BPL - Modes That May Still Work
Harry Yingst (AB2PN)
on
July 3, 2004
View comments about this article!
With BPL getting rolled out, I started to think about the modes that would still make it through.
Having an interest in the 1750 Meter Band (160-190 kHz) since I was a boy and realizing the limitations of that band (weak signals and high noise) it seemed the place to look for ideas.
Some of the ideas I've come up with so far are:
1.Very Slow CW (QRSS)
2.Two Tone CW (using one tone for Key up and the other for Key down)
3.Very Slow Voice (accomplished by recording the voice, slowing it down, shifting it up in frequency to a higher pitch, then transmitting it, and reversing the process on the receive side)
4.Slow RTTY
5.DX SSTV Modes (MP115, Scottie DX, etc)
It would seem to me that the full carrier modes would be the best since they would make it easier for the receiving station to spot you.
Remember when your running the Full Carrier modes to make sure your running within the rated continuous specs of your equipment.
Turn the power down on your exciter and use an amp that is rated for the desired continuous output power, and make sure your feed line, tuner, antenna, etc. can handle it.
I think that BPL is going to present a real challenge to our current modes of operations, and that it is vital for hams to pursue modes that will work in High Noise environments.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by K2WH on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK on your post but I have a problem with it. Take it or leave it, it is not incumbent upon amateurs to co-exist with BPL. We are the licensed service and BPL is not. BPL cannot force amateurs to adopt different modes or methods of operating. If BPL is interfering, BPL must be shut down.
This is why I see your way of thinking as dangerous. I know you mean well, but I reiterate - licensed services must not be forced to accomodate or co-exist with BPL. It is the other way around. BPL providers must find a way to co-exist with amateurs and let the BPL proponents adopt preventive measures or other methods of providing BPL without causing interference. This mantra must be repeated over and over or we are done.
K2WH
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AC0X on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Stupid article. Very stupid article. Not only does it promote the idea that we're supposed to accomodate BPL, the author also doesn't realize that there is NO MODE that can be deciphered under the noise floor of the constant din of BPL.
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by K7VO on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please explain how these modes will wok with an S9+ noise level. Please also explain why hams should abandon SSB, CW, PSK31, etc... in order for power companies to make bigger profits while violating FCC Part 15 rules. Unless you can do that, well... I see this article as pointless.
-Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by K2WH on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think Harry Yingst (AB2PN) point is, if BPL is in your area and you are forced to deal with it, these modes may work bette than others in a very noisy environment. By dealing with it I mean, no action from the FCC, the utility or the provider.
By "Dealing" with it, recent history seems to indicate that the above three partners, are not willing to acknowledge the interference problem so they are mimicing the (3) monkeys - Hear no Evil, See No Evil and Speak no Evil.
This is not a softening of my feeling in my previous posting. BPL is the bad guy not us.
K2WH
|
| |
|
Not a stupid article
|
|
|
by WW7KE on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The idea of using certain modes in areas of high digital (or other) noise is a good one.
Many hams live in multi-family housing and as such, live in areas where there are multiple computers, causing constant digital-noise QRM from the AM broadcast band to UHF. These hams can fix their own equipment but not their neighbors'.
Multiple TVs and their harmonics of horizontal sync and color-burst signals are a big problem in these areas, but we've been fighting poorly engineered TVs for almost 60 years.
Even without BPL around, the modes that Harry mentions might make the difference between enjoying ham radio in these locations and being off the air.
|
| |
|
Fight fire with fire
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My idea is to use highly directional antennas coupled with a 1500w full legal limit amplifier. Point the antenna at the power lines and run beacon mode 24/7.
Thats my idea of coexisting.
They'll have to pry my key from my cold, dead fingers.
Don't call the guy stupid. Thats no way to win converts.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Harry wants to make us think, too many hams are sitting around waiting for BPL to go away on its own.
It's coming to some places and exists in other places now and is as bad as Harry suggests.
Any BPL signal that is loud enough in your HF receiver to cause you to resort to the modes and power listed above, would indicate that the BPL devices would be physically VERY close.
The BPL device, which only places nanowatts on that power line, has very sensitive receivers and an
Amateur HF kilowatt and those modes would certainly be enough to be completely overload and (shut down) BPL for long periods of time using the methods suggested.
I don't think that's the desired result, it would bring a lot of heat from the neighbors and the power company.
According to the law (Part 15), the BPL devices MUST accept interference by LICENSED services.
But the same regulation also says that BPL CANNOT interfere with licensed services and that's not being enforced.
Everyone is holding their breath here, until the Fall when the FCC will either commit to the existing part 15 regulations for BPL, or make some new rules to acommodate it.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AD6WL on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I recommend running RTTY at 1500watts. RTTY contests should do the trick.
|
| |
|
Heat
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We'll it will just have to get hot then. Someone needs to do this with a lawyer held in standby.
I only advocate doing this after all other measures have failed.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by WW7KE on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2WH said: "I think Harry Yingst (AB2PN) point is, if BPL is in your area and you are forced to deal with it, these modes may work bette than others in a very noisy environment. By dealing with it I mean, no action from the FCC, the utility or the provider."
The problem here is that the power companies don't answer to the FCC. They answer to their state utility commissions (or equivalent) and, in the case of private companies, their stockholders. If the FCC complained to a power company about BPL interference to hams or other services, that company would probably tell them to stuff it.
I haven't heard of any utility commission coming out explicitly for or against BPL. Stockholders won't complain if it's making them money.
BPL is already legal under Part 15. The general radiation limits under section 15.209 are currently 30 uV/m @ 30 meters from 1.7-30 MHz and 100 uV/m @ 3 meters from 30-88 MHz. That's still a decent signal into a good quality ham receiver. Only certain marine & aircraft disaster frequencies plus VHF TV channels must be notched out under current rules. Beyond that, anything goes.
The rule that Part 15 devices must accept interference from, and cannot interfere with, licensed services, is unenforceable, both technically and legally.
If someone's microwave oven or cordless phone interferes with my QSO on 2.4 GHz, that's probably just too bad. I can complain to the oven or phone manufacturer and the FCC but those complaints will probably fall on deaf ears. FCC rules for unintentional radiators are so loose that there is little I can do if the manufacturer can show an FCC certification.
But if my rig causes TVI or (once it happens) screws up my neighbor's BPL internet access, I will be the one responsible even if I'm operating legally. There is legal precedent for this, going back over 50 years with TVI. In rare occasions of extreme interference, the FCC used to impose "quiet hours" on hams that caused TVI. This could easily happen again. Check section 97.121 - it's still on the books. This gives the FCC authority to impose restrictions upon proper investigation.
Anyone who is so naive to think that the rights of 700,000 hams (maybe 1/4 of those being active on HF) will take precedence over potentially millions of BPL users is living in a dream world.
The only way BPL will go away is if it interferes with military/public service/disaster communications, or if money isn't being made from it. The former is possible, but the latter is more likely given the cable/DSL infrastructure that already exists and the wireless systems now being implemented.
There may not really be enough customers to make it worthwhile. Let's hope this is the case.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AD6WL on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My idea is to use highly directional antennas coupled with a 1500w full legal limit amplifier. Point the antenna at the power lines and run beacon mode 24/7."
According to section 97.203c, beacons are limited to 100watts. Try RTTY contests with an AL1500 or Alpha amp.
|
| |
|
RE: Fight fire with fire
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA4KOE said >>>My idea is to use highly directional antennas coupled with a 1500w full legal limit amplifier. Point the antenna at the power lines and run beacon mode 24/7.<<< Your idea is inefficient and is not cost effective. Transmitting a 1500W signal 24/7 would be quite expensive. Your electric company would love you and laugh all the way to the bank every time they mail out your bill. Hams need to develop a way of coupling an RF signal directly into the grid. Then, with a mere 10W, run beacon mode 24/7. If you want to make sure it can't be traced to you, couple your signal into the grid by way way of a street lamp instead of your residence. Use cheap CB rigs and set up several all over town. Cobra 19's are selling for only a few bucks on eBay. Get several.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: Heat
|
|
|
by K2WH on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1) "The BPL device, which only places nanowatts on that power line, has very sensitive receivers and an
Amateur HF kilowatt and those modes would certainly be enough to be completely overload and (shut down) BPL for long periods of time using the methods suggested."
2) "Even without BPL around, the modes that Harry mentions might make the difference between enjoying ham radio in these locations and being off the air."
The two comments above reveal the horrible misunderstanding amateurs have about who has the right to operate and who doesn't.
The first comment is completely incorrect. BPL does not inject NANOWATTS onto a power line. It injects hundreds of watts or whatever power is necessary to stay within part 15 radiation limits. The providers also want the FCC to allow higher power levels.
The second comment, is again wrong headed thinking! AMATEURS DO NOT GO OFF THE AIR!!!! BPL GOES OFF THE AIR because it is the unlicensed device causing the interference.
People, come on, we have get this right. Repeat after me:
- Amateurs are licensed radio stations.
- BPL is an unlicensed radio station.
- The unlicense radio station has NO STANDING AT ALL IN LAW when it is causing interference with licensed services.
IT MUST SHUT DOWN.
IT MUST SHUT DOWN.
IT MUST SHUT DOWN.
There should be no further comment on this because it is not a two sided issue. There are no mitigating circumstances or other situations that will allow BPL to interfere. Enough with this whimping out! If it is not whimping out then educate your self with the FCC part 15 rules.
K2WH
|
| |
|
as I posted elsewhere ...
|
|
|
by KZ1X on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see here ...
#1 -- Manassas, VA: system in financial turmoil, even in an dense-user urban/suburban setting, with backing of the local municipality, nobody wants the thing. Like a hot potato that is also poisonous.
#2 -- Cedar Rapids, IA: Amperion system is shut down in its entirety, after proving it cannot be "adjusted" to not make Part 15 look like the speed limit laws
#3 -- Emmaus, PA: ironically home of No-Code International noodnik Carl Stevenson, the PP&L-deployed system has 9 or 10 paying subscribers. Woo-hoo. A viable business enterprise? Uh, no.
#4 -- Raleigh / Cary, NC: Progress Energy's test trial seems to have attracted no further subscribers. And not for lack of demand ... Isn't that odd, to lose out in THE test market where Nextel decided to roll out their wireless broadband access (I have it, it works GREAT!) ... which gives equal of better bandwidth for the same or lower price than the unreliable and costly-to-deploy BPL.
Note to President Bush: BPL is not going to work, anywhere, ever. You're a smart guy (even though it sometimes doesn't show when you talk) with an MBA, so my advice is to quickly and quietly back away from BPL and support IEEE 802.16, which is a MUCH smarter idea.
Why? See items 1-4, above. It's a failure, George, and everybody knows it. "We told you so."
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KT0DD on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WW7KE wrote:
>The rule that Part 15 devices must accept interference from, and cannot interfere with, licensed services, is unenforceable, both technically and legally.
Hmmmm... People thought that about the smokers / tobacco litigation too... (How could anyone who chose to smoke possibly be awarded millions in damages from tobacco companies, after all, it's the smokers fault for choosing to smoke...) Well, the rest is... as they say...history! 73.
|
| |
|
Fire with fire
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I stand corrected on the beacon issue. 100 watts will probably do the trick in most instances.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe not stupid at all.
There are a few out here that think BPL will happen, reguardless of what we as amateurs want .
|
| |
|
RE: Fire with fire
|
|
|
by K6TLA on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WIMAX, long range high power microwave wireless will supplant BPL before it ever has a chance to become widely deployed. You'll be buying BPL headend gear as junk at your local hamfest in a couple of years.
|
| |
|
RE: Fire with fire
|
|
|
by W7DJM on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"""""""""""""The problem here is that the power companies don't answer to the FCC. They answer to their state utility commissions (or equivalent) and, in the case of private companies, their stockholders. If the FCC complained to a power company about BPL interference to hams or other services, that company would probably tell them to stuff it.""""""""""""""'
Like hell they don't answer to the FCC. There have been several power company related actions by the FCC, acting DIRECTLY with the power companies to resolve "conventional" power line hash/noise. the only problem with this approach is, that many people don't know how to make enough "noise" to get action.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is the same person who wrote:
RE: FEMA Says BPL Will 'Severely Impair' Essential Reply
by AB2PN on December 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Time to start running Full Duplex Rtty at 1.5 KW
:)
So now we are going to be friends to BPL? You are starting to sound like John Kerry "I voted for it before I woted against it".
Dennis / KG4RUL
|
| |
|
Bad idea - explanation why, and better alternative
|
|
|
by N0TONE on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Harry is to be commended for some good thinking, but it is not big enough thinking. Here is why "choosing a mode that works despite BPL" is a very dangerous idea:
1) It completely ignores the needs of emergency comms. During an emergency, we do not have the luxury of slowing down communications enough to make it through BPL. Comms has to happen at full voice-rate speeds.
2) You are feeding right into the hands of the BPL advocates. The moment ONE HAM says "Hey, I'm still on the air, even though my neighborhood has BPL", then the power companies, George Bush and all the other BPL proponents can then say "OK, ARRL and other hams, you can shut your trap about BPL, because there are hams who are fully functional despite it, so it's clearly not the problem you claim it is".
That's a precedent we don't want.
No, instead, the right thing to do is to document, carefully, how BPL has impacted you.
START NOW. Use the HF bands regularly, and log the actual background noise levels WITHOUT BPL. Make it a point to have two-way QSOs with people 10 miles, 100 miles and 1000 miles away - the very distances required for emergency comms. Make notes of how easy or difficult it is with your current stations.
Then, when BPL does arrive, make the same measurements on background noise level and how easy or difficult it is to make contacts USING THE SAME MODES with the same distant stations.
Then engage the ARRL and the FCC and the power company to get the problem fixed. Approach it rationally - you don't want BPL to go away, what you want is for your ham communications to not be disrupted, and for the nation to not lose the benefit of your contributions to the nation's communications infrastructure.
Go look at the story of W0SR in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and remember that it only took him MONTHS to get his power company to shut down BPL. Expect that you will do the same. And he WOULD have been satisfied had the BPL provider simply been able to get rid of the interference. And that must be your position, in order to be heard:
"BPL is OK, as long as it has no negative impact on my ham station's ability to contribute to the nation's needed communications infrastructure"
AM
|
| |
|
RE:DON'T LIVE WITH BPL.
|
|
|
by N2NZJ on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
how about a spark gap at 5000 watts 24/7. kill BPL ANY WHICH WAY WE CAN.
|
| |
|
RE:DON'T LIVE WITH BPL.
|
|
|
by KT0DD on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>"""""""""""""The problem here is that the power companies don't answer to the FCC. They answer to their state utility commissions (or equivalent) and, in the case of private companies, their stockholders. If the FCC complained to a power company about BPL interference to hams or other services, that company would probably tell them to stuff it.""""""""""""""'
Then why is Riley Hollingsworth constantly issuing warning letters to utility companies over dirty transformers and other unintentional radiators. The FCC DOES have jurisdiction over utility companies! 73.
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AB2PN on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's nice to see how pleasant hams can be to each other.
Whatever happened to the “Amateurs Code”?
Or to the adaptability of hams for that reason.?
Anyone who reads my original post and thinks I'm pro BPL is a complete dope (names and call signs withheld ;)
I realize we can all whine, complain, throw temper tantrums, and call each other names all day long, but I choose to keep enjoying ham radio for as long as I can find enjoyment in it without all that nonsense.
My motto is “Adapt, Change, Overcome” I don't like BPL either but it is coming to a town just 20 miles away from me so I have to deal with it.
I do not expect it to go away quickly, but I do think that it eventually will (at least I sure hope it does).
Far to many are reading more into my original post than what I said and some are even telling you what I meant to say.
I thought only my children did that, I didn't know I had that effect on adults as well ;)
The Article is titled “BPL - Modes That May Still Work” and it is just that an article about modes that can be explored to see it they still work in a high ambient noise area.
If you read up on VLF & LF you will see that those regions have very high noise and the experimenters down there have come up with some slick ways to communicate even with all the noise.
I got into ham radio since I am an experimenter at heart, I love to build and discover new ways of making it work.
I don't have a big ego to prove just a strong desire to learn and grow.
So who else has ideas for some modes to try, or am I the only one up for the challenge?
I sure hope not.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by K2WH on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Harry, perhaps you should have mentioned your opinions and feelings about BPL in the very beginning of your post instead of offering work arounds.
In my opinion, there are no modes that will allow one to work with BPL except an "OFF" mode for BPL.
K2WH
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Being down here in the southeast (FL) where summertime noise on the 80 mtr. band is often 30db over due to static crashes and lots of thunderstorm activity...Im used to dealing with very high noise levels. Sure, its not as pleasant to operate under those conditions...but somehow I manage. RF gain has to be turned way down to reduce the noise floor, and sometimes my DSP unit comes in handy for reducing the constant din of static. I still manage to work stations all over the country on 80 every night even when the band is so noisy it sounds like frying eggs. It requires the other stations I communicate with to run high power and myself to run high power (at least 500 watts) during the summer months, but we manage to communicate and have fun. Anyone who has ever lived in Florida or vacationed here and operated knows that in the summer, you cant expect to be heard on 100 watts even with a good full size antenna when the band is 30db over crash...it just wont cut it! If you want to be heard..then you just have to run some juice...plain and simple. (on SSB anyway...CW can cut through with much less) The same will hold true for BPL Im afraid. Those in BPL infested areas will be forced to step it up or be off the air. I pity any neighbor who tries this mess out..because they will be losing their connection 20 times a night when Im on the air. Best of luck to BPL in this area...it doesnt stand a chance.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by WB4QNG on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have written the letters and made the comments about BPL but I think the main thing is just to hang in there. If they interfer with us we will do the same to them. With the money the power companies are making I just don't understand why they want to invest in a risky venture as this. We already have high speed internet connections through the cable companies, telephone companies and I know of at least one person who is getting it through the satelites. I know the big argument is so that outlying areas will be able it get high speed connections. I know of no one that does not have phone service and very few that do not have cable TV. If these companies will not upgrade their equipment so that the outlying areas can get high speed connections why would the power companies spend the moeny to get it to these areas. I think it will go the way of other bad ideas. At least I hope it does.
Terry
WB4QNG
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W6EZ on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Harry,
Thank you for your article. I know you are trying to figure out a way for hams to continue with the hobby when BPL comes to town. Your intentions are great, no matter how many negative comments you get.
I have decided to just let ham radio go when BPL gets to where I can no longer operate. I am just too tired to fight my power company or who ever brings BPL here and the noise levels I have seen in the example videos are more than I am willing to listen to.
Again, thank you. I know you mean well. Don't let the negative comments get to you.
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by N6XA on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the effort you put into this post. We may indeed have to find ways around BPL interference. If we want to co-exist we must adapt.
For those who claim BPL must not interfere with us take note. Bush quite clearly called for the rules to be changed to allow BPL to come into being. he old Republican, les regulation is good for business attitude. Or in my opinion, now I said MY OPINION, a commond Replublican ploy to justifying rape!
Ok my republican ham friends, just trying to make a point, don't go wild flaming me.
BTW, is there any chance of the digital voice modes just comming online being used on HF? I have only seen an add for one transverter and do not know if they work on HF or would overcome the interference. Comments welcome on that!
Ed
|
| |
|
So what happens
|
|
|
by KB3KYO on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If someone were to aim a dual quad antenna, with 50-100 watts, directly at the power lines (let's say they are only 20 feet away).
Does the internet user's modem drop offline? Or does he/she simply not get the pages they request? What exactly happens?
|
| |
|
RE: So what happens
|
|
|
by N4LI on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You see?
Here's the deal. If BPL comes to my town, and causes interference, I won't call the FCC. That takes too long, and the results are unpredictable.
I am going directly to federal court.
"Your Honor, may I have my injuction now, please."
Lawyer/Hams... dangerous for BPL.
Peter Baskind, J.D., LL.M.
Ham with little patience.
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W5GNB on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey son, go get my deer rifle..........
CLICK, CLICK, BANG!!!
CLICK, CLICK, BANG!!!
Thanks Son............
Now Joe what were you saying before that GODAWFUL noise started up??? Back to you... this is W5GNB Over!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on July 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4LI
Most of us ain't lawyering types...we're engineers and stuff like that.
I can just see you with that piece of paper talking to the power line rep....
"Go ahead, punk, make my day!"
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W6YB on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I usually do not post, but W5GNB, that is the greatest post I have seen on EHam.net for awhile. Thanks for the laugh!
73 and thanks, Andrew W6YB
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by D0NUT on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BPL will not fly financially, statistics show people want low cost. Wireless will soon be free to all.
|
| |
|
RE: So what happens
|
|
|
by N8CBJ on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Response to KB3KYO:
There would essentially be two different kinds of things that could happen when a ham keys on HF in a BPL afflicted neighborhood...
- One would be your typical desense or overload condition at the modem, which would cause the modem to drop.
- Two would be interference causing the modem to drop or have large numbers of retransmits for error correction, similar to a typical analog modem on a noisy line.
This is all, of course, dependent on how resilient the company's modems are. (Maybe you could even blow a few up!)
The chances of connections in a neighborhood going down when an HF user keys up, theoretically, should be pretty good. Therefore, use the bands and use them often. That way when BPL companies start "testing" they will probably find large segments of the test area (if there are hams located therein) unusable. Of course, this is wishful thinking. Without exploring all the technical details, I can only make an educated guess. Certainly the developers have employed lots of filtering and error correction to prevent licensed radiated emissions from affecting them too much...heaven forbid they should notch any of our HF spectrum.
If BPL is introduced to an area and a ham does cause interference and the neighbors get angry...how DARE that evil HAM!...it is a too bad, so sad situation. As was said before, hams are licensed and BPL is only Part 15. BPL interference would not be your typical "messing up my TV" situation. You can ham it up and keep surfing, a la Cable, DSL or Wireless! :)
Mike - N8CBJ
|
| |
|
RE: So what happens
|
|
|
by K6BBC on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey PN, did you play football without a helmet? (somebody had to ask)
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: So what happens
|
|
|
by AE6IP on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's great bravado to talk about 'beating' bpl by interfering; but the reality is that if the FCC is as pro-bpl as they appear to be, the result will be rewriting regs to require hams to tolerate bpl interference.
If hams *really* want to beat bpl, then they should ally themselves with BPL's competitors, and other monied, vested interests who have a reason to resist deployment. The "industry" is not monolithic, and there are such entities.
Myself, I don't think BPL is going to be a big deal, because it's not particularly economical, and if it does generate the interference that is being shown in the trials, and can't be fixed, other users of HF spectrum will be quick to oppose it. Of course, there aren't very many of those, anymore.
|
| |
|
I think N4LI has the best idea
|
|
|
by KB3KYO on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Perhaps a group of licensed amateurs who also happen to be legal professionals can volunteer as "firefighters" to immediately seek injunctions whenever a head of the BPL beast rears it's ugly head anywhere in the country.
|
| |
|
RE: I think N4LI has the best idea
|
|
|
by W5HTW on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW keying with one tone (key down) higher than the other tone (key up) is called FSK. Emmission F1.
It will be years before BPL gets to my rural area, if ever. Someone is trying to install wireless out here but it's quite expensive and they aren't getting much of a customer base.
Rural powerlines will not likely support BPL for a while, not without substantial and very expensive upgrades. BPL is going to have to remain in town where it competes with cable and DSL, and wireless. I doubt it will be economically feasible in the cities, and almost certainly not in rural areas.
Ed
|
| |
|
BPL, interference and you.
|
|
|
by N4LI on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is starting to sound as if BPL is an idea that may die on the vine. The current purveyors are realizing it wasn't such a great idea. I am sure you have read the recent news.
That's why it is incumbent on us to make the transition to BPL just as difficult and expensive for them as we can.
My local utility is publically-owned. If MLGW starts making noise about getting into BPL, the City Council will see me. I'll remind them just how much money the utility lost on its fiber optic fiasco, and how much more expensive this will be (you know those High School-educated weenies working for the cable company? 'Ya think they are capable of installing taps on a 20kv line? Hmmmm?). Then, I will remind them how expensive it might be to deal with people like me if the interference starts.
I filed a Comment with the FCC. It was non-threatening in tone and somewhat positive. But, if it comes down to it, it may well be the best attack is an end-run around the Commission.
I don't swat flies with a fly swatter. I'll use a sledge hammer. I had no sense of humor for those who get in my way.
BPL -- interference will not be tolerated. Period.
Peter
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems to me that Harry is trying to offer ideas to people who are experiencing BPL interference on HF, either now or who may in the future. He shouldn't get slammed for it, it just shows he's thinking about working around the FCC allowed HF interference.
True, we should all be working to kill BPL and kill it now. The FCC and the current administration, and possibly any future administrations are (or may be) he*l bent on getting broadband out on whatever vehicle will carry it while saying 'go to he*l' to the amateurs on the HF bands now. Harry is thinking ahead to that, and I applaud his efforts.
Oh, I forgot, I'm only a tech and shouldn't stick my nose into trying to save the HF bands--some would say that is none of my business. Never mind.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BBC,
Gee I guess that PN thinks that Amateur Radio is still living in the early 30's!!!
Amateur Radio Operator's Code INDEED!!!
In today's world it's a damn free-for-all!!! We older guys did'nt bring it on, CHANGES IN SOCIETAL NORMS brought it on, and all of us have to live with them for better or worse!!!
Most Hams are still CIVIL towards each other so what's your problem Bubba???
Even on 2m. FM repeaters there's some carrying-on but it's a DAMN sight better then all the BS on the "CITIZEN's BAND!!!"
Get real & "Chill-Out!!!"
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by NN6EE on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BBC,
When I was mentioning "Bubba" let me preface that by saying I was referring to the illustrious "PN"!!!
:-)))
Jim
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by GD6HBF on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4LI says -
"Then, I will remind them how expensive it might be to deal with people like me if the interference starts".
This may well be the best way of dealing with this - hit them in their "commercial pocket" and keep doing it. The big problem I can see is that once BPL is introduced - how the hell are any of us going to be able to know where it's coming from and instigate an investigation..
Some posters here seem to think that they can deal with the BPL question when their local utility introduces it - wrong, very wrong - at the frequencies which are being used, you will get unintentional interferance from 1,000's of miles away. I am currently finding s9+ "noises" all over 80, 40 & 20m but I have no idea where they are coming from - what I do know is that some utility companies in England and Scotland are running trials and my own (Isle of Man) utility are "going to run trials" - indeed, they might be doing it already, but how can I start any sort of investigation on that basis ??
No - this is a worldwide issue and one thing I am struggling to find is ITU input on this !!!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KC2IJI on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suggest that if BPL is in your area, a properly coordinated and legal "beacon" station to assist fellow hams to find DX might be in order.
It is not "intentional interference", it is within band and power specs, and should be of course a clean signal.
I have BPL here in Briarcliff Manor, NY and even the CB'ers ask each other "what's wrong with my radio".
Casey
K2FIX
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AL2I on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been scanning BPL articles to try to figure out what the threat is across ionospheric skip distances. Am I getting BPL interference now from systems installed in other countries? How can I identify BPL Broadband PoLlution?
Even if BPL systems never develop rational economics in the US, they may find market opportunities in other countries, and I am worried that we will never know why HF DX is gradually less enjoyable in the coming years -- even between DX QTHs that do not have local BPL.
73 es may Hiram protect us,
-Dave
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Any BPL signal that is loud enough in your HF
> receiver to cause you to resort to the modes and
> power listed above, would indicate that the BPL
> devices would be physically VERY close.
In Cottonwood, AZ, the BPL signal was S7 to a mobile station located about 1 mile from the source. A home station is seeing S9 on some bands, 0.6 miles from the source.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The problem here is that the power companies don't
> answer to the FCC. They answer to their state
> utility commissions (or equivalent) and, in the case
> of private companies, their stockholders. If the FCC
> complained to a power company about BPL interference
> to hams or other services, that company would
> probably tell them to stuff it.
In most cases, this does not happen when the FCC complains to a power company about "regular" power-line noise:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/FCC_enforcement/FCC_Enforcement_Letters.htm
Why do you think that utilities genearlly cooperate in FCC matters involving their core business, but would not do so if they get into a sideline business? If they were to tell anyone to stuff it, it would probably be the BPL salesman who promised them that BPL won't cause interference.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> But if my rig causes TVI or (once it happens) screws
> up my neighbor's BPL internet access, I will be the
> one responsible even if I'm operating legally. There
> is legal precedent for this, going back over 50
> years with TVI. In rare occasions of extreme
> interference, the FCC used to impose "quiet hours"
> on hams that caused TVI. This could easily happen
> again. Check section 97.121 - it's still on the
> books. This gives the FCC authority to impose
> restrictions upon proper investigation.
The language of that rule is pretty clear. When it discusses "receivers of good design" it means that the TVI is NOT being caused by fundamental overload, but by amateur spurious emissions. The only single instance I know where the FCC imposed quiet hours on a ham who was not transmitting harmonics happened about 15 years ago, and it was a mistake.
The FCC does not and has not imposed quiet hours on hams that are not violating FCC regulations.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Being down here in the southeast (FL) where
> summertime noise on the 80 mtr. band is often 30db
> over due to static crashes and lots of thunderstorm
> activity...Im used to dealing with very high noise
> levels. Sure, its not as pleasant to operate under
> those conditions...but somehow I manage.
There is a big difference between a "static crash" and a BPL signal that is on most of the time.
Can you describe how you would manage with a continuous S9+30 dB signal that fills an entire amateur band and continuous S7-S9 signals on most of the others? That is just what I just witnessed in Cottonwood, AZ.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Thanks for the effort you put into this post. We may
> indeed have to find ways around BPL interference. If
> we want to co-exist we must adapt.
BPL noise will be as much as 70 dB above our more quiet noise levels. I know of no "adapation" that will deal with that much noise.
Although I appreciate the sentiment of the author, QRSS, just as one example, is CW that operates about about 0.1 wpm. Is this really something anyone would consider viable?
How many hams would continue their interest in amateur radio if their ham radio experience was reduced to 0.1 wpm CW?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I have BPL here in Briarcliff Manor, NY and even the
> CB'ers ask each other "what's wrong with my radio".
>
> Casey
> K2FIX
Casey,
You, and they, should file complaints with the utility and the FCC and they should separately file those complaints into the public record in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. To the FCC and this industry, interference that is not reported does not exist.
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/complaints.html
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KC0NPF on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good ideas, didn't I read somewhere that even lower power levels (100w or less) on the right modes will cause the bit error rate to go so high that the connection will be unusable? I thing that even 'normal' operations of active hams in or near BPL carying lines will effectively put them out of business. The power lines are NOT shielded, so interfering with a superimposed signal should be really really easy. How about a good ol' AM station running any usable power level, carrier modes or high duty cycle digital modes should effectively render the service useless, without doing ANYTHING illegal, the law is still on your side. Computer communications are only fast when they are reliable. Don't do anything that could be deemed annoying or harmful interference, just operate normally as you had before, except more often or in high duty cycle modes... nothing suspicious.
There's my 2/10 of a cent worth,
KC0NPF
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AL2I on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since W1RFI and others who are in the know are reading this thread, is there any info on the spectral density of radiated rf pollution from BPL systems? It would seem that with a full deployment, we could get an approximate average spectral density formulaically based on the number of drops served and the scalar geographic coverage dimension.
I am worried about large scale deployments, anywhere in the world, that will illuminate the ionosphere with their special garbage QRN, and what my likely effect will be up at 70N latitude. I know that the unfortunate hams in BPL-served areas will not hear me, but I wonder how well anybody will hear anybody when and if the background rises.
Unfortunately, I am not skilled in measuring general background levels of RF, so I would not know how to recognize, measure, or document this form of RF interference. Using an S-meter seems less than robust IMO. Even if I could make these measurements, I still don't know how to tell if the pollution is natural or man-made.
Is the answer to all of this beyond the capabilities of the state of the art?
Dave (AL2I)
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey Ed... see W5GNB`s post.... :-) Seriously though, if youve ever operated in FL. youd know what Im talking about. Crash here is the worst in the country! 30 over crash means constant 30 over frying bacon on 80. Not intermittent spikes but solid noise. I manage. Its not as fun as operating on a quiet band of course, but its still possible. NO, Im not saying I like BPL or support it, I think the whole idea is ridiculous to pump raw rf and data signals on unshielded electric wires...but the folks up in Washington seem bound and determined to ram this mess down our throats anyway. So, if it comes, I will deal with it as I see fit. If it means calling Hollingsworth 20 times a day on the phone, and sending letters to senators and whoever, or calling the public utilities commission so be it. Besides, amateur radio is a hobby, not my life...if it gets that bad, theres plenty of other hobbies to take up.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on July 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Ed - that suggests that the "power line antenna" is pretty efficient, no? I mean, S7 to a mobile a mile away is pretty good for 10mw spread across the spectrum by BPL. It will be quite interesting to quantify that 100 watts (or 1000 watts) coming back into that same high gain power line antenna wouldn't still swamp those BPL devices.
With all the good work that you and others are doing, it may be that we won't need to find out in practice. Cedar Rapids was huge - good job. Now Cottonwood seems pretty big. No rest for the Ed. That donation to the spectrum defense fund was the best money I ever spent on the hobby.
> Any BPL signal that is loud enough in your HF
> receiver to cause you to resort to the modes and
> power listed above, would indicate that the BPL
> devices would be physically VERY close.
In Cottonwood, AZ, the BPL signal was S7 to a mobile station located about 1 mile from the source. A home station is seeing S9 on some bands, 0.6 miles from the source.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KI6LO on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quoting K2WH....."We are the licensed service and BPL is not. BPL cannot force amateurs to adopt different modes or methods of operating. If BPL is interfering, BPL must be shut down."......
What is not being recognized here is that indeed the amateur community supplies a vital necessity in communications when other means are not available as in an emergency but stating that BPL MUST be shut down when interference occurs is going to be a hard road to enforce, especially when the BPL infrastructure has been procured (with state funding included in some instances) and installed with a customer base has come to depend on it for internet access. Remember we are fighting a profit making entity here and money talks, especially to lobbists in Wash, DC.
I can easily see the amateurs taking the hit from the 'powers to be' if a amatuer vs. BPL situation arises with respect to interference from a ham station to a BPL system. Most likely the amatuer will be pressed to correct the problem or worse yet, have quiet hours imposed or restrictions on use of frequency segments that cause the interference.
Regardless of what the rules say, to blatently state that the BPL system must be shutdown in this sort of scenario, is similar to a child closing their eyes and hoping the boogie man goes away.
It is best to fight to prevent the encroachment of BPL into neighborhoods where this might occur. Remember that there are only a few tens or hundreds of thousand amateurs using hi-speed internet but there are millions of current and future internet subscribers that aren't hams. Do you think they care if we retain the use of the HF spectrum? Ask any kid who does online gaming if they would agree to give up their hi-speed internet access so you can talk to someone around the world. If your lucky, you'll get a polite 'NO'. Most likely they would add some very colorful adjectives to the response.
Harry has just laid out some ideas to provide a starting point to think about 'what if' if BPL does cover the US like the virus it appears to be. Like it or not (and I do like HF operating), the internet is quickly replacing older forms of communications including amateur radio. Ask yourself, when was the last time you sat down and actually wrote a letter to someone by hand? Now ask when was the last time you sent an email?
Gene Brewer KI6LO
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AD7DB on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I found Edward Abbey's novel "The Monkey Wrench Gang" entertaining, and while I don't subscribe to such tactics, it seems to me that those BPL boxes up on the poles are a little susceptable to lead poisoning...
|
| |
|
RE: So what happens
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps the VOA or BBC shortwave stations will give us permission to "demonstrate" the usefulness of Amateur radio, using thier broadcasting equipment.
Perhaps, they could start a new program to entertain the many shortwave listeners on how Amateurs, using spark gap CW transmitters, can communicate with one another over long distances.
Tonight's demonstation will show our listeners how one station located in the US (VOA), can send and recieve signals from a station that is located overseas (BBC).
For tonight's demonstration, both stations will be using a Harris 600 kilowatt spark gap transmitter, that is coupled with 30 acres of antenna towers located on a salty marsh. Our VOA transmitter, located in Greenville, will have an effective radiating power output of 1 Megawatt.
We will now attempt to communicate with the BBC station overseas using our VOA transmitter.
This should provide many shortwave listeners with the much required educational insight as it demonstrates how radio equipment worked in the early days of Amateur radio.
Don't forget to tune in tommorow night, same time, same channel for a live "demonstration" on how Radio Amateurs conduct on air radio contests while using our stations Caterpillar 225 kW backup generators.
Next week we will connect our VOA transmitter to the dish at Arecibo (seen in the movie "Contact") which has a gain of 74 dB (!) at S-band. And with the interplanetary radar running, the ERP is 23.6 - not megawatts - not gigawatts - but TERAWATTS (i.e. 23.6E+12 watts or 23,600,000,000,000 watts).
I have been told that this is equivalent to the energy flux of a small star.
Be sure to tune in next time... Don't miss this one!
73
Charles - Tonight's Radio Host
|
| |
|
RE: So what happens
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like the "run 1500W output all the time" idea, and it's not so expensive, as another poster opined. My air conditioning system draws a heck of a lot more than 1500VA (it's more like 10kVa) and it sometimes runs 24/7. The utility bill rises a few dollars, but it's nothing indigestible. My puny little 2.5kVa (line power) amateur amplifiers pale in comparison, and there'd be no reason to use them if I'm not actually on the air, making contacts or trying to.
Of course I hope BPL fails miserably and the utilities try a different, more sensible experiment. But if it does catch on, even briefly, we can all follow, "the power required for communications" guideline to the best of our abilities, and I'm afraid 1500W output power may well not be enough in many cases. Thankfully, with a few exceptions, we are not limited with regard to e.r.p.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by KI6LO on July 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Here's a little idea. All amateurs join in to buy stock in the BPL companies. Then we take over the controlling interest in the companies and pull out our investments at the crucial time letting the company fall into ruin. No company, no BPL.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on July 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>All amateurs join in to buy stock in the BPL >companies. Then we take over the controlling >interest in the companies and pull out our >investments at the crucial time letting the company >fall into ruin. No company, no BPL.
Most, if not all, of the BPL companies are joint ventures, structured as limited partnerships (LLPs). They aren't available for our investments.
However, if you own one share of stock in a corporation, you can go to its stockholder meetings. Buy a share of each partner company, and raise hell at the stockholder meetings. Better yet, petition for the BPL question to be on the stockholder meeting agenda, subject to stockholder vote. It has been done on other issues, with some success.
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on July 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The author of the original post has an idea for coexistence of hams with BPL.
What he's proposing is that we (hams and other HF users) give up our bandwidth so that BPL internet users can have broadband.
This does appear to be a win-win situation.
Maybe the BPL providers should rent the bandwidth from us? I would take, say, $250 per month. Forever.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on July 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The author of the original post has an idea for coexistence of hams with BPL.
What he's proposing is that we (hams and other HF users) give up our bandwidth so that BPL internet users can have broadband.
This does NOT appear to be a win-win situation.
Maybe the BPL providers should rent the bandwidth from us? I would take, say, $250 per month. Forever.
|
| |
|
BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by N8EKT on July 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
JUST AS A POINT OF INTEREST BOY'S, BPL CAN BE MADE HAM FRIENDLY WITH THE ADDITION OF HAM BAND FILTERS INSIDE THE BPL EQUIPMENT.
BPL DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE ENEMY.
EVERY TV, MICROWAVE, VCR, DVD, STEREO, GARAGE DOOR OPENER,SATTELITE DISH, HAIR DRYER, WELDER, FAN MOTOR, TRANSFORMER, KIDS TOYS, CORDLESS PHONE, CASH REGISTER, AUTOMOBILE COMPUTER, PRINTER, SCANNER, PACE MAKER, I.V. MACHINE, X-RAY MACHINE, ATM MACHINE, COPIER, FAX MACHINE, POLICE SCANNER, ETC ETC ETC AND YES EVERY HAM RADIO EVER MADE ALSO CREATES INTERFERENCE WHERE THEY ARE NOT LICENSED.
SHALL WE ELIMINATE ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANET IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE SOME RAG CHEWING HAMS?
I DON'T THINK SO.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL - Modes That May Still Work
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on July 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8EKT,
What about the 59,000 US Government authorizations between 1.7 MHz and 80 MHz? What about the SW broadcast bands? Some manufacturers complain that it's too complicated and expensive to filter out all of the areas where BPL might interfere.
One manufacturer/inventor/ham claims that he can detect a nearby transmitter, filter out that frequency, and thereby protect the receiver on that frequency. Of course that leaves the ham who's looking for a contact out in the cold, and the poor SWL out in the even colder.
|
| |
|
I'M READY...THERE WILL BE A NEW BEACON
|
|
|
by KI6YN on July 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I prefer CW QRP, but I purchased a solid state linear and I'm ready for BPL. There will be a new beacon on from Thousand Oaks. That will last as long as there is BPL in my area, then it is back to Amateur Radio and QRP. As a few said, we can try and prevent it but I've learned that the Golden Rule is the most powerful rule in Washington D.C. i.e. "Him with the most gold, RULES"
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
What is FCC Docket 03-104 Asking?
Response to NY Times BPL Article
An Opportunity to Gain Co-Sponsors for H.R. 691
'Twas The Night Before BPL Ruling
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority, Court Filing Says:
Other Operating Articles
Safety First
My First Date with Olivia
D-STAR/Analog Interference Experience
Using Twitter During Mobile Operation
First HF Contact and Other Stuff
|
