UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
Steven Friis (WM5Z)
on
June 25, 2004
Website:
http://www.uplc.utc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=true&cbr_eid=25276&p=admin&ct=contentbrowser
View comments about this article!
I received an email today from a friend and local ham. It contained an article that I thought you all should read. Here is what he sent me.
I have pretty much ignored the Broadband over Power Line (BPL) stuff, but this snippet from the United Power Line Council really makes me mad. See the power line councils' take in their press release here:
http://www.uplc.utc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=true&cbr_eid=25276&p=admin&ct=contentbrowser
This is part of the quote:
"UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL and who have overcome enormous technical obstacles to make BPL a reality in the U.S."
I dont consider myself an armchair amateur. Many people I know aligned their careers with Ham radio. So, if you want to use your HF bands, we better band together and protect the HF bands. This is not going to simply go away. Email (or better yet) call your state representatives, congressmen, etc. The FCC is backing BPL, I remember one of the commissioners saying that it was the most important technology to come along in years! I don't know about that.
Just think, if this thing starts up, the noise level nationally will increase. How much, nobody can say. However, I can guarantee the noise level wont go down! This may be the last Field Day you could participate in...
Tracy
KA5ECS
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by KT0DD on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only thing these greedy corporations are going to understand is a class action lawsuit filed against them, or somebody making another technology 10 times better for 1/3 the price, and the public choosing it over BPL.
I've written all the politicos including the President. To this point, I see where it has done no good except for a few posturing letters to the FCC by the ARRL.
It's time to play hardball folks. Monitor your background noise levels daily and log it. Total up the value of your station and have it certified by an insurance adjustor, so you can add your losses to a class action lawsuit when you're no longer able to use your station. Hopefully, someone soon will get the cahones to file the lawsuit and stop Hem Hawing around.
73.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read UPLC's reply comments from the FCC web-site. To say the least, I was outraged. I got my first comments on this subject from QRZ. Their presentation had a URL attached for comments. I fired off an unfriendly yet polite e-mail the supplied address.
All I can say is that they have a nerve. This shows a distain for anyone who opposes their will. Where do they get off catagorizing me? They don't know me nor my qualifications. They are addicted to there marketing hype because they are affraid now that the entire record is on the table. We have science and data on our side, but they call these results lies and deceptions? Where does it say that this industry can just ignore physics in this case? Does their money permit them to suspend the laws of physics.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There you have it. We talk of the laws of physics.
Physics applies to vacuum tubes and armchairs.
Their stuff is integrated circuit electronics and therefore the laws of integrated circuit electronics are what apply.
Therefore we "armchair amateurs who still use vacuum tube transmitters" don't know what we are talking about. We still want to apply the laws of physics (actually, I believe, all of them are still theories; none having been conclusively proven).
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by KC9AWS on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To blame the power companies, alone, is inapropriate. The ARRL has little chance to get BPL Interference regulated, strictly, by this FCC. The FCC Commission was appointed by Big Bussiness Friendly George Bush. This administration is not going to strictly regulate BPL, as long as Big Bussiness keeps feeding Re-Election Funds their way. I hear so many Hams talk about how they prefer Bush as he puts the knife deeper into their backs. Amateur Radio is made up, mostly, from the Middle Class. Bush policies are depleating the Middle Class. If you want BPL Interference
regulated, wake up! GET BUSH OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE.
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by W4JBB on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone mentioned the "Laws of Physics" and that "we have science on our side." Neither of these hold water with management-types who are more worried about the bottom line than getting the job done.
I read the UPLC comments last night and was outraged! I even thought about firing off an email to the person who posted it - Mary Alice Patterson, but then I read her title - Media Relations Assistant. She's merely the person who posted it.
Telecom managers have been infiltrated by data-weenies. Data-weenies have little, if any, concept about telecom. They think telecom is just a "pipe." They believe that telecom down-time can be eliminated with better designs. It has even been stated that manufacturers don't manufacture something to fail. Apparently, they have never seen the MTBF standard.
I say all this to make this point: As long as big business is pushing BPL, it is going to go. Science, laws, etc. do not matter. The electrical utilities need to get back to their core-business - generating, transmitting, and distributing electricity!
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by IX4NT on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One of the things that can be used against hams by BPL and others is to claim that hams are 'reactionary' or 'incredible' or 'inaccurate' in postings and comments. Look here and in other forums.
Hams continue to post that your President 'APPOINTS' FCC Commissioners, or that he 'APPOINTS' justices of the Supreme Court. That is false. Your president merely 'NOMINATES'. Then your Senate must conduct public hearings on the nomination in a committee. If the committee favors the nomination, then it is reported out to your Senate for action.
Oh! And for the record, FCC Chairman Powell was nominated to the FCC and to be Chairman by President CLINTON (when Kennard stepped down).
When hams spout off about some Bush-probusiness conspiracy it makes hams look silly and not worthy of belief. More so when the Chairman, a huge proponent of BPL, was a Clinton nominee.
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by K4IA on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Leave the political smears out of it. Otherwise you will have to face the reality that this is all Clinton and AlGore's fault.
Gore started this whole mess when he invented the Internet! Clinton appointed Powell to head the FCC. So BPL is the fault of class-warfare Democrats.
Bush made it very clear the interference issues must be resolved.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by N2MG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very insulting indeed:
<<
UPLC... urg(es) the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters"
>>
And then there's:
<<
Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).
>>
I wonder how they intend to know I'm trying to receive signals on 160meters (or anywhere else) so that they might "remedy" their interference?
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That's right. These BPL companies are contemptuous of anybody who will stand in their way including the NTIA and FCC. They have an opportunity to make money at the expense of poorly informed municipalities, utilities and investors. The last thing they want are facts publicized. If you’re mad, give to the ARRL frequency defense fund or alert your local utility to the facts of the matter. Round 1 is ending. The next step will involve pursuing valid complaints via the FCC and potential legal action to encourage the government to enforce their laws. Remember we are dealing with modern day pirates in expensive suits.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by N5LB on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It won't change anyone's mind, but I did e-mail Ms. Patterson, politely, explaining the technical issues. A flood of technical based e-mails will at least give Mary Alice something to read.
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by NA4M on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Went to the UPLC web site http://www.uplc.org/ to read their news release. The media release seems to have been pulled. The link is there but nothing behind it.
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by WD8WV on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just checked the home website for UPCL website and the link fails to the news release. Someone must of figured out that they were wakening a sleeping giant?
Where I live I have the luxory of not having problems with powerline noise. I live in a rural area and on a nice (no static crashes from storms) day/evening my noise level may be 0 to S1. But, my amateur friend that lives two miles from just inside of our small town has S5 to S7 noise from powerlines, street lights, etc.
I sure don't want to see BPL come to existence. I enjoy my quite bands!
73
Juddie WD8WV
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by AA1ZU on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is an updated link:
http://www.uplc.utc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=true&cbr_eid=25276&p=admin&ct=contentbrowser
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by N5LB on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The link is dead. I guess stupid and inflammatory can't make it on even the UPLC site, assuming they can recognize either.
I hope some ham hasn't done a DoS, using his old vacuum tube expertise, bad PR you know.
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by KC4NPD on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Did Al Gore invent BPL or was it just the Internet?
UPLC Does not realize that the trailblazers of technology are the “armchair amateurs”
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can find no link down to that news release now. But browsing that site is interesting. If your Senator or Representative seems a little less than sympathetic to the concerns of Amateurs, look to this "testimony" for possible reasons.
<http://www.uplc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/7966/conman/Testimony+-+House+Subcommittee+on+Telecom+and+Interent+5-19-041.pdf>
I wonder if this was under oath. Of course not.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by N5LB on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This e-mail for Mary Alice Patterson, the UPLC PR person is:
'mary.patterson@utc.org'
Perhaps she'll send you a copy if you ask nicely.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by N2MG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That link works fine for me.
http://www.uplc.utc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=true&cbr_eid=25276&p=admin&ct=contentbrowser
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by NL7GB on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sad to say, but with his policy of allowing other countries to export their population problem to the US, failure to identify and lead in our conflict with radical Islam (instead talking about "terrorism"), massive deficit spending for any piglets at the public trough, and his push to trash the HF bands, Bush has not only lost my support, but I am actively against him. How can the Kerry-idiot be any worse?
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by NL7GB on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I guess I shouldn't have posted that... Looks like a troll-post, but I was just letting off steam. Sorry.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steam?
Hams use vacuum tubes, power companies use steam!
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steam?
Hams use vacuum tubes, power companies use steam!
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by N5LB on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This link is still dead.
http://www.uplc.utc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=true&cbr_eid=25276&p=admin&ct=contentbrowser
Does anyone have a copy of the article that could send me? I have several people wanting to read it and respond.
lionel@techmanagementonline.com
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by KC8RNX on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
try taking out the "utc" part of the URL...
http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=true&cbr_eid=25276&p=admin&ct=contentbrowser
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by K2BRG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
here is the e-mail I sent to them:
I just want to take a moment to comment on your press release regarding
setting the record straight on BPL interference.
Allow me to set you straight. So what if some of us use vacuum tubes?
Generally, to transmit at power levels higher than a few hundred watts,
solid state doesn't do the trick.
You folks are super high tech! You burn things like coal and oil and
natural gas. Wow. Combustion. I am impressed.
I live in NY. Remember when your super high tech systems sent us back
to the stone age last summer because you couldn't handle a minor
surge in Ohio.
Now you want to provide internet services. Don't you folks realize
you are showing up at the dot bomb trough way too late?
Do me a favor, leave tech to people that know what they are doing, and
you keep your hamsters running on the wheel so the lights stay on.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Sincerely,
Bruce Gronich
K2BRG
ps- I am a systems and network professional. I also don't think you
can compete with the cable modem service offered by Cablevision
here on Long Island.
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by K4JSU on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In preparing for BPL to come to my neighborhood, would it be appropriate to do measurements of present background noise to provide a base line against which to judge the additional noise of the BPL installation when it comes? As a "liberal arts" member of the amateur fellowship (not an engineer), I would appreciate suggestions on just how to do that.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, it would be very helpful to document to the best of your ability the noise level at your home.
A fairly reasonable and simple way, though it will be severely attack and disparaged by the BPL crowd, is to simply pick several times a day and several frequencies on each band that are not occupied or have nearby conversations, record the S meter reading at that frequency. Note the date, time, frequency, and S meter reading in a log. Be sure to take all measurements with your preamp off if possible and the RF gain set to maximum. You will need to do this with the same antenna(s) each time. Keep measurements at least weekly for at least a year. Better put them in your operating log on a continuing basis.
If you have the opportunity enlist the aid of the technical bunch from your local Amateur Radio Club to calibrate the S meter on your reciever.
I would also record the S meter readings of the stations to which I listen or with which I have contacts.
I have often times had contacts with stations that didn't move my S meter even with the preamp on. That means of course that the ambient noise didn't move the S meter either. Often in the early morning these stations have been in Australia, Germany, or occassionally the Pacific Islands.
A good operating log with the inclusion of background noise readings will be a substantial asset in the futere if we have enforcement. If not, it is a nice souvenir.
David
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh folks, don't bother to reply to the people of the press release or the reply comments to the FCC that the quoted insult is from.
These people are a public relations assistant, and a corporate lawyer. You will be listened to politely, anything you say that can be used against Amateurs will be and the rest will be ignored. That is what those people are payed for.
They are there to give the appearance of being a responsible corporation. Truly, they are not there to learn anything that could be detrimental to the case of BPL.
The only thing that the UPLC will understand is clear, transparent to the layman, documented, and unequivocal links between the purveyors of BPL and energy robber barons like ENRON. If we can clearly display that the UPLC is lying or severely bending the truth to support their own gain without regard to the customer then and only then will they take notice.
Boy will they take notice! You will get comments like the one that made the reply comments but not the news release "misinformation and deliberate lies to stir up hysteria in other groups"
Find the links on other sites that go directly to the UPLC reply comments. They are even more "interesting" than their press release.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by KF7CG on June 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One more note: The power utilities are not dupes in this and from what I saw in a report on an IEEE meeting attended by Ed Hare, they intend on using the BPL infrastructure for there own monitoring and control even if BPL is a failure as a commercial net access method.
As I see it the Broadband to the Masses thing is just a screen to dupe someone else into paying for infrastructure and modern monitoring communications. If the BPL business fails the power companies will inherit the BPL network. It can be a real no lose scenario for them.
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<
Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).
>>
So far, none of these adaptive techniques have been more than partially effective at mitigating interference. The burning question is: if these mitigation techniques work, why haven't they used them to solve the interference issues that are cropping up in every one of these BPL installations?
Other questions: If these techniques work for mobile stations, why has Progress Energy chosen to have their lawyers pronounce that interference to mobile stations is not really interference?
The real "straight" on BPL is that the interference in real-world installations is exactly what the physics predicts it will be. They can't even avoid interfering to a single radio service in small installations; how can they expect that large installations will fare any better against all radio services?
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/BPL_complaints.doc
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.doc#reports
There has been interference a plenty.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> In preparing for BPL to come to my neighborhood,
> would it be appropriate to do measurements of
> present background noise to provide a base line
> against which to judge the additional noise of the
> BPL installation when it comes? As a "liberal arts"
> member of the amateur fellowship (not an engineer),
> I would appreciate suggestions on just how to do
> that.
Baseline measurements of amateur stations would be useful.
This can be done with a spectrum analyzer or calibrated receiver, for those that have them. The analyzer should be set up at:
Frequency: As needed, per band. Preferably take a sweep of the entire amateur band at its most quiet time, with few on-the-air signals to confound the test results.
Bandwidth: 9 kHz preferred.
Detector: Quasi peak preferred, peak a reasonable second choice
Reference level: For most analyzers, this will need to be set to -60 dBm to have a low enough noise floor.
Attenuation: In most cases, you will have to set the attenuation to 0 dB. With modest antennas, it is hard to get sufficient sensitivity out of a spectrum analyzer to measure the quietest frequencies on HF.
Make sure that the ambient signals in your area are not so strong to overload and possibly harm the analyzer. If there is a ham or CBer close by, make sure he or she won't transmit.
To be on the safe side, you should probably put a step attenuator in front of the analyzer. Set it to about 60 dB and connect your antenna to it. The analyzer will show a baseline noise floor of somewhere around -110 dBm or so. Step the attenuator down to 0 dB. If that noise level rises, you are actually measuring the band noise. If it doesn't, your analyzer lacks the sensitivity to perform this measurment. (This is the reason that much of ARRL's testing was done with a real receiver.)
If the noise does rise, note its level in the quieter parts of the band. This can be converted to field strength:
Field strength in dBuV/m =
+ Noise level
+ attenuator setting
+ feed line loss
- antenna gain (dBi)
+ 20log10(Frequency MHz)
+ 77.2 dB
For example, if in 14 MHz, your antenna has 8 dBi gain, your feed line loss is 3 dB and you measure -100 dBm on the analyzer, the field strength is:
+ (-100 dBm)
+ 0 dB
+ 3 dB
- 8 dBi
+ 20log10(14) = 22.9 dB
+ 77.2 dB
= -4.9 dBuV/m
There are techniques that can be used with conventional receivers and an RMS-reading voltmeter to estimate actual field strength:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/aria/ARIA_MANUAL_TESTING.pdf
But even baseline measurements done with S meters can be useful.
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/guidance_for_field_trials.doc
If you want a handy program to manipulate all this field-strength stuff:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/aria/fieldstrength1.exe
I have to run now, but I will follow up on this later this weekend.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by AE1X on June 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<
Moreover, these systems will incorporate adaptive interference mitigation capabilities that will effectively remedy any interference that might result to fixed and mobile operations in the High Frequency (HF) band (1.7-80 MHz).
>>
The methods for mitigation that have been or will be incorpated into BPL systems were never meant to resolve band wide issues. They were designed to provide narrow notches to eliminate interference to specific land/mobile frequency allocations. Band wide mitigation would require bandstop filtering not notches. We asking far more of the mitigation system than they were ever intended to remedy. The BPL providers and designers never intended to deal with the ARS. They have believed all along that they could ignore us because it would affect only a limited number of operators. Operators no one cares about anyway.
Ken, AE1X
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on June 26, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The press release left out part of the quote: "uninformed armchair amateurs" whas the actual pejorative term used.
Mr. Kilbourne, with a BA in History, is just a DC political hack. He uses terms like this just to make his UPLC constituents feel better.
I read Mr. Kilbourne's presentation on BPL to Columbia University Law school, given about a year ago. It was a good presentation of the facts, from a regulatory perspective. I think it covered all the bases. Where he has gone astray is believing all the BS he gets from the power companies and the BPL manufacturers. They tell him they have no complaints and he believes them. They tell him there is no interference and he believes them. They tell him they are Part 15 compliant and he believes them. His motivation is to make money as a high-rate lawyer. Their motivation (at least some of the joint ventures) is to make a LOT of money quickly and get away from the problem. Not one of these things is being done by a publicly held corporation on its own. Everything I see is being done by LLPs and LLCs. Those are Limited Liability Partnerships and Limited Liability Corporations, set up for joint ventures where neither partner wants too much skin in the game. If they hit it big, some of them will go IPO, so it is in their interest to keep the stock pumped up and deny all problems.
I regularly check my investment portfolio to see if any of these outfits have sneaked into it. None so far.
73Tom
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by N6XA on June 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Absolutely, positively, RIGHT!!!
|
| |
|
RE: UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interfere
|
|
|
by N6XA on June 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very interesting point. Thank you for your input.
Ed
|
| |
|
UPLC Sets the Record Straight on BPL Interference:
|
|
|
by N6XA on June 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
But how soon will they let me use to power lines as an antenna for my tubed HF amplifier? Seems fair to me!
Ed
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:
Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
|
