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