It isn't Dick ... it's open to the world.

Apparently my "nevermind" is taking a while to propagate :)

They always do.

The ARRL is doing some pretty important work on this one. What would the League
have to do to get you as a member?

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

So who do hams call for assistance, the ARRL? I haven't seen anything
from them suggesting that.

I have just completed the draft of the letter that ARRL will send to hams in
the trial cities, asking for reports and offering to help vet them before
they
are sent. It should go out this week.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab



If there are RFI complaints, kindly correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to
recall that the FCC has the purview on such matters, not a non-profit
organization.

Ed, is there some reason why radio amateurs cannot document their complaints,
if they exist, to the FCC directly? Why is it preferable to go through a non
profit organization? Is there some additional technical capacity which the
radio amateur requires in order to make an RFI complaint? If so, could you
kindly let us know what that is and how it is accessed?

Many thanks.

73,
Chip N1IR

Hams are not the only users of the affected spectrum. They may be the
most vocal, but perhaps the easiest to discredit or deflect.

What about the other users of the HF-thru-VHF spectrum? Police, Fire,
EMS, Federal Government, Business, Utilities (the power companies
themselves), Military, Aviation, etc., etc.?

Do they not have consultants who are in touch with industry affairs?

Does APCO (and other industry communications associations) not have
knowledge about BPL and a position on it?

What is the ARRL doing to join forces with other affected spectrum
users, perhaps forming a task force to promote common interests?
Lobbying senators and congressmen, the Commission, NTIA, etc.?

If the utilities' strategy is to divide and conquer, it appears they
are being very effective.

73
Dan (K0DAN)



On 14 Oct 2003 14:03:08 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

W1RFI wrote:

You raise an interesting question, Carl. How exactly should the
average ham go about proving that the RFI is indeed BPL, when the BPL
people say
"That's not us!'??


In the case in Emmaus, the PPL rep told a reporter that Carl had misidentified
a "neon sign" (in a residential neighborhood) as BPL. First, Carl is
professionally adept with spread spectrum, so he knows what an SS signal sounds
like. The signal was heard only in the trial area and when I was in Emmaus, I
worked with a local in the trial area who downloaded files for me. When the
download started, the noise started; when it stopped, the noise stopped.

What really proves it to be not a neon sign, however, is that the time-domain
(oscilloscope) signature of the received signal does not have a pronounced
120-Hz signature. Had the PPL representative actually looked at the signal, he
would have known that his "explanation" was pretty transparent.

I have extended by email a very cordial inviation for the PPL folks to attend a
local club talk I gave; they did not respond. I then emailed a cordial
invitation to work with them on interference issues; they did not respond. This
boggles the mind, because if I were about to invest millions of dollars of my
company's money and a national organization came to me and told me that there
was a serious problem with the technology, and offered to drive over 200 miles
just to show it to me, I think I would spend the hour or two and take a look.



It's beyond obvious that the BPL people are adamantly intent on
stonewealling and bypassing ham radio and anything else that tries to
get in the way.
They're aware that many of the impacted spectrum users are so widely
scattered that much of the interference caused by BPL even when it
becomes widely implemented they won't be noticed due to their limited
exposure caused by lack of adequately close proximity.

Hams, which *are* pretty well scattered throughout the population,
should be ignored and their complaints deflected by such incorrect
assertions as the above "neon sign" explanation. Make it so that there
is so much question as to hams' competance to make such a call they can
be portrayed to be wrong, whatever the facts. It's obvious obfuscation
and an end-run around us, and whatever other protesters weigh in that
can be similarily deflected. They hope that the "serious" users of that
part of the spectrum will prove to be so few and widely scattered that
their protests will be few and managable.

And once BPL installations are widespread, they know it would demand
a clearly demonstrated, very serious interference problem to csuse its
abandonment, and they don't think that will happen. They maybe right.
If so many users sign on that the sheer numbers of BPL users overwhelm
all the protests of spectrum pollution and damage to communications
sheer numbers and politics will prevail in their favor, they believe.
All they really need to do is get it approved and "out there" in large
amounts in most populated areas, then the situation will take care of
itself, they think.

If allowed to proceed, BPL will forever change usability of the HF and
Low VHF part of the spectrum.

Precisely ..

Dick Carroll wrote:



Proximity to the power grid would be the main clincher, IMO, but what
about skywave propagation? That stuff could go around the world at QRP
evels!

And it will. You can even work VK6 from W5 on 40CW with one watt. If
it radiates, it also radiates skywave. Which mnakes this issue one for
WARC as well, bigtime.

--


-- Sleep well; OS2's still awake! ;)

Mike Luther

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Roger Halstead wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:27:27 -0400, a 32 bit process
wrote:


On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:56:50 GMT, "James Wilson"
wrote:


What does BPL sound like? Can someone post a wav file somewhere so it
can
be identified? Is it worse that the Pennsylvania QSO party?

It almost sounds like a geiger counter, but a lot louder and the
clicking is quicker in pace.


After having gone to the ARRL site and listened to the examples, all I
can say is it sounds just like precipitation static and/or loose
connections. No way would I be able to identify one from the other.
I'm just going to have to complain every time I hear noise and make
recordings. If it's noisy enough to be a problem it should be fixed.



Proximity to the power grid would be the main clincher, IMO, but what
about skywave propagation? That stuff could go around the world at QRP
evels!





BTW, most of the links failed and instead I ended up hijacked to QSL
dot net. (they call it redirecting, but if I didn't select to go
there, I don't want to go there...I'll settle for the 404 screen
instead of giving some one advertizing points.)

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)




Yep.....I've worked QRPp stations using miliwatts of output.

Can you imagine this garbage being generated and then propagated worldwide.
My Gawd !!!!

Dan/W4NTI

Some of the trial areas have about 10 homes in them. The industry still
says,
with a straight face, we had no reports of interference, so this "proves"
we
won't interfere.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

If I was a suspicious fellow, I might thing they were putting callbook data
through it's paces, and selecting areas based on low ham count.

"W1RFI" wrote in message
...
It isn't Dick ... it's open to the world.

Apparently my "nevermind" is taking a while to propagate :)

They always do.

The ARRL is doing some pretty important work on this one. What would the
League
have to do to get you as a member?

Well.. I've been rather turned off by the "luddite"s in my local area.
Until recently, our league section person was the head of the VEC group
locally, an she refused to allow farnsworth testing for CW. There was no
web presence, no response to emails. You'd have to be there.. The general
thread was "if you're not an HF contester or rag chewer, hang up now". We
have a new section person, but it dosen't seem anything's changing.

The ARRL bandplan for 902, is pretty much unusable, since the vast majority
of commercial gear that can be used in this band, won't work with the 12 MHz
split.

I do see that the ARRL is going to be very important on this issue, and I'm
available to make observations within any reasonable driving distance of my
QTH. (Muncie Indiana)

Wether I'm a member or not shouldn't affect the validity of my data.

I've got an FT-847 that I can take mobile, and also Tek 7L12 spectrum
analyzer for direct measurements. This is an older swept analog, rather
than a new DSP analyzer. The DSP based systems are not so good at finding
pulsed noise. Sometime I'll relate the story of how an IC-R8500
dramatically out performed the latest and greatest HP EMI analysis suite in
finding an EMI problem.

I am interested to know how you're calibrating your mobile to get uV/Meter
measurements.

In the eyes of the BPL, there's no problem with the technology that
needs to be addressed. It will make barrels of money for them. So what's
the problem?

I've learned that when the actions of a person or company don't make
sense, it's simply because I've misunderstood their motives or
situation. Their response is perfectly logical if you begin with the
premise that the necessary money has been spent on the right politicians
and political campaigns to assure approval regardless of the actions of
irritating gnats like hams and the ARRL. If that's the case, then it's
simply a waste of time and money for them to pay any attention to the
likes of the ARRL.

I'll bet you'll find that their other actions are consistent with this
model. I suspect that the ARRL's effort would better be spent locating
and trying to persuade the purchased politicians that their political
futures might be affected by approval, rather than trying to convince
the BPL that there's something wrong with their attempt to make lots of
money.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

W1RFI wrote:
. . .
I have extended by email a very cordial inviation for the PPL folks to attend a
local club talk I gave; they did not respond. I then emailed a cordial
invitation to work with them on interference issues; they did not respond. This
boggles the mind, because if I were about to invest millions of dollars of my
company's money and a national organization came to me and told me that there
was a serious problem with the technology, and offered to drive over 200 miles
just to show it to me, I think I would spend the hour or two and take a look.

I'll bet you'll find that their other actions are consistent with this
model. I suspect that the ARRL's effort would better be spent locating
and trying to persuade the purchased politicians that their political
futures might be affected by approval, rather than trying to convince
the BPL that there's something wrong with their attempt to make lots of
money.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

At this point, they are probably still actively persuing investors.
If the investors get the idea that there's a potential dead end here, they
will go elsewhere.
The ones that are already in though, will be mad at us, most likely.
:(

Write or call your local AM broadcast stations and tell them that
thier signal is being wiped out and you can't recieve them.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Sorry Ed ... I miss-spoke ... they both begin with "A" and I
got the backwards ...

Carl - wk3c

"W1RFI" wrote in message
...
The Emmaus test site video (test area #3) should be pretty representative
of the "main.net" system ... test area #4 is the Amperion OFDM system.
There could be others that might have different "signatures" ...

Just as a mnor correction, test area #4, in Briarcliff Manor, NY, is an
Ambient
system. The Amperion system is also OFDM and has a very similar sound. I
found
it easily in Whitehall, PA, once I drove into the test area.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Dick,

I'm not at all sure who uses what spectrum in the areas where they are
testing BPL, but I'd bet coffee for a week that those folks studied the
situation carefully before proceeding. Where did they test (I don't know of
all areas and I'm asking a sincere question)? The "promise" of BPL is to
serve areas that are not served well by cable or DSL. Did they test a
fairly substantial area in the country where they could demonstrate
far-flung connections to the BPL, or did they test in densely populated
areas that are already served by various broadband connection (where fire,
police, emergency, etc. are very likely not on low band VHF)? Also, FM
broadcasting is usually located near large population areas (since signals
tend to die off pretty quickly after 40 or 60 miles). This means that if
you have BPL in a city, it is unlikely that residents will experience
capture effect on the FM receivers since they will be getting *huge* signals
on their FM receivers. I note the "neon sign" comment in the thread. Neon
signs are usually found in cities. Those test sites are likely located
either in a city or in an area where the money interests already checked the
FCC site to ensure no low band VHF use by police, fire, ambulance, etc.

Any thoughts on this, or am I crazy?


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Before I retired I was a field engineer working with a statewide
public safety organization which uses low band VHF for base to car
communications statewide, and that system is still virtually as I left
it nearly 10 years ago. I have learned that they are aware of the BPL
docket and filed in opposition, and have some idea that it will impact
their communications, but I wonder if they have a clear view of what
looms should BPL be widely implemented. While working I spent
considerable time on RF noise issues, and I am rather sure that such a
radio system cannot coexist with BPL.

What happens is that when the noise intererence reaches a certain
level, in a FM receiver the limiter saturates, and even a strong
on-channel signal will not cause the squelch to open. The reciever
remains quiet, and the call is unanswered.
I was able to locate one troublesome noise source which was reported
as repeater trouble in that the repeater would ocassionally go quiet in
mid-transmission when a car was calling in. By the time I would drive
the substantial distance to the repeater, a thorough checkout found no
problem with the repeate equipment whatever. After several fruitless
trips and attempts to find the trouble, I finally happened to be onsite
when the trouble appeared, and it was all limiter saturation. Looking
around outside while the noise was present in an attempt to spot a
source in the local rural area, I soon found it- an arc welder in a shop
several hundred yards away. When the welder was in use, the arc caused
noise that saturated the receiver limiter, effectively shutting down the
repeater. We relocated that repeater to a more isolated site where it
still functions as intended.
That example is but one case. BPL will, following power lines, also
follow roads and streets since power lines follow streets and
highway/road rights of way everywhere - the same places where police and
highway patrol units'communications are active. The interference issue
simply WILL cause something drastic to be implemented, what I don't
know. If common sense has anything to do with it, BPL will be sent
packing. Widesp[read implementation of BPL spells the end of lowband VHF
use by public safety organizations. And with states' budgets in the
deflated condition they are in most places, the funding will not be
available to replace those systems in the forseeable future.

I just called a former co-worker who is still working, and asked him
if the organization knows that there is a BPL test site in the state.
He said they did not. I suggested he might want to pass the word on up
the chain so that they might want to send a mobile unit into the test
area to get firsthand information on just what the effects might be. I'm
also passing along all the info I've gathred here and from other
sources. We'll need all the help we can get on this turkey.

In short, I'm coninced that while APCO and others may know
of the BPL docket I wonder if they have a very clear concept of
what it will do to them where low band VHF is used.
For instance, what have you heard from the state of Calorfinia, which
is reported to use low band VHF for their statewide Highway Patrol, and
has over 5,000 mobile units with no telling how many base stations?
I have heard nothing whatever from anyone there on BPL.

It seems evident that the BPL people are not publishing the existance
of these very small test sites any more widely than necessary. So, they
won't garner very many,if any, BPL-specific complaints, will they? And
they'll be able to say "We must not be causing destructive interference
since we haven't generated complaints". Of course limiting the numbers
of users in test areas to a very few drastically limits the amount of
interference potential. With so few BPL users online there *won't* be
much interference caused, thus few or no complaints. Then they will
conveniently pass over this fact, and the decision makers won't know the
difference.

Someone with clout needs to take them to task with the FCC and force
them to use much broader test areas with much more realistic noise
levels generated so that a more realistic noise picture can be
evaluated. As it stands, they may well get what they want by default.

Dick W0EX



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/03

James Wilson wrote:
What does BPL sound like? Can someone post a wav file somewhere so it can
be identified? Is it worse that the Pennsylvania QSO party?

Did someone take over a frequency you owned?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dick you bring up good technical and adminsitrative examples. My
career too is in land mobile (public safety and railroads) and while
there is plenty of trunking and digital taking place above 450 Mhz,
there is also plenty of low and high band activity, and always will
be.

The ARRL seems to be doing a good job studying the BPL issue and
informing the ham community, but the public safety, industrial,
business, government, etc., users will have a louder and more credible
voice (safety of lives & property, commerce, homeland security, etc.).

I am wondering what the ARRL is doing to form coalitions with other
(non-amateur) stakeholders, and to build concensus that has a loud and
effective enough voice with the Commission and with Congress.
Politically and techincally, the ARRL and/or the amateur community
cannot stop this on their own.

73
Dan (K0DAN)


On 14 Oct 2003 20:42:09 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

dt wrote:
Hams are not the only users of the affected spectrum. They may be the
most vocal, but perhaps the easiest to discredit or deflect.

What about the other users of the HF-thru-VHF spectrum? Police, Fire,
EMS, Federal Government, Business, Utilities (the power companies
themselves), Military, Aviation, etc., etc.?

Do they not have consultants who are in touch with industry affairs?

Does APCO (and other industry communications associations) not have
knowledge about BPL and a position on it?


Before I retired I was a field engineer working with a statewide
public safety organization which uses low band VHF for base to car
communications statewide, and that system is still virtually as I left
it nearly 10 years ago. I have learned that they are aware of the BPL
docket and filed in opposition, and have some idea that it will impact
their communications, but I wonder if they have a clear view of what
looms should BPL be widely implemented. While working I spent
considerable time on RF noise issues, and I am rather sure that such a
radio system cannot coexist with BPL.

What happens is that when the noise intererence reaches a certain
level, in a FM receiver the limiter saturates, and even a strong
on-channel signal will not cause the squelch to open. The reciever
remains quiet, and the call is unanswered.
I was able to locate one troublesome noise source which was reported
as repeater trouble in that the repeater would ocassionally go quiet in
mid-transmission when a car was calling in. By the time I would drive
the substantial distance to the repeater, a thorough checkout found no
problem with the repeate equipment whatever. After several fruitless
trips and attempts to find the trouble, I finally happened to be onsite
when the trouble appeared, and it was all limiter saturation. Looking
around outside while the noise was present in an attempt to spot a
source in the local rural area, I soon found it- an arc welder in a shop
several hundred yards away. When the welder was in use, the arc caused
noise that saturated the receiver limiter, effectively shutting down the
repeater. We relocated that repeater to a more isolated site where it
still functions as intended.
That example is but one case. BPL will, following power lines, also
follow roads and streets since power lines follow streets and
highway/road rights of way everywhere - the same places where police and
highway patrol units'communications are active. The interference issue
simply WILL cause something drastic to be implemented, what I don't
know. If common sense has anything to do with it, BPL will be sent
packing. Widesp[read implementation of BPL spells the end of lowband VHF
use by public safety organizations. And with states' budgets in the
deflated condition they are in most places, the funding will not be
available to replace those systems in the forseeable future.

I just called a former co-worker who is still working, and asked him
if the organization knows that there is a BPL test site in the state.
He said they did not. I suggested he might want to pass the word on up
the chain so that they might want to send a mobile unit into the test
area to get firsthand information on just what the effects might be. I'm
also passing along all the info I've gathred here and from other
sources. We'll need all the help we can get on this turkey.

In short, I'm coninced that while APCO and others may know
of the BPL docket I wonder if they have a very clear concept of
what it will do to them where low band VHF is used.
For instance, what have you heard from the state of Calorfinia, which
is reported to use low band VHF for their statewide Highway Patrol, and
has over 5,000 mobile units with no telling how many base stations?
I have heard nothing whatever from anyone there on BPL.

It seems evident that the BPL people are not publishing the existance
of these very small test sites any more widely than necessary. So, they
won't garner very many,if any, BPL-specific complaints, will they? And
they'll be able to say "We must not be causing destructive interference
since we haven't generated complaints". Of course limiting the numbers
of users in test areas to a very few drastically limits the amount of
interference potential. With so few BPL users online there *won't* be
much interference caused, thus few or no complaints. Then they will
conveniently pass over this fact, and the decision makers won't know the
difference.

Someone with clout needs to take them to task with the FCC and force
them to use much broader test areas with much more realistic noise
levels generated so that a more realistic noise picture can be
evaluated. As it stands, they may well get what they want by default.

Dick W0EX




What is the ARRL doing to join forces with other affected spectrum
users, perhaps forming a task force to promote common interests?
Lobbying senators and congressmen, the Commission, NTIA, etc.?

If the utilities' strategy is to divide and conquer, it appears they
are being very effective.

73
Dan (K0DAN)



On 14 Oct 2003 14:03:08 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:


W1RFI wrote:


You raise an interesting question, Carl. How exactly should the
average ham go about proving that the RFI is indeed BPL, when the BPL
people say
"That's not us!'??


In the case in Emmaus, the PPL rep told a reporter that Carl had misidentified
a "neon sign" (in a residential neighborhood) as BPL. First, Carl is
professionally adept with spread spectrum, so he knows what an SS signal sounds
like. The signal was heard only in the trial area and when I was in Emmaus, I
worked with a local in the trial area who downloaded files for me. When the
download started, the noise started; when it stopped, the noise stopped.

What really proves it to be not a neon sign, however, is that the time-domain
(oscilloscope) signature of the received signal does not have a pronounced
120-Hz signature. Had the PPL representative actually looked at the signal, he
would have known that his "explanation" was pretty transparent.

I have extended by email a very cordial inviation for the PPL folks to attend a
local club talk I gave; they did not respond. I then emailed a cordial
invitation to work with them on interference issues; they did not respond. This
boggles the mind, because if I were about to invest millions of dollars of my
company's money and a national organization came to me and told me that there
was a serious problem with the technology, and offered to drive over 200 miles
just to show it to me, I think I would spend the hour or two and take a look.



It's beyond obvious that the BPL people are adamantly intent on
stonewealling and bypassing ham radio and anything else that tries to
get in the way.
They're aware that many of the impacted spectrum users are so widely
scattered that much of the interference caused by BPL even when it
becomes widely implemented they won't be noticed due to their limited
exposure caused by lack of adequately close proximity.

Hams, which *are* pretty well scattered throughout the population,
should be ignored and their complaints deflected by such incorrect
assertions as the above "neon sign" explanation. Make it so that there
is so much question as to hams' competance to make such a call they can
be portrayed to be wrong, whatever the facts. It's obvious obfuscation
and an end-run around us, and whatever other protesters weigh in that
can be similarily deflected. They hope that the "serious" users of that
part of the spectrum will prove to be so few and widely scattered that
their protests will be few and managable.

And once BPL installations are widespread, they know it would demand
a clearly demonstrated, very serious interference problem to csuse its
abandonment, and they don't think that will happen. They maybe right.
If so many users sign on that the sheer numbers of BPL users overwhelm
all the protests of spectrum pollution and damage to communications
sheer numbers and politics will prevail in their favor, they believe.
All they really need to do is get it approved and "out there" in large
amounts in most populated areas, then the situation will take care of
itself, they think.

If allowed to proceed, BPL will forever change usability of the HF and
Low VHF part of the spectrum.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:26:53 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:

Write or call your local AM broadcast stations and tell them that
thier signal is being wiped out and you can't recieve them.

Only if it's true... Don't cry wolf, or we won't be believed when we
need it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Clint
KB5ZHT

Proximity to the power grid would be the main clincher, IMO, but what
about skywave propagation? That stuff could go around the world at QRP
levels!

No single signal will be heard by skywave; the power levels are too low.

Here's the math:

Power level: -50 dBm/Hz
Corrected to 3000 Hz: add 35 dB
Coupler loss: -10 dB
Powerline antenna gain: -10 dB
Path loss VOACAP: -110 dB

That gives a received signal level of -145 dBm/3 kHz, well below the ambient
noise at any HF station.

And millions of them may not make as much difference as we might think. They
way these systems work, they share bandwidth between many users, so the signals
are time muliplexed, so only one signal on a particular power line is active at
a time. 100 shared signals have the same peak field strength as 1 signal, for
the most part. So there may be 10,000 simultaneous emitters in a metro area.
That will add 40 dB, bringing it just above the band noise -- interesting, but
not conclusive.

The problem is local, and our concerns should be focused there.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Ed, is there a URL where we can view the location of all the test sites
now in use? How about future planned test sites?

Email me privately. I have put one together, but it has a lot of Mapquest maps
that are copyrighted, so I am not posting it. It is essentially for the "fair
use" of HQ staff and those working on the BPL issues in the field.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Ed, is there some reason why radio amateurs cannot document their
complaints,
if they exist, to the FCC directly?

They can, if they are certain that they are documenting BPL and not another
source. It is possible to misidentify other sources as BPL, so having a
time-domain and frequency-domain analysis of the received signal will be an
important cross check.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Well.. I've been rather turned off by the "luddite"s in my local area.
Until recently, our league section person was the head of the VEC group
locally, an she refused to allow farnsworth testing for CW.

That is pretty serious. I have cc'ed Bart Jahnke, ARRL's VEC Manager, who will
contact you for more details. Farnsworth testing is the "standard" for amateur
exams and refusing to give it would be a pretty serious breach of ethics.
Thanks for reporting it.

I do see that the ARRL is going to be very important on this issue, and I'm
available to make observations within any reasonable driving distance of my
QTH. (Muncie Indiana)

Wether I'm a member or not shouldn't affect the validity of my data.

You are correct, but your being a member or not will affect how much ARRL is
able to do in what you have deemed to be an important area. The important
things it has done so far have been paid for by someone else -- at 12 cents a
day.

I am interested to know how you're calibrating your mobile to get uV/Meter
measurements.

I did a rough calibration of my mobile-whip dipole by comparing it against a
half-wave dipole at the same height. From there, is is easy to calculate field
strength.

I have a draft document on the measurement method -- email me at
and I will send it along to you. Feedback welcome.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

At this point, they are probably still actively persuing investors.
If the investors get the idea that there's a potential dead end here, they
will go elsewhere.
The ones that are already in though, will be mad at us, most likely.

The investors may have already gotten some of the idea:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/...qd&Symbol=ABTG

The discussion board at:

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/b...ABTG&read=2259

is interesting, although only a little bit of discussion on what they term
"hammies." Interestingly, they seem blissfully unaware of the growing concern
and discussion about the interference potential to all of HF. I would imagine
that the BBC report alone should have sent the stock even lower, and when the
NTIA study is done, if what I found in Emmaus, PA is reported as found, things
may not look real good for the industry. I believe that it is easy enough to
sign up to be able to post to the board, although I think it best that I not do
so.

To my knowlege, Ambient (ABTG) is the only publically traded stock, although
Main.net may be traded in Israel.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Write or call your local AM broadcast stations and tell them that
thier signal is being wiped out and you can't recieve them.

When I was in Emmaus, PA, I turned on the car AM radio and didn't hear any
noise on the AM broadcast band. I believe that some of the reports may have
been in error.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Sorry Ed ... I miss-spoke ... they both begin with "A" and I
got the backwards ...

As the bumper sticker says, "It happens!" :-)

Thanks for all your work on this one, Carl.

And the funny part was when the PPL representative told the reporter that an
engineer who works in the spread-spectrum industry misidentified their
spread-spectrum signals as a "neon sign." That one belonged in Dave's "Baghdad
Bob" editorial. :-)

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

"W1RFI" wrote in message
...
Write or call your local AM broadcast stations and tell them that
thier signal is being wiped out and you can't recieve them.

When I was in Emmaus, PA, I turned on the car AM radio and didn't hear any
noise on the AM broadcast band. I believe that some of the reports may
have
been in error.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

I can confirm what Ed reports above ... on my first drive through the Emmaus
BPL area, I didn't have my FT-817 with me ... I noted little/no BPL noise
in the AM broadcast band ... perhaps a bit of extra noise at the very upper
end of the band around 1600 kHz, but nothing like what exists on 80-15m.

Again, I want to help Ed drive the point home - false claims of "BPL
interference"
will do a LOT of harm to our cause ... I encourage anyone who thinks they
might
be experiencing BPL interference to communicate with Ed and let him help to
verify
things.

I also encourage everyone to send a donation to the ARRL's BPL fund - you
don't have to agree with *everything* the ARRL does to be willing to help
to overcome this major threat to our future on HF.

Carl - wk3c

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Dick,

I'm not at all sure who uses what spectrum in the areas where they are
testing BPL, but I'd bet coffee for a week that those folks studied the
situation carefully before proceeding. Where did they test (I don't know
of
all areas and I'm asking a sincere question)?

The fact of the matter is that the ONLY serious technical studies
presented to the FCC in their Notice of Inquiry on BPL came from
the good work of Ed Hare, W1RFI, and his colleagues at ARRL.

The "access BPL" industry has done essentially nothing but "hand-
waving" and ignoring/denying that the problem exists. They want
to make $$$ ... and they don't appear to give a damn about the
impact on the other users of HF.

That they claim that "power wires don't radiate" (when NEC models,
as well as plain old common sense, indicate that they do) and that
"BPL is a 'point source' radiator" (how one can make that argument
when what they are building is essentially a large, distributed antenna
system) clearly indicate their deep state of "don't confuse the issue
with the facts" denial.

The "promise" of BPL is to serve areas that are not served well
by cable or DSL.

While DSL is not available in all areas due to the distance from the
central office factor and the phone companies' slow rollout in areas
of lower population density, acccording to the latest statistics I've
seen, cable "passes" 97%+ of US households. There are also
internet via satellite services available, using dishes like (sometimes
the same dish as) satellite TV services. There are also "WISPs"
who provide services using more appropriate spectrum in the low
microwave bands.

The business model for BPL is WAY less than compelling and its
technical suitability is poor as well, not only because of interference
TO the wide variety of licensed HF users, but also because of the
potential for interference to the BPL system FROM those licensed
users ... and BPL will have NO claim of protection from such interference.
My belief is that consumers deserve a more robust and reliable means
of receiving broadband internet services - one that doesn't present the
(bi-directional) interference issues of BPL - and that there are a number
of such alternatives available already.

Did they test a
fairly substantial area in the country where they could demonstrate
far-flung connections to the BPL, or did they test in densely populated
areas that are already served by various broadband connection (where fire,
police, emergency, etc. are very likely not on low band VHF)?

Ed has a better overall view of the current deployments of BPL, but I know
they are few and limited in scope at the moment.

Also, FM
broadcasting is usually located near large population areas (since signals
tend to die off pretty quickly after 40 or 60 miles). This means that if
you have BPL in a city, it is unlikely that residents will experience
capture effect on the FM receivers since they will be getting *huge*
signals
on their FM receivers.

S9+10 on a VERY short whip (an "Outbacker Joey") is a pretty huge
signal to me ... with BPL proposing to go up to 80 MHz, I would
think that the FM broadcast band is at relatively low risk, though FM
receivers could experience some degree of "desense" if the BPL
signal at the front end was strong enough due to proximity.

I note the "neon sign" comment in the thread. Neon
signs are usually found in cities.

The "neon sign" assertion by the representative of PPL (the Emmaus
BPL system operator) is *pure* BS ... the signature was SS, NOT
a neon sign ...

Those test sites are likely located
either in a city or in an area where the money interests already checked
the
FCC site to ensure no low band VHF use by police, fire, ambulance, etc.

I think you're giving them FAR too much credit for caring about anything
but deploying BPL ...

Carl - wk3c

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Dick,

I'm not at all sure who uses what spectrum in the areas where they are
testing BPL

Nobody knows how much interference the stuff could generate
eventually. The BPL proponents are advertising their intent to run
from 2 thru 80 Mhz inclusive. At considerably higher power levels than
they're using in the current test areas. There's a major threat in
itself and it's not being tested.

but I'd bet coffee for a week that those folks studied the
situation carefully before proceeding.

Would not surprise me one bit. But then along came hams with HF mobile
rigs like Carl wk3c, Ed Hare w1rfi and Bob Davidson w3hj and myself
who took ham radio into BPL test areas and are blowing the whistle.
Loudly.

Where did they test (I don't know of
all areas and I'm asking a sincere question)?

Go to the ARRL site for the complete list of known test areas. All of
those I know about so far are in the NE corridor in densly-populated
upscale +/- residential neigborhoods. Because that's where the money
is. Which also happen to be the same sorts of neighborhoods in which a
lot of hams live too.

The "promise" of BPL is to
serve areas that are not served well by cable or DSL

Total BS. BPL is quite expensive to deploy. A fiber optic feed line or
cable TV line has to run parallel to the power lines. These feed lines
inject the BPL signals into the low voltage power lines via taps
roughly at every street intersection or the neighborhood has no BPL.
If there isn't any cable or DSL service in your locale because there
isn't any ROI in it for those service providers there most likely
won't be any BPL either. They're all chasing the same dollars.

Did they test a
fairly substantial area in the country where they could demonstrate
far-flung connections to the BPL,

Absolutely not. There are no "far-flung connections" to BPL per above.
In the Emmaus PA test area which I've visited BPL is only distributed
along a few blocks of maybe 3-4 residential streets. Completely
inconclusive test program to the point of being a contrived scam.

or did they test in densely populated
areas that are already served by various broadband connection

Seems like.

(where fire,
police, emergency, etc. are very likely not on low band VHF)?

Dunno. There are at least three test sites concentrated in the Lehigh
Valley region in PA and there are very few if any emergency services
still using lo-band VHF in PA. I have not seen any references to BPL
being tested in places like California and Dick's Missouri where
lo-band is still in use. What a big surprise eh?

Also, FM
broadcasting is usually located near large population areas (since signals
tend to die off pretty quickly after 40 or 60 miles). This means that if
you have BPL in a city, it is unlikely that residents will experience
capture effect on the FM receivers since they will be getting *huge* signals
on their FM receivers.

BPL as presently conceived is not supposed to run in either the AM or
FM broadcast bands. Plus there are guard bands between BPL and both
broadcast bands. 'Nother big surprise.

I note the "neon sign" comment in the thread. Neon
signs are usually found in cities.

There are "point source" neon signs fifty miles north of Butte,
they're *everywhere*.

Those test sites are likely located
either in a city or in an area where the money interests already checked the
FCC site to ensure no low band VHF use by police, fire, ambulance, etc.

Covered above.


Any thoughts on this, or am I crazy?

Certainly you're a crazy. All us frequent posters in this NG are
certified crazies. Where the hell have YOU been?!


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

w3rv



"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...

Before I retired I was a field engineer working with a statewide
public safety organization which uses low band VHF for base to car
communications statewide, and that system is still virtually as I left

They can, if they are certain that they are documenting BPL and not another
source. It is possible to misidentify other sources as BPL, so having a
time-domain and frequency-domain analysis of the received signal will be an
important cross check.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI


Good point. Ed, what does a plasma TV look like compared to BPL. Is the
multidomain signature quite different?

73,
Chip N1IR

The ARRL site, http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Field , provides
links to the following information:

"PLC is a "carrier-current" system, designed to intentionally conduct
signals using electrical wiring. Although a carrier-current device is an
unintentional emitter, because the power lines have such a significant
potential to radiate and because a practical carrier-current device
generally needs more signal than the permitted conducted emissions
levels for unintentional emitters, carrier-current devices are not
required to meet those conducted-emissions limits, but are required to
meet the general radiated emissions limits in Sec. 15.209.

§ 15.209 states that the radiated emission limits of intentional
radiators generally can't exceed the field strength levels specified in
the following table:

Frequency (MHz) Field Strength (microvolts/meter @meters)

0.009-0.490 2400/F(kHz) 300

0.490-1.705 24000/F(kHz) 30

1.705-30.0 30 30

30-88 100 3

88-216 150 3

216-960 200 3

Above 960 500 3

Carrier-current devices are "Verified" as described in the Part-15
rules. This means that the manufacturer is required to test them to
ensure that they comply with the FCC regulations. Under the present
rules, they must be tested at 3 typical locations. "

Note that the HF Spectrum allows a S8 to S9 signal level, 30 uV/m at 30
meters distance.

Brian,

I don't know about you, but I received a whole week pass from Belleveu :)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Dick,
Any thoughts on this, or am I crazy?

Certainly you're a crazy. All us frequent posters in this NG are
certified crazies. Where the hell have YOU been?!


w3rv




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/03

Good point. Ed, what does a plasma TV look like compared to BPL. Is the
multidomain signature quite different?

I have not looked at a plasma TV, Chip, but I would make that diagnosis
primarily on on the basis of the sphere of influence. In the BPL test areas,
the interference was heard over the entire area that had the BPL couplers in
place.

There are other indicators, too. Knowing the involved BPL manufacturer would
let one pretty easily compare what was heard on the air to the known
characteristics of the BPL system involved. Interference from plasma TVs is not
going to be "modulated" with digital signals, as would a BPL signal. Those
OFDM carriers in the Ambient and Amperion BPL systems would be pretty hard to
confuse with anything else.

Another characteristic to look for is spectral occupancy. If the signal appears
suddenly in spectrum, is heard over several MHz, then suddenly tapers off, that
also matches the BPL characteristics, not that from other devices.

If the signal is noiselike, but clearly digital in sound, one can also look for
the bursts of the downloads, followed by the shorter, "keep alive" pulses that
some of the systems do.

If all of the above added up and started at the same time the BPL system was
brought on line, I would feel comfortable with my diagnosis.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RF

I also encourage everyone to send a donation to the ARRL's BPL fund - you
don't have to agree with *everything* the ARRL does to be willing to help
to overcome this major threat to our future on HF.

I don't agree with everything the ARRL does either, Carl, so we are even on
that score. I have seen ARRL board motions pass 8:7, so in that case, 7 members
of the ARRL board didn't agree, either.

Every year or two, I look at the big picture and decide to keep going. The
League's work on BPL this year has justified my 12 cents a day every single day
that I know of!

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Good point. Ed, what does a plasma TV look like compared to BPL. Is the
multidomain signature quite different?

I have not looked at a plasma TV, Chip, but I would make that diagnosis
primarily on on the basis of the sphere of influence. In the BPL test areas,
the interference was heard over the entire area that had the BPL couplers in
place.

There are other indicators, too. Knowing the involved BPL manufacturer would
let one pretty easily compare what was heard on the air to the known
characteristics of the BPL system involved. Interference from plasma TVs is
not
going to be "modulated" with digital signals, as would a BPL signal. Those
OFDM carriers in the Ambient and Amperion BPL systems would be pretty hard to
confuse with anything else.

Another characteristic to look for is spectral occupancy. If the signal
appears
suddenly in spectrum, is heard over several MHz, then suddenly tapers off,
that
also matches the BPL characteristics, not that from other devices.

If the signal is noiselike, but clearly digital in sound, one can also look
for
the bursts of the downloads, followed by the shorter, "keep alive" pulses
that
some of the systems do.

If all of the above added up and started at the same time the BPL system was
brought on line, I would feel comfortable with my diagnosis.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RF


Hi Ed,

I think a general description of other RFI sources would be helpful for any
radio amateur to make a 'first cut' assessment. It might also help you isolate
the truly legitimate cases of BPL RFI--if and when they exist.

I do have a concern that hams not make too many false alarms. Sounds like you
are on top of the the problem and I wish you the best.

73,
Chip N1IR

Ed...

Is the ARRL preparing a FAQ for amateurs who have scopes, spectrum
analyzers, or service monitors, etc., as to how they might go about
inspecting a suspected chunk of spectrum and how detect, identify,
qualify whey they see/hear?

73
Dan (K0DAN)

I have not looked at a plasma TV, Chip, but I would make that diagnosis
primarily on on the basis of the sphere of influence. In the BPL test areas,
the interference was heard over the entire area that had the BPL couplers in
place.

There are other indicators, too. Knowing the involved BPL manufacturer would
let one pretty easily compare what was heard on the air to the known
characteristics of the BPL system involved. Interference from plasma TVs is not
going to be "modulated" with digital signals, as would a BPL signal. Those
OFDM carriers in the Ambient and Amperion BPL systems would be pretty hard to
confuse with anything else.

Another characteristic to look for is spectral occupancy. If the signal appears
suddenly in spectrum, is heard over several MHz, then suddenly tapers off, that
also matches the BPL characteristics, not that from other devices.

If the signal is noiselike, but clearly digital in sound, one can also look for
the bursts of the downloads, followed by the shorter, "keep alive" pulses that
some of the systems do.

If all of the above added up and started at the same time the BPL system was
brought on line, I would feel comfortable with my diagnosis.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RF

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:




S9+10 on a VERY short whip (an "Outbacker Joey") is a pretty huge
signal to me ... with BPL proposing to go up to 80 MHz, I would
think that the FM broadcast band is at relatively low risk, though FM
receivers could experience some degree of "desense" if the BPL
signal at the front end was strong enough due to proximity.

TV channels 2, 3, 4, and 5 will get clobbered by the junk going up to 80MHz.
The video signal is AM modulated onto the channel carrier (with a
portion of the
lower sideband suppressed) and will have no ability to reject the BPL
noise.
The effect would be somewhat similar to a sparky vacuum cleaner motor
throwing
white and black spots throuout the picture. The sound, being FM, will fare
better. Well, there's digital HDTV, but most everyone still uses analog TV.
And I don't get cable or satellite.

Mike Coslo wrote in message .net...
James Wilson wrote:
What does BPL sound like? Can someone post a wav file somewhere so it can
be identified? Is it worse that the Pennsylvania QSO party?

Did someone take over a frequency you owned?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, that was kinda rude.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:20:31 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote:

Brian,

I don't know about you, but I received a whole week pass from Belleveu :)
I'm not sure about the crazy part, but...
For those who have a "good" broadband connection here is a panoramic
view from the top of my tower. If you don't have broad band, don't
waste your time. This thing is 19.5 megs. It should take under a
minute with cable, and close to 10 minutes with ADSL, so you can
imagine how long it'd take with a dial up connection.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/towerview.htm
I stood on the triangular top plate of the ROHN 45 G (at 100 feet) and
shot the entire series hand held. The camera was set to manual, but
the wind was gusting to 20 MPH plus, so a few of them didn't line up
good enough for a proper match when making the panorama.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Brian,

I don't know about you, but I received a whole week pass from Belleveu :)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


So you got three hots and a cot AND a weeks pass (all paid) and the
rest of us have to learn it because you had to do it?

That's not the way it works anymore.

I'm no longer an instrument of national policy.

Lemme know if you make it to the Tri-Cities area (Bay, Saginaw, Midland
area) Ed.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"W1RFI" wrote in message
...
The Emmaus test site video (test area #3) should be pretty representative
of the "main.net" system ... test area #4 is the Amperion OFDM system.
There could be others that might have different "signatures" ...

Just as a mnor correction, test area #4, in Briarcliff Manor, NY, is an
Ambient
system. The Amperion system is also OFDM and has a very similar sound. I
found
it easily in Whitehall, PA, once I drove into the test area.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

Dave Shrader wrote in message .net...
The ARRL site, http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Field , provides
links to the following information:

"PLC is a "carrier-current" system, designed to intentionally conduct
signals using electrical wiring. Although a carrier-current device is an
unintentional emitter, because the power lines have such a significant
potential to radiate and because a practical carrier-current device
generally needs more signal than the permitted conducted emissions
levels for unintentional emitters, carrier-current devices are not
required to meet those conducted-emissions limits, but are required to
meet the general radiated emissions limits in Sec. 15.209.

§ 15.209 states that the radiated emission limits of intentional
radiators generally can't exceed the field strength levels specified in
the following table:

Frequency (MHz) Field Strength (microvolts/meter @meters)

0.009-0.490 2400/F(kHz) 300

0.490-1.705 24000/F(kHz) 30

1.705-30.0 30 30

30-88 100 3

88-216 150 3

216-960 200 3

Above 960 500 3

Carrier-current devices are "Verified" as described in the Part-15
rules. This means that the manufacturer is required to test them to
ensure that they comply with the FCC regulations. Under the present
rules, they must be tested at 3 typical locations. "

What's the FCC definition of "typical locations"??

Note that the HF Spectrum allows a S8 to S9 signal level, 30 uV/m at 30
meters distance.

15.209 is the problem, it's grossly outdated, did not foresee anything
like BPL and the limits needs to be revised downward which is one
piece of this brawl. Ref: Tailpipe emissions regs, same basic problem,
different pollution media.

Another piece of it is that the BPL crowd wants permission to bust the
already inadequate limits in 15.209. They're playing the regulatory
loopholes game. The Japanese jumped past their regulatory Catch-22
techo-babble and abolished BPL period. We need to follow the Japanese
lead and we're working on it.

w3rv

Look at that BPL antenna in the foreground!!!!

Roger Halstead wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:20:31 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote:


Brian,

I don't know about you, but I received a whole week pass from Belleveu :)

I'm not sure about the crazy part, but...
For those who have a "good" broadband connection here is a panoramic
view from the top of my tower. If you don't have broad band, don't
waste your time. This thing is 19.5 megs. It should take under a
minute with cable, and close to 10 minutes with ADSL, so you can
imagine how long it'd take with a dial up connection.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/towerview.htm
I stood on the triangular top plate of the ROHN 45 G (at 100 feet) and
shot the entire series hand held. The camera was set to manual, but
the wind was gusting to 20 MPH plus, so a few of them didn't line up
good enough for a proper match when making the panorama.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

What happens to a BPL signal when a 100 or 500 watt mobile is under the
line?

The 10 house area may be a good place to hold a mobile antenna shoot out.

If you can't hear anything, send in complaints about the noise. If the home
owners can't see anything on their computers, I am sure they will complain.

Normally power line noise we hear is power wasted to ground from arcing and
that costs the power companies money because it is not metered power and
therefore not billable. Report areas where there is high noise. You will
be surprised--sometimes it goes away totally!
--
Rudy Marcelletti, K8SWD
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
W1RFI wrote:
Exactly, must sent in complaints. Or the 'utilities' will say...."we
got
very few complaints"


Some of the trial areas have about 10 homes in them. The industry still
says,
with a straight face, we had no reports of interference, so this
"proves" we
won't interfere.

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI




Something occurred to me - If the BPL test areas are using only
2-22 mHz, they they WILL avoid critical interference complaints
from Low Band VHF Public Safety users and others, and will be able to
say "We had no complaints from (same)", while conveniently overlooking
the fact that they couldn't have had complaints because they didn't
generate any interference to those operations!

(I mentioned this to contacts in PubSafety. I also suggested spectrum
analysis to determine what spectrum is actually being used.)

So we are very careful to make certain that the interference we
find actually is BPL. And since they are only using a portion of the
spectrum that would be used under full implementation of BPL, they
will be able to say, about users of spectrum which they aren't testing
within, "We got no complaints from them" when in fact the interference
will occurr only when BPL is fully implemented!
And of course there will be no such complaints inasmuch as no
interference was generated! So those users get blindsided, having
assumed there would be no interference from BPL.
It's amazing how well they're playing both ends against the middle.
One REALLY has to think about all this to stay on top of this mess.

The longer one looks at BPL as presented the worse it smells.

Dick