BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

This article has expired. No more comments may be added.

BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AE1X on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

This is interest. They have license with the expressed limitation indicating the requirement to terminate operation should interference be reported.

This would appear to be another community that would be a good target for an education campaign.

Ken

BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KF7CG on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

One more place to go to work. I wonder about the shut down clause, isn't it their in all experimental license boiler plate? As I see it the problem with the various experimental licenses for BPL is the enforcement of the terms, not the terms.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N3EVL on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It's interesting that in their reply to the interference complaint, they (the power company) claim to have carried out their own testing for potential interference and found nothing. I'd like to see a)what test procedure and equipment they used and b) a repeat of this test, in the field, side-by-side with the amateur equipment.

Pete, N3EVL

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N4GI on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

More "measurements" taken by a guy with a hamstick connected to a 706?? Yikes.

Is anyone going to collect REAL scientific data on the effects of BPL on the HF spectrum???

N4GI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KB9YNB on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The power company didn't say they found "nothing," they said they "didn't find any signals that exceed part 15 limits." There's a difference. However, as I understand it, even if their signals are withing part 15 specs, if they are causing interference, they need to resolve it. I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on that.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KG4RUL on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N4GI writes:

============
More "measurements" taken by a guy with a hamstick connected to a 706?? Yikes.

Is anyone going to collect REAL scientific data on the effects of BPL on the HF spectrum???
============

How many dollars are you contributing to getting this data collected?????

At least someone is doing something and not just paying lip (or is it keyboard) service to the issue.

Dennis / KG4RUL

P.S. If there were any BPL installations in my area, I would be out with my FT100 and Tarheel doing the exact same thing.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N3EVL on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N4GI:

OK, to make you happy, what I'd really like to see is a side-by-side test, in the field with:

a) the power company's equipment and exact same protocol they used previously

b) the ham equipment as used previously

c) an independent, third party with appropriate, calibrated, lab-grade test equipment.

Ideally, this should be done in an environment where the BPL signal could be (verifiably) turned off & on while measurements were being taken. Hopefully, this would be followed by a final OFF ;)

Pete

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N4GI on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>>How many dollars are you contributing to getting this data collected?????<<<

Hasn't the ARRL has been collecting $$$ for this reason?

I'm not paying any "service" to the issue, or faulting anyone for anything; just asking a question.

BPL companies have already asserted that hams are a bunch of hacks. Unscientific, subjective, unrepeatable "proof of interference" is just going to get torn apart by Mikey P's lawyers.

Are you an EE? I'm not. I'll send you a check, though, if you can produce a scientific, peer-revied paper quantifying BPL interference to the HF spectrum in US test areas....

73,
N4GI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KA4KOE on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

By that same argument, I can't identify a duck by sight if I'm not a degreed wildlife biologist with at least a master's.

In my book, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and poops like a duck, then its a duck.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AA4PB on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It seems to me that if BPL is interferring with a 706 and a Hamstick then it is the power company's responsibility to correct it. Nowhere in the rules did I read anything about it being the ham's responsibility to document the actual RFI signal levels with thousands of dollars worth of laboratory equipment. Actually the 706 and Hamstick is a more realistic evaluation because that's the type of equipment being used in the field. We'd all be better off if the power companies dumped their laboratory equipment, bought a bunch of 706s and Hamsticks and did some real field testing. But then their goal is to NOT find the interferrence.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N4GI on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>>It seems to me that if BPL is interferring with a 706 and a Hamstick then it is the power company's responsibility to correct it.<<<

OK, and when the power company then asks you to prove that the interference isn't from car ignition noise, a blender in a house you're driving past, a poorly soldered PL259, a nearby touchlamp, a pool pump, or an alien spy satelites ....

What's the response?

N4GI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by WA3KYY on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N4GI,

What, exactly, would "quantifiable" measurements tell you or anyone about harmful interference? The Part 15 regulations do not specify measurable limits for interference, only maximum permissible emissions levels. Furthermore, compliance with permitted emissions levels does not mean there is no interference and the Part 15 regualtions make that clear.

The legal test for hamful interference is repeated or continuious disruption of communications. A 706 and hamstick are more than adequate to demonstrate that since it is clear to just about anyone whether or not you can hear the other station over the BPL hash.

Now there have been numerous measurements made with calibrated spectrum analyzers and those reports are filed in the Reply Comments to the NPRM (see the comments by W0SR and the Cedar Rapids group). They do show the levels of typical received HF signals, at least the stronger ones, and the much higher levels of BPL interference. One problem is, our typical HF receivers can clearly copy signals that do not even register on the typical spectrum analyzer. Thus any measurable BPL signal will mask those desired signals and cause harmful interference but BPL advocates seem to want to claim they should not be required to protect those weak signals since their emissions meet Part 15 levels.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N4GI on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>>What, exactly, would "quantifiable" measurements tell you or anyone about harmful interference?<<<

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think that quantifiable measurements will be the only way we can exactly define what "harmful interference" is.

Give the opportunity, I'm sure that the BPL/power companies would draw up a much different definition than ours.

N4GI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KC8VWM on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>> Is anyone going to collect REAL scientific data on the effects of BPL on the HF spectrum??? <<<

The November 2003 meetings of the ITU Study Group 3, generated extensive discussions on propagation aspects of BPL systems. The Study Group Chairman declared this to be one of the three most important topics for these meetings.

The concerns expressed included: the unbalanced nature and diverse characteristics of power lines; the possibility of both point and line sources of radiation; power aggregation of emissions from multiple sources; and the presence of both ground and sky waves. It was noted that in developing criteria for acceptable BPL use of radio frequencies, measurements of both electric and magnetic fields must be considered because of the unknown relationship between these fields in the near-field.

It was suggested that: a model such as NEC be used for estimation of radiation; either ITU-R Rec. P. 368 or the software GRWAVE be used for evaluating ground wave propagation of PLT emissions; and ITU-R Rec. P. 533 be used for evaluating BPL propagation via sky wave.

It was also suggested that ITU-R Rec. P. 372 be used for estimating levels of noise. In addition to the Liaison Statement, they formed a new Correspondence Group to work on BPL. They focused on prediction methods and models applicable to BPL systems.

Defined studies were also given high priority. The defined studies address radiation mechanisms of BPL systems, modeling techniques, effects of local ground planes and conductors, methods of aggregation, propagation models for calculation of interference and measurement of radiated fields in the near field.

The finalized studies will provide exchange and ideas that communicate outputs of various findings which are currently under development by various interest groups.

73

Charles - KC8VWM

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AB5XZ on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think that quantifiable measurements will be the only way we can exactly define what "harmful interference" is.

There is a definition of "harmful interference" in FCC regulations, Part 1. It is not a quantitative measure. It simply states that harmful interferene is that which prevents communications by a service operating in accordance with FCC regulations.

That's where a lot of the controversy is based. The BPL makers say: "We're in compliance with FCC regulations (Part 15 only)." The BPL operators say "We've used only Part 15 compliant parts". The BPL attorneys say "There's no interference" and "There's no radiation". The hams (and other interested parties, e.g. NTIA) say "There's interference".

It's a lot like the wave theory and the particle theory of light. Both are true; it depends on where you start.

The current BPL situation is a mess because the FCC has regulations (Part 15) that regulate *emitters* and other regulations (Part 1, and others) that protect *receivers* and *communications channels*.

73Tom

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AE1X on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

It has been reported elsewhere and I included comments in my submissions to the FCC related ET Docket 04-37, that the issue is interference and definitive definition thereof.

The BPL proponents believe that compliance with Part 15 emission levels is all that is required. Any interference caused by signals at these levels must be tolerated by other parties, but this is not the FCC definition nor is it the definition described in the ITU regulations. Harmful interference is not quantifable and very subjective. Any standard that attempts to define this term will result in some communications capabilities being lost.

The correct method for demonstrating harmful interference in the Amateur Radio Service allocations is by using any common amateur equipment and showing cause and effect that clearly shows signals in our service that are not useable with the presence of BPL signals. This is the only definitive test that can be conducted. Anything else leaves too much room for debate and litigation.

Ken

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AB5XZ on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AE1X is right. Harmful interference to a licensed service is NOT the same as interference from one Part 15 device to another. Some of the confusion comes from a narrow reading of the Part 15 regulations. The Part 15 regs talk somewhat about interference between Part 15 devices, and what should be done. The Part 1 regs talk about harmful interference to authorized services (Amateur, CB, TV, LMRS, etc.). No Part 15 device is authorized to cause harmful interference (to a licensed service), and must be shut down immediately. That's why it is so puzzling that the BPL pilots haven't been shut down due to the legitimate complaints.

73TomAB5XZ

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by K0RFD on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Interference=anything that increases my noise floor.

Harmful interference=anything that increases my noise floor to the point that I can't hear someone I want to work.

It ain't rocket science.

While other people with a vested interest in obfuscating the definition might disagree, this is the simple common-sense threshold I will use when and if it ever becomes necessary to file an interference complaint.

Let the people who are interfering with me prove what is and isn't "harmful". In the words of our court-appointed president, "bring it on"

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AE6IP on July 8, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> In my book, if it walks like a duck, looks like a
> duck, quacks like a duck, and poops like a duck,
> then its a duck.

Don't take up duck hunting. The penalties for shooting some of the birds that fit that description and aren't ducks is pretty steep.

Ducks

by KA4KOE on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Then, my friend, I suggest you duck...

...and cover

Sorry, couldn't resist that.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by K2WH on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

More "measurements" taken by a guy with a hamstick connected to a 706?? Yikes.

Is anyone going to collect REAL scientific data on the effects of BPL on the HF spectrum???

N4GI

Yeah, the ARRL, NTIA and others have taken real measurements if you have followed any of the BPL controversy. However, FCC, the utilities and the makers of BPL equipment say the studies performed by these groups is flawed and "Arm chair amateurs who still use vacuum tubes" do not know what they are talking about.

K2WH

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N4GI on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>>Let the people who are interfering with me prove what is and isn't "harmful". <<<

So when the BPL/power companies end up providing "proof" (note quotations) to Mikey P. that no harmful interference is caused, then what?

>>>the ARRL, NTIA and others have taken real measurements if you have followed any of the BPL controversy.<<<

Guess I just must have missed it all. Are there any links you could provide me? I'd like to look at some.

N4GI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> More "measurements" taken by a guy with a hamstick
> connected to a 706?? Yikes.

The issue is not whether these BPL systems exceed FCC emissions limits. Some do; some don't, and that determination can only be made with real scientific data. There were a number of filings in the NPRM that provided the FCC with just that data. Perhaps you should read them.

The real issue is that of harmful interference. A system that is operating at the FCC "legal limit" will cause severe interference to nearby radio communications using that spectrum. A simple capture-area calculation shows that S9+ signals will result from 30 uV/m fields, the legal limit at 30 meters distance. "Real" measurements that were to show that a system is 6 dB lower than the FCC limits would not be as meaningful as showing the system was resulting in S9 noise to a mobile station along miles of power line.

> Is anyone going to collect REAL scientific data on
> the effects of BPL on the HF spectrum???

It is pretty clear that such data is less significant to you than you imply, because you don't even mention it in your post.

Ed Hare, W1RFI/6

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>> How many dollars are you contributing to getting
>> this data collected?????<<<

> Hasn't the ARRL has been collecting $$$ for this
> reason?

Yes, they have, and the test-result reports have been filed by ARRL in the NPRM proceeding. Other than actually doing the work, what are you implying that ARRL should do? Or did you not take the time to check before you posted?

> BPL companies have already asserted that hams are a
> bunch of hacks. Unscientific, subjective,
> unrepeatable "proof of interference" is just going
> to get torn apart by Mikey P's lawyers.

How do you "prove" interference with field-strength measurements? If we presume that the system operates right at the FCC limit, a simple capture-area or path-loss calculation tells you exactly what signal strength you will see to nearby antennas. If you compare that to the median value of man-made noise in residential areas, it is much higher. Other than knowing and demonstrating that Part-15 levels will be tens of dB higher than the noise levels without BPL, just what are you suggesting should be done?

> Are you an EE? I'm not. I'll send you a check,
> though, if you can produce a scientific, peer-revied
> paper quantifying BPL interference to the HF
> spectrum in US test areas....

You are safe on that bet. Peer-reviewed papers take quite a bit of time to get peer reviewed.

ARRL has commissioned its own staff and an independent consultant to make field-strength measurements in several BPL test areas. Those results have been filed with ARRL's comments in the NPRM. Is that sufficient to have you come through on your promise to send him a check?

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> OK, to make you happy, what I'd really like to see
> is a side-by-side test, in the field with:

> a) the power company's equipment and exact same
> protocol they used previously

> b) the ham equipment as used previously

> c) an independent, third party with appropriate,
> calibrated, lab-grade test equipment.

> Ideally, this should be done in an environment where
> the BPL signal could be (verifiably) turned off & on
> while measurements were being taken. Hopefully, this
> would be followed by a final OFF ;)

The NTIA study did exactly this, with government receivers instead of ham receivers.

Do you think that amateur radio can demand the same standard of proof if our harmonics interfere with our neighbor's TV? The level that will cause interference is tens of dB below the legal limit for our harmonics. Should we be required to correct it only if our neighbor makes measurements that will show that our harmonics are tens of dB below the legal limit, or is the fact that his TV goes screwy every time we transmit sufficient?

This is exactly what is being demonstrated in the field testing for BPL interference.

Ed Hare, W1RFI/6

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> OK, and when the power company then asks you to
> prove that the interference isn't from car ignition
> noise, a blender in a house you're driving past, a
> poorly soldered PL259, a nearby touchlamp, a pool
> pump, or an alien spy satelites ....

> What's the response?

1. The interference did not occur until the BPL system was put on line.
2. The interference is very strong in all areas where BPL equipment is visible on the poles
3. The interference is strong ONLY in areas where BPL equipment is visible on the poles
4. The ignition noise from the vehicle is low in areas where BPL is not deployed
5. The PL258 does not make noise in areas where BPL is not deployed
6. The interference does not occur only near the house with the blender, but it heard in all areas where BPL is deployed
7. The interference is on 24 hours a day
8. None of those devices create digitally modulated carriers that are spaced 1.1 kHz, using different blocks of spectrum in different parts of town.
9. The time-domain and frequency-domain signals match BPL systems perfectly and do not match any of the devices you cited.

PPL tried that in Emmaus, PA when they claimed that WK3C had misidentified their Main.net spread-spectrum system as a neon sign. WK3C is Carl Stevenson, a fellow who serves on a number of IEEE 802.XX working groups and chairs their regulatory TAG.

Ed Hare, W1RFI/6

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>>the ARRL, NTIA and others have taken real measurements if you have followed any of the BPL controversy.<<<

> Guess I just must have missed it all. Are there any
> links you could provide me? I'd like to look at
> some.

A better time to have asked that question would have been before you posted. How you could have missed the ARRL and NTIA filings is pretty hard to understand.

See:

http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/BPL_complaints.doc

Ed Hare, W1RFI/6

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by WY7I on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Right on, Ed !!

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N4GI on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

>>>How you could have missed the ARRL and NTIA filings is pretty hard to understand.<<<

I've been through a lot of those filings (no, not all, there are hundreds). Many are simply complaints, with no data associated. Some which do include measurements do not indicate things like antenna used, where the antenna was pointed, measurement location (didn't one of the BPL companies request lat/long?), type of noise heard (i.e. digitally modulated carrier spaced at 1.1 khz).

If the information submitted in the ARRL and NTIA filings is sufficient to achieve the goal of stopping BPL, great. That's the answer to my original question.

From the tone of all the qualified answers to my unqualified questions, it seems like the whole thing is completely under control.

N4GI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AE1X on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Blake,

The average amateur experiencing this type of interference will describe the signal to best of his/her ability. He/She will be using standard amateur equipment (however you wish to define it), not laboratory grade test equipment. Should this prevent a station from filing a complaint? Ofcourse not! The vast majority of such complaints will be of the form described.

As one other colleague has pointed out, harmful interference is any interference that degrades the communications in progress for the receiving station. At present there is no numerical definition for harmful interference, though the FCC does seem to be headed toward making such a definition however misguided this might be. The pressure is on for them to find appropriate sharing partners for spectrum and setting standards to provide for minimum interference levels that each will have to tolerate.

Ken

BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AB7RG on July 9, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed, as always you are a true professional and a gentleman.

Tnx & 73
Clinton AB7RG

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> I've been through a lot of those filings (no, not
> all, there are hundreds). Many are simply
> complaints, with no data associated. Some which do
> include measurements do not indicate things like
> antenna used, where the antenna was pointed,
> measurement location (didn't one of the BPL
>companies request lat/long?), type of noise heard
>(i.e. digitally modulated carrier spaced at 1.1 khz).

If our neighbors complain about TVI caused by our harmonics, they do not have to provide "data." They simply have to demonstrate that their TV reception is impaired by our transmissions. They do not have to provide the antenna used, which way it was pointed or provide spectrum analysis or oscilloscope traces.

> If the information submitted in the ARRL and NTIA
> filings is sufficient to achieve the goal of
> stopping BPL, great. That's the answer to my
> original question.

There is some great info in some of the filings. But this is as much a political issue as a technical one. And no one should be trying to stop BPL. I have no vested interest in BPL one way or another. Our concerns should be with interference. What we need are more of the same, ranging from reasonable, simple interference reports to the kinds of technical reports provided by Metavox, Raleigh, Cedar Rapids, etc.

> From the tone of all the qualified answers to my
> unqualified questions, it seems like the whole thing
> is completely under control.

Not completely. I see a lot of forward progress, because at this point, the proposed rules are nowhere near the "removal of all restrictions" that the original FCC Notice of Inquiry seemed to support. Interference is now the number one issue wrt BPL. Some BPL trials have been shut down, but others crop up just as fast. There is still work to be done, and amateur radio needs to stay the course.

BPL operating at the present FCC limits will cause interference to nearby receivers on any spectrum BPL uses. That message needs to be repeated again and again until all of those involved with BPL get it. The only solutions that offer no interference involve not using spectrum that nearby receivers may be using. With the mobile, portable and migratory nature of amateur radio, that must include all spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI/6

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KA4KOE on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I'm glad you're on our side, Ed.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N3EVL on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

N3EVL said...

======================================================
> OK, to make you happy, what I'd really like to see
> is a side-by-side test, in the field with:

> a) the power company's equipment and exact same
> protocol they used previously

> b) the ham equipment as used previously

> c) an independent, third party with appropriate,
> calibrated, lab-grade test equipment.

> Ideally, this should be done in an environment where
> the BPL signal could be (verifiably) turned off & on
> while measurements were being taken. Hopefully, this
> would be followed by a final OFF ;)
======================================================

To which W1RFI replied...

======================================================
The NTIA study did exactly this, with government receivers instead of ham receivers.

Do you think that amateur radio can demand the same standard of proof if our harmonics interfere with our neighbor's TV? The level that will cause interference is tens of dB below the legal limit for our harmonics. Should we be required to correct it only if our neighbor makes measurements that will show that our harmonics are tens of dB below the legal limit, or is the fact that his TV goes screwy every time we transmit sufficient?

This is exactly what is being demonstrated in the field testing for BPL interference.
======================================================

Ed,

I'm a little confused by your response to my comments. The three hypothetical suggestions I made were in an attempt to: publicly quantify the level of BPL signal at the test site; give the power company the opportunity to publicly demonstrate how they made their measurements; regardless of the actual levels measured, demonstrate the actual impact on HF reception. At the conclusion of this public experiment it would seem it would be difficult for the power co to claim that BPL was having no impact, at which point they would be obliged to live up to their Part 15 obligations.

You went on to state that NTIA did in fact perform a similar exercise.

Are you saying that such a test scenario is inappropriate in general?

73, Pete

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> I'm a little confused by your response to my
> comments. The three hypothetical suggestions I made
> were in an attempt to: publicly quantify the level
> of BPL signal at the test site; give the power
> company the opportunity to publicly demonstrate how
> they made their measurements; regardless of the
> actual levels measured, demonstrate the actual
> impact on HF reception. At the conclusion of this
> public experiment it would seem it would be
> difficult for the power co to claim that BPL was
> having no impact, at which point they would be
> obliged to live up to their Part 15 obligations.

> You went on to state that NTIA did in fact perform a
> similar exercise.

> Are you saying that such a test scenario is
> inappropriate in general?

No.

I said that NTIA did testing similar to what you described and that such testing is not necessary to determine that harmful interference exists.

Such testing could well distract from the more important issue -- that emissions that are below the FCC limits can and do cause harmful interference.

If testing were done that showed a particular system was 10 dB below the FCC limits, that system would still cause S9 interference. The BPL manufacturer and utility would claim that they meet FCC rules, so it it not possible that they are the source of the interference.

Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N3EVL on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ed,

Thanks for the clarification.

I guess my initial comments were based on the assumption that this particular power company's comments were, perhaps disingenuous. I must admit, I do like the idea of doing the HF receiver/BPL on-off test with power co representatives present.

73, Pete

BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by OBSERVER on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The IC-706 receiver is horrible, use a real rig to take on the air measurements. Why not use a real radio for test measurements? I can envision a pegged 7800 meter and spectrum scope on both receivers due to BPL interference. I wonder if the "roofing filter" helps knock out BPL QRM. Could one of you IC-7800 owners check it out? In all seriousness, it would be a very good data point.

As an EE, and ham for over 25 yrs, I can honestly say that I am worried. Let's pray that economic forces limit the expansion of this technology.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AE1X on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

The IC-7800 is not the run of the mill amateur radio station. The 7800 is a high performance rig.

I have a Ten-Tec Model 574 (Digital Century 21). Is this radio not satisfactory? It is the station I have and use on a G5RV Jr. I'm sorry if you feel we should be using the best to evaluate this trouble sum technology.

Ken
ASET, BSET Wentworth Institute of Technology
GROL PG-1-19901

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KA4KOE on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AE1X:

Use an Orion instead. It has a superior receiver.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by MZ412 on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

BPL = Sewage. Its that simple.Except reality or get trampled under foot by all these log blowers. I defecate on BPL.

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AE1X on July 10, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

I can't afford an Orion, though I would love one. Are you going to buy me one?

Ken

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N2CTZ on July 11, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

When will the arrl start sueing the companies using bpl-

to me the arrl has been useless for many years-maybe ill rejoin when they use the dues for something that bites-lawsuits over bpl

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by N2CTZ on July 11, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

if fema thinks bpl is bad for the next 911 isnt their a reporter out their who can follow the money trail?

FREE ORIONS WHILE SUPPLIES LAST....

by KA4KOE on July 12, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

AE1X:

Sure. I'll buy you one. Do you want it gift wrapped, with or without a bow?

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by WA6HYQ on July 12, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Folks lets take a step back and think how can we bring this back to the folks who caused it, the FCC. Each and every time you receive interference from BPL simply audio tape, write a letter, get the local ARRL (if your in the states) RFI team to assist and began a systematic documentation trail on the interference issues and cram the already overloaded FCC Offices with complaints of interference from BPL. The rule states they cannot cause interference to existing systems, hold their feet to the fire. We can complain on forums like this all we want but if you take no action with the folks who have regulatory control over the license and authorization of BPL, nothing will ever be accomplished.

Remember BPL is technically a Part 15 service, which places them in a specific category to not cause interference to other services. If they knowingly cause interference (following an investigation) they can then be sited by the FCC for $10,000 dollars per day per offense. What does that do generates money for the FCC. What really drives this train, money? Once the forfeitures exceed the subscriptions, bye bye BPL no longer viable..

Talking to Bush isn't going to help, he's not a HAM and doesn't know which end of a microphone to squeeze. But When the Commission becomes buried with cases from radio services complaining about interference from BPL they will listen, they have to, as it's their job. Each week the FCC Field Offices hold conference calls to discuss hot issues. As each office receives more and more complaints they will began to discuss the BPL problem and it will elevate to a National issue on the Commissions plate.

One other thing, don't forget the Commission still has monitoring sites across the nation on all spectrum, mainly up to 3 Ghz but more when needed. They have an extensive HF and VHF/UHF Fixed Site Automatic Direction Finding System (FADF) monitoring network which is accessable by all field offices. Also, each field office has several Mobile Automatic Direction Finding (MADF) units that also reach up to 3Ghz region. Their systems will receive the same interference from BPL as our radio equipment so they too will suffer with the same interference that then reaches into a National Security issue and interferes with their Home Land Security responsibilities.

KEEP THOSE LETTERS COMING AND CHECK WEEKLY FOR AN UPDATE, RESOLUTION AND CLOSURE OF THE CASE GENERATED BY YOUR COMPLAINT, ITS UP TO EACH OF US TO DO OUR PART!.

RE: FREE ORIONS WHILE SUPPLIES LAST....

by AE1X on July 12, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Straight from Ten-Tec in the original carton would be fine with me! :0)

Ken

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by AE1X on July 12, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Great advice from the WA6...

That is how I will approach the problem should it come to my hometown.

Ken

BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by K0RGR on July 15, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Here's today's ray of hope:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2004-07-14-wireless_x.htm

A great article on the new WIMax technology. Why would anyone want to use a polluting technology like BPL when they can get this stuff? I bet the WiMax is more reliable. When the power lines are down, so is the BPL.

It's probably not a coincidence that as our power company is starting their BPL trials here, the local DSL provider (Qwest) has expanded their availability to most areas of town, and is making two-way 512Kb service available for $26.95. The local cable company has a temporary offering of 3 MBps for $29.

The BPL trials here started 7/12. It doesn't appear that anything is actually running yet. We haven't made any observations, and no hams live in the immediate area.

Our radio club has a team doing measurements in the test area. They've made a number of baseline noise measurements over the last few months. On most days, the noise was about S2. On the day that the BPL folks had a team out with a spectrum analyzer, the noise on those lines was S9+60dB. Our team hasn't seen that noise level before or since. So, it's probably just a coincidence, but this is obviously going to make the BPL look a lot quieter than it really is. If you have observed similar things in your area, we'd like to know!

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by W1RFI on July 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

> Folks lets take a step back and think how can we
> bring this back to the folks who caused it, the FCC.
> Each and every time you receive interference from
> BPL simply audio tape, write a letter, get the local
> ARRL (if your in the states) RFI team to assist and
> began a systematic documentation trail on the
> interference issues and cram the already overloaded
> FCC Offices with complaints of interference from
> BPL.

That is good advice, but do ensure that such reports truly are based on BPL. BPL interference is a local phenomenon, so if you are not very near a BPL installation, suspected BPL noise is probably something else. The audio and video recordings on the ARRL BPL web page (http://www.arrl.org/bpl) may help identify a suspect noise. BPL's noise is also generally limited to about 5 to 25 MHz of spectrum, with an onset that is sudden vs frequency, and that disappears suddenly as you tune past its upper edge. The multicarrier systems using the DS2 chipset (Amperion and Ambient) have modulated carriers spaced 1.1 kHz. If you hear noise every 33 kHz, as an example, it is not any known form of BPL.

Guidance on how to identify and report BPL interference is outlined at http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/complaints.html.

Those that are in a test area should form a local group to address the problem in a coordinated way. Some general guidelines for how to proceed are at http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/Guidance_for_field_trials.doc. These will be modified as needed to address local needs and talent. (Any suggestions for improving those recommendations are welcome).

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

RE: BPL Interference in Cottonwood, Arizona:

by KC9CDT on July 16, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

OK, so what as the result of the official complaint in Emmaus, PA?
Lee

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles

Teens Taunt Police with Pilfered Radios

Electric Blanket Interference

The Hijacking of 40-Meter RTTY

Docket 03-104 Where is Everybody?

Will ROW Problems Kill BPL?

Other News Articles

The New Frontier for School Radio:

New Vice Directors in Central, Roanoke Divisions:

New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:

Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:

Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):

$\'\'$