RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 10th 03, 02:29 PM

N2EY wrote:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message

Basically they come down to two ideas:

1) spectrum masking, which consists of not allowing the BPL systems to
use frequencies in the ham bands. Which is fine until something
nonlinear in the system causes intermodulation products, harmonics or
other spurious signals to fall in the ham bands. This method was used
to stop HomePlug and other in-building systems from tearing up 80
meters - AFTER our own W1RFI and other ARRL folks got the manufacturer
to recognize the problem.

2) "improved modes and modulations", which permit the use of lower
signal levels and hence lower signal leakage. Supposedly.

The BIG problem is obvious to anyone who actually goes out and looks
at a typical aerial distribution system. Lots of nice, long wires, way
up in the air, running all over everyone's neighborhood. Put a little
RF in them and watch it radiate.

Heck, one of the biggest problems in access BPL is that the lines are
"lossy" at RF. They're "lossy" because they radiate!

You can read the comments of others and leave your own at the FCC
website, via the ECFS system. Check out what the ARRL is saying and
doing at the ARRL website.

Where is the NTIA in all this?

Waiting for the right moment. Or totally oblivious.

They sure got their knickers in a twist
about hams having broad access to 60M because of the potential
interference to vital gummint HF comms from us.

Right - but they waited until AFTER all the comments were in and it
looked like FCC was gonna give us 150 kHz and full power. THEN they
spoke up, directly to FCC.

Prolly same thing going on now. If FCC stops BPL because of the work
of ARRL, IEEE and others, NTIA doesn't have to lift a finger.

BPL is not the same
kind of threat to the gummint itself than it is to us?

NTIA isn't going to admit that sort of thing right out in public
unless they have to.

Hams are not
the only users of HF, in fact we're close to being bit players
overall. What about the SWL's? All the gummint time & frequency
standards stations? All the HF military comms we don't know about? The
commercial PACTOR users?

Some of them are commenting. The IEEE Power Relaying committee did a
really good comment that recognized the need to protect hams and
others from BPL. There are also interesting safety and electrical
noise issues as well. Example: The access BPL systems use a bypass
filter to allow the signals to go around the pole pig, which is very
lossy at RF. What if the bypass filter develops a short, and tries to
put several KVs to ground through YOUR meter service? What about
electrical noise (besides the BPL signals) on the primary side getting
fed to the secondary side?

Question for Phil: At what point can opponents of BPL take it out of
the hands of the FCC and into the Federal courts? I'm thinking in
terms of the ARRL taking it to the wall and laying on the expert
witnesses Powell Jr. can't brush off like he can at this stage.

I'd say that sort of thing is a really, really, REALLY good way to get
the FCC seriously ****ed off at the BPL opponents (personally) and the
ARS in general. Even if such a case actually got to court, it would
have a one-in-a-google chance of winning. And if it was actually won,
FCC could make life VERY difficult for the winners, or the winners'
service, in a zillion different little ways.

Trying to "go over the FCC's head" is a last-ditch
nothing-left-to-lose desperation move, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Remember, the ARRL *did* sue the FCC some years ago, seems like it was in the 80's, and IIRC the issue was
the 220 mhz reallocation, though I'm not certain of that. Sure seemed a poor idea to me.