ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 41
on
October 15, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial:
The ARRL this week asked the FCC to shut down a BPL field trial system in
Briarcliff Manor, New York, that has been the subject of past interference
complaints. The ARRL says the system, operated by Ambient Corporation
under an FCC Experimental license, continues to cause "harmful
interference" to amateur stations and that the FCC must require it to
cease operation immediately.
"The operator of the system has attempted what it referred to as
'adjustments' in this system in order to reduce the severe interference
potential to licensed radio services such as the Amateur Service," said
ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD. "These 'adjustments' have come to
be inaccurately referred to as 'notching' of certain bands, and as a
solution to interference to Amateur Service stations, they are incomplete
and inadequate."
The ARRL's October 8 letter of complaint asserts that the Briarcliff Manor
system not only is currently causing interference but fails to comply with
either applicable FCC Part 15 regulations or with the terms of its FCC
experimental authorization.
ARRL said the BPL facility at Briarcliff Manor should not be permitted to
resume operation until it can demonstrate "full compliance" with FCC
rules. The League also called on the FCC to impose "appropriate monetary
forfeitures" against Ambient.
Accompanying the League's complaint were technical exhibits substantiating
the degree of interference the League alleges. One exhibit shows the
results of frequency-shifting adjustments Ambient made to the system in
the wake of "multiple interference complaints from licensed radio
amateurs." The complaint maintains that the adjustments failed to reduce
interference on "a substantial portion" of the HF amateur allocations. The
ARRL study says Ambient has been trying for more than a year to mitigate
interference by using "notching" techniques, "but to no avail."
The ARRL said measurements taken at 14.3 MHz at one point in the system
"revealed 30 to 40 dB of degradation to Amateur Radio operations along a
stretch of road over a kilometer in length." A sweep at another location
showed that BPL signals occupying the entire 15-meter band remained strong
more than a quarter mile from the BPL injector.
"The levels of interfering BPL signals are sufficient to obscure virtually
all Amateur Radio received signals and preclude Amateur Radio
communications in the areas and on the bands identified in the report,"
the ARRL concluded.
ARRL member Alan Crosswell, N2YGK, a resident of the community, has
documented interference, complaints and related information on his "BPL in
Briarcliff Manor" Web site
http://www.columbia.edu/~alan/bpl/.
The Briarcliff Manor BPL system, which is operated by the electric utility
Consolidated Edison, was the focus of a March 2004 front-page Wall Street
Journal article, "In This Power Play, High-Wire Act Riles Ham-Radio Fans,"
by technology writer Ken Brown. ARRL staff members accompanied Brown to
the BPL site so he could hear the interference firsthand.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 41
October 15, 2004
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Tria
|
|
|
by N0QB on October 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
They did excellent work.....Brad
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks, Brad. And it made a difference. FCC went from starting a BPL Notice of Inquiry by stating that they felt that most of the rules restricting BPL could be removed. They ended up not removing anything, but adding the most stringent of requirements that exist for any unlicensed device. Not a smashing rout by any means, but absolutely not a defeat. (Ideally, BPL would not be permitted, but the FCC was politically not willing or able to change the rules to make what is legal under the old rules illegal under the new.)
This is one of several technical analyses that ARRL did of systems, or the reports that BPL manufacturers filed about their own testing. In each case, their test methods were flawed in very fundamental ways, from using instrumentation incorrectly to seeing signal levels adjusted all over the place to show a system in compliance. The end result was that it was clear to FCC and NTIA that certification of BPL equipment was necessary, not the "verification" process that essentially put manufacturers on an honor system.
The devil in this proceeding will be in the details, so the next step is to wait for the actual Report and Order. In the meantime, now that I won't have to spend as much time writing technical reports, I can increase the amount of time I can spend with the BPL teams in BPL areas, and either document that there is interference, or none.
I have serious doubts about the practicality of FCC's "solution," but I am sure they believe that they have solved the interference problem. But at least they recognize it, and right now, EMC issues are high on the list at the IEEE standards level, as all concerned are better understanding that Part-15 levels translate to strong local interference potential, and that the potential will be realized any time that a Part-15 level signal is present on spectrum being used locally.
For a device that radiates some of the time on some of the spectrum over a very limited geographical area, that potential does not result in interference most of the time. A device that radiates on a lot of the spectrum most of the time over a large geographical area will result in interference most of the time. Not all of that system is near radio receivers using that spectrum, but if that system is built large enough, every radio receiver in its service area will meet the criteria to receive interference, if that system uses any spectrum that the receiver is trying to hear.
Getting that point across to all concerned was a monumental job, but at this point, the point has been made well enough that FCC enacted rules that go well past any other with respect to interference. Interference will occur nonetheless, and those rules are not the end of the process, but the beginning. Part 15 rules were not written to unconditionally prevent interference; they were written to minimize the likelihood that interference will occur. When it does occur, however, the rules also state that the interference must be addressed.
When it happens, ARRL will help amateurs document that it is caused by BPL and to get the interference reported and corrected. We are also working with this industry to help them better understand just where the interference bar is set, and why, and some of them are ready to work directly with us to better understand just what our concerns are.
But no matter what is done to "mitigate" interference, the bottom line is that BPL will use spectrum allocated to someone. The federal government recognized this clearly as they carved out much of their spectrum as being off limits for BPL. Amateur Radio may be protected -- to some extent -- but I have personally seen it not protected at all, even in systems that have claimed to have mitigated interference. I have personally seen shortwave broadcast and CB spectrum with S9+ noise, even in systems that are trying not to use amateur spectrum.
Those users should be concerned, too, and as ARRL does testing on systems to see what they do to amateur radio, its test results on all spectrum may prove helpful to other users, if they are willing to take steps to help themselves.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Was a busy day at the FCC yesterday. Major steps toward fiber-to-the-home.
Interesting how this is missing from any BPL press release from the ARRL, but was handled at the same proceeding. Like the Presidential "BPL speech" distrortion & ommission, one must look elsewhere to get the whole story! Take the blinders off!
New Wireless Broadband Frequencies:
The FCC also allocated spectrum to allow Federal operations to be cleared from spectrum that has been allocated for advanced wireless services (AWS). The action is an important step towards the future auction of 90 MHz of spectrum for AWS. The 1.7 GHz band was transferred from the Federal Government to the private sector, but Federal operations at certain locations were to remain in this spectrum indefinitely. The U.S. NTIA, working with the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies, developed a set of proposals to clear this spectrum so that it could be made available, according to Converge Digest. The Commission previously allocated the 1710-1755 MHz (1.7 GHz) and 2110 2155 MHz (2.1 GHz) bands for AWS.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The link to the technical report of the measurements made in Briarcliff Manor was not included in the ARRL Letter version of the story. It is:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/11/3/BPL-complaint-letter-Briarcliff-Manor-2.pdf
Point source, indeed! :-)
73,
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Did I understand the article on
the ARRL web pagbe correctly, Ed?
If I receive BPL interference on the USCG
CAMSLANT Chesapeake 5696 and 8983 kHz
and USAF GHFS 11175 kHz that I monitor 24/7, the
BPL vendor must remove it forthwith or
shut down?
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF, you are by your own
admission NOT a League member so
don't worry about what we have or
don't have on OUR web site.
I see why folks are so rude to you, you
can't take a hint.
In fact, I noticed both EHam and
QRZ don't even bother to list you.
Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> If I receive BPL interference on the USCG
> CAMSLANT Chesapeake 5696 and 8983 kHz
> and USAF GHFS 11175 kHz that I monitor 24/7, the
> BPL vendor must remove it forthwith or
> shut down?
Any harmful interference must be addressed under the rules. I would say, though, that if you are monitoring that spectrum out of idle speculation, it may not be protected for you. If you were monitoring that spectrum in conjunction with activities related to USCG or USAF, then I think it would be protected.
Ultimately, BPL will not be able to use a number of bands of spectrum, but in the meantime, existing systems can operate under "transition" rules. Such transitions are not uncommon -- amateur radio was given a lengthy transition to comply with changes to the RF safety rules.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by KE5ADB on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WA4MJF as far as jumping on someone, K4RAF is a ham. Just because he isn't a member of "the league" doesn't mean he can't have his own opinion. Do you really think your little "league" is doing all it can to fight this BPL issue? I don't think so. I understand some people join the league as far as thinking it may help them out in some way or another. I guess for people like you though, you think it is some kind of fraternity. Before you begin to start cutting people down, look at yourself first. I get tired of people like you, that think "well you're not an extra, so you're a piece of shit". Get a life, learn to try and help people out instead of trying to belittle them. There is a club here in Tulsa that i refuse to join because there are too many people like you in it. I take pride in what I am and do. You should do the same. There ain't no excuse to be an eliteist prick. 73
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by KA9CCH on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL still has to pass the economic test. See this article on fibre to the home:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0410150349oct15,1,2951113.story
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE5ADB,
I can see you haven't read my posts
which are quite extensive. I challange you
to see where I've mentioned being an
Amateur Extra, the correct term BTW,
in the context of berating someone.
Look hard, now,hear! Then either come back
an apologize like a man or show me where I
said " well you're not as extra (sic),
so you're a piece of shit". If you can't do
one or the other, then just don't talk with me
anymore.
As far as K4RAF, he bitches and moans
about everything an organization that
he does not belong to, has no say in,
has no effect on him, etc does. So I let him
know that if he wants any of the above join,
otherwise butt out. Is that clear to
you now?
It would be same-same as me complaining
about what AOPA does or doesn't do. I'm
not a member so it is NONE of my business.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE5ADB:
Perhaps a "look in the mirror" is warranted for yourself?
I've looked in the mirror many times and seen the cause of lots of my problems.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"As far as K4RAF, he bitches and moans about everything an organization that has no effect on him, etc. I let him know that if he wants any of the above join, otherwise butt out. Is that clear to you now?"
Wrong across the board Ron. I was a member, until they kicked out my state's ARES team wholesale, over not handing up training fee money! That was it for me, done!
Wrong on "no effect" since I hold a valid license, the ARRL affects me regardless of "memherdship" when they drive FCC matters that impact my license & my operations. They watered down my 13WPM without even a kiss. I don't need the ARRL to lobby for me. I go to FCC ECFS to file my opinions, without being hoodwinked into being a drone in the ARRL. I am free to bitch & will continue to make my points known.
Hints? Too bad you can't get my hint about your 56 character wide postings. What a rocket scientist Ronnie, you can't quite figure out the window word wraps?
As far as my lookup, Fred "de-listed" me since he refused to correct my 8 year old email address for the 38th time so I asked "fix it or nix it". I never was banned for any reason, I never even posted on that BS board. Since eHam depends on QRZ for database lookups, I am now unlisted. Sweet! The fcc.gov/uls is all that matters in the long run, valid till 2012!!!
Unlike you, I never got banned from QRZ for posting blatantly racist asian slurs! How soon we forget our own skeletons!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I don't need the ARRL to lobby for me. I go to FCC
> ECFS to file my opinions, without being hoodwinked
> into being a drone in the ARRL. I am free to bitch &
> will continue to make my points known.
I don't recall any filed comments from you in either of the BPL proceedings. Did I miss them, or did you limit your "making your points known" to amateur fora?
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF,
That is NO skeleton, it is a
badge of honor for not buckling
to PC pressure! I called
CHICOMS CHINKS and I do all the
time. The real Chinese are on
Formosa. Some PC editor gave
me the boot as is their RIGHT.
The site is private property.
Why do you think that would be a skeleton?
I don't float in the wind, I call
them like I see'um and am not intimidated
by the PC crowd.
The ARRL does NOT control the FCC, anymore
that QCWA, NCVEC, etc.
As far as your admission of the Section
not turning overto the League monies that
were owed, I can see why the
League did what they did.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
Probably K4RAF did not. I did and was surprised
when Tom Brown told us how FEW in NC
Section did.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by W5JBP on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
QUOTE:
Wrong across the board Ron. I was a member, until they kicked out my state's ARES team wholesale, over not handing up training fee money! That was it for me, done!
K4RAF, I would like the details of this statement. We have never ask an ARES team to send in money. Please provide me with the facts of your post.
Jim, W5JBP
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
We discussed this some time ago via private email. You deny telling me "Yes, it was an ugly situation that had to be handled"? You never disputed my facts then.
So Jim, what is the current official spin as to why the entire ARES/RACES team was replaced by force, against the wishes of the majority of Virginia "membership"? No email, phonecall or letter was going to change what you in Newington were defiantly forcing upon us, here in our state. That affected every resident of Virginia, not Connecticut, not just ARRL members! VSP/EOC sure wasn't impressed with the "amateur circus"!
Dirty pool is just that. I now work together with those who were pushed aside & have much more I won't post in a public forum. I can be reached at k4raf@yahoo.com if you'd like to take it off the streets!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Ed, Probably K4RAF did not. I did and was surprised when Tom Brown told us how FEW in NC Section did."
I never said I commented on BPL via ECFS. Reading the mispelled ramblings of BPL jihadist lunatics was enough to keep me out of it. Now I widely read (but don't advocate) jamming BPL, transmitting INTO powerlines or worse yet, firearm use to disable BPL systems? I have read many hams openly conspire to do so but that is a matter for the FBI to deal with, under Title 18 "Willful Distruction of Communications Facilities". I work within the system & am a "glass half full" kind of person when it comes to technical matters & the FCC. Maybe it is my professional dicipline & not the amateur anarchy expressed by the illiterates amongst us. Amateur ECFS comments are generally embarrassing to read.
I have used FCC ECFS extensively for other NPRMs, both amateur & commercial matters. I also follow it up with written copies to assure my opinion is counted.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only one I found on the ECFS was:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516088227
It goes back to 2002. Not a volume of posts that I would characterize as "extensively," although older posts may have scrolled off the search engine. (I don't know how far back they go.)
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Didn't Report The Whole FCC Day
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jamming BPL is a BAD idea.
If people "jam BPL" how long will it be before BPL providers figure it out, complain and ask FCC to impose "quiet hours" on the ham?
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL decides, you pay!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF:
You just don't get it.
The almighty ARRL knows what is best for ham radio and you. Like the pope, they are infalable and answer only to God. In fact, just try to find out how the directors voted on the proposal to give away HF priveleges.....all you will get is QRN.
Just whom do you think you are disagreeing and questioning ARRL? Your role is limited to sending in dues and buying over-priced publications. How dare you disagree!
W9WHE
|
| |
|
ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Tria
|
|
|
by AF4K on October 25, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's a pity all you guys have done is fight, but perhaps some good oints were made by both sides
here...
I wish we could find out what is going on in Briarcliff Manor's BPL mess.
There is that one web site, but he hasn't updated it
since May or something.
Is the absurd level of QRM still going on?
Has the FCC shut these idiots down yet?
I agree that ARRL seems to be highly ineffective
at times. I am a member, and I am alarmed at what they
are giving away on HF too. The BIGGEST concern should
be the commandeering of HF by these UNATTENDED robot
Pactor stations that are the BLIGHT of 40m and 20m
these days! Try having a digital or CW QSO these days.
You almost can't have one without being stepped on by
these QRO powerhouses with NO OPRERATOR thanjs to the
rules that were sneaked through by WINKLINK
CORP., ARRL and FCC unknown to most hams.
The ARRL Digital Committe is in on the multi-million
dollar bandwagon and is not acting in the interest
of amateur radio. I heard that two prominent members
resigned in protest as a last ditch attempt to get
SOMETHING done to stop the hideous strength of
WINLINK-Pactor from completely taking away the HF
bands for their own quasi-commercial use.
I think it's a disgrace that our ARRL is STILL
pushing this more and more every month now in
the pages of QST too.
BPL is a major problem. I think WINLINK is a worse one!
Let's get this around to something substantive.
WHAT is being done about Briarcliff Manor and other
power company QRM pests?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Broadband Over Power Lines Gathers Steam:
Nation's First Citywide Broadband-Over-Powerline Site Inaugurated:
BPL Isn't Dead Yet!
COMTek: Finetuning of BPL in Manassas Complete Ham Radio Concerns Addressed
Arizona BPL Field Trial Ends:
Other News Articles
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
Indonesia To Launch Orari Satellite Next Year:
Radio Enthusiasts Help Red Cross During Games:
Smugglers Had Illegal Ham Radio:
ARNewsline # 1682 -- November 6 2009:
|
