In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

N2EY" wrote:

None of it is good news for hams.

It darn sure doesn't sound like it.

Visit the ARRL website and read their articles on it. Lots of good info. Note
the difference between existing PLC systems, Access BPL, and in-building BPL.

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. (snip)

That has already been done with other devices and experience shows it
doesn't always work reliably.

Exactly.

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

On the HF frequencies, any leakage is significant.

Particularly given the ubiquity and proximity of power lines to typical amateur
installations.

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.

Exactly. That's what got me thinking about this in the first place. My
entire neighborhood is surrounded with power lines, some very high voltage
lines. While none are exactly next door, many are within sight.

The real villians for radiated noise are the medium voltage distribution lines.
For conducted and induced lines, it's the low voltage service wires.

You can read the comments of others and leave
your own at the FCC website, via the ECFS system.

I'll check into that, Jim. Thanks.

Comments are closed but reply comments are still open. You can read mine there
- search under my last name.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

\"Sparky\" wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
| "Phil Kane" wrote in message
t.net...
| On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:02:43 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:
|
| Phil, I doubt you're kidding, but a single wire with a ground
return? That
| is going to have a ton of problems even *without* putting
broadband on it.
|
| That amazed me too - but there's only one insulator on the pole
pig
| and one wire crossing the street to same. Three phase primary
is
| three wire, so there isn't even a Wye Neutral for return.
|
| I first saw this system along the Trans-Canada highway in
Alberta in
| 1970 and I put it down to the rural-ness of the area. But
suburban
| Portland in the 21st Century?
|
| Are there NO other wires on the pole?
|
| Here in EPA, most residential areas have three-phase going down the
| larger streets (like South Devon Ave. here in Wayne), with
| single-phase feeders going to the side streets. The return is partly
| through the dirt but mostly through the main messenger that carries
| the 120/240 twisted wires.
|
| Earth return will work fine, if the ground is good enough. The few
| HVDC lines that have been installed can be operated that way if one
| conductor fails.
|
73 de Jim, N2EY
The problem is, in most parts of the country the ground conductivity
is VERY poor. Just ask anyone who is familiar with commercial AM
broadcast station operation. They all wouldn't bury literally MILES
of copper wire around their towers in order to get somewhat of a
ground if they didn't have to.

I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA that was
sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all that wire in the
ground, er, water, too?



As far as BPL is concerned, BIG PROBLEMS LOOM for almost all licensed
services, including amateur radio if this is allowed.

That was exactly what I said in my comments to FCC on the docket:

"The use of the HF part of the spectrum as we have always known it
will be ended".

Dick

Phil,

As an expert in dealing with the FCC, what is your recommendation on
the issues to bring to the FCC's attention? And how should our
comments be phrased?

Is preventing reception of shortwave broadcasts a first amendment
issue?

Thanks


"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 9 Jul 2003 06:07:34 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

Question for Phil: At what point can opponents of BPL take it out of
the hands of the FCC and into the Federal courts?

After the FCC hands down a ruling and the appellants can show that
the ruling will cause them harm.

The appellants must petition for reconsideration, and then take it
to the U S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but they
will have to show that the Commission did something that was against
public policy or in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

If we lose there, we always have the option of petitioning the
Supreme Court of the United States to take the case, but because it
does not involve Contitutional or other high-profile issues, the
chances of them doing so are slim IMNSHO.

The biggest hurdle would be that the appellate courts are loath to
overturn an agency ruling based on facts within the agency's
expertise as long as there was an opportunity for public comment
(there was), there is a record in the proceedings (there is) and the
Commission's order makes reference to the record (I'm sure that it
will, especially to the stuff submitted by the internet and power
utility interests).

The last time that the League tried this route was when 220-222 MHz
was yanked away. We all know how that turned out.

The other way to fight this crap is via The Congress, as if they
know what the dickens it is all about other than "universal cheap
internet".

(snip)

|
| I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA
that was
| sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all that
wire in the
| ground, er, water, too?


Not sure on that one. I haven't ever seen AM towers with salt marsh
surrounding it, but in that case they sure would put out a much better
signal than a tower located away on dry rocky ground with all the
buried radials.
|
| As far as BPL is concerned, BIG PROBLEMS LOOM for almost all
licensed
| services, including amateur radio if this is allowed.
|
| That was exactly what I said in my comments to FCC on the docket:
|
| "The use of the HF part of the spectrum as we have always known it
| will be ended".
|
| Dick

Well stated, Dick. I totally agree.

73, Sam

On 10 Jul 2003 08:38:07 -0700, Rob Kemp wrote:

Phil,

As an expert in dealing with the FCC, what is your recommendation on
the issues to bring to the FCC's attention? And how should our
comments be phrased?

The ARRL took the lead and emphasised the interference with
essential communications. That is the only thing that will be of
any value.

In any event, the Comment phase is closed, and only Reply Comments -
support or opposition/rebuttals to the comments already filed - can
be accepted at this stage.

Is preventing reception of shortwave broadcasts a first amendment
issue?

Not at all - the SCOTUS has been very clear in First Amendment cases
that the free speech right is that of the speaker to speak, and does
not guarantee an audience to to hear/receive what is being spoken.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:04:29 -0600, \"Sparky\" wrote:

| I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA
that was sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all
that wire in the ground, er, water, too? Not sure on that one.

There's no AM tower in Santa Clara (or at least none in the last 40
years that I know of), let alone one that meets that description.
There's one in Palo Alto (1220 kHz) and yes, it has the standard
120-radial ground system. The ground there isn't all -that- wet.

In "the good old days" the radials were 8 AWG copper, but after
several stations got their ground systems torn out by thieves who
sold the copper on the scrap metal market, almost everybody replaced
them with 8 AWG Copperweld, which has the same rf electrical
properties but has no value on the scrap metal market.

I haven't ever seen AM towers with salt marsh surrounding it,

There are several other AM stations in the Bay Area whose antenna
arrays are located right at the water line. In those cases, the
radials go out from the base and into the Bay, which is tidal.

but in that case they sure would put out a much better signal than a
tower located away on dry rocky ground with all the buried radials.

The ground system and conductivity are but two elements in the
antenna efficiency. Other factors are the electrical height and the
spacing and phasing of elements in a directive array.

AM antenna design is more of an art than a science.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:29:27 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:

(Actually, I wrote the next two sentences):

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.

You are so right.

Wish I wasn't.

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.

It was a good idea - it showed the FCC management (which is no
longer there) that the ARRL can do what the broadcasters do every
week - take an adverse decision into the Court of Appeals.

But only AFTER that adverse decision had actually been made, right? In
the BPL case, it seems to me, such a move would only be advisable if
FCC decided to authorize uncontrolled BPL in ways that were sure to
cause massive interference, AND turned down petitions for
recosideration.

The problem was, it was done by an outside law firm which didn't do
a very good job because they didn't understand what was at stake as
precedent. Hence, the Amateur Spectrum Protection Bill which, at
long last, has a chnace to be passed during this session.

Yup.

Tnx for all the info, Phil.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Phil Kane wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:04:29 -0600, \"Sparky\" wrote:

| I still wonder about that AM tower I once passed in Santa Clara,CA
that was sitting on a salt marsh right at sea level....do they have all
that wire in the ground, er, water, too? Not sure on that one.

There's no AM tower in Santa Clara (or at least none in the last 40
years that I know of), let alone one that meets that description.

OOP! that Should have been Santa Cruz. Ya know, the place with the big boardwalk
and all the thong bikinis.......



There's one in Palo Alto (1220 kHz) and yes, it has the standard
120-radial ground system. The ground there isn't all -that- wet.


This one is right above the water level on a slough of some sort, I didn't get
that good a look but observed it as we drove past. Sure looked like an local AM
tower
of the sort I've worked around.




In "the good old days" the radials were 8 AWG copper, but after
several stations got their ground systems torn out by thieves who
sold the copper on the scrap metal market, almost everybody replaced
them with 8 AWG Copperweld, which has the same rf electrical
properties but has no value on the scrap metal market.

We still had all the copper radials at the (smaller) stations I worked for.
Evidently the locals were adverse to working for it.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 10 Jul 2003 08:38:07 -0700, Rob Kemp wrote:

Phil,

As an expert in dealing with the FCC, what is your recommendation on
the issues to bring to the FCC's attention? And how should our
comments be phrased?

The ARRL took the lead and emphasised the interference with
essential communications. That is the only thing that will be of
any value.

In any event, the Comment phase is closed, and only Reply Comments -
support or opposition/rebuttals to the comments already filed - can
be accepted at this stage.

I can visualize this phase being a real nit-picking and repositioning
exercise, perhaps a source of fodder for appeals.

What's the relationship between an NOI and an NPRM? Doesn't the FCC
eventually have to publish an NPRM and go thru the whole comments and
rebuttals drill again?


Is preventing reception of shortwave broadcasts a first amendment
issue?

Not at all - the SCOTUS has been very clear in First Amendment cases
that the free speech right is that of the speaker to speak, and does
not guarantee an audience to to hear/receive what is being spoken.

w3rv