Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team Organization:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 28
on
July 16, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team Organization:
Amateur Radio operators in the Cincinnati area are organizing a Broadband
Over Power Line (BPL) team to monitor a planned BPL deployment. In
announcing the move, ARRL Ohio Section Manager Joe Phillips, K8QOE, says
the group will study the effects of a BPL rollout in two neighborhoods by
utility Cinergy Corp. The new group, consisting of a half dozen
engineering professionals and some 20 others, will operate as a
subcommittee of the Greater Cincinnati Local Interference Committee (LIC).
Kirk Swallow, W8QID, will head the BPL/LIC effort.
"Kirk has been operations manager for several electronics cellular and
satellite firms," said Phillips, "and his experience with directing
professional engineers makes him well qualified to handle this
assignment." Phillips says the Greater Cincinnati LIC has a long and
successful record of handling repeater interference problems. "This BPL
problem, however, represents new and special challenges in interfering
with the spectrum," he added.
In March, articles in The Wall Street Journal and the Cincinnati Enquirer
announced the BPL rollout by Cinergy and its BPL partner Current
Technologies. Cinergy and Current said they hoped to offer the service to
between 60,000 and 1.5 million Cincinnati-area customers by year's end and
eventually to some 24 million potential customers elsewhere who are served
by smaller utilities. Cinergy has been charging $40 a month for BPL
service, but Philips says many current subscribers are utility employees
who get the service at no cost.
The new BPL/LIC team will work with Phillips and ARRL Great Lakes Division
Director Jim Weaver, K8JE, to serve as a clearing house for BPL
suggestions, comments and information from the Amateur Radio community.
"We in Cincinnati are getting lots of calls and notes from all sections of
the US, as this city has the biggest BPL offering from the largest
utility," Phillips noted. The team also will cooperate with the ARRL
Laboratory to monitor and investigate BPL in the affected area using "the
highest professional standards," Phillips said.
Phillips said being able to produce "credible" technical data and
information is key to any effort to convince Cinergy of BPL's harmful
interference potential and that the technology won't boost the company's
bottom line. Several technical companies in the area already have offered
the BPL/LIC team the use of state-of-the-art spectrum measurement
equipment, he said.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 28
July 16, 2004
This is a really good idea IMHO -- other SMs and Club Presidents please take note! -- ed.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team Organ
|
|
|
by WB8PUM on July 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FCC Chairman Reaffirms Support for BPL: Reply
by WB8PUM on July 17, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I have worked in broadcast radio for over 30 years. Born in Detroit got my 2nd and 1st class commercial license when I was 17 years old. Worked on the air at CKLW “The Big 8” 1969 -70. I am totally amazed at Powel. The man is not qualified for the job as we can plainly see the inept people appointed and employed by the FCC.
One of the biggest problems that BPL is going to cause is the demise of the 250 to 1000 watt local AM Broadcast station. Right now in Gallatin Tennessee on highway 109 heading west to Hendersonville WSM AM 650 50,000 watts some 20 miles away can’t be heard because of power line noise. This is not BPL it is just noise!
The harmonics that are and will be present with BPL have triggered reports that a GE Super Radio plugged into an AC outlet is unable to receive anything on the AM Broadcast band. Car radios driving near power lines are unable to pick up the local 1000 watt station 3 miles from the tower.
It is interesting that the NAB National Association Of Broadcasters is turning a deaf ear to their own kind in that they are doing nothing.
In a letter to a local Nashville radio station owner the NAB’s Mr. Claudy states that domestic Shortwave broadcasters are not their concern.
I guess AM Broadcast Band is not the concern of the NAB nor the FCC.
It is a given as to what BPL is going to do to Ham Radio and Shortwave.
It might interest all of my Ham brethren that BPL will adversely and possibly disable the EAS system in many parts of the country.
Chairman Powel and President Bush don’t want to hear any bad press!
So that’s how their going to do it by disabling EAS!
That is one way to get rid of bad news!
This is how far they are willing to go with this!
How can we respect and obey the rules dictated by politicians who specialize in ignorance gone to seed!
You think it’s bad that they don’t care about the rules and part 15!
You think it’s bad that they don’t care about Ham and Shortwave Radio.
They don’t care about Standard Broadcast and EAS as well!
They don’t care about local hometown radio and I am sure it is a waste of time to Chariman Powel.
Follow the $$$$$
Question is what are we going to do about it?
I don’t know if we could require people who are appointed to positions like Powel to have a commercial license or to take a test?
If we could the most appropriate test would be a polygraph!
The FCC will hand out fines to radio stations who miss an EAS test or fail to log one but will press blindly without proper testing a system that would render EAS useless!
Damn the tornadoes full speed ahead!
|
| |
|
Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team Organ
|
|
|
by K0LFA on July 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent!!!
Now if we can teach Chmn Powell to read and comprehend the definition of Harmful Interference and that it means the unlicensed BPL must IMMEDIATELY cease operation until the cause of the interference is remedied.
K1ZZ’s column in QST said it all about Harmful Interference but it is starting to look like the FCC will require a firm comeuppance before it will stop being a lap dog to the Administration.
There is nothing wrong with Chmn Powell that having his bell rung by a Federal Judge would not fix.
|
| |
|
RE: Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team O
|
|
|
by AE1X on July 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John,
Look at the big picture. The FCC released NOI concerning Noise Temperature. This is a measure of the occupancy of any given frequency. It is a useful measure when dealing with wide band signals i.e. spread spectrum. I think the FCC is trying find out two (2) things. One: what bands are over and occupied and two: how to specify what interference is harmful.
FM stations might be able to coexist with spread spectrum signals because they would just appear as noise and not open the squelch of FM receivers, but narrow band amplitude type systems can not tolerate interference so noise temperature will only define what is harmful interference in our bands.
You must understand something, there is great pressure from many new technologies for spectrum and the FCC must find suitable sharing partners to facilitate these new technologies. BPL is just one of many and you can see what is happening. The FCC was formed to facilitate allocation of spectrum to avoid interference between competing interests. Now the Commission is trying to accomodate a new service and balance the interference issue against the competing interests.
Just think for a moment. There are plenty of places that could support BPL without interferring with anyone. The problem arises when a mobile station of some type is forced to operate in the BPL environment or a BPL provider wants to service potential customers in places where amateur stations are located. Chairman Powell has already indicated that this will be a challenge for them and the systems providers to resolve.
The present state of affairs is that the WH has indicated that they are in favor of following the NTIA recommendations and that FCC must resolve the interference problem. This could be seen to mean a couple things. One: a technical solution needs to be found or Two: a regulator solution must be enacted. It would appear that both will be the likely outcome.
The FCC will have to implement radiation limits far below what the industry actually wants and Amateurs will have to live with some level of interference in those areas where mobile stations are operating, but fixed stations will have to be avoided by BPL in some way. Another alternative could be that the FCC will just decide to yield to BPL and set them up as a co-primary occupant. This would mean that we have both an equal right to the frequency and the mear presence of a BPL signal means we can not interfer with communications in progress.
The most likely scenario IMHO will be that they will do nothing and force us to except BPL as is and then wait for the courts to act. The hope being that by that time BPL will be so powerful that nothing will stop it. The courts may rule, but then how do you inforce it?
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team O
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> FM stations might be able to coexist with spread
> spectrum signals because they would just appear as
> noise and not open the squelch of FM receivers, but
> narrow band amplitude type systems can not tolerate
> interference so noise temperature will only define
> what is harmful interference in our bands.
Define "co-exist." If an FM signal has a high signal-to-noise ratio, adding a bit of noise would not be noticeable. But every signal that is strong a one location is weak somewhere else. And in the amateur service, maximimzing the range and number of stations with which an amateur can communicate is a clear and laudable goal.
But if you added that same noise to a signal that had only 6 dB of quieting -- a bit noisy, but usable, you may degrade the FM signal altogether. As a minimum, the communications range of the any signal, including FM, will be decreased to a greater of lesser degree by that addition of noise and on FM, phenomena like picket fencing will occur more easily and at a closer range than without the additional noise, etc.
And there is the near-far problem. Something that raises the noise floor by "only a few dB" -- or degrees, if you want to think "temperature" generally will raise the noise level a LOT very close to that device. That is the immediate BPL problem, because a "legal" 30 uV/m at 30 meter field will translate to S9+ signals to nearby receivers using the same spectrum.
IMHO, "interference temperature" has some value in a radio communications system that is being designed from clean slate, on spectrum with steady characteristics and whose users can all be 100% controlled for location, power, mode , etc. That does not apply to any part of the amateur service -- by intent.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team O
|
|
|
by AE1X on July 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
Notice I said maybe and I wasn't consider amateur spectrum specifically. I was making a general observation. The FCC is looking for any and all sharing arrangements that make sense. I agree that weak a weak signal service and thus no amount of interference can be considerate tolerable.
Concerning amateur spectrum, I could forsee some narrow band low duty cycle sharing partners, but never a high duty cycle partner of any type. The FCC could make a case for off peak sharing, say during normal business hours or after prime time, but there are plenty allocations available for that type of low power unlicensed operation already.
I was re-reading the NPRM document yesterday and noticed that there is some strong lanuage about interference and the acknowledgement that our service will be a particular challenge. It would seem to me that satisfying our requirements would result in a satisfactory system for everyone. It appears the Japanese are taking this tact in their continue research into BPL.
I thought they were done with this technology, but I ran across an interesting post on QRZ that I have sent to you and Dave Sumner. I won't repeat the post here.
In conclusion, I will strongly oppose BPL in any form until it has been demonstrated to be non-interferring PERIOD! I don't believe it can be made non-interferring, but I'm willing to listen. I believe that wireless technology is a much better way to implement a wide spread internet access system. I will support the Grassroots action recommended by our board of directors in their recent meeting and plan to support any effort that will lead the proper disposition of this technology.
Respectfully, Ken
|
| |
|
RE: Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team O
|
|
|
by W1RFI on July 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< Notice I said maybe and I wasn't consider amateur spectrum specifically. I was making a general observation. The FCC is looking for any and all sharing arrangements that make sense. I agree that weak a weak signal service and thus no amount of interference can be considerate tolerable. >
I, too, was considering all of HF, Ken. In all use of HF, with the vagracies of propagation, weak-signal work is sometimes necessary. Aeronautical, Inc, for example, routinely has to communicate with aircraft over the open seas and those signals are often just at the noise floor, where skilled operators are required to dig them out. I am sure that virtually all HF operation is in the same boat.
Any increase in noise floor on HF will have an effect on the users of that spectrum. Under some circumstances, other uses can be successfully underlaid on HF. A device that emits at Part 15 levels on some frequencies some of the time can be successfully placed into operation. The computer I am typing on right now does just that -- it is emitting and conducting and not interfering with anyone. I even hear a few birdies from my own and my neighbor's devices, and at S7ish levels, I can easily avoid them.
But even this has been shown to fail miserably. Take a look at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfiteljx.html for an example of a Part 15 device that operated on a single frequency. Now, imagine that device connected to overhead power lines instead of house wiring; imagine them being installed at every 10th house in an entire utility service area and imagine them using all of tends of MHz of spectrum instead of a single frequency. The industry statements that they have a low interference potential simpply do not hold up.
That's BPL.
Even on VHF and up, undelaying has to be done carefully. On all frequencies, a signal that is strong at one location is weak somewhere else. A weak signal that is nearby will be strong. Putting the two together generally means that an unlicensed signal that is strong enough to do something useful will be strong locally, and if it is located next to a receiving station that must listen to a weak signal, and they all have to do so sometimes, then there will be interference.
There is a fallacy that is even held by the FCC that Part 15 level signals are weak. They are not. On HF, BPL is limited to 30 uV/m at 30 meters from the source. If we place typical amateur antennas in a 30 uV/m field, they will pick up S9+ level noise. That is not weak. The weakest signals we copy at some stations can be 50 or more dB weaker than S9, so S9 noise will be harmful interference under those cases. I don't know whether the BPL industry truly doesn't understand this, or doesn't want to understand, but the widely held fallacy that Part-15 level signals will rarely cause interference is one that must be changed.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Ohio ARRL Section Manager Announces BPL Team O
|
|
|
by AE1X on July 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<
There is a fallacy that is even held by the FCC that Part 15 level signals are weak. They are not. On HF, BPL is limited to 30 uV/m at 30 meters from the source. If we place typical amateur antennas in a 30 uV/m field, they will pick up S9+ level noise. That is not weak. The weakest signals we copy at some stations can be 50 or more dB weaker than S9, so S9 noise will be harmful interference under those cases. I don't know whether the BPL industry truly doesn't understand this, or doesn't want to understand, but the widely held fallacy that Part-15 level signals will rarely cause interference is one that must be changed.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
>
Thank you Ed! I agree with this observation entirely. I think we need to remember that the FCC commissioners are lawyers and in the case of the proponents, lawyers and marketing professionals not engineering professionals. This is where the real problem lies.
Concerning Part 15 devices and interference. They do have an interference potential, but rarely do they interfere. This not because the signal levels are so weak, but because most have a low duty cycle and are narrow band rather than high bandwidth constant duty cycle devices like BPL.
Ken
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
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:
Malicious Interference Cases Top FCC List
No 136 kHz for the USA
Other News Articles
Cuba Facilitates Equipment to Amateur Radio Operators:
ARNewsline # 1684 -- Nov. 20 2009:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #47 de K7RA:
Technology Enthusiast Boosts Skills with Amateur Radio:
Solar Radio Flux: Slow Upward Trend Since Summer:
|
