mlmurray
join:2003-06-22
Dallas, GA
| Where's the interference in all these trials?
The debate concerning BPL down-under is virtually identical to the debate occurring here in ths States: worries abound BPL could interfere with the HF radio use of the Maritime Safety Authority, emergency services, and private industry
Alright. I've had enough 'debate'. Does BPL cause interference or not? There have been plenty of trials here, in the states and elsewhere to have compiled plenty of data on the [alleged, supposed, expected, assumed] RF interference.
Now, I won't pretend that I'm not rooting for this technology, or something like it, to succeed. I have family who live in very rural areas with no hope of Cable or DSL and Satellite is really not much of a cost/performance contender. However, as an engineer, although I too, intuitively 'feel' that BPL should cause some interference, we are in position to KNOW. I would have expected some pretty shrill outcry and anecdotal evidence about interference from Ham/Shortwave operators in the trial areas. I haven't and, believe me I've been following this very closely.
Jeeze! Enough FUD already. Both sides should put up or shut up!
(Full disclosure: I am a Power Distribution Engineer - not an RF Engineer) |
|
niplet
join:2003-10-04
Antioch, TN
| agreed,
i want to see what interference is caused and how much interference instead of hearing it is being debated, i like the idea of BPL if it works and that is the key, without harmful interference, which in my case harmful would be considered disruption of emergency signals after a catastrophe.
--
xbox live gamer tag niplet |
|
vote4change
join:2004-10-19
Omaha, NE
| reply to mlmurray
Well it's hard to say, because the boys in the FCC OET are so clever at sitting on complaints and cheerleading the technology. They haven't the slightest regard to how it impacts licensed users. It's a money machine! It's a talking point for politicians. Normally complaints go to the enforcement bureau. Instead, BPL complaints get special treatment.
There have been complaints in just about every trial area. The hams complain because the garbage it generates makes their communication impossible and literally pollutes the radio spectrum. To them, it's harmful interference, and by definition, should be turned off. Rightfully so, the measurements made clearly show noise well above the ambient noise level that would prevent any other signal from being heard. The FCC has decided that it's going to ignore its own rules and decide what is harmful. In one case, they pulled to the curb of the complaintant, listened to the noise, then drove away. Then they dismissed the complaint as being resolved. Literally. They never even made contact with the person.
The truth is it causes absolute interference when data is being transferred for anyone within about 1500'. Depending on the strand of power line and the licensee's antenna, it can be heard a mile away.
The Cottonwood, AZ trial continues to generate complaints and has been operating above part 15 limits. The FCC ignores complaints. That's the truth.
There's a small problem of accuracy with the claims being made by the BPL vendors. Some claim there are thousands of users. Some claim there are thousands of homes. The truth is it's not nearly as widespread as they would have you believe. There are pockets of it in dense areas. But does that mean subscribers? No. Idle systems do not generate noise.
Believe me, those that are hearing it are complaining. I've seen the complaints. |
|
millman
join:2001-03-26
Keyport, NJ | reply to mlmurray
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/aud-vid.html |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | reply to vote4change
Actually you have a fact messed up, not many complaints have been in trial areas. I know for a fact one near me did not have a single complaint from its BPL trial. |
|
AJ5TT
join:2003-08-17
Friendswood, TX
| reply to niplet
Niplet,
In the article, the Energy company, Fietz, acknowledges interference.
"Country Energy's Fietz said he was aware of the side effects of BPL transmissions: "We have had a number of approaches from HF users. We are treating it [radio interference] seriously...""
As far as how much, I believe the ARRL has some documentation on how much interference. As far as documentation from providers, I believe it is kept classified due to the nature of the trials in the US.
John |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA | reply to markopoleo
»www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyp···#Reports |
|
Daishi7
Premium
join:2002-02-24
clubs:  
| reply to mlmurray
There is no "debate" of if BPL causes interference or not, this has been demonstrated and proven in almost almost every BPL deployment to date. It is more a question of "what is an acceptable level of interference?"
The "truth" is that for short distance radio communication, you can still transmit over the noise created by BPL, but if you are communicating with someone in another country over an HF band, a BPL deployment in your close proximity is going to have a noticeable impact on your communication.
Also, it is not like the data is just thrown on the line back at the power plant and it "just works(TM)", it is much more complicated then that and there is lots of additional equipment involved and fiber is run most of the distance anyway. It is pretty safe to say that if you don't have an option of Cable or DSL, then you won't have an option of BPL either. |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| reply to mlmurray
said by mlmurray  :...I would have expected some pretty shrill outcry and anecdotal evidence about interference from Ham/Shortwave operators in the trial areas. I haven't and, believe me I've been following this very closely... The sentiments expressed in this statement are mutually exclusive: you can't have missed the evidence presented to date (frequently ref'd on this very forum) AND claim to have been following this "very closely." |
|
RFZOT
join:2005-03-12
Australia
| reply to markopoleo
Well at the Queanbeyan Trials in N.S.W. the interference was extremely strong. In fact NO OTHER signals could be copied.
It was a total wipeout. I did not even hear the Naval station
which is only a few miles away. Of course it may not have been transmitting, but Radio Australia on 6 Mhz was not heard either. No amateur signals on any of the bands could be coipied. Nothing, absolutely nothing, except the masses of carriers of the ODFM BPL was heard.
Incidently those who started discussing AC & DC should at least get some basic knowledge before jumping into debates like this.
Radio Frequency Zero Order Tank |
|
northcentralham
@midco.net
| reply to N3EVL
I don't like bpl and i listen what the arrl is saying and what other people have say if it worked like dsl or cable then no one would be talking about but it doesn't yet, maybe never. But some of things posted here saying are wrong things i've been a ham radio operator for the past 25 years. Interference on ham bands in trial areas could be some part of bpl, but not all we are in a low cycle of a 10 year solar cycle and alot of hf bands are noise dead or are hard to hear at this time. But interference also comes from other sources like, big screen tv, computers, wireless networks, power stations, cars, trucks, the ground, the weather, microwaves, and cell phone towers. if bpl can be fixed great i'm for that. if something fastest and less of interference is created more to it.
»www.arrl.org
»www.fcc.gov |
|
niplet
join:2003-10-04
Antioch, TN
| reply to niplet
i think everyone took what i posted the wrong way, i was not trying to say it did not cause interference, what i was trying to say was that i was for it if it DID NOT cause a disruption in emergencies, i have not researched this in a while and nor have i seen any reports on an emergency situation as of yet. i know for one if i/anyone was in an accident and the only way for me/victim to get help was from someone with a ham radio radioing in for help, then no it should not be allowed.
--
xbox live gamer tag niplet |
|
