 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to ctceo
Re: See... As stated before the test results are property of the utility company requiring our service, and the FCC agent in charge of interference monitoring. Should they decide to make this info public, you will know.
Rest assured that it is causing no problems that can't be handled with a few insulator repairs, and coupler rerouting schemes to prevent feedback through, or rather around the insulated circuit.
And why is it that the only documents the ARRL can come up with about "Interference Related" problems are in countries where the wiring is tired and broken, and just about every insulator has failed??? Simple answer, Because it causes problems there we must stop it before it causes problems here. Why, who knows, maybe it's because they think they own frequency allotments.
I was able to re-create the sounds from the ARRL video simply by placing an old AM radio, Power Inverter, or a Static Filled Blanket within a foot or two from my YAESU FT-847. The video proves Nothing. The simple fact that the FCC has seen the results, and the actual product in service is operating well under allowable limits in it's "test" (and soon to be official) "beds".
Look forward to seeing it in your rural community in 3-5 years, if not sooner. |
|
|
|
N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | I don't understand why you included Comm Abernathy's comments. Her office has already apologized for the overly enthusiastic tone and confirmed that interference prevention is a bedrock issue for the FCC.
RF Engineer is right, BPL will live and die on Part 15.
Let the complaints begin in Manassas! |
|
| reply to ctceo
said by ctceo:
As stated before the test results are property of the utility company requiring our service, and the FCC agent in charge of interference monitoring. Should they decide to make this info public, you will know.
I'd like to see the results but it doesn't really matter. It's merely consist with the BPL industry's secrecy and lack of publicly available measurement information. "The truth will set you free" applies here, and the industry doesn't want to publish the truth.
quote:
Rest assured that it is causing no problems that can't be handled with a few insulator repairs, and coupler rerouting schemes to prevent feedback through, or rather around the insulated circuit.
Insulator repairs fix anomalies which cause arcing and intermodulation, but it doesn't address the issue of the conductors inherently acting like antennas. And please elaborate on the feedback issue. That's a new one for me.
quote:
And why is it that the only documents the ARRL can come up with about "Interference Related" problems are in countries where the wiring is tired and broken, and just about every insulator has failed??? Simple answer, Because it causes problems there we must stop it before it causes problems here. Why, who knows, maybe it's because they think they own frequency allotments.
No one owns frequency allocations, but Part 97 gives us privleges there. Your BPL is operating under Part 15 which we've talked about ad nausem -- BPL is using the weakest part of Title 47 to exist.
The reason why there is so much documentation on interference related problems in other countries is because BPL has been pushed and trialed in these areas long before it hit the US. If the whole interference issue came down to insulators, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be in production in numerous countries and generating revenue. But it's not.
quote:
I was able to re-create the sounds from the ARRL video simply by placing an old AM radio, Power Inverter, or a Static Filled Blanket within a foot or two from my YAESU FT-847. The video proves Nothing. The simple fact that the FCC has seen the results, and the actual product in service is operating well under allowable limits in it's "test" (and soon to be official) "beds".
I can create RFI with numerous devices too, but that has absolutely nothing to do with BPL. The video shows S9 signals emanating from BPL test sites. The ARRL even worked with a subscriber at the Emmaus site to clearly link BPL data transfer to the signals observed on the HF bands. If you're implying the ARRL tests were rigged, that's a whole different matter and you don't have anything to back that up.
quote:
Look forward to seeing it in your rural community in 3-5 years, if not sooner.
I already have Cable modem service in my rural community, thank you. They've scooped up all the potential subscribers and just increased their downstream customer bandwidth to 3 Mbs. It's been in service for something like four years, it works, and it doesn't go down when I transmit on my station. I enjoy cruising the Internet while I'm operating my station...something I'll never do with BPL due to ingress interference. |
|
| reply to N0JCG
said by N0JCG:
... Comm Abernathy's comments. Her office has already apologized for the overly enthusiastic tone and confirmed that interference prevention is a bedrock issue for the FCC.
That's also reflected in the changes that were made when Commissioner Abernathy subsequently gave this speech to other audiences »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···85A1.doc |
|
| reply to ctceo
said by ctceo:
... why is it that the only documents the ARRL can come up with about "Interference Related" problems are in countries where the wiring is tired and broken, and just about every insulator has failed???
Where does one go to find such tired wiring and failed insulators in the European electrical distribution network, a network in which the use of overhead, open wire lines is a rarity?
Look at some of the countries where problems have been reported:
•The Netherlands where 100% of the LV & MV networks are underground.
•The UK where 81% of the LV & MV networks are underground.
•Germany where 75% of the LV and 60% of the MV networks are underground.
Ref.: »europa.eu.int/comm/energy/electr···ding.pdf
Those are substantially higher rates of undergrounding than one will find for any comparably sized and populated area in the US. Far from being tired, the distribution infrastructure in at least some of the countries where BPL has been tried and failed is far better suited to the deployment of BPL than in the US.
The totality of the record demonstrates that BPL has caused problems everywhere it's been tried. Where's a counter example of a single success story?
said by ctceo:
Simple answer, Because it causes problems there we must stop it before it causes problems here.
BPL has been tried in places where the infrastructure is more favorably disposed to its success than here and it has still caused problems there.
Yes, maybe that is a fact that should be taken into consideration. |
|
| reply to Ad astra
said by Ad astra:
said by N0JCG:
... Comm Abernathy's comments. Her office has already apologized for the overly enthusiastic tone and confirmed that interference prevention is a bedrock issue for the FCC.
That's also reflected in the changes that were made when Commissioner Abernathy subsequently gave this speech to other audiences »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···85A1.doc
Excerpts from the Kathleen Abernathy speech;
“Regardless of what one thinks about the appropriateness of common carrier regulations or related rules to BPL providers, there should be no doubt that regulators cannot permit new technologies to disrupt the operators of spectrum licensees in adjacent bands.”
“While the FCC has a duty to prevent harmful interference, I believe we should be circumspect about applying other types of regulation to nascent technologies such as BPL.“
We have come a long way from the original misguided statements inspired by the BPL lobbyists. |
|
