Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others
may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Knapp" wrote in message ... Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Translation: Ignore those without a large financial stake and listen to those who would do anything for a buck. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. The statement about amateurs didn't strike me as stating what kind of equipment would be effected, it seemed more an attempt to show amateur radio operators as a group of ignorant, backwards idividuals. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Here's my note to the media assistant....probably won't do much good but I
feel better anyway. 73 - Dino KLØS/4 ----------- As a licensed amateur radio operator, FCC call sign KL0S, I am very concerned with the spectrum pollution (interference) associated with the new broadband over power line technology the FCC is considering for approval for use by the power line industry. As a retired U.S. Army officer I have had extensive experience in radio communications operations under active electronic warfare conditions and many of the those experiences mirror the noise conditions that will potentially be generated by the BPL initiative. The industry plans to use a form of power line carrier (PLC) technology using existing low and medium-voltage power lines to deliver broadband (internet) services to homes and businesses. It uses frequencies between 2 MHz and 80 MHz; and ARRL laboratory and in field tests have documented that BPL causes interference (spectrum pollution) to HF and low-VHF frequencies currently in use by the Government (Department of Defense and Homeland Security), law enforcement agencies, amateur radio and commercial businesses. Further, the current BPL technology itself may be susceptible to transmissions from other existing services. To appreciate the level of interference, please visit the ARRL web page at [http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1] and listen to the BPL interference recorded from one of the FCC test sites. As I mentioned the noise portrayed eerily matches that encountered during electronic warfare conditions. Contrary to power industry claims, the ARRL tests convinced me the current BPL technology will generate major interference to existing services, including amateur radio, public service and and potentially other Homeland Security communications activities such as those conducted under the MARS AND SHARES programs. The ARRL President, Mr. Jim Haynie is prepared to provide the FCC with more details. He can be reached at 214-366-9400 or Regarding the FCC Notice of Inquiry, I recommend tightening of the FCC Part 15 requirements and/or standards for power line carrier (PLC) devices to assure they will not cause interference (or be susceptible from) to existing services. In addition, I would appreciate documentation from the FCC that adequate testing has been performed to assure broadband over power line technology will not cause interference to existing services. Hopefully, this testing will be well documented and made public before the technology is approved for use by the power line industry. I recently had occasion to work with my local power provider, Dominion Virginia Power on a power distribution system generated incidental radiator that caused significant noise at my home. The power company worked expeditiously to find and resolve the problem, however I can only imagine the magnitude of the problems that potentially will be initiated by BPL type incidental radiation levels. With only that small problem (a faulty underground cable splice) my ability to communicate was severely degraded, much to the same degree as discovered by the ARRL in their fact finding mission mentioned above. All communicators, both professional and amateur sincerely hope the power line industry discovers a technical solution to the BPL interference issue so we can all enjoy the benefits of having broadband internet to our home via power lines. Constantine T. Papas Colonel United States Army Retired |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Knapp" wrote in message ... Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others may like to do so as well: In response to the Press Release BPL I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been unacceptable. I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry. The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point. Translation: Ignore those without a large financial stake and listen to those who would do anything for a buck. Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used, the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF users and listeners. This is unacceptable. The statement about amateurs didn't strike me as stating what kind of equipment would be effected, it seemed more an attempt to show amateur radio operators as a group of ignorant, backwards idividuals. To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of level of interference" is also unacceptable. With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur communications. Sincerely, Gregory J. Knapp, J.D. 73, Greg, N6GK Jeff Maass" wrote in message ... Go and read this BPL related press release: http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser Pay particular attention to paragraph three! Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this release to the email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she should have a pretty full email box come Monday morning! 73, Jeff Maass K8ND |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Here's my note to the media assistant....probably won't do much good but I
feel better anyway. 73 - Dino KLØS/4 ----------- As a licensed amateur radio operator, FCC call sign KL0S, I am very concerned with the spectrum pollution (interference) associated with the new broadband over power line technology the FCC is considering for approval for use by the power line industry. As a retired U.S. Army officer I have had extensive experience in radio communications operations under active electronic warfare conditions and many of the those experiences mirror the noise conditions that will potentially be generated by the BPL initiative. The industry plans to use a form of power line carrier (PLC) technology using existing low and medium-voltage power lines to deliver broadband (internet) services to homes and businesses. It uses frequencies between 2 MHz and 80 MHz; and ARRL laboratory and in field tests have documented that BPL causes interference (spectrum pollution) to HF and low-VHF frequencies currently in use by the Government (Department of Defense and Homeland Security), law enforcement agencies, amateur radio and commercial businesses. Further, the current BPL technology itself may be susceptible to transmissions from other existing services. To appreciate the level of interference, please visit the ARRL web page at [http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1] and listen to the BPL interference recorded from one of the FCC test sites. As I mentioned the noise portrayed eerily matches that encountered during electronic warfare conditions. Contrary to power industry claims, the ARRL tests convinced me the current BPL technology will generate major interference to existing services, including amateur radio, public service and and potentially other Homeland Security communications activities such as those conducted under the MARS AND SHARES programs. The ARRL President, Mr. Jim Haynie is prepared to provide the FCC with more details. He can be reached at 214-366-9400 or Regarding the FCC Notice of Inquiry, I recommend tightening of the FCC Part 15 requirements and/or standards for power line carrier (PLC) devices to assure they will not cause interference (or be susceptible from) to existing services. In addition, I would appreciate documentation from the FCC that adequate testing has been performed to assure broadband over power line technology will not cause interference to existing services. Hopefully, this testing will be well documented and made public before the technology is approved for use by the power line industry. I recently had occasion to work with my local power provider, Dominion Virginia Power on a power distribution system generated incidental radiator that caused significant noise at my home. The power company worked expeditiously to find and resolve the problem, however I can only imagine the magnitude of the problems that potentially will be initiated by BPL type incidental radiation levels. With only that small problem (a faulty underground cable splice) my ability to communicate was severely degraded, much to the same degree as discovered by the ARRL in their fact finding mission mentioned above. All communicators, both professional and amateur sincerely hope the power line industry discovers a technical solution to the BPL interference issue so we can all enjoy the benefits of having broadband internet to our home via power lines. Constantine T. Papas Colonel United States Army Retired |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Derivation of the Reflection Coefficient? | Antenna | |||
BPL industry take on why power lines are not antennas | Antenna | |||
BPL pollution – file reply comments by August 6 | Antenna | |||
BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED | Antenna |