perhaps in some time, the only way to enjoy the home radio would be to go camping or buy a large property in the middle of nowhere.
Ignacy, NO9E
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Let me add to the BPL interference and powerline
> problem. Isn't the "normal" BPL signal impressed on
> a powerline significantly greater than the Amateur
> signal received by a power line?
When I transmit, the local signal picked up by the power line from my transmission is many times stronger than a BPL signal would be on that line.
The problem with BPL is that its legal emissions are many times stronger than the signals I am trying to receive.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You are missing the threshold effects. BPL signal
> alone doesn't exceed threshold. Amateur signal alone
> doesn't exceed threshold. Combined the threshold is
> exceed and the device causes problems.
I am not missing the threshold effect; I understand it. The level of the amateur signal is going to be many times higher than the level of the BPL signal. Path loss calculations predict that about 10 watts of HF signal will be coupled onto the overhead power line from a nearby amateur transmitter. The total power of a BPL signal using 10 MHz of spectrum is about 10 milliwatts or less (spread out across 10 MHz). I suppose it is *possible* that 10 watts of power would not have an intermod problem, but 10.01 watts of power starts to have an intermod problem, but that is not likely enough that I think it should be raised as a serious possibility.
Always do the math. :-)
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC0POY on June 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I, like every other dedicated ham, am against the whole idea of BPL and it's possible interference. I have only been a ham for 14 months, but had been interested in becoming one for over 50 years. It was my intention to activly persue ham radio in my retirement years, which are very close. Now, it may not be an option anymore.
That said, the real reason for this post is as a caution to those that would spread flyers by mailbox. Even though you paid for the box and installed it on your house, legaly that box belongs to the USPS. That is why you are required to have a seperate box for your newspaper subscription. It is a federal violation to put anything in a mailbox, other that mail. If you want to distribute flyers, and do not desire to spend a small fortune on postage, please tuck them into the screen door, or under a rock on the front step, or something. Widespread use of the mailbox for these flyers could result in legal action taken against you.
I hope we can someday come to a happy solution for everyone. 73, Don. KC0POY.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you Ed.
You have the math handily available, I only have a little of it plus a solid general knowledge of radio.
You helped a lot. That is why you are the RF engineer and I am the unemployed software engineer.
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KB1GYQ on June 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<flameproof suit on>
Perhaps it's time to befriend the CBers... nothing like a keydown contest to blow out a few BPL repeaters, nu?
<flameproof suit still on>
;)
|
| |
|
RE: U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by N4UE on June 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I spent about an hour tonite 'trying' to file my BPL concerns to the FCC on the website:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod'ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
However, it appears that:
" ET 04-37 is not open for submission to ECFS".....
What gives? I thought the deadline was extended to 6/22/04
ron
N4UE
|
| |
|
U.S. Versus THEM
|
|
|
by KC0NPF on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I live outside the city where the local BPL trial is being conducted, but I was considering starting an HF Teen net (teen age ham operators ragchewing.) Then I had another idea, SSB is really low duty cycle, wouldn't it be fun to put out 40w or so of PSK31? Anything higher than 50w turns my furnace on, sets off the touch lamp upstairs and wipes out the TV completely. But if I could get some operators near the test site (conveniently enough, the test site chosen contains NO hams) to light up on PSK we might be able to do some damage. Keeping power levels below 100w might show how weak the BPL stuff really is, maybe have some kw station light up some time, document what happens. I dunno, this sounds kinda destructive, but if it's legal for me to operate this mode I might as well have fun messing up BPL while I'm at it since, I won't be able to have any kind of useful communication...
KC0NPF, BJ
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Malicious Interference Cases Top FCC List
No 136 kHz for the USA
My First Antenna
Truck Drivers Taking Over Lower Portion of 10-Meters
The Hijacking of 40-Meter RTTY
Other Opinion Articles
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
Amateur Internet
40 Meters -- What Are You Doing?
Aren't We All In This Together?
|
