"N2EY" wrote:

None of it is good news for hams.


It darn sure doesn't sound like it.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

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

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

While everyone would obviously like cheaper broadband internet access, my
principle concern is the possible interference with ham radio out here in
the real world - the real world of corroded and rotted old power lines,
decades old transformers and power stations, and the ancient (often poorly
grounded) electrical wiring in old homes and buildings throughout this
country. Like many others, I suspect this technology is going to have a
dramatic impact on ham radio.

Does anyone know about these touted "advances that address problems of
interference" mentioned above? Are these "advances" really going to prevent
potential interference problems out here in the real world?


Dwight:

I've got news for you: Get ready for it! We hams have dumbed ourselves
down to the point of irrelevance, and money-making consumer technology
like BPL that will bring high-speed Internet access to millions of consumers
will always take precedence over the needs of a few hundred thousand
hams who have virtually zero economic impact. Personally, if inexpensive
high-speed BPL Internet service were available in my area, I'd be all for it!

BTW -- the irony of the BPL situation is that the ham radio mode best able
to overcome the potential interference is good ole fashion CW!!! And that,
my friend, would be no problem for yours truly!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Does anyone know about these touted "advances that address problems of
interference" mentioned above? Are these "advances" really going to prevent
potential interference problems out here in the real world?

Sure. Just enable your DSP filters, and all will be well with the world. Just
ask
Squiggy or Cecil.

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

Sure. Just enable your DSP filters, and all
will be well with the world.


DSP filters can barely keep up with the noise that exists occasionally
now. If that increases, I don't think that is going to do that much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

From the July 2003 issue (pg. 37) of PC World Magazine..


By the way, I'm surprised nobody commented on the mistake in the subject
line. That should have read "BPL" instead of "BLP." Sorry about that - the
result of typing too fast and not paying attention.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/