Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 25
on
June 19, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
The ARRL has weighed in on behalf of Iowa amateur and ARRL member Jim
Spencer, W0SR, of Cedar Rapids, who has suffered severe broadband over
power line (BPL) interference for more than two months. A formal complaint
to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David H. Solomon calls on the Commission
not only to order Alliant Energy's BPL field trial system to shut down but
to fine the utility $10,000 for violating the Communications Act of 1934
and FCC Part 15 rules. Alleging "ongoing harmful and willful interference
to one or more licensed radio stations," the ARRL asked Solomon to
intervene "on an emergency basis." ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, who signed
the letter of complaint, said Alliant Energy has been aware since March
30--the date it installed Amperion BPL equipment in Spencer's
neighborhood--that the BPL system was causing harmful interference.
"It's simply unacceptable for Alliant Energy to continue to cause
interference while they're trying to solve the problem," Sumner said.
While the utility has been cooperative, mitigation efforts have been only
marginally successful. The BPL system continues in operation, Sumner
notes, despite repeated requests to eliminate the interference or shut the
system down.
The complaint cites the Commission's own Part 15 rules prohibiting harmful
interference from the operation of an unlicensed intentional,
unintentional or incidental radiator to a licensed radio service. "If
harmful interference is caused, the radiator may not operate," the
complaint says. "There is simply no room for interpretation that would
lead to such harmful interference being permissible for any period of
time--certainly not 10 weeks."
The letter of complaint summarizes and culminates a series of exchanges
and actions in an unsuccessful effort to resolve Spencer's BPL
interference. Sumner said the League got specifically involved in
Spencer's case after United Power Line Council
http://www.uplc.org
President William R. Moroney invited the League in mid-March to keep his
organization in the loop on any cases of BPL interference that were not
being satisfactorily addressed. When Spencer's case arose, Sumner said,
the League considered it "a good place to start."
Among other approaches, Alliant Energy has tried notching out the HF
amateur bands. After notching attempts in late May, Spencer--a retired
engineer and former Collins Radio employee--still reported "significant
levels" of BPL interference on some bands and power line noise on 160
meter and 80 meters.
An Amperion contractor indicated that the notching--or "power masking"
remains a "beta procedure" as well as "somewhat labor intensive." The
contractor, Tom Luecke, indicated to Spencer in early April that he had
cranked down the BPL system's gain "a notch below where I would like to
have them" on three units closest to Spencer's home.
Although claiming Amperion's equipment to be FCC Part 15 compliant, "We
are not a radio silent technology, nor do we claim to be," Luecke
conceded. "Put another way, you can hear our signal, but we strive not to
interfere with ham operators on the ham bands." He said his company has a
good track record with the amateur community and "would like to think that
the majority of apprehension about Amperion's technology lies in
misinformation."
Sumner said UPLC representatives have made good-faith efforts to persuade
Alliant Energy to comply with the FCC rules. Spencer "has cooperated fully
and patiently" with Alliant Energy's and Amperion's fruitless efforts to
eliminate the interference, the complaint notes. The BPL partner
companies' best efforts to date notwithstanding, Sumner said, the time had
come to say enough is enough.
"The situation in Jim's case is egregious, and it's been going on for 10
weeks," he said. "If this is the best we can expect when a BPL system
causes interference, then the only answer is to prevent them from being
deployed."
The letter of complaint calls on the FCC to notify Alliant Energy
"immediately to cease operation of their BPL devices in accordance with
§15.5(c), and to follow up that notification with a Notice of Apparent
Liability."
For additional information, visit the "Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) and
Amateur Radio" page on the ARRL Web site. To support the League's efforts
in this area, visit the ARRL's secure BPL Web site.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 25
June 18, 2004
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I would certainly like to hear what the FCC response is. That is if there even is one.
|
| |
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AI4CB on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd hate to be in the shoes of the FCC Enforcement Bureau head!
If he does his job and enforced Part 15, he'll probably get fired (or "retired for personal reasons")for going against his boss' efforts to fast-track BPL.
|
| |
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by L1D on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
why are the hams who work for electric utilities silent on this issue? what are they scared of?
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
..................This case will establish whether or NOT the FCC is going to enforce their Existing reg's as it relates to Interference of an established and licensed set of operators(we the Amateur community). The initial response will tell Volumes about how Much Political Concerns will Color and dictate either full compliance in favor of Hams and against BPL or if the Enforcement folks are going to introduce some type of accomodation without a final date to either comply or cut it off. .....kd5ir, sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by N0RTU on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wait a minute here!
I'm a ham and a electric utility worker. I've posted here more than once about BPL. There are NO easy answers to this scourge.
BPL has been discussed where I work, but not at great length yet.
What little input I have as a lineman is paid little attention to. I'm afraid that like almost all other business decisions made nowadays, all that is looked at is the financial aspect. Absolutely no consideration is given to "after effects". Typical of those who count beans. My advice to hams is the same now as it was when I posted a few weeks ago.
If you belong to a club, form a BPL comittee. The persons on this comittee should be calm and reasonable individuals who have self control enough to stand in the face of unreasonable, pig headed and arrogant "managers" and "directors" of power companies and state their concerns about BPL and its ill effects on radio communications of all sorts, not just ham communictions. PLEASE NOTE ALSO that it would be a very good idea to make sure the local newspaper people know that you have met with your power company reps. Things tend to be binding and permanenet when there are written records! Work up a presentation for the power company "leaders" and make sure the news folks have access to it. You CANNOT stop any power company from implementing BPL. But you can warn them of the consequences and trouble it creates.
Like the Old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
If you don't have BPL in your area yet, make an effort to stop it before it starts.
If you have it already, keep careful records of noise and interference and be prepared to file a formal complaint with not only your power provider, but with the FCC.
Remember too that if your Anti-BPL effort is a coordinated one that involves your entire club, you stand a much better chance of being heard. Please don't underestimate the power of keeping your local newspaper people informed either. Power companies go to great lengths to avoid bad publicity. Use that to your advantage. Interference to established radio services is newsworthy.
As inventive as most hams can be, I'm sure most ops can think of several different avenues to take to prevent BPL from ever starting in their neighborhood, or if it is already there, to help get rid of it.
ABOVE ALL, don't ever damage any BPL equipment, don't become combative or beligerant in your speech to any power company or news people, and PLAN CAREFULLY your course of action.
Losing ones cool in front of the camera is a sure way to lose not only the battle, but the war as well.
"Somebody else" is not going to help us on this one folks. It's either get up and get busy, or live with the hell that BPL is.........
73
de
Mike
N0RTU
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WILLY on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Although claiming Amperion's equipment to be FCC Part 15 compliant, "We are not a radio silent technology, nor do we claim to be," Luecke conceded. "Put another way, you can hear our signal, but we strive not to interfere with ham operators on the ham bands."
Specifically: "...you can hear our signal..."
Isn't this a clear admission? Since if a signal can be heard, it can be construed to be interfering. At that point, interference becomes subjective. If the ham is trying to communicate with another that is very weak, then any "heard" signal is apt to be of significant interference to preclude the contact.
|
| |
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone know why the term 'poster child'
was used?
Thanks in advance.
Dave....
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
..........Because interference is in violation of part 15 regs. The fcc is Supposed to enforce the rules without showing preference or Predisposition when an entity is in Violation of those Rules. This , particular situation , calls upon the FCC to Enforce it's OWN rules to require the BPL provider to either Comply or Cease operation . IF, they (theFCC) , either can't or won't do their Duty on this very simple and Clear cut violation of BPL interference then what Does this SAY too the Rest of the Ham community? How will our OWN particular case(s) of BPL interference be Adjudicated by an FCC that is receiving UNDUE Influence from a White House in favor of the BPL providers rather than carrying out it's decreed mandate of unbiased enforcement that is void of Political influence.
.........As I said before , they will either enforce the Rules.....OR.....they issue some watered down directive that is inconclusive and NON binding on the BPL providers which effectively allows them to continue operation which is AN ongoing Violation with NO action taken ......kd5ir , sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by KD5IR on June 19, 2004:
"How will our OWN particular case(s) of BPL interference be Adjudicated by an FCC that is receiving UNDUE Influence from a White House in favor of the BPL providers rather than carrying out it's decreed mandate of unbiased enforcement that is void of Political influence."
The FCC takes it's orders from the White House. Remember this on Election Day! I'm not a fan of Kerry's, but George W. Bush must go.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The "poster child" reference indicates a clear public example of an issue that may have little public attention, yet needs to be corrected.
Here is a modern day "Art Collins" type in Cedar Rapids, swamped with BPL.
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/15/2/?nc=1
He's working with the League, but in the mean time
his tower, antenna, and gear has been rendered useless.
The power company as always has no motivation beyond
the obligatory drive out, jaw flap, only to disappear
forever.
At some point, I expect guys like this will install an
electric fence, a few volts of noise from DC to
daylight. That would bring out the white trucks
in a hurry.
The FCC has really put everyone's knickers in a twist,
with the vagaries they've allowed.
BPL will die on it's own economics and soon. That's a blessing because gripes from hams were going to go -nowhere- against the desires of GWB.
Keep in mind that the power companies have traditionally been conservative and just recently took an enormous loss on broadband investment. Now come the BPL companys and propose this "Win-Win" proposition with which to recoup their losses. Amazing new technology not only makes this possible, but cheap, and with *No Interference*, none, nil, nada. Now fast forward about 18 months and the power companies have this (the truth) to consider.
http://www.uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/7966/conman/UPLC+NTIA+BPL+COMMENTS+IB1.pdf
Read this as if you were the power company that had been promised NO INTERFERENCE. This also casts doubt (rightly so) on the claims of the economy of operation for the BPL service.
The only question is will the hams over-react
so quickly that it appears to the public that a noble idea died at the hands of them.
But if I was living in that house - it would be
so hard just waiting for the thing to play out.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WI4CW on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't hear this mentioned much ... how do these bpl systems hold up when an amateur station lights up with several hundred watts? I'm being serious folks do they honestly think the bpl systems can share the spectrum with other transmitters (amateur) that are capable of inducing some fairly hefty signals into those lines?
am I way out in left field here?
That's fine if they want to do bpl - but the only way I see it working - is to assign it to its own spectrum.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I understand it, the FCC has had
all complaints go to OET which is sitting
on them. EICs aka District Directors
have been told not to enforce Part 15
on BPL.
It is a mess, I think the only way will
be to go to the US District Court and
get an order for the FCC to enforce its
own rules. It can be done, but it is
time consuming, as you have to allow the FCC
time to not act.
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on ATV,
but if memory serves, you would need a writ
of mandamus to require the FCC to do what
it is supposed to do.
Lotsa work coming for our Volunteer Counsels.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on June 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't hear this mentioned much ... how do these bpl systems hold up when an amateur station lights up with several hundred watts?
------------------------------
I hear this a lot, the fact is that under 10 milliwatts is being put on the powerline, so you tell me, or anyone that's been to Field Day tell me how those BPL transceivers don't get swamped if they don't have Ten Tec Orions up there?
Even if the BPL devices are not "swamped" by the narrow amateur modes at medium to high power, they would be crippled by even minimal amounts of wideband noise - like an old Toyota pickup parked under the power line. So stuff like bug zappers, arc welders, and power lines generate the kind of low level wide band problem that BPL hates. No smart ham would use their transmitter, it would be stupid besides being the wrong tool for the job - hi.
The BPL strategy was to rollout in mass, and then "mitigate" to whatever extent possible the interference given the full weight of the BPL users
in the consideration.
So, this incident in Cedar Rapids is forcing the interference issue long before the BPL proponents have the weight of a large user base to leverage.
That's good for us, as is the fact that Ed Hare is there to keep the fire to their toes.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Concerning how robust the system is in the presence of our signals, it has been shown that 10Watts will block BPL in a 1/2 mile radius. The mechanism, primarily is front end overload. The receivers in question are relatively simple.
Concerning impulse type noise, the statement that BPL does not like this type of noise is erroneous. In fact, the type of modulation schemes employed are intented to minimize noise affects. You must understand that most of what BPL is doing is software based and utilizes a host of post processing techniques to make it viable.
I noted that someone in this thread mentioned that the output power is <10mW. Ed Hare told me in an e-mail that the actual output is ~27nWatts. This is a small power, but is a big signal in the area around the couplers and on the wires.
Concerning the question of what will the FCC do? My belief is nothing. This is the first non-trial system to be hit. They could even say that this is a case where we are trying to overplay the seriousness of this problem and well it may, but who will determine what is harmful interference and what mitigation must be tolerated by the injured party. In addition, the FCC has new regulations under consideration and will delay dealing with this problem until they are in place. They consider the present regulations too harsh for BPL to tolerate anyway.
The proposed new regulations provide so much latitude for the FCC and the BPL providers that there may be no enforcement at all. The FCC can just ignore the situation as long as the provider cooperates by using mitigation. Where will the line be drawn where shutdown becomes necessary. It certainly will not be in the case of an amateur station as injured party.
The White House statements leave no doubt about the outcome. The FCC would be entirely justified in withdrawing all of our HF priviledges should this become too much of a problem and don't think they won't do it. There is too much at stake in this election year and too much potential $$$.
Personally, I'm waiting with baited breath for the final report and order in the case of BPL. I would not be surprised to see even these modest regulations watered down in favor of BPL providers.
I would like to raise one more issue here. I believe the BPL industry feels that the Part 15 power limits represet the level below which no harmful interference can exist. Look at the statement: "we are in compliance with Part 15". The implications is: how can we be interferring with you? This demonstrates the ignorance of the providers and the people that designed this system. Just compliance with Part 15 limits does not assure the providers that they can just keep operating, but this is what the industry believes and the modifications to Part 15 for BPL are an attempt to provide the commission with a simple mechanism that will permit them to ignore any particular complaints it chooses to ignore.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
...........For the ARRl to pursue Litigation it has to beable to show a Prima Facia caseexample that demonstrates that they(FCC) have FAILED to enforce their OWN regulations in a fair and unbiased manner. To that end , they(the ARRL) needs to go to court while Part 15 regs are STILL in effect. If , the ARRL waits, until the FCC issues a newer , watered down version of part 15 regs , it would might weaken their case as the BPL providers would be in violation of a much higher threshold and therefore "NOT" in violation. So the ARRL must document a clear lack of enforcement by the FCC based upon the standards that are in effect CURRENTLY under part 15 regs.....NOW....NOT under a newer , more lax set of standards...........kd5ir , sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The White House statements leave no doubt about the outcome. The FCC would be entirely justified in withdrawing all of our HF priviledges should this become too much of a problem and don't think they won't do it."
Gee, this sounds very "Soviet" to me, even bordering on "Stalinist". Don't look now, but our freedoms in this country are evaporating very quickly. Before you know it, we will all be required to bow before "King George". Oops. I shouldn't have posted this. I'll probably get a knock on my door very soon. It's all part of the "Patriot Act".
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The White House statements leave no doubt about the outcome. The FCC would be entirely justified in withdrawing all of our HF priviledges should this become too much of a problem and don't think they won't do it."
Gee, this sounds very "Soviet" to me, even bordering on "Stalinist". Don't look now, but our freedoms in this country are evaporating very quickly. Before you know it, we will all be required to bow before "King George". Oops. I shouldn't have posted this. I'll probably get a knock on my door very soon. It's all part of the "Patriot Act".
I've been using the work NAZI as in storm troopers in communications with my Reps. The police have been placed in the train stations to monitor commuters and have even take random people a side for random searches and ID checks. This is the type of behavior that my father fought to eliminate in the 1940's and now our own government is employing the same tactics to keep us in line. I'm not happy and I will continue to let them know it.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by K0IL on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"why are the hams who work for electric utilities silent on this issue? what are they scared of?"
As an two-way radio engineer for a utility, I have little influence on our company's BPL project since it is set-up outside of the telecomm dept. It's being run by MBA marketing-types, not telecomm engineering types.
What are we afraid of? Perhaps some are afraid to lose their jobs especially in these economic times. I'm doing everything I can to educate supervisors and managers within my department about this issue especially since it is our departments responsibility to track an eliminate powerline noise problems. I'm also sending information which sheds light on the truth about BPL to our BPL guy. He has responded to some of this info, but usually to indicate that's not what he's being told by UPLC or the vendors.
All we can do is keep informed and provide key information to those involved. No one has ever asked me, the company's wireless engineer, anything about BPL. And because they all know I'm a ham since I set-up back-up comm during Y2K using hams, I really doubt they'd view me as being objective on the subject. Probably one reason it's being done in marketing and not telecomm.
73,
de ed
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by AE1X:
"I've been using the work NAZI as in storm troopers in communications with my Reps. The police have been placed in the train stations to monitor commuters and have even take random people a side for random searches and ID checks. This is the type of behavior that my father fought to eliminate in the 1940's and now our own government is employing the same tactics to keep us in line. I'm not happy and I will continue to let them know it."
Ken (AE1X), if you want to see how much freedom we've lost since 9/11/01, go to http://www.nycsubway.org/ and read the front page. Then go to http://talk.nycsubway.org/perl/read?subtalk=700096 and read an article written by someone who was detained for pursuing his hobby and taking photos. BTW, my father also served in WW II from 1942-1945 in the European Theater fighting Hitler.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KA4AJA on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anybody know if BPL is using cellular/PCS frequencies? Modes like CDMA are limited by noise. High noise floor kills range, capacity and data rates.
Everyone might be in for it. Some of the proposed rules talk about noise floor. -120Dbm is nice but who is to say we might be forced to live with -100 Dbm so part 15 devices can play?
|
| |
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by K9ZF on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It will all boil down to defining the term "harmful interferance." Yes, we can hear thier signals, but are we being harmed? I'm afraid that they have enough money to influence that decision in thier favor...
73
Dan
Dan Evans K9ZF
Scottsburg, IN 47170
{EM78}
K9ZF /R no budget Rover
ex-N9RLA
Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
http://www.qsl.net/n9rla
QRP-l #1269
Central States VHF Society
IN-Ham list administrator
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by K0RFD on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unless somebody has some actual facts or can cite rules that define it differently, "harmful interference" from an unlicensed user of the spectrum is the same as "any increase in my noise floor".
I regard anything that keeps me from hearing any other station as "harmful interference", unless it comes from somebody with the same or greater rights than me -- a licensed primary or co-primary user of the band. Some noise comes from the atmosphere and some comes from space; neither is regulated by Part 15. That's not the stuff I'm worried about--that's what I call "noise floor". The manmade stuff is ALL subject to regulation of one kind or another. It still remains to be seen whether the FCC plans on enforcing its own regulations or whether some people are going to get a wink, a nod, and a free pass.
We have a saying in Colorado -- "Water flows uphill towards money" -- lets hope the electromagnetic spectrum isn't about to be managed the same way.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anybody know if BPL is using cellular/PCS frequencies? Modes like CDMA are limited by noise. High noise floor kills range, capacity and data rates.
No!
They are only using frequencies in the HF bands at the moment with plans to use up to 50Mhz. The use of the frequencies above 30Mhz. will be a regulatory nightmare for the commission because of all the rural use of these channels for fire departments.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everyone might be in for it. Some of the proposed rules talk about noise floor. -120Dbm is nice but who is to say we might be forced to live with -100 Dbm so part 15 devices can play?
The commission is studying a technical evaluation method known as noise temperature. This is applicable to bands that share spread spectrum signals. The League filed comments in the NOI which indicate this technology is premature at best. The attempt here is to raise the issue of spectrum efficiency and the noise temperature would be the measure of choice.
One could look at band occupancy in terms of noise floor. FM signals tend to have a capture effect and the use of noise type squelches would permit FM signals on noisier channels. So, these channels could do some sharing with BPL or other spread spectrum emission types. This includes our repeater channels. Amplitude modulated emissions on the other-hand, are degraded by increased noise floors and are the primary emission types used for weak signal work.
You may be right in your assessment. Weak signal work is not commerically useful. It is only a curiousity of interest to us HOBBISTS. Commerical interests are more interested in short range communications and would find the ionospheric propagation a nuisance where we use it for our own interests.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is the noise floor on a cheap SWL radio, like the $50 dollar variety that used to be available? What is the normal ambient noise level in downtown DC? Take this and increase the noise by 10db and you will probably have the new noise temperature limits.
As was posted earlier, on Amateurs and radio astronomers are interested in weak signal work. Even most SWL types go for the strong stations and don't try to dig out the weak ones.
This means that for a very large portion of the population a large increase in ambient noise would be fairly meaningless. When satellite radio becomes inexpensive enough or an extra with the satellite or cable TV bill, even less attention will be paid to airwave pollution unless it hits cell phones or wireless laptops.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on June 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why don't we can the stupid political comments and stay with the subject at hand which is BPL.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unfortunately, the BPL is a big political problem. Bush opened his mouth and inserted his foot on this issue. He, like other proponents, has bought the unsupported hype about this system. He is not technically competent and has fallen into the trap set by the spin doctors.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
That's right, we need to hear from one more ax grinder why they (will/won't) (support/trash) their candidate. Unfortunately many of us get tried of political tripe along with all the crap we have hear in the media daily. Lets stick with BPL and leave the political BS outside of eham.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
...........Don't Complain about Politics!!!! Just....WHERE.....in the SAM HILL...DO YOU think that this Load of DUNG Came from ?? Straight from George Bush's Mouth. He, and atleast 3 of his Hand picked FCC commissionerslobbyists are the Driving Force behind BPL to get it established REGARDLESS of the Fact that IT is a Proven Source of Interference at the Frequencies for which the BPL providers want IT to operate.
............It , has NO technical Merit, from the Hams perspective. And, the FCC has Already stated their Acceptance of IT AS Currently configured...Noise and ALL. This....IS....a political problem....nothing more...nothing Less.....kd5ir, sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Merrill,
If you wish to take this up with me on a more personal level, contact me. My e-mail address is freely available on this forum.
The unfortunate thing about BPL is that it has no technical merit. This is clear from the data provided by the ARRL, like them or not, and the NTIA. Have you read the comments posted for ET Docket 04-37? The proponents provide absolutely no technical information to back up their position and the opponents have the all the data that anyone could want. If the playing field were level and this commission were to do its job, BPL never would have come to the point of an NPRM and to fast track it! This isn't political?
I'm not an avocate for either candidate in this race. I live in Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry represents me in the Senate of the United States. I have very little to say about him. He hasn't done much for this state. I'm concerned that he would be just as bad for amateur radio as is this administration.
Politics is the issue here, PERIOD!
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Concerning how robust the system is in the presence of our signals,
> it has been shown that 10Watts will block BPL in a 1/2 mile radius.
Actually, in the tests done by AMRAD at the Current Technologies system in Potomac, MD, a 10-watt mobile on the street outide a house carrying BPL stopped the house from being able to download a file. A half mile way, along the power line, it took 100 watts.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by NE2I on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
sounds like I need to fire up the old HF packet system
and keep the noise temp in our favor!
George
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by K7LAS on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, AG4RQ, glad to see you are in group-lock step with the rest of the Lib-'Rat party.
Vote Democrat in 2004!!! (and vote in Socialism.)
Just could not let your tripe continue unanswered.
Warms my heart to know the GWB pisses you folks off so much.
K7LAS
73
|
| |
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by N5IFH on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
FCC's answer....rewrite Part 15 to favor BPL...?
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
See the latest reply comments. One of the commentors is complaining that that is precisely what BPL is attempting to achieve.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Understand that there are documented cases of BPL going into a neighborhood (with an inherently restricted bandwidth due to the wire), and the cable providers coming in and laying cable within weeks. No matter how the FCC writes the rules to favor BPL, the BPL must endure the ingress interference from all manner of licensed or unlicensed devices *and* gain market share against optical/cable with a slower (read more expensive), interference prone service.
BPL is cooked, it's just a matter of how much we suffer
with it in the near term. Also a matter of understanding how radically the FCC has changed in recent times.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K7LAS, Germans blindly followed Hitler the same way you follow your fuhrer. FYI, I am a registered Republican, but I intend to do my patriotic duty to this country by voting against the incumbent menace while we still have free elections. Another 4 years of King George and there may not be any election in 2008.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by W2YEE on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All politics aside (as the same criminal FCC would be doing this under party B) I say lets exercise our rights to transmit and give this BPL a run for the money. We need to stop bellyaching and take to the streets with mobile setups.
Walter
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, did anyone hear any comments from the recent Manassas Hamfest?
That should have been interesting if they were close to the BPL deployment.
I must be getting old, I can remember when BPL (Brass Pounders League) was something to be sought after and earned.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by W2YEE on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Speaking of king george and the similarities to Nazi Germany, ...what this pack of neo-con criminals surrounding him has done is hideous. BPL is the most minor of their crimes. I know that this is a ham website, but still underneath it all, are we not human beings? This criminal proxy war for Israel will destroy us. It has already created an imeasurable pool of anti-american sentiment worldwide. What can I say to my fellow hams all over the world? I am deeply sorry , I'm ashamed, I'm angry, and my government has been occupied. Like a week old diaper, we REALLY need a regime change. Soon we will be like the Soviet hams of the 1970s who could only give out a signal reports. BPL will be the least of our concerns.
Walt
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And you think Kerry is going to do anything about this? Not only would a President Kerry continue with BPL, you'd also have high taxes and government subsidizing BPL. Be careful what you wish for, as you may actually get it.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by K7LAS on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
time to renew your medication, I think.
K7LAS
73
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KA5S on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've suggested elsewhere an information letter (NOT a complaint!) to the ITU notifying them of a member administration which is not observing the provisions of the Radio Treaty.
Cortland
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by W2YEE on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok, your absolutely right. I'm back on my medication. cold beer and sports programming. Its better to be numb as thinking is very painful. Ahh, thats better.
Walter
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by K7LAS on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W2YEE, glad to hear you are feeling better.
Lot's of folks out there needing medication these days. Proof ? Statements like these...
"Gee, this sounds very "Soviet" to me, even bordering on "Stalinist". Don't look now, but our freedoms in this country are evaporating very quickly. Before you know it, we will all be required to bow before "King George". Oops. I shouldn't have posted this. I'll probably get a knock on my door very soon. It's all part of the "Patriot Act"."
I don't profess to know every detail about the PA, but I do know and understand why it came about. I also know some aspects are extremely controversial, borderline illegal, perhaps. Asking the Fed to get it right the first time is like expecting the bull to tip toe through the china hutch.
Apart from some minor delays in an airport or two, I can't see where I, nor anyone I know, has lost any "freedoms" at all. I can still go where I want to go, do what I want, buy what I want, say what I want to say, etc.
What ticks me off is the assumption that any of this is all GWB's fault. The POS before him had the change to stop the carnage of 9/11. The BentOne was more interested in not have sex in the Oral Office. GWB got to clean the mess up. He is. The alternative would have been Al "I invented the Internet" Gore - crap, we'd still be waiting and watching the UN pass more resolutions. And let us not forget that the UN and the BentOne both said Saddam has WMD. GWB only screwed up by advertising for so long / waiting so long to go in. GWB is the President of this country - he is my President. He is trying to guide this country clear of danger. What would Gore or Kerry be doing right now - besides raising taxes on everything, I mean - ? Scary thought, no?
GWB - BPL - FCC: and this is, of course, GWB's fault. Why not.
Yes, sometimes medication is needed to bring one back to reality. Sometimes the medication is reality. But one has to be paying attention for that to work.
73 - K7LAS
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It has been said before, When BPL comes on line and there are interference reports from us hams, the reports will be filed and ignored. BPL interference will continue with only minimal attempts at mitigation.
BTW, will anybody bet against the power companies themselves putting a nice wide notch in the BPL system in the area of their radio communications systems? I believe most of them are in the 40.0 to 50.0 mhz area of the HF band.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by W2YEE on June 22, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My dear friend K7LAS
To judge presidents, I look at the body counts, hmmm... 9/11 for standing down AF interceptors to save WTC and then the effing war in Iraq that is simply murderous. Oh yeah, the stock in terrorism.com is up big time. Expect more attacks. Clinton had his own war crimes as well, and I view Clinton/Albright war crimes in the YU callsign region as much more heineous than Bill's whoring in the oval. Both parties (A&B) of course are on the same roadmap.
So get off this infantile Rep/Dem BS. Its only fitting for a limbaugh/dittohead/moron. Please I hope you have progressed above it. As I have said before when my medicine wore off, Party A = Party B = War for Israel's sake and BPL as well. Now I'll go back to the American pastime of sports and beer narcosis and be happy again. What great medicine (and pain killer) it is.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> It has been said before, When BPL comes on line and
> there are interference reports from us hams, the
> reports will be filed and ignored. BPL interference
> will continue with only minimal attempts at
> mitigation.
BPL is on line in several cities. There are interference reports. The FCC staff did not respond to the initial reports, nor did they respond to numerous inquiries about the status of the reports until recently, where most have gotten a form answer saying that they should report the interference to the utility to give them a chance to fix it. In at least two cases, that "chance" has been 12 weeks running now.
The utilities are trying to fix it, but to only limited success. Even after 12 weeks, the systems were not shut down to eliminate harmful interference. One, Progress Energy in Raleigh, NC, did mitigate some of the interference, but they "fixed" the rest by having their lawyer proclaim that the interference that remained was not "harmful interference" as defined in the rules, so they didn't have to fix it.
Would we be allowed to continue to operate 24 hours a day if a "legal" harmonic from our ham stations were interfering with a neighbor's antenna-connected TV?
> BTW, will anybody bet against the power companies
> themselves putting a nice wide notch in the BPL
> system in the area of their radio communications
> systems? I believe most of them are in the 40.0 to
> 50.0 mhz area of the HF band.
In Hanover TWP, PA, I have personally observed BPL signals from 44-49 MHz along two mile-long stretches of power line.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
...............So, the question becomes , how long is the ARRL going Too WAIT before it files a Class Action Lawsuit ??? All the official BS about "Comments", write your LobbyistCongressman , tell George we don't like BPL, etc. really don't mean Squat. We (collectively) as hams are going to receice injunctive relief from the courts , if our case has "Legs" and Ultimately , we will be vindicated by a judicial verdict in our favor......kd5ir , sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sanford,
To bring that type of suite, you have to exhaust all normal channels of complaint and establish a pattern that clearly indicates the FCC is ignoring its own regulations. The small number of cases in question and the present outcomes are part of the due process of law in these cases.
I agree that 12 weeks is too long for a clear violation of the regulations, but things do move slowly in government circles unless there is a clear reason for action. Our everyday operations, while useful and commendable, are not critical in the eyes of this government that is drawing up the wagons in all directions to protect itself from the terrorists. It is certainly clear that the proposed regulations are already FCC policy even though they are not yet the law.
My big concern now is that this is a pattern that sounds like a dictatorship is brewing. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that one can be arrested for simply refusing to identify oneself the a police officer. I saw this in one of our local free newspapers this morning. Our rights are slowly ebbing away in all directions because there is a lack of trust by own government in the governed.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sanford,
To bring that type of suit, you have to exhaust all normal channels of complaint and establish a pattern that clearly indicates the FCC is ignoring its own regulations. The small number of cases in question and the present outcomes are part of the due process of law in these cases.
I agree that 12 weeks is too long for a clear violation of the regulations, but things do move slowly in government circles unless there is a clear reason for action. Our everyday operations, while useful and commendable, are not critical in the eyes of this government that is drawing up the wagons in all directions to protect itself from the terrorists. It is certainly clear that the proposed regulations are already FCC policy even though they are not yet the law.
My big concern now is that this is a pattern that sounds like a dictatorship is brewing. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that one can be arrested for simply refusing to identify oneself the a police officer. I saw this in one of our local free newspapers this morning. Our rights are slowly ebbing away in all directions because there is a lack of trust by own government in the governed.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ken, that decision only applied to 21
of the states that have such laws. Here in
NC we don't and probably won't. I look
at it as more of a 10th Amendment States rights
case, than a 4th Amendment Federal case.
States do have the right to make laws that
are not covered by the Constitution as
amended.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KD5IR on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
..........Ken, Yes, I suppose you're on the mark. The Ultimate sign of IMpotence is to "just be ignored". And, I think the FCC , rather than getting directly involved , has just decided to "Ignore" us, and let us flail about in the Bureaucratic Wind and allow the BPL'ers to setup programs where ever their LITTLE HEARTS desire. We'll huff and puff , maybe squirt some RF at their "interference radiators" and ultimately we won't have any effect.....UNLESS.....BPL proves to be Unprofitable then it will just disappear or they'll reinvent the technology and move their utilization frequencies Away from our existing allocation(s)...kd5ir , sanford kuteman...
|
| |
|
Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KY6R on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I worked for a local power company that went bankrupt a few years ago. They are still operating, but they still have money to throw at (whatever they are sold on) that will be profitable. That includes things like BPL, politicians, lawyers.
I also worked for a dot com systems house that was in business for a couple of years and is now long gone. I am a programmer and DBA, and all of the hype spewed out a few years ago that the Internet has "limitless" money making potential is now a joke.
I recently read a report that the majority of the Internet users who will adopt broadband have already done so, but there is a huge interest in wireless. And I do believe that - just look at how addicted cell phone users are (while driving their cars and not paying attention to the road I might add).
My point is that I have lived through a couple of cycles of "this is a new technology that will revolutionize the world" or "this is broadband nirvana", and I don't believe it for a minute. My bet is that if BPL really takes off and is implemented in more than a few niche / spot markets is that only some of the current cable / DSL users will switch. I also believe that BPL will force the cable companies to drop their prices to compete, and that in the end - the service provider who can sell the service at lowest price and highest value will win.
My bet is that the cable companies will win hands down, and that BPL will be a niche player. I think the biggest BPL user will be the power companies themselves - who use this network to control remote water valves and other remote electrical devices in their grid.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My bet is that the cable companies will win hands down, and that BPL will be a niche player. I think the biggest BPL user will be the power companies themselves - who use this network to control remote water valves and other remote electrical devices in their grid."
If this is the case, they already have nearly 500kHz of bandwidth to use for this purpose. I don't believe that they need 28+ Mhz. of bandwidth for a grid control network and it certainly does not belong in the HF spectrum. We were prevented from joining our follow amateurs on the 194kHz allocation because of the concerns of the power companies that our use of that spectrum, even with the power limit set at 1W ERP and compromise antennae, would cause harmful interference to their existing control systems. A number of power companies and indeed the one in Manassas VA have expressed the single desire to implement advanced monitoring systems on the power grid for their own benefit. This is not what was envisioned for Part 15 services. It is, however, a natural extension, in their view, of the present PLC system and for the same reasons should be authorized for their use post-haste.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KY6R on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Very interesting. A few years ago, they replaced all of the power poles on an adjacent street to mine with much larger ones and then added much larger wires and more of them. It looks like they turned a residential line into a feeder line of some sort. Soon after they did that, I started hearing strange (data / warbling) interference on my cars AM radio as I drove under them. The interference is only occasional - as if they are using it as a control line of some sort. The lines do go up and over a hill where they have a sub station. I wonder if this is an example of what BPL will "sound like". I haven't heard any of these control signals on any band at my QTH - which is about 1/8th of a mile away from these lines.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child': Reply
by KY6R on June 23, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Very interesting. A few years ago, they replaced all of the power poles on an adjacent street to mine with much larger ones and then added much larger wires and more of them. It looks like they turned a residential line into a feeder line of some sort. Soon after they did that, I started hearing strange (data / warbling) interference on my cars AM radio as I drove under them. The interference is only occasional - as if they are using it as a control line of some sort. The lines do go up and over a hill where they have a sub station. I wonder if this is an example of what BPL will "sound like". I haven't heard any of these control signals on any band at my QTH - which is about 1/8th of a mile away from these lines."
I all likelyhood that is what you are hearing and is only occassionally. They use all the bandwidth from ~9Khz to 495Khz. for PLC.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 24, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look at the UPLC Reply Comment. I will not try to drag up direct quotes here. They do, however, claim that BPL can save lives and improve the functioning of the electrical grid.
The also accuse unamed interest groups of misinformation and deliberate lies to stir up hysteria against BPL.
Then they dismiss the ARRL and all Amateurs as "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters."
Oh yes, the claim in their reply comment that they do not interfere, and that the have corrected any minor problems they may have had.
Take a look at the goodies in the UPLC Reply Comment turkey. There are enough goodies in there for two Christmases.
|
| |
|
RE: Iowa Ham is BPL Interference 'Poster Child':
|
|
|
by KY6R on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Geez if the power companies are using the frequencies below the AM broadcast band for PLC, then why couldn't they use it for BPL? Is it a bandwidth / speed issue? I thought that by now we would have seen / experienced more technology based on spread spectrum - where they could algorithmically control and use a smaller piece of spectrum to support many users. BPL wouldn't be a problem if they could use one section of spectrum instead of the spread they plan on using now.
I also wonder what will happen when solar flares occur - as they did last summer. Something tells me they will rush this technology out too fast but pay some pretty nasty consequences later. And then there is the issue of network security and "phreaking".
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
After The Dust Settles What's Left?
League Files Opposition to BPL Reconsideration Petitions:
Texas BPL Initiative Dead; Antenna Bill Exempts Amateur Radio:
IARU Eyes Global Coordination of Amateur Radio's BPL/EMC Response:
Public BPL Database Access Restrictions Removed:
Other News Articles
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
Indonesia To Launch Orari Satellite Next Year:
Radio Enthusiasts Help Red Cross During Games:
|
