Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) Stumbles » A Clarification
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
112
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?  
AuthorAll Replies


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
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?  


Sunday, 06-Dec 12:57:04 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [163] Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
· [147] Avast Antivirus Has Gone Mad
· [135] The Bandwidth Hog Does Not Exist
· [128] Comcast Makes NBC Universal Acquisition Official
· [105] Graduate Student Unveils Sprint's GPS Sharing With Feds
· [101] Google Invades ISP, OpenDNS Turf With Google Public DNS
· [85] FCC Ponders Moving From PSTN To IP Voice
· [82] Latest Consumer Reports Survey Not Kind To AT&T
· [81] New Bill Aims To Limit ETFs
· [75] Sprint Defuses GPS Privacy Media Bomb
Most people now reading
· False positive in Avast! or is it real? [Security]
· Is there any true cure for, or way to prevent, a hangover? [General Questions]
· Problems with rlslog.net? [TekSavvy]
· Bulb for garage door opener [Home Repair & Improvement]
· [DNS] Google's public DNS... performance increases? [Comcast HSI]
· How fast is your upstream internet connection? [General Questions]
· Wife might have to work in.... Iowa for a few months!!! [General Questions]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Is Usenet targettable under ACTA? [TekSavvy]