Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) Stumbles » A Clarification
Uniqs:
115
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
I know this is late, but notice who and why bought the HW? »
« which one first?  

rf_engineer

join:2003-08-04
USA

A Clarification

"the court maintained their right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum"

This applies when the BPL carrier attenuates their signal 20 dB below the emission limit for signals below 30 Mhz, and 10 dB below the limit for systems above 30 Mhz.

Here's the language in Title 47 Part 15.611(c):


(i) For frequencies below 30 MHz, when a notch filter is used to avoid interference to a specific frequency band, the Access BPL system shall be capable of attenuating emissions within that band to a level at least 20 dB below the applicable part 15 limits.

(ii) For frequencies above 30 MHz, when a notch filter is used to avoid interference to a specific frequency band, the Access BPL system shall be capable of attenuating emissions within that band to a level at least 10 dB below the applicable part 15 limits.

(iii) At locations where an Access BPL operator attenuates radiated emissions from its operations in accordance with the above required capabilities, we will not require that operator to take further actions to resolve complaints of harmful interference to mobile operations.


Paragraph (iii) is the problem. The level of emissions at the limits can easily cause interference; the limits were never set to entirely prevent interference, just provide a reasonable target for consumer electronics. The FCC has acknowledged this before, and the limits in the US are looser than European ones. 10 dB and 20 dB below the limit is better, but still can cause problems. The FCC is basically telling the carriers that they can emit whatever they want 10 or 20 dB below the emissions limit and the harmful interference clause is null and void. It's a bad situation as the whole basis for unlicensed operation of any device has been no harmful interference to licensed devices.
W1RFI

join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT

Re: A Clarification

As a clarification to the clarification, the rule being discussed applies only to interference to mobile receivers. It does not apply to interference to licensed non-mobile operation.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
Forums » Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) StumblesI know this is late, but notice who and why bought the HW? »
« which one first?  


Wednesday, 09-Dec 23:08:08 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [200] Sprint Sued For Distracted Driving Death
· [107] AT&T Launching New 24 Mbps U-Verse Tier
· [82] 3G Network Test Says AT&T Is Tops
· [72] Mediacom Unveils 105 Mbps Pricing
· [66] Sprint Poised For A Turnaround?
· [64] WPA Cracker: Test WPA-PSK Networks In 20 Minutes
· [59] AT&T Hints At Usage-Based iPhone Data Pricing
· [51] The Future Of Wi-Fi Is Bright
· [47] Site Leaks Yahoo, Verizon Fed Data Share Pricing
· [44] Microwaving Your Innards Is Not 'Extreme'
Most people now reading
· Adobe Flash Player version 10.0.42.34 [Security]
· ICC Strats??? [World of Warcraft]
· ICC strats [World of Warcraft]
· Hot Girl falls face first down stairs [56k Lookout (Broadband Heavy)]
· Is sleeping similar to being dead? [General Questions]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· RG Firmware update to VDSL2 this morning [AT&T U-verse]
· Connecting to Google Voice Via SIP [VOIP Tech Chat]
· The aftermath [World of Warcraft]
· Cross Server Dungeon Experience [World of Warcraft]