Latest BPL information from ARRL:

==FCC BPL REPORT AND ORDER STRESSES INTERFERENCE AVOIDANCE, RESOLUTION

The FCC this week released the full BPL Report and Order (R&O) in ET
Docket 04-37 that it adopted just two weeks ago. While extolling the
purported benefits of broadband over power line technology, the 81-page
document also declares the FCC's intention to protect licensed services
from harmful interference.

"We recognize that some radio operations in the bands being used for
Access BPL, such as those of Amateur Radio licensees, may occur at
distances sufficiently close to power lines as to make harmful
interference a possibility," the FCC conceded in its R&O. "We believe that
those situations can be addressed through interference avoidance
techniques by the Access BPL provider such as frequency band selection,
notching, or judicious device placement."

Notches would have to be at least 20 dB below applicable Part 15 limits on
HF, 10 dB below on VHF. The FCC called the ability to alter a system's
operation to notch out transmissions on specific frequencies where
interference is occurring "a necessary feature for resolving interference
without disrupting service to BPL subscribers."

In line with remarks made at the October 14 open meeting where the FCC
adopted the R&O--then still in draft form--the FCC declined to reduce the
Part 15 radiated emission limit for BPL systems. It maintained that
emissions from BPL systems are very localized and at low enough levels to
generally preclude harmful interference.

The FCC said it had no evidence before it that BPL operation would
significantly contribute to generally raising background noise levels. At
the same time, it seemed to put some of the onus on Amateur Radio
licensees to take steps to avoid power-line interference--and, by
inference, BPL interference--in advance.

"In addition, because power lines inherently can radiate significant noise
emissions as noted by NTIA and ARRL, good engineering practice is to
locate sensitive receiver antennas as far as practicable from power
lines," the FCC said.

In a footnote, the FCC took pains to advise ARRL that in cases where its
members experience RF noise, "such noise can often be avoided by carefully
locating their antennas; in many instances an antenna relocation of only a
relatively short distance can resolve noise interference."

BPL operators would be required to avoid certain bands, such as those used
for life and safety communications by aeronautical mobile or US Coast
Guard stations. The FCC R&O makes clear, however, that similar rules will
not apply to the Amateur Service.

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio frequencies warrant the
special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international
aeronautical and maritime safety operations," the Commission said. "While
we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing emergency
communications," the FCC added. It described typical amateur operations as
"routine communications and hobby activities."

Although some cases of harmful interference may be possible from BPL
emissions at levels up to Part 15 limits, the FCC said, "we agree with
NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] that the
benefits of Access BPL service warrant acceptance of a small and
manageable degree of interference risk." The Commission reiterated in the
R&O its belief that BPL's public benefits "are sufficiently important and
significant so as to outweigh the limited potential for increased harmful
interference that may arise."

Among other specific provisions, the FCC's new rules mandate certification
of BPL equipment instead of the less-stringent verification, a public BPL
database--something the BPL industry did not want--and mechanisms to deal
swiftly with interference complaints. BPL systems will have to incorporate
the ability to modify operation and performance "to mitigate or avoid
potential harmful interference" and to deactivate problematic units, the
R&O says.

Further, the new rules spell out the locations of "small geographic
exclusion zones" as well as excluded bands or frequencies--concessions
made primarily at the insistence of the NTIA, which administers radio
spectrum for federal government users--and "coordination areas" where BPL
operators must "precoordinate" spectrum use. The rules also detail
techniques to measure BPL emissions from system equipment and power lines.


The FCC said it expects "good faith" on both sides in the event of
interference complaints. While the Commission said it expects BPL
operators to take every interference complaint seriously and to diagnose
the possible cause of interference quickly, it also suggested that
complainants have responsibilities.

"At the same time, we expect the complainant to have first taken
reasonable steps to confirm that interference, rather than a receiver
system malfunction, is occurring and, to the extent practicable, to
determine that the interference source is located outside the
complainant's premises," the Commission said.

Shutting down a BPL system in response to a valid interference complaint
"would be a last resort when all other efforts to satisfactorily reduce
interference have failed," the FCC said.

League officials are studying the R&O and considering possible responses.
The ARRL Executive Committee (EC) already has authorized filing a Petition
for Reconsideration. The EC also authorized ARRL General Counsel Chris
Imlay, W3KD, to "prepare to pursue other available remedies as to
procedural and substantive defects" in the BPL proceeding.

For more information on BPL, visit the "Broadband Over Power Line (BPL)
and Amateur Radio" page http://www.arrl.org on the ARRL Web site.

==STATE UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS' BPL TASK FORCE SESSION YIELDS SOME
INSIGHTS

ARRL Chief Technology Officer Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, represented the League
this week at a meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utilities
Commissioners (NARUC) Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) Task Force.
Michigan Commissioner Laura Chappelle chaired the October 24 gathering in
Alexandria, Virginia. Its aim was to give NARUC BPL Task Force members an
overview of federal regulations, an industry perspective, and insight into
potential state regulatory issues related to BPL. NARUC consists of state
utility regulators who have no jurisdiction over RFI issues, Rinaldo
explained after the meeting.

"However," he said, "it's good that they are aware that there's a
potential interference problem that could complicate life at the local
level when hams complain to utilities about interference." On the other
hand, he noted during his presentation, "BPL may be a distraction from a
utility's main function of delivering reliable power to customers." During
a question-and-answer session, the state utility commissioners posed no
questions regarding BPL interference, Rinaldo said.

Rinaldo's presentation, "BPL--Amateur Radio Perspective," pointed out a
paradox in the new regulations: "The R&O excludes frequency bands for
those facilities typically away from BPL installations," he said.
"However, it does not exclude frequency bands for those stations, such as
Amateur Radio, typically closest to residential BPL installations."
Rinaldo noted that ARRL and National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) BPL measurements "are consistent" with each other.
The NTIA had determined that even at Part 15 emission limits for reception
of low to moderate-strength signals, BPL interference extends out 460
meters (approximately 1509 feet) for fixed stations.

Among suggested BPL "best practices," Rinaldo recommended that BPL
providers exclude Amateur Radio bands "by design" rather than awaiting
complaints. If complaints do arise, BPL providers should "promptly
eliminate interference," he said. Rinaldo also stressed Amateur Radio's
emergency communication role.

Precursor Group CEO Scott Cleland spoke on "The Alchemy of Broadband over
Power Lines." While focused primarily on investments, Cleland's
presentation also asserted that that technical alchemy "has finally
overcome the heretofore insurmountable barrier of noise interference in an
economically viable way."

The United Power Line Council's Brett Kilbourne told the gathering that
all technical problems confronting BPL had been solved and that it was
time to roll it out. "I bit my tongue," Rinaldo remarked later.

During a discussion on "open access," Rinaldo said, the mood of the
Commissioners was not to regulate how many BPL providers might have access
to a given utility system, "which logically means that only one provider
would be practical," he concluded. "That is, if one provider hogs all the
bandwidth and/or time on the bands not notched, it would be virtually
impossible to have the original provider back out just to let a competitor
in."

Franca and Current Technologies' Jay Birnbaum allowed that there wasn't
much bandwidth to begin with, and, Rinaldo said, subdividing it wouldn't
make much sense.

Discussion also touched on the timing of BPL rollouts and competition from
well-established cable and DSL as well as growing wireless system
providers. "From the discussion, I got the impression that rollout would
take about 4-1/2 years," Rinaldo said. "Over that time, cable, DSL, fiber,
wireless and satellite broadband providers will provide strong
competition."

From ARRL email bulletin.
************************************************** **********


--
Dave,
Icom 746pro, Drake R-8, Grundig YB-400pe
Icom V-8000, Yaesu VX5R, Uniden
780xlt, R.S. Pro 95, R.S. Pro 2066
G.E. SR3






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

==FCC BPL REPORT AND ORDER STRESSES INTERFERENCE AVOIDANCE, RESOLUTION

I say if BPL comes to pass, we all buy solar cells, wind generators, thermo,
and tide generators and tell the electricity companies where to shove their
live wire.

"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...

Also, I'm dubious that "notching" can really work. Both
for us, and them.


Notching didn't work in Japan, and Japan shut down all their BPL. Reason
being, you're dealing with square waves over several octaves of spectrum. As
anyone familiar with square waves knows, they are very rich in harmonic
output, and the first, third and fifth harmonics are not much less in power
than the fundamental. If they notch out 40m, you'll just get to hear the
third harmonic from 2.3MHz, and so on up the spectrum.

Radio Flyer wrote:
==FCC BPL REPORT AND ORDER STRESSES INTERFERENCE AVOIDANCE, RESOLUTION


I say if BPL comes to pass, we all buy solar cells, wind generators, thermo,
and tide generators and tell the electricity companies where to shove their
live wire.



It's a nice thought, but not more than wishful thinking. The cost is
still too high for effective adoption. The cost of the drug
(electricity) is adjusted so it will be always a bit cheaper than making
your own.

If, by a miracle, the cost of home production becomes cheaper than what
the corporations sell it to you for, count on the government TAXING your
equipment so it's *above* what their corporate bosses are charging.


mike

already in the plans

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:22:10 -0600, " Radio Flyer"
wrote:

==FCC BPL REPORT AND ORDER STRESSES INTERFERENCE AVOIDANCE, RESOLUTION

I say if BPL comes to pass, we all buy solar cells, wind generators, thermo,
and tide generators and tell the electricity companies where to shove their
live wire.

Last week the NY Times ran a typical
puff-piece article about BPL which looked
to be assembled out of FCC handouts and
industry white papers.

Over the weekend they had a sort-of correction
tacked on to an un-related article (don't remember
which one and I don't have the paper handy). The
gist was that the FCC/industry had taken note of
the ARRL objections and required suppression of
interference in what they termed something like
"critical" bands (again, don't remember the exact
phrase) - touted as a victory of government and
industry, cooperating to solve a problem, blah blah
blah. Load of crap.

Oz

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:
"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...


Also, I'm dubious that "notching" can really work. Both
for us, and them.



Notching didn't work in Japan, and Japan shut down all their BPL. Reason
being, you're dealing with square waves over several octaves of spectrum. As
anyone familiar with square waves knows, they are very rich in harmonic
output, and the first, third and fifth harmonics are not much less in power
than the fundamental. If they notch out 40m, you'll just get to hear the
third harmonic from 2.3MHz, and so on up the spectrum.

Michael Lawson wrote:
Are you speaking of the signal level on the power lines
outside the house, or as it flows through into your house?
It would be nice if you are talking about the latter, and
have the local power company come out and put a filter
and/or power conditioner on your service entrance.

A filter at the service entrance would only serve to make the wires
to the pole a great big antenna. It would either put a very high
impedance at your end, helping the electric field, or a very low one,
helping the magnetic field.

--
Consider http://www.clifto.com/goodguys.html before you vote.

m II wrote:
Radio Flyer wrote:
I say if BPL comes to pass, we all buy solar cells, wind generators, thermo,
and tide generators and tell the electricity companies where to shove their
live wire.

It's a nice thought, but not more than wishful thinking. The cost is
still too high for effective adoption. The cost of the drug
(electricity) is adjusted so it will be always a bit cheaper than making
your own.

For a long time here, it would have been cheaper in the long run to buy
a natural-gas generator. Of course, now that we bought our first house,
natural gas prices have gone sky-high and taken any advantage away.

--
Consider http://www.clifto.com/goodguys.html before you vote.

I keep waiting for someone to point out that since the BPL signals are
broadcast over the air they can be easily intercepted; and there goes your
credit card information and passwords and other secrets for all the world
to see. That alone would be enough to dissuade me from becoming a BPL
subscriber.
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

Jim Haynes wrote:
I keep waiting for someone to point out that since the BPL signals are
broadcast over the air they can be easily intercepted; and there goes your
credit card information and passwords and other secrets for all the world
to see. That alone would be enough to dissuade me from becoming a BPL
subscriber.

Signals are encrypted using double ROT-13.

--
Consider http://www.clifto.com/goodguys.html before you vote.