Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: BPL mitigation? Worst case scenario?  (Read 322 times)
WA2DTW
Member

Posts: 91




Ignore
« on: February 15, 2004, 01:25:32 PM »

If a worst-case scenario actually occurs, and BPL is widely adopted, is there ANY way of mitigating the interference?  (something like noise blanker, DSP, etc?)  Will CW still get through best of all?
Logged
N8UZE
Member

Posts: 1524




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2004, 02:05:30 PM »

Very narrow filters and high power operation of CW on both ends.  I'm saving up for that amp I never needed before.
Logged
KB9CRY
Member

Posts: 4284


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2004, 02:11:54 PM »

Yes, just operate on all the bands as much as possible.  Run a beacon, join in on every contest, talk on all the nets, chase counties, run HF mobile whereever your travel, just operate, operate.  BPL will have no luck in the presence of our legal HF signals.  No one will be able to connect with BPL and they will go back to cable or whatever they had before.  It's a proven fact that a mere 100 watts of HF will render BPL useless; and how will they know who to blame?  It's not like TV RFI where you can hear the transmitted signal.  I'm sure all of the other HF users, NTIA, FEMA, Police, Military will not just sit idling by and wait for BPL to interfere with them.  The interference issue works both ways and we, legally again, can just do whatever we want.  Fire up the amp if the BPL signal is too much; imagine those wars!!

But if folks want to give up now, I'll buy their FT-1000D for $100 cash.  Phil  KB9CRY
Logged
KB8ASO
Member

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2004, 02:13:57 PM »

From what I have read, the BPL providers will be required to provide a mitigation soulution by not using the offending frequencies.  As a ham I want 160, 80, 40, 30, 20, 17, 15, 12 and 10 meters to be excluded.  Will this happen?  No.  Exclusion reduces bandwidth.  Reduced bandwith = lower BPL speed.  Lower BPL speed = reduced revenue.  Money is the reason the FCC is proceeding with this plan.  There is no way that the BPL services will give up this much bandwith and I am not yet figuring in the other services that will want their frequencies excluded.  There is a JA that had  .wav files of BPL interference from a trial BPL in Japan ( Japan killed BPL by the way) that you could download.  Try a Google search.  You may like to run them through your favorite DSP filter to see what you get.  But the BPL signal was 30db over 9 so I do not think ANYTHING will help very much!

73
Randy AB9GO      
Logged
KB8ASO
Member

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2004, 02:30:14 PM »

"The interference issue works both ways and we, legally again, can just do whatever we want. Fire up the amp if the BPL signal is too much; imagine those wars!!"

Martin F. Jue will be a winner for sure in this war.  Think of all the Ameritron amplifiers he will be selling!  What a stinking mess.  All hams running 100 watts and most at the 600 + level.  QRP will be dead.  Think of all the RFI and neighbour complaints.  It's scary!  And when the BPL connections slow down the helpful folks at the BPL provider will be more than happy to provide info on how to complain to the FCC about those annoying hams ruining the connection for them.  Maybe they will provide fill in the blank forms with stamped and addressed envelopes!  Think I exagerate?   Just wait and time will tell.  ( I'll bet I'm right! )

Randy AB9GO    
Logged
K0BG
Member

Posts: 9833


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2004, 06:29:01 PM »

Although the complete NPRM is not yet out, those portions which are will require the BPL providers to cease using frequencies which cause interference to licensed users.

It reamins to be seen if this will eventually be the case, but guess what? We still can respond to the NPRM and maybe this time they'll see the light. But then again, money speaks very loudly, doesn't it?.

Alan, KØBG
Logged

AG4RQ
Member

Posts: 301


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2004, 06:33:53 PM »

"But if folks want to give up now, I'll buy their FT-1000D for $100 cash."

If we really get BPL, I'm going to take out a second mortgage on my place so I can buy up all that radio equipment dirt cheap. Once BPL is scrapped in favor of 802.11 up on 5 GHz, I'll make a killing on eBay with all those radios.

Seriously, I wish my fellow hams would stop panicking. We're not going to see BPL. If we do, it will only be for a brief time. The future of broadband Internet is 802.11, not the obsolete failed technology that we know as BPL. I refer to BPL as the Great White Elephant of the 21st Century.

Because of the way the FCC has been touting BPL as the greatest thing since sliced white bread, they had to issue the NPRM. I saw it coming. I'm not surprised about the NPRM. The FCC had to humor the BPL proponents. Any engineer down at the FCC I'm sure realizes that this White Elephant isn't going to "fly". I still say BPL's going nowhere. NTIA is not through with their tests yet. They are very alarmed about BPL. So is FEMA. The wireless providers, most notably Cingular came out against BPL. Cingular fears that harmonics from BPL will degrade cellular communication on 800 MHz, and maybe even as high as 1.9 GHz. We still need to submit our comments to the FCC about it, but quit worrying about BPL.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!