Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
It would seem prudent to have the ARRL petition the FCC to raise amateur
power limits to partially recover that lost 10 dB. I think perhaps a 10 kw limit would be close enough. It might also make BPL communications a bit dicey too Seriously, however, it is going to be interesting when BPL lines are found adjacent to an active amateurs' property. BPL *will* be affected by rf. Fire up your gallons. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , JJ writes: Now we will see if the FCC will abide by their own part 15 rules and shut BPL down until when/if the problem is fixed. Anyone want to bet they don't? No. I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies. So many times in history, Ideology has chosen to ignore everything but that ideology's belief. That is one of the reasons that idealogs hate science. As absurd as it may seem, the BPL push is part of current ideology. As such, as long as the current ideology is in place, BPL WILL HAPPEN! Once it comes up against science and laws of nature, as well as the marketplace, it will quite simply fail. Sad to say, BPL (and PLC) already happened. Three areas now and a fourth coming on-line soon in the USA. According to NTIA and that wonderful Michael Gallagher (Asst. something or other there) praising the snit out of BPL, BPL offers some wonderful things ahead - 1. Powerline noise will actually DROP as a result of installing BPL since untilies must fix that in order for BPL to get data through! 2. Existing BPL systems 'merely' raise the HF noise floor the small amount of 10 db. Not a problem says them in Phase 2 study. 3. President Bush (the younger) says "the country needs BPL" and the party faithfull followers reprise that throwaway mantra. Ergo, if da Prez say 'we' need it, then 'we' need it. End msg. "Idealogues?" Nah. "Take-the-lobbyist-handout-monies-and-run- logues." Don't worry about any HF receiver sensitivity values in the future. Won't matter. Noise floor will have moved up 10 db and a Noise Factor of 20+ in a front end will do the job in that hash. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/04 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes: It would seem prudent to have the ARRL petition the FCC to raise amateur power limits to partially recover that lost 10 dB. I think perhaps a 10 kw limit would be close enough. It might also make BPL communications a bit dicey too Har! :-) :-) :-) I was totally flabbergasted at reading the Phase 2 report. They boldly went where no technical person dared to go in saying "BPL will 'improve' the electric power line noise problems!" As of the end of the business day on Friday, 18 June 2004, the Comment numbers in the FCC ECFS were - docket 04-37 (NPRM) 1,399 docket 03-104 (NOI) 6,076 There's lots of more-than-one-page real technical problem presentations there showing that Access BPL is full of snit than there are for the BPL proponents. I don't think that will matter much. The writing seemed clear on the wall last year. BPL *will* be started. The business folks are geared up for profits. The President has made both BPL and Broadband a goal. The good little Republican syncophants are synchronized to The Word from on high. It doesn't matter who wins a majority in the General Election. BPL has started to deploy. Once it is IN, it becomes legacy. Once the initial costs are taken care of, it is in the regular profit time and the installers will fight tooth and nail to keep it. The worm could turn. With a legacy-status "utility" the BPLers could gain leverage to actually STOP or cut down on all those nasty interfering HF emitters...like amateur radio transmitters. Unknown, but it is a spectre hovering in the background. Look at the troubles some hams have in getting noisy electric power lines fixed. Electric power distribution is very "legacy" by now and the electric utility companies move slowly (if at all) on repairs. Seriously, however, it is going to be interesting when BPL lines are found adjacent to an active amateurs' property. BPL *will* be affected by rf. Fire up your gallons. Seriously, that's not a good idea. Hams are conditioned now to be legal. Deliberate interference is illegal. It is much easier to pull the tickets of a few hams doing deliberate interference than it is to remove or reduce a legal deliberate interference source in the form of BPL with government-accepted regulations. All in all, though, the FCC has NO POWER to proactively stop Access BPL now. At best all it can do is set the incidental RF radiation levels and then enforce those. Or, wait about 30 years or so until BPL is truly legacy service and then, like land telephony, start drafting more stringent regulations. In 30 years from now, few of us will be in a position to do much. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , "Jim Hampton" writes: It would seem prudent to have the ARRL petition the FCC to raise amateur power limits to partially recover that lost 10 dB. I think perhaps a 10 kw limit would be close enough. It might also make BPL communications a bit dicey too Har! :-) :-) :-) I was totally flabbergasted at reading the Phase 2 report. They boldly went where no technical person dared to go in saying "BPL will 'improve' the electric power line noise problems!" Ideology trumps science! Yes, that was a shocking thing to read. As of the end of the business day on Friday, 18 June 2004, the Comment numbers in the FCC ECFS were - docket 04-37 (NPRM) 1,399 docket 03-104 (NOI) 6,076 There's lots of more-than-one-page real technical problem presentations there showing that Access BPL is full of snit than there are for the BPL proponents. I don't think that will matter much. The writing seemed clear on the wall last year. BPL *will* be started. The business folks are geared up for profits. The President has made both BPL and Broadband a goal. The good little Republican syncophants are synchronized to The Word from on high. BPL = Ban Pretentious Liberals? It doesn't matter who wins a majority in the General Election. BPL has started to deploy. Once it is IN, it becomes legacy. Once the initial costs are taken care of, it is in the regular profit time and the installers will fight tooth and nail to keep it. The worm could turn. With a legacy-status "utility" the BPLers could gain leverage to actually STOP or cut down on all those nasty interfering HF emitters...like amateur radio transmitters. Unknown, but it is a spectre hovering in the background. Look at the troubles some hams have in getting noisy electric power lines fixed. Electric power distribution is very "legacy" by now and the electric utility companies move slowly (if at all) on repairs. Seriously, however, it is going to be interesting when BPL lines are found adjacent to an active amateurs' property. BPL *will* be affected by rf. Fire up your gallons. Seriously, that's not a good idea. Hams are conditioned now to be legal. Deliberate interference is illegal. It is much easier to pull the tickets of a few hams doing deliberate interference than it is to remove or reduce a legal deliberate interference source in the form of BPL with government-accepted regulations. Hoo, we are getting close to that strange discussion we had last year with the fellow saying that if we know that it interferes, and we transmit, we are purposely interfereing. That's enough to give a person a headache! But if a person is in a neighborhood with Access BPL, they won't need to use that linear. Seems 100 watts will do just fine. I don't know the frequency context of BPL/Amateur transmitter interference, but my guess is that if you hear it on the band you are transmitting on, you'll do it interference harm if you fire up. All in all, though, the FCC has NO POWER to proactively stop Access BPL now. At best all it can do is set the incidental RF radiation levels and then enforce those. Or, wait about 30 years or so until BPL is truly legacy service and then, like land telephony, start drafting more stringent regulations. In 30 years from now, few of us will be in a position to do much. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , "Jim Hampton" writes: It would seem prudent to have the ARRL petition the FCC to raise amateur power limits to partially recover that lost 10 dB. I think perhaps a 10 kw limit would be close enough. It might also make BPL communications a bit dicey too Har! :-) :-) :-) I was totally flabbergasted at reading the Phase 2 report. They boldly went where no technical person dared to go in saying "BPL will 'improve' the electric power line noise problems!" Ideology trumps science! Yes, that was a shocking thing to read. As of the end of the business day on Friday, 18 June 2004, the Comment numbers in the FCC ECFS were - docket 04-37 (NPRM) 1,399 docket 03-104 (NOI) 6,076 There's lots of more-than-one-page real technical problem presentations there showing that Access BPL is full of snit than there are for the BPL proponents. I don't think that will matter much. The writing seemed clear on the wall last year. BPL *will* be started. The business folks are geared up for profits. The President has made both BPL and Broadband a goal. The good little Republican syncophants are synchronized to The Word from on high. BPL = Ban Pretentious Liberals? Heh. No. It doesn't matter which political power is "in power" in DC on Access BPL. It evolved from the initial trial in Norway a decade ago and presents a "business ideology" (of making money) and all that capitalism stuff. Somehow, through whatever means, the BPL advocates in the USA convinced the FCC that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread to fit the "broadband super highway." It just happened that the FCC has Republican-oriented commissioners and the Acting Chief of the NTIA is sucking up to Bush's speech statement in rather blatant politicalization. Hoo, we are getting close to that strange discussion we had last year with the fellow saying that if we know that it interferes, and we transmit, we are purposely interfereing. That's enough to give a person a headache! Not quite. Amateurs have to understand that they are small-time players in this particular game. All the rah-rah and we-are-the- greatest internal pep-talking doesn't help the image presented to the lawmakers. It boils down to a very few individuals trying to "get even" for incidental interference by deliberate interference with a communications service. That service is much bigger, in both employees and affected customers than a few hams in any particular locality. It would be a lopsided legal fight, despite all the whoopdedo of "helping" by the League. If Access BPL spreads to many more communities, the League would run out of legal and moral resources to help. Deliberate interference isn't necessary. Ordinary operating should be sufficient to disrupt Access BPL in any one location. Hams would just need to transmit more and on different HF bands...not spending more of their free time on the Internet and then writing that "they are very active on the bands" when they were not. But if a person is in a neighborhood with Access BPL, they won't need to use that linear. Seems 100 watts will do just fine. I don't know the frequency context of BPL/Amateur transmitter interference, but my guess is that if you hear it on the band you are transmitting on, you'll do it interference harm if you fire up. Perhaps. Technical details of Access BPL systems have yet to be released to the electronics industry. While that may be logical to assume, it isn't proof positive. All in all, though, the FCC has NO POWER to proactively stop Access BPL now. At best all it can do is set the incidental RF radiation levels and then enforce those. Or, wait about 30 years or so until BPL is truly legacy service and then, like land telephony, start drafting more stringent regulations. In 30 years from now, few of us will be in a position to do much. I left that in on purpose. Just to emphasize that the FCC CANNOT stop Access BPL right now. But, what can be done, is to demand TESTING of any installed systems. LOTS of it to correspond with a wide-area installation (a logical demand). The FCC has NO power to stop BPL directly. It's not in the rules. [that's why docket 04-37 is concerned with an NPRM] But, by demanding appropriate TESTING with emphasis on PASSING all tests, THAT can make it economically infeasible. Testing takes valuable manhours. BPL systems will be at many, many places in one community, therefore MUCH testing is needed for compliance. Not only does that affect the installation budget, but it takes TIME to complete. Businesses offering broadband services want to start making money as soon as possible (also logical) but lots of testing and test time would delay that. That's a realistic way of looking at the problem and a possible way to make BPL economically difficult to sustain. However, remember that once BPL is in-place, it will quickly become a legacy service and damn difficult to remove. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|