| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
July 8th 03, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
More on Broadband over Power Lines (BLP)
From the July 2003 issue (pg. 37) of PC World Magazine... A brazen new competitor to DSL and cable is "within striking distance of being the third major broadband pipe into the home," says FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Broadband of power line, or BPL (currently being offered in pilot programs by a dozen or so utilities around the country), promises to deliver high-speed Internet access straight from the electrical socket in your wall. Long written off as an also-ran technology, BPL has new spark, thanks to technical advances that address problems of interference and in-line transformers that scramble signals. The last hurdle will be getting FCC approval. Considering Powell's enthusiasm - the general belief that BPL will cost less than cable and DSL - a green light could be imminent. 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 Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
#2
July 8th 03, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
From the July 2003 issue (pg. 37) of PC World Magazine... A brazen new competitor to DSL and cable is "within striking distance of being the third major broadband pipe into the home," says FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Broadband of power line, or BPL (currently being offered in pilot programs by a dozen or so utilities around the country), promises to deliver high-speed Internet access straight from the electrical socket in your wall. Long written off as an also-ran technology, BPL has new spark, thanks to technical advances that address problems of interference and in-line transformers that scramble signals. The last hurdle will be getting FCC approval. Considering Powell's enthusiasm - the general belief that BPL will cost less than cable and DSL - a green light could be imminent. 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. It sure will, if it's allowed to be implemented. FCC Docket 03-104 addresses implementation of these systems. Comments close today. ARRL submitted a 120 page paper on the effects of the proposed systems. None of it is good news for hams. 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? 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#3
July 9th 03, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
July 9th 03, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(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 |
|
#6
July 10th 03, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com... (N2EY) wrote in message Where is the NTIA in all this? Waiting for the right moment. Or totally oblivious. There was an earlier discussion on this topic. The ARRL petition for ham ops on 60M was submitted well before the WTC towers came down. We agreed that the reason that the NTIA finally piped up was probably because 9/11 was a wakeup call for all federal agencies and they went back and reviewed their homeland security assets and tightened 'em. 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. Above. 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. They already did that to some extent ref: The NTIA 60M maneuver. But this BPL thing has to be another whole level up from their perspective. Some of it might be underway behind closed doors. We dunno. 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? They're all vaild what-ifs but don't expect Powell, Inc. to bother getting all wrapped around techo details like leaky filters and insulators. I doubt that the piles of objections to BPL posted by individual hams will carry much weight in the decision process. We're a lousy 0.2% of the national population and a big percentage of that tiny constituency can't operate below 50 Mhz. Heavy hitters like the IEEE weighing in against BPL is another whole story however. I think the fates of BPL and HF ham radio will hang on the coat tails of The Really Big Guys like the IEEE, NTIA, the spooks, etc. The ARRL did one helluva thorough job in their comments package and are to be congratulated for that effort. Unfortunately there is a question about ARRL clout. 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. Don't believe it. Administrations come and go on regular 4/8 year cycles, the top end of the FCC empire comes and goes accordingly. We might **** off the transients at the top but screw them, they'll be long gone shortly. The pros within the FCC we normally deal with are there forever and know BS when they see it. Professionals who hold grudges ain't professionals. They don't take being dragged into court in civil cases personally, it's just another business proposition they get paid to handle. Engineers, hams and neighbors get ****ed off when they get sued. Lawyers and regulators don't. Trying to "go over the FCC's head" is a last-ditch nothing-left-to-lose desperation move, I think. If this isn't a last-ditch nothing-left-to-lose situation I dunno what is. Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
#7
July 10th 03, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
July 10th 03, 06:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
#9
July 10th 03, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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". |
|
#10
July 11th 03, 04:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Wanted: Power Supply for TR-4C | Equipment | |||
| Wanted: Power Supply for TR-4C | Homebrew | |||
| Wanted: Power Supply for TR-4C | Equipment | |||
| Power companies speading lies on BPL | General | |||
| BPL industry take on why power lines are not antennas | Antenna | |||
Hybrid Mode
