North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field Trial:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 39
on
October 2, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field Trial:
Progress Energy Corporation (PEC) this week shut down its BPL field trial
in the Raleigh, North Carolina, area and began removing system hardware.
The utility's action came just as local amateur Tom Brown, N4TAB, had
filed a "Response and Further Complaint" about the system. His filing
disputes an FCC determination this summer that PEC's BPL system complied
with Part 15 rules--with notched BPL emissions averaging 24 dB below Part
15 emission limits--and that ham band notching was "effective." Brown, who
has an extensive background in RF engineering, says the FCC's findings
have nothing to do with defining--or excusing--harmful interference.
"I can find no reference that states that equipment operating under Part
15 with an emission level below some specified value is defined as being
'non interfering,'" Brown told Bruce Franca of the FCC's Office of
Engineering and Technology. Franca's July 22 report characterized the 24
dB average notch depths as "sufficient to eliminate any signals that would
be deemed capable of causing harmful interference, including interference
to amateur operations."
Brown disagreed. "This is a subjective leap of judgment that is
unsupported under Part 15 rules and without precedent," he responded. BPL
proponents have touted the FCC's conclusions in the Progress Energy field
trials to debunk findings by the ARRL and others that the technology can
and does generate harmful interference. The ARRL also took issue with
certain claims Franca made in his July 22 letter, but the Commission has
yet to respond.
Brown, who also asked the FCC to shut down the system, now has gotten his
wish. The utility announced nearly two months ago that it had
"successfully" completed Phase 2 of its BPL trial and would be
terminatiing the operation. At the same time, Progress indicated that it
"does not have plans for a large-scale commercial rollout of BPL in the
company's service territories." PEC has since backed away from that
statement and says it has not ruled out BPL.
Speaking at the United Power Line Council (UPLC) BPL conference in
mid-September, PEC's Matt Oja said that that while the utility had worked
with local amateurs to successfully quell interference, the amateurs kept
raising the bar until Progress had to put its foot down. Even after the
FCC study that essentially gave the system a clean bill of health, Oja
said, the amateurs still were unhappy.
Oja suggested that radio amateurs would never be happy about BPL, and he
advised utilities to simply move forward with their BPL programs.
Responding to Oja's comments--as reported in the newsletter BPL
Today--another amateur directly involved in the Progress Energy BPL field
trials, Gary Pearce, KN4AQ, offered a somewhat different version of
events.
"The only bar Progress Energy and Amperion need to meet is the one set by
Part 15," Pearce said. "No harmful interference to licensed services."
Amperion, PEC's BPL partner, ultimately was only partially successful in
"notching" amateur frequencies out of its BPL system, Pearce noted, and
interfering signals remained even after Progress announced it was ending
its BPL field trial. Pearce said the utility gave the amateur community
"no confidence in their ability to get it right in any reasonable time
frame."
Amperion Marketing Vice President Jeff Tolnar told the same BPL conference
that "all ARRL complaints have been mitigated and/or found to be invalid."
Franca, who also addressed the UPLC BPL convention, was quoted this week
in USA Today as saying that the FCC has tried to come up with rules to
ensure BPL can be deployed and that licensed radio operators are
protected. But, the article by Paul Davidson continued: "Banning power
companies from ham-radio bands outright could reduce the download speeds
of the high-speed Internet service or limit the number of customers who
could be served, Franca says."
A copy of Brown's filing also went to FCC Chairman Michael K Powell's
Legal Assistant Sheryl Wilkerson, with whom ARRL officials met this week
on the BPL proceeding, ET Docket 04-37. ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay,
W3KD, said that one of Wilkerson's "many misconceptions" was that actions
such as notching by BPL systems to resolve interference have been
successful.
The FCC is expected to consider a draft Report and Order in the BPL
proceeding when the full Commission meets Thursday, October 14.--Anthony
E. "Goody" Good, K3NG, provided information for this report
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 39
October 1, 2004
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by L1D on October 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amperion Marketing Vice President Jeff Tolnar told the same BPL conference that "all ARRL complaints have been mitigated and/or found to be invalid."
Liar. Karma will get you every time.
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KC9GNR on October 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The only bar Progress Energy and Amperion need to meet is the one set by Part 15," Pearce said. "No harmful interference to licensed services."
Ditto!!
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you want to read something interesting, go to the FCC website and check out the correspondence filed on 9/30/04 by the NTIA under BPL Notice of Proposed Rule Making File 04-37. http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516487941 In so many words, we support the FCC on BPL implementation AND OH BY THE WAY we would like a 2.4 mile BPL exclusion zone around aeronautical communications stations and a 45 mile BPL exclusion zone around astronomy and weak signal research stations. No wonder the NTIA is now supporting BPL. Its supprt comes with a price which is exclusion. The rest of US will have to live with interference. The is poor governance.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How about a new exclusion zone--The entire United States!
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KT0DD on October 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been saying all along that pussyfooting around with this BPL stuff is a waste of time. It's time for ALL amateurs, (whether thru the ARRL or not) to organize and file a class action lawsuit. The only way we are going to bring the lies of the BPL industry, and the apathy of the FCC into the light, is get it into a court of law. And even then, I know it's not a guarantee. But with the general distrust of corporations and the government by the public, the odds of a jury siding with the amateurs is quite good.
Also, any Amateurs who think BPL is already a dead issue better wake up, because it's NOT. At last count, there were over 40 experimental BPL licenses already granted, and one company has officially gone on-line with it's subscribers as a full permanent service.
Only a lawsuit will settle the definition of what is "Harmful Interference", once and for all. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by K0LFA on October 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The NTIA, by asking for exclusion zones, if accepted and made part of the RO, will set a precident for safety of life communications. Absolutely NO interference will be tolerated.
I can almost hear it: (FAA Coms) "I want to give the FCC Chairman a wakeup call and I want it to ring so loud he won't have to pickup to know who's calling!"
If the FCC does not see it the NTIA/FAA way, having the FAA set exclusion zones ala Area 51 might get the message through. This would put a huge number of flights on the tarmac and put (insert name of any airline) into bankruptcy.
The MoHP uses low band....Humm. Why not a zone for all MoHP...?
Fire & EMT uses low band....
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The MoHP uses low band....Humm. Why not a zone for all MoHP...?
Fire & EMT uses low band...."
The FCC is of the opinion that all uses of LoVHF should switch to a trunked system of some sort. This includes amateur radio. Our MF/HF allocations are more valuable in the hands of BPL than the public. That said, I agree with others that a class action suit will be in order, but not until the R&O has been adopted and we know for sure what the R&O contains. We can speculate all we want, and I have for months myself, but the truth is we don't know and it would be premature to file a suit until we know for sure what we are fighting.
Ken
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by K0LFA on October 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am hoping that one of you saved the FCC/NTIA document that is referenced in this thread. I would like to get a copy of it sent to me via e-mail if possible.
The document seems to have VANISHED from the net. I have searched for it quite awhile now without any luck. Google, Altavista, Dogpile, Yahoo!, Lycos, and so on either don't find anything at all or find this thread.
Thanks in advance
mailto:k0lfa@arrl.net
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has any amateur radio operator filed suit against a BPL provider and asked for damages? Has anyone ever filed a suit, naming the F.C.C. as a codefendant, and been successful? Is the very bureaucracy (F.C.C.) responsible for technical and spectral purity even judicially approachable if found to be insubordinate?
If BPL is widely distributed and found to be the "trojan horse" RFI engine it has been proven to be in trials, is the ARRL willing to undertake the massive responsibility of becoming a major litigant in the RFI, BPL bombshell?
All questions too early to answer, but not too early to be thought about.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by WB1FPA on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All of this to trade the GHz of bandwidth available from fiber for a measely 80 MHz of poorly constructed, only partially useful bandwidth in conflict with already exisitng services on a medium (power cabling) that currently is in poor/fair repair (noise wise). Look around my friends, just because USA was top dog after WW2 does not insure it will remain that way. Our communications infrastructure is constantly being comprimised for sort term fame and profit.
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by N3NL on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Are the international short wave broadcast bands
notched out as well? These bands are directly
protected by international treaties that the United
States has signed. Shortwave broadcasting involves
about 3 MHz of the high frequencies.
If both the ham bands and the shortwave broadcast
bands are notched out, is BPL still viable?
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you want to read the NTIA’s request for exclusion see http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=651648 7941 If really want to see a very good summary of the pro position for BPL see the Powerline Communications Association letter from their attorney to the FCC filed on
10/1/04. http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=651649 0476 Its the same old BS. Oh, we are just a basic new technology and oh please give us a free pass before anybody sees what a mess we are going to create. At least they recognize amateur radio as their biggest problem in this matter. That’s because they will be interfering primarily with two groups (SWL and Hams) and not anyone else especially in light of the NTIA exclusion request. They in essence want one thing. Give us a free pass while we raise hell in the HF bands so we can make money. Also make it really hard for SWL and ham radio operators to track down BPL interference sources and file complaints. So here is how the complaint process will unfold. What interference. I don’t hear anything. Oh that. Well you really didn’t tell us specially what pole it was coming from and you failed to complete form 30-B with the independent confirmation data. You have to start the 30 day process all over again. Sorry. By the way, make sure it includes latitude and longitude of the offending pole. Pay attention FCC. Your about to be taken
in.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
Are the international short wave broadcast bands
notched out as well? These bands are directly
protected by international treaties that the United
States has signed. Shortwave broadcasting involves
about 3 MHz of the high frequencies.
If both the ham bands and the shortwave broadcast
bands are notched out, is BPL still viable?
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
"
From what I've seen Nick, the answer is no and in fact amateur frequencies are only notch when a problem is reported.
Concerning reduced bandwidth, there was a comment elsewhere asking the same question. My view is that it will reduce the bandwidth and/or reduce the number of options available for transceiver selection. The system consists of 6Mhz. segments with a different segment used for each adjacent grid segment to minimize the intersegment interference. Removing bandwidth from any individual segment reduces the through put on that segment. Considering that there is an amateur and SW allocation in each segment means there will be an impact on each segment.
It appears from the recent rhetoric from UPLC meetings, that they have no regard for amateurs or the treaties to which we are a party. My guess is that they feel that the nature of the problem is local and that no one will care that SW broadcasts or amateur operations in the HF spectrum are adversely affected. It appears that UPLC believes that the mitigation they provide on demand is sufficient to meet the requirements of the proposed regulations that are forth coming from FCC.
The only issue concerning our treaty obligations will come when BPL interference propagates beyond the boundaries of this country and affect nations that rely on these outlets. I believe this industry is of the opinion that no one will care because the broadcasts will easily over ride the interference that may propagate. This industry is only interested in the local affects of their systems.
Ken
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by N3NL on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ken, my understanding is that the treaties require
that the nations protect incoming shortwave
broadcasts from local interference. This would
definitely apply to BPL interference with incoming
shortwave broadcasts from other nations.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by KC4ZGP on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wouldn't it make just good sense if you experience interferring signals increase your output power to overcome the interferring signal? Begin building 100KW amplifiers.
PSK31 season draws near.
Kraus
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by WR5AW on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's an interesting site in Texas on the effects of BPL complete with sound bites of the interference.
See http://www.pbarc.net/bpl/ntx/Irving.htm for details.
An interesting point I haven't seen comment on is how BPL is susceptible to being shutdown by Amateur transmissions. Not just theory - I've heard firsthand reports from someone involved in testing.
Do what you can to fight this thing wherever you might live. Call people. Write letters. There is a nice form letter on the above site you could use to write your congressman. Get active. Take a stand.
73
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
See:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/guidance_for_field_trials.doc
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/complaints.html
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/measurements.html
http://www.arrl.org/bpl
http://www.gobpl.com
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Been to busy to be here arguing. :-)
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> That said, I agree with others that a class action
> suit will be in order, but not until the R&O has
> been adopted and we know for sure what the R&O
> contains. We can speculate all we want, and I have
> for months myself, but the truth is we don't know
> and it would be premature to file a suit until we
> know for sure what we are fighting.
And even then, it will be necessary to go through the steps of appealing anything inappropriate in the rulemaking through the normal FCC channels. Then, the court action would, if my layman's understanding is correct, have to show that the FCC did not consider approrpriately what had been put before it in the rulemaking, or that what it did is outside the scope of the authority granted to it.
Another avenue could be to seek legal relief if the FCC does not enforce its own rules. In one system the FCC pronounced as "clean," I am still seeing S9 BPL noise on two amateur bands, S6 noise on another and 12 dB of degradation on another. This is clearly capable of causing harmful interference, and when it does, the FCC is chartered with enforcing the rules.
If harmonics from amateur stations were interfering with another radio service, we would not operate our station for months on end while we were thinking about how to fix it. We would shut down immediately except for brief test transmissions while we tried different cures.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> That said, I agree with others that a class action
> suit will be in order, but not until the R&O has
> been adopted and we know for sure what the R&O
> contains. We can speculate all we want, and I have
> for months myself, but the truth is we don't know
> and it would be premature to file a suit until we
> know for sure what we are fighting.
And even then, it will be necessary to go through the steps of appealing anything inappropriate in the rulemaking through the normal FCC channels. Then, the court action would, if my layman's understanding is correct, have to show that the FCC did not consider approrpriately what had been put before it in the rulemaking, or that what it did is outside the scope of the authority granted to it.
Another avenue could be to seek legal relief if the FCC does not enforce its own rules. In one system the FCC pronounced as "clean," I am still seeing S9 BPL noise on two amateur bands, S6 noise on another and 12 dB of degradation on another. This is clearly capable of causing harmful interference, and when it does, the FCC is chartered with enforcing the rules.
If harmonics from amateur stations were interfering with another radio service, we would not operate our station for months on end while we were thinking about how to fix it. We would shut down immediately except for brief test transmissions while we tried different cures.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed (W1RFI),
You're correct as always. The full do process of the law must be followed before we can use the courts. I thought the original suggestion for court action was premature and you have confirmed this as I expected.
Ken
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by KJ5RM on October 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I participated in the interference study at the BPL test site in Irving and I am the webmaster for the Irving web page that was mentioned in earlier comments. From what we witnessed at Irving, BPL is effective in totally obliterating the HF spectrum. The BPL manufactures maybe (that’s a big maybe) able to notch out our bands, but the issue we saw at Irving was that each of the units on the line were mixing with each other and producing harmonics across the HF spectrum. The other side of the coin is the more they notch the less bandwidth they have to sell. No notching was performed at the Irving site, and from what I could see notching would have been totally ineffective against the interference we saw.
Another issue is the large potential of ours and others transmitters interfering with their systems. During the test I was allowed to connect my laptop up to the BPL system and surf the web. Their system used 802.11b for the connection point. I connected up to the system and began to “ping” their gateway to verify connectivity. I then keyed up my transmitter on 17 meters and immediately lost connection to their gateway. The connectivity loss wasn’t due to interference to the 802.11b connection, I was connected the whole time via 802.11b, but their systems couldn’t send the data down the line on the HF side. Now think about all the mobile and fix HF and low VHF stations out there that are going to kill their bandwidth and connections.
The BPL guys state in several articles that they are in compliance with Part 15, but how can you be in compliance with part 15 if you are causing S7 level noise one quarter mile from the site, and across a large chunk of the HF spectrum?? The funny thing is that S7 signal was captured on a ATAS-100 antenna which is not the most efficient HF antenna in the world. A tri-band beam would have S7 to S9 up to 2 miles away in my estimates. The FCC doesn’t permit the amateur service, nor any other licensed service to create this type of interference, so why do they allow the BPL systems to obliterate 60 Mhz of bandwidth for miles around and then say it falls under part 15 regulations?
There are four hams living within a mile and half of the Irving test site that have been effectively put off the air due to the interference from these units. All four of them were unaware of where the interference was coming from until I gave a presentation at the Irving club. This shows that the amateur community is not at large aware of BPL or its effect. That it is real and it has detrimental affects to the amateur service. Think about not being about to use that nice new HF rig you have or not keeping that scheduled HF contact. No-code techs are just as affected, the six meter band was solid S9 noise within a quarter mile of the Irving site. WE ARE ALL AFFECTED. Its urgent that we get the word out now!
Its not just the amateur community that is living in darkness, but the commercial users are unaware as well. I have been traveling from club to club in North Texas over the past few months spreading the word about BPL. I have talked to amateurs from all walks of life, from firefighters to RF engineers. The reoccurring theme I keep hearing is that BPL will affect them just as much in their professional life as their amateur life. From, firefighters that use the lower VHF spectrum, to the RFID systems developer that uses the HF spectrum, to the pilot using the HF and VHF spectrums. Yet no one has mentioned to the private sector what BPL is or how it well affect their operations.
Why isn’t the FAA concerned, why isn’t Motorola, Kenwood, Yaesu, Icom, and other manufactures concerned? Why aren’t those small community police and fire departments, ambulance services, and all those lower VHF business system users concerned? Why aren’t all those government services that use the HF and lower VHF spectrum concerned about this stuff? Why aren’t the TV station owners that operate on Channels 2, 3, 4 and 5 screaming about this stuff? I think I know why they are so quite, they don’t know about it and don’t understand it.
Maybe they would see things different if they heard about BPL and thought about its affects for a bit. What happens to that police officer that stops a speeder, and there happens to be a BPL unit on the power pole above his car. Dispatch tries to tell him that the speeder is a wanted criminal armed and dangerous, but due interference from BPL the officer doesn’t hear that vital information? What happens if an incident commander transmits a message to a group of firefighters in a burning building to evacuate because the roof is collapsing, but again due to the BPL unit on the powerlines the firefighters don’t receive the word? What about the warehouse owner who just spent millions of dollars outfitting his warehouse with RFID tags so he can get an accurate count of inventory, but again due to BPL his system is worthless.
What about the hospitals, why aren’t they concerned. I can’t use my ht or cell phone in a hospital because it might affect their equipment and cost someone their life, but BPL will be putting RF directly on the powerlines that these devices are plugged into. Yet we hear nothing from the medical sector of our society.
Amateur radio is just a small part of the spectrum. We add little to society in a monetary fashion, yet we do provide a very invaluable service. These services I have mentioned are all vital to either our lives or our economy, yet they are all going to be negatively affect by BPL. Does the FCC really want to affect all these services and possibly risk lives so the electric companies can sell a little internet on the side?
As defined in Part 97 our duty is to advance the radio art. I can tell you from experience that BPL is not advancing the radio art, its taking away from radio. It is destroying our natural radio resource that not only we care about but businesses, and those that serve and protect us care about. Its risking the loss of connectivity and communications for those areas that are unfortunate enough to be served by BPL. It is our duty to advance the radio art even if the FCC isn’t going to do their duty to protect the radio spectrum and its users. I urge all amateurs to spread the word about BPL and its effects to anyone you know that owns a transmitter and/or receiver. Tell your club members, tell you city council, tell your congressman, tell your neighbor, tell your local newspaper. Take it to the streets!
73
Jory McIntosh
KJ5RM
ARRL Assistant Section Manager
North Texas BPL Task Force
http://www.texasbpl.com
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Class action suits are messy, prolonged and expensive. Not that there isn't a time and place for them, but I have to agree with Ed regarding gathering the appropriate information, appealing parts of the rule making file and filing interference complaints with the FCC. Once the body of data is collected and damages determined, then we can get on with class action suits. In interim support the ARRL defense fund and document interference problems. I just find it very odd that the NTIA supports BPL, but want exclusions while the rest of us have to live with interference problems. Reality has taken a vacation.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
Class action suits are messy, prolonged and expensive. Not that there isn't a time and place for them, but I have to agree with Ed regarding gathering the appropriate information, appealing parts of the rule making file and filing interference complaints with the FCC. Once the body of data is collected and damages determined, then we can get on with class action suits. In interim support the ARRL defense fund and document interference problems. I just find it very odd that the NTIA supports BPL, but want exclusions while the rest of us have to live with interference problems. Reality has taken a vacation.
KG6AMW
"
NTIA supports BPL because the Administration supports it. Their report was highly critical and made considerable mention of the interference potential. It down played it only because any other position would have positioned them against the wishes of the WH.
I don't think that reality has taken a vacation. The problem is that this issue had little in the way of popular media coverage. The extent of the problem will not become apparent until the system is place. FCC hopes that the system catch on and become popular. They will then recommend moving services to other bands and making appropriate quite zones around critical services. This is what NTIA has recommended in its latest letter.
A class action will be a very messy and expensive undertaking and there is an enormous amount of do process stuff that has to be completed before any court action can be contemplated. We don't even know the true nature of the beast we wish to tilt with.
I agree with supporting the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund. I will make my contributions as I have the resources. You can bet I will do what I can with my keyboard, pen, and other communications skills to get the word out about this menance.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
Why isn’t the FAA concerned, why isn’t Motorola, Kenwood, Yaesu, Icom, and other manufactures concerned? Why aren’t those small community police and fire departments, ambulance services, and all those lower VHF business system users concerned? Why aren’t all those government services that use the HF and lower VHF spectrum concerned about this stuff? Why aren’t the TV station owners that operate on Channels 2, 3, 4 and 5 screaming about this stuff? I think I know why they are so quite, they don’t know about it and don’t understand it.
"
The FAA is concerned, but they can not say much because, as above, the Adminstration is behind this policy and can not appear to be negative. They will receive whatever protection is needed to insure the safety of the flying public. You can take that to the bank.
The manufacturers don't care because those users that are negatively impacted will move to other spectrum and still purchase new equipment. They will get their business either way.
The LoVHF TV stations are not too concerned because they will be moving off of these channels anyway by 2009. The FCC has declared that analog television broadcasting must be terminated by that time and in fact the target is to complete the transition to DTV by 2006.
There is another issue here as well. The power industry is really not interested in BPL for long term broadband access to the internet. Most are more interested in the remote monitoring and grid control infrastructure that BPL will provide. The internet is just a way to sell it to the public and to get the public to pay for it. Should the systems fail to produce revenue as hoped, the utilities will still have the remote control and monitoring facilities they crave. The present PLC systems have not proved to be of much value because of the limited bandwidth. To do the things they desire, will take more bandwidth than a few kilo-hertz to accomplish. The amount of time it would take to query the entire system would be prohibitive. This is why the NTIA has said that BPL is a win win proposition.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> You're correct as always. The full do process of the
> law must be followed before we can use the courts. I
> thought the original suggestion for court action was
> premature and you have confirmed this as I expected.
Far from always, Ken. I am sure there are some here who will tell you that I am never right!
In this case, what I offered was my personal view. ARRL will decide what action to take post rulemaking, but that will be decided by a process involving Sumner, Imlay, Rinaldo and the ARRL Board and its Executive Committee (which, btw, is not the ARRL "executives," but members of the ARRL Board). The sense I get in talking to all of these folks from time to time is that the rulemaking is one step in the process. From there, a combination of any of the possible steps will be selected.
The one step I am certain about is that no matter what the rulemaking ends up saying, and no matter what reconsideration ARRL may seek, and no matter what form that reconsideration may take, it will be critical that the rules about harmful interference be followed. I have been devoting about 50% of my time in working with hams in BPL trial areas where those amateurs are willing to address and report interference. (Other areas have been strangely silent, despite known strong emissions in amateur bands. A classic case of apathy, I am afraid.)
The interference "bar" is set at one level: unlicensed signals must not repeatedly degrade or disrupt communications in licensed services. At the levels in routine use in the Amateur Radio Service, that can be a hard bar to clear. Going from S9++ to interference that is still ten to twenty dB greater than the signals that amateurs in that area routinely use is NOT correcting the interference. That is exactly what we have seen in cities where BPL has been widely deployed, on some spectrum, to one degree or another. The FCC can change the rules, but changing the laws of physics is not one of the powers granted to the FCC under the Communications Act. :-)
This industry seems be taking an approach that it should be okay if they don't interfere as badly as they might, rather than accept the premise that the rules mean what the rules say. We accept those rules at face value -- for our own operating, where we may have to add 100 dB of external filtering to take care of a TVI problem involving our harmonics, and for the operation of unlicensed devices in our bands. We accept those rules at face value when they protect us the same way they protect our neighbors' TV reception.
Unlicensed emitters exist, and we have lived with some of them for years: A power line noise that is present on a line for a few hundred yards on one or two streets in town or "birdies" from a neighbor's computer system that appears sometimes on a few frequencies in one of our bands can cause interference, but they often do not, as we move a kHz up the band and call CQ.
But extending this principle to a system that emits at those levels on tens of MHz of spectrum, at all time, and then building that system as big as an entire electric-utility distribution is entirely different. The FCC-expressed conclusion that mobile hams can simply "drive away" is unworkable in situations where that station may have to search a couple of kilometers to do so, and then will encounter BPL interference in that area on a different band, if he has to change bands to accomodate different propagation conditions to other stations elsewhere in the world.
I have seen some faint light at the end of a couple of these tunnels. In one system being built out, a preliminary check showed only faint signals in one amateur band, audible only within a hundred feet or so of an injector. That may do it, although we don't yet know how that system will look when it is complete, or whether they will have to crank it up to get their desired data rates. But if a BPL system can be designed not to cause interference, demonstrated in a way that convinces ARRL that it will not cause widespread interference when it is built out, I am sure the League will support that. But it has to be real and it has to be demonstrated.
But to get there, everyone involved has to "do the doing." In the example I cited above, the BPL manufacturer didn't feel everyone's schedules could coincide to actually do the testing necessary to find out if they have hit the mark, even though I am sure they are spending a lot of time on site there. So far, conference calls seem to be much easier to accomplish than acutal direct steps toward real solutions. ARRL has been willing to do such cooperation from the getgo, but it has to actually happen. It is also not possible to work cooperatively with someone on a problem that they claim does not exist.
Now none of this means that we can expect that BPL could be designed so that there won't be any interference under any circumstances. Our own stations are not designed that way. But it has to be designed so that the number of occurrences of interference is small enough that they can be practically dealt with on a case-by-case basis. And for a system that fully occupies wide blocks of spectrum for all time over large geographical areas, that will take a bit of doing. Some systems could be there already, but until actual, truly cooperative, testing can be done, we will all have to work with what information has been developed to date. Raleigh, Cedar Rapids and Penn Yan have been some of the end results.
But to do so, the interference issues need to be put squarely on the table. It is not possible to work cooperatively with an industry on a problem they claim does not exist. ARRL has been doing what it can to help change their minds about effective cooperation.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by K1IO on October 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are a lot of strange goings-on at the FCC around this turkey. Ham Radio is, on a scale of 1 to 10, about a minus 6 on their priority list! The Commission is internally divided, operationally in chaos, and under the gun from a number of court rulings that challenge their "lack of reasoned decision making" (to quote one such case).
There's a huge controversy concerning wireline telecommunications. The Telecom Act of 1996 opened up local telephony to competition. (Lots of us old hams have gotten involved in startup phone companies as a result.) It also allowed the Bell companies into the long distance business, essentially in exchange. Well, FCC Chairman Mike "the lesser" Powell is not a big fan of that! He is a fan of Newt Gingrich's think tank, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which holds a "propertarian" view of the world -- the government's role is to protect private property, and to treat everything it can as private property. So the Bell companies, whose monopolies are still largely intact, shouldn't have to cooperate with competitors the way the 1996 Act said they should. If you want to compete with Bell for the telephone *or ISP* business, under Powell's theory, then you are entitled to string your own wire on the poles, if you can find room, but it's their wire and they should control the content of them!
Powell's cover story for this is called "intermodal competition". Consumers, you see, can get service from both the cable monopoly *and* the phone monopoly, and therefore there's no need to "unbundle" the phone network, as the 1996 Act called for. Competitive phone companies *and* independent ISPs just go away. But since two competitors is really hard to get past a court, his answer is to create at least the fiction of a third competitor. That's where BPL comes in. So if you're in Raleigh, you have a choice of the cableco, BellSouth, *and* Progress Energy for your voice and data service. That's "vibrant" competition! Screw everyone else.
Now it doesn't actually matter if BPL works, or happens -- it has to look credible long enough to get the existing competition rules set aside. I hate to disappoint you Republican hams, but that is very much the key to the Bush telecom agenda; they've taken sides with the Bells and BPL's a tool. It actually is best for them if BPL doesn't work decently, since it'll leave more people on Bell DSL! But there's no auction revenue for the DC bands. And so giving them to the power companies for free, while other companies pay top dollar for microwave spectrum, is just part of the agenda. In case you haven't notice, energy companies are, well, very close to this Administration.
There is a much stronger ulterior motive for BPL in the export market (think China, Saudi Arabia), where it's the best damned Jammer ever invented.
I wrote an article about BPL on my own web site "Broadband over Power Lines -- How Bad an Idea Can You Get?": http://www.ionary.com/ion-bpl/ . Enjoy!
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank Fred, I think you information sums things up pretty well and makes the case many of us have been trying to make, but a much less eloquent way.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What does this accomplish? I see partisan comments posted here from time to time and it’s disappointing. It disappointing because once you begin to mix amateur radio issues with politics our unity begins to suffer which in turn divides us and weakens our effort to combat BPL.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unfortunately Merrill, this is how it is and where it is going. In fact, I believe the competition is in favor of BPL as well.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is all politics! If it were based on
sound engineeering it woulda never gotten
this far. I don't see how you can divorce politics from it.
Personally, I think the late Judge Greene's
MFJ was wrong. It took the world's best telephone
system and destroyed it. There is not a reason
that other companies should have access to
the Bell System. They wanna be in the phone
biz, do it the ole fashioned way, BUILD IT!
I know it pained my father who was on loan
from C&P Telco to AT&T to work on the case, that
resulted in the MFJ and the death of the Bell
System.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by K9IUA on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed (W1RFI) can correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading of the information is that those test sites where the FCC investigated, took measurements, and then declared them in compliance, only did so based on emitted power levels. These were not tests of "harmful interference."
So the FCC, and the BPL providers, are only testing and certifying based on one part of Part 15, that of emission levels. They are ignoring the other piece of Part 15, that of "harmful interference." And as you can read by the submitted ex parte communications to the FCC, the UPLC, PLCA, etc., are trying to get that piece of Part 15 removed or redefined.
I agree that this may ultimately require court cases. The ARRL is "testing" these potential court cases by their helping in the Cedar Rapids, Raleigh, and other sites by stepping in to support particular ham radio operators that have filed interference cases. Lets hope they bear fruit.
As also a shortwave listener to international broadcasters (I've actually been doing that more lately than getting on the air as a ham), I am particular concerned about how "harmful" gets defined. I believe that SWLs will be impacted more significantly that hams when the dust settles, because notching for ham radio may be recognized as appropriate long before notching the international broadcasting bands. I can hope the international treaties will help, but only a court case will reinforce that, and people will be hurt long before a court case might get settled.
Kevin, K9IUA
|
| |
|
North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Field T
|
|
|
by N3NL on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with this comment about short-wave listening
and BPL: "I believe that SWLs will be impacted more
significantly that hams when the dust settles,
because notching for ham radio may be recognized as
appropriate long before notching the international
broadcasting bands. I can hope the international
treaties will help, but only a court case will
reinforce that, and people will be hurt long before
a court case might get settled."
However, the international treaties may provide
stronger protection for short-wave listening than
they do amateur radio. I guess the lawyers can
comment on that. In addition, it is clear that any
correction of BPL problems will take years of effort
and much money from us all.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Of course politics is involved in the establishment of BPL. My comments had to do with partisan comments made here on eham. The serve only to divide us.
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Ed (W1RFI) can correct me if I'm wrong, but my
> reading of the information is that those test sites
> where the FCC investigated, took measurements, and
> then declared them in compliance, only did so based
> on emitted power levels. These were not tests
> of "harmful interference."
Actually, they did sort of address harmful interference, but, in ARRL's opinion, not correctly. In Raleigh, for example, the "notching" was measured by the FCC as -24 dB from the peak signal. If a mobile station is in the area, its antenna is approximately 10 meters from the power line. In that case, its antenna is seeing a 48.6 dBuV/m field the way the FCC allows extrapolation for distance. (Another discussion...)
Let's take a look at the effect of that on amateur mobile operation. A reasonable estimate for a 20-m mobile whip would be that it has a gain of -3 dBi. (This is what I measured when I compared the gain of a mobile whip to the ARRL Lab's calibrated loop antenna). On that frequency, an antenna with -3 dBi gain will pick up a signal level of -90 dBW in 2700 Hz from a field that strong. By the convention that S9 is a signal of 50 microvolts across 50 ohms, this is an S9+13 dB level BPL noise. (This is, btw, exactly what I have seen in several BPL areas operating at the FCC limits.)
Notching that by only 24 dB, as the FCC measured, would still leave a strong signal that would cause interference. In fact, the amateurs there measured that the "notched" BPL signal was degrading the noise floor of their ability to copy weaker signals by 14 dB. A signal 14 dB above the noise level is a bit scratchy, but otherwise fully copyable. Signals that were somewhat stronger were still copyable, but had a very annoying noise level. Yet the FCC stated that they felt 24 dB of "notching" was enough, without ever looking at simple things like signal/noise.
They also "tested" the locations of two home stations who had reported interference, not by actually looking at the signals received by the amateurs' home antennas, but by using a small loop, less efficient than a mobile whip, in the driveway of the stations.
ARRL and the local amateurs took exception to the methods they used to pronounce that system interference free, and, by all the reports from the area amateurs, it was not.
See:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/09/30/2/
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/07/23/5/
I say "was" because late last week, the electric utility shut it off and took the equipment down.
The utility, Progress Energy, claimss it is still interested in BPL...
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE6IP on October 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Any word on the PG&E Menlo Park test?
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That particular test seems to be causing interference to ARINC.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> That particular test seems to be causing interference to ARINC
The interference ARINC has been reported is cited to be caused by carrier-current devices operating on or near 3.013 MHz. They claim that they are wireless telephone jacks.
Whatever they are, they are "legal" FCC devices that operate on power lines on a single frequency, with the majority of the emissions coming from residential 110/220 v wiring. BPL wants to put signals at the same level, but completely filling tens of MHz of spectrum, on overhead power lines, and then build that system as large as an entire community -- or entire electric-utility service area.
We would then have the same situationo on tens of MHz.
BPL that operates at the FCC limits renders any spectrum it uses useless locally. And, according to NTIA, by their standards, locally can be about 100 meters to a mobile station and 700 meters to a fixed station. We use weaker signals than they do, and amateurs have reported BPL interfence from a mile away.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: North Carolina Utility Decommissioning BPL Fie
|
|
|
by BPL on November 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's quite obvious that the majority of people who post on this site completely disreguard the fact the BPL could potentially provide broadband to millions of people, in turn creating more competition among broadband providers and forcing them to lower prices and make it more accessible to rural areas. IF you cannot see the all of the positive implications that BPL presents, its time that you take a look. You don't like it because of its interference issues, all of which will be solved with time. Open your mind to a technology that could change our future, whether you like it or not BPL is here to stay.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
New Restrictions on BPL in Australia:
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:
Do We Shoot for the Moon?
Other News Articles
Amateur Radio Group Puts Focus On Emergency Communication:
Lester, Daniel C. 'Danny' KE9SE, (SK):
World War II-Era Navigation System Shut Down:
CU Space Project to Study How a Violent Sun Can Affect Earth:
ARNewsline #1695 -- February 5 2010:
|
