rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to bugle533
Re: Gee, talk about sugar coating it......
said by bugle533  :said by moonpuppy :Yep, not one mention of any possible interference problems. From the Cincinnati Enquirer: "Joe Phillips of Fairfield, the Ohio section chief for the American Radio Relay League, says that so far the Cinergy roll-out hasn't created the radio interference many ham radio operators had feared." It's been rumored that Cinergy has stayed out of the HF radio spectrum (1-30 Mhz), so this would explain why there hasn't been interference issues with ham radio operators. |
|
JKrums
join:2002-03-18
Allentown, PA | BPL has, in all cases I know of, not caused any harmfull interference with HAM Radio operators. True, the potential exists, but welcome to any technology using RF. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by JKrums :BPL has, in all cases I know of, not caused any harmfull interference with HAM Radio operators. True, the potential exists, but welcome to any technology using RF. There has been interference at several sites. Three sites were shut down with open interference complaints, and there are numerous filings with the FCC »p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html . The potential has been modeled and proven to exist in the field. The way to make interference not occur is to not use frequencies used by licensees in the area. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
1 edit | reply to rf_engineer
They probably moved it to the frequencies used by the fast food drive up windows.
"I want a triple with cheese no mayo, no ketchup, diet coke and please Biggie size it.
All this time the Wendy's employee hears BUZZZZZZ!!!*^*^%*
Snap-snap-snap wizz bang pow. Making a good faith effort
this poor person fills the order.
the customer looks at his order....Hey I didn't order no dam salad....;)
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you.
|
|
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA | I thought fast food things were wired. That woudl be funny if someone was DLing a porn video and all of a sudden they hear sex noises on the fast food mics. LMAO |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| Nope, I have a Bearcat hand-held scanner that picks up drive-through window chatter all the time. It's fun sometimes listening to what the patrons put the poor window clerks through. 
--
Nothwest Arkansas' ONLY all Techno Radio Webcast, powered by SBC DSL! |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA | reply to rf_engineer
What flavor of BPL technology are they using at this site? Specifically, what frequency range? The only non-HF flavor that I'm familiar with is the Corridor Systems product that uses Microwave and, as far as I know is well behaved. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by N3EVL :What flavor of BPL technology are they using at this site? Specifically, what frequency range? The only non-HF flavor that I'm familiar with is the Corridor Systems product that uses Microwave and, as far as I know is well behaved. Current Technologies is the vendor. It's my understanding they can use HF, but tend not to. Here's a summary of vendors »www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/bpl.html#73 .
If all the equipment manufacturers moved to 30 to 50 Mhz rather than HF, alot of these interference problems could go away. Other than Corridor Systems (which is an entirely different animal) I don't know of any that have made the move. |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| reply to JKrums
said by JKrums :BPL has, in all cases I know of, not caused any harmfull interference with HAM Radio operators. True, the potential exists, but welcome to any technology using RF. I'd be interested in knowing which specific trials you're referring to. The cases of actual interference have been well documented as has the lack of action by the FCC and the BPL industry's sad attempts at denial.
I'm puzzled by your last sentence - are you implying that BPL's potential for causing interference is something we (legitimate spectrum users) should just meekly accept? If so, what is the basis of this statement? |
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA
| reply to rf_engineer
Have the ARRL or any other organization published figures regarding potential for interference from low VHF based BPL systems? I don't remember seeing any. What are the power-line-as-antenna characteristics in this freq range?
My concern would be that they (Cinergy) would permit their system to creep below 30MHz if/when they begin to saturate their current chosen spectrum. |
|
revuney
join:2003-03-22
Somerville, MA
| reply to N3EVL
Honestly, I see the Hams/ARRL being shut out on this eventually. The BPL industry has or will have better legislators, and they might just force a spectrum share or have the FCC ignore the hams.
Personally I think the hams are a bit "The sky is falling" about this, but at the same time, they are getting shafted just a bit... |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to N3EVL
said by N3EVL :Have the ARRL or any other organization published figures regarding potential for interference from low VHF based BPL systems? I don't remember seeing any. What are the power-line-as-antenna characteristics in this freq range? My personal opinion is it wouldn't be as bad as HF interference. Most low band VHF is FM, whereas HF is SSB. Receive signal levels are much higher, especially when local repeaters are used. On HF signal levels are often just above the noise floor.
My concern would be that they (Cinergy) would permit their system to creep below 30MHz if/when they begin to saturate their current chosen spectrum.
That's probably why you don't see any BPL manufacturers designing their systems specifically for low band VHF. They're going to need all the spectrum they can get to keep up with bandwidth needs, especially in the face of competition with cable and DSL which are already gearing up for higher speeds. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to revuney
said by revuney :Honestly, I see the Hams/ARRL being shut out on this eventually. The BPL industry has or will have better legislators, and they might just force a spectrum share or have the FCC ignore the hams. FCC Commissioner Powell was their ace in the pocket. He's gone now. For the hams to get shut out, it would require regulation changes that would cause the US to be in violation of international treaties. It would also put in danger other services in the HF radio bands. But the FCC can't do this since the NTIA pushed the FCC to prohibit BPL in several aeronautical bands. In essence the FCC would be giving primary status to something they already acknowledged would be detrimental to the services in the HF band.
Personally I think the hams are a bit "The sky is falling" about this, but at the same time, they are getting shafted just a bit...
It depends if the meteorite is heading for your house or the neighbor's |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to rf_engineer
Explanation: Most BPL trials have used one particular Silicon vender. These guys do not notch out the HF ham bands by default, you have to turn it on explicitly. Most utilities must not be doing this: pretty dumb IMHO, since they're deploying in residential neighborhoods, and hams are the one population in residential areas that have alot of very sensitive HF receivers, and are well-organized ('not too many shortwave listeners left, these days, and they're not organized politically like the hams are).
If you look at Current's website, you see they used HomePlug technology. HomePlug notches out the ham bands, just for the above reasons: they didn't want to PO the policially powerful hams, and they knew they were the predominant HF users in most residential areas, and thus were most likely to generate interference complaints. |
|
