The Interference Gospel

quote:

---

FCC commissioner Kathleen Abernathy referred to BPL (Broadband Via Power-line) technology as an important step on the path to "Broadband Nirvana."

---

Broadband Nirvana is fiber. It does not interfere with anything, and can't get interference from anything. Not to mention fiber is fast, but we already knew that.

I used to not care about HAM radios, but after some thought I too would be pissed if it was my hobby for many years and suddenly it was threatened by people who didn't care. Especially when there are alternatives that work without so much hassle.

said by MIABye:

---

quote:

---

FCC commissioner Kathleen Abernathy referred to BPL (Broadband Via Power-line) technology as an important step on the path to "Broadband Nirvana."

---

Broadband Nirvana is fiber. It does not interfere with anything, and can't get interference from anything. Not to mention fiber is fast, but we already knew that.

I used to not care about HAM radios, but after some thought I too would be pissed if it was my hobby for many years and suddenly it was threatened by people who didn't care. Especially when there are alternatives that work without so much hassle.

---

Yes, I agree... "broadband nirvana" IS fiber. HAM radio deserves respect. As a student I was influenced by ham radio in a positive way, I never got a licence but I decided to get my degree in electronics and communications engineering.

HAMs not only spend many years studying for advanced licences but they also spend a LOT of money in communications equipment. It's not easy to to tell a HAM operator that his 220Mhz band is gone and to move to another band. This change involves thousands of dollars in new equipment. Most of this communications are very low power output and any interference could ruin HAM's operations.

robert,

said by MIABye:

---

Broadband Nirvana is fiber.

---

Fiber probably is the "best technology". The problem is, fiber has infrastructure investments thrashing in regulatory/political uncertainty.

The power company desperately wants a piece of the broadband pie - bad enough to step on some toes to get it.

After fiber what? I'm still watching for low-earth-satellite solutions to even beat fiber in bang-for-buck.

amateur radio hobbyist's: move your technology ahead. try streaming your radio on the internet cuz thats where its all going anyways.

said by 53059959:

---

amateur radio hobbyist's: move your technology ahead. try streaming your radio on the internet cuz thats where its all going anyways.

---

If you are going to troll, at least use an educated comment.

Streaming radio requires a broadband connection and computer. Those require power, money, and can only be done at home. HAM radio is free, can run on batteries or mobile power and can go nearly anywhere.

said by moonpuppy:

---

said by 53059959:

---

amateur radio hobbyist's: move your technology ahead. try streaming your radio on the internet cuz thats where its all going anyways.

---

If you are going to troll, at least use an educated comment.

Streaming radio requires a broadband connection and computer. Those require power, money, and can only be done at home. HAM radio is free, can run on batteries or mobile power and can go nearly anywhere.

---

Not everything negative is trolling. Stupid and ignorant perhaps. Everyone on BBR misuses the whole "troll" thing.

said by TheMadSwede:

---

said by moonpuppy:

---

said by 53059959:

---

amateur radio hobbyist's: move your technology ahead. try streaming your radio on the internet cuz thats where its all going anyways.

---

If you are going to troll, at least use an educated comment.

Streaming radio requires a broadband connection and computer. Those require power, money, and can only be done at home. HAM radio is free, can run on batteries or mobile power and can go nearly anywhere.

---

Not everything negative is trolling. Stupid and ignorant perhaps. Everyone on BBR misuses the whole "troll" thing.

---

It's trolling. When you make stupid statements like that with NOTHING to back it up, it is trolling.

If you are going to post on the other side of a subject, try to back it up in some way.

said by moonpuppy:

---

said by TheMadSwede:

---

said by moonpuppy:

---

said by 53059959:

---

amateur radio hobbyist's: move your technology ahead. try streaming your radio on the internet cuz thats where its all going anyways.

---

If you are going to troll, at least use an educated comment.

Streaming radio requires a broadband connection and computer. Those require power, money, and can only be done at home. HAM radio is free, can run on batteries or mobile power and can go nearly anywhere.

---

Not everything negative is trolling. Stupid and ignorant perhaps. Everyone on BBR misuses the whole "troll" thing.

---

It's trolling. When you make stupid statements like that with NOTHING to back it up, it is trolling.

If you are going to post on the other side of a subject, try to back it up in some way.

---

If someone said someting that was stupid and with NOTHING to back it up, but you agreed with it, would it be trolling? You may say, "yes - it would be trolling", but you probably wouldn't care at all (I can't say that with 100% certainty because I don't know you).

Many people here on BBR will often misuse the whole trolling thing to respond to something they simply don't like or agree with. That doesn't make it trolling.

This is a place for opinions, and while facts are the only way to prove anything, I'd be hesitant to say our discussions are so scientific and important that anything posted without facts included is without merit.

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time. I just think you got defensive about that guy ripping on hams and then said he was trolling, when he was just popping off with some opinions, maybe somewhat misinformed ones, about the future of communications.

And do not forget that many parts of the world are not rich white folk from the US of A. I know hams who talk to folks in places....never mind, you do not care about others.

Hams already connect to through the net, bounce off the moon, use satellite repeaters, etc. But you clearly have no understanding of what Ham radio is. Maybe you need to be aware that your 2.4GHZ wireless connection (or your portable phone) will also suffer from BPL interference.

Ham radio is of major importance in an emergency, and many hams belong to such organizations as RACES and Skywarn that provide emergency services AT NO CHARGE. Just how accessible was the internet in the northeast when they pulled the big plug a few months ago? Ham radio operators provides quite a bit of the emergency communications then. (funny thing about Hams - they still understand batteries.) What if they'd all been streaming their radios on the internet?

Before you decide the RF pollution from BPL is unimportant, perhaps you should do a little research.

I hate to say it but I think I will have to take the majority here. HAM enthusiasts, and hobbists alike don't like giving up their hobby. Plus, some that belong to those clubs, give their hard earned money just to do nothing more than participate and relay traffic when communications goes down. I guess if the madjor plug in the northwest went I guess they could have said "Well the net has no power right now, get a radio because that is where it all went anyways"

To all the HAM radio operators out there: I had a good time sharing with you guys back in the days of college from 1998 and still know the concept of batteries. I would loathe to participate or help someday when I get some time. Carry on guys, there will always be an emergency somewhere, where communications is vital to success or failure of a communications element.

The point is made, HAM is an overlooked, but very important utility, and it's been here a hell of a lot longer than BPL, and if it's going to cause that much fuss, then something will more than likely have to change.

I can't see power companies, even the stodgiest of which, interfering with HAM for too long.

With all my respects to the hams our HF public service "canary", let's not forget air&maritime traffic control, various national security services, SWL (with severe international treaty impact), radio astronomers, and last but not the least: various broadcast consumer services (AM/FM radio and TV) if this inter-modulation stuff is real. How would you like more static in your car or when listening to TV (without cable or satellite dish); yes there are people that will not dish out $ for TV reception.

Don't forget that once this thing is unleashed, it will be very difficult to step back even if BPL has absolutely no bandwidth roadmap. Are we that desperate for broadband?

If we want to create infrastructure employment of BPL, it would be better to deploy fiber over powerlines and get an improved power utility service. It would however screw up the small entrepreneurs deploying wireless broadband into rurals (note that pucs could benefit from such a service and should fund it if they have spare $s).

Deploying BPL is *not* a viable way to either get an improved power distribution grid or get broadband into rural areas, as discussed many times.

I'm guessing something can be done to keep from intervening with those systems, and they'd do what they can when faced with that much lobbying.

said by SuperJudge:

---

I'm guessing something can be done to keep from intervening with those systems, and they'd do what they can when faced with that much lobbying.

---

What I would like to know is what is happening behind the scenes. While we hams are the most vocal.
I wonder what the various government agencies that would be
impacted by this are doing in the background.

Got me, I'd be interested in knowing though. A lot of adjustments had to be made in the cordless phone industry because of the ability to intrude on conversations by radio.

said by Transmaster:

---

I wonder what the various government agencies that would be
impacted by this are doing in the background.

---

After 24 years in the military of which 12 was directly involved in a field where spectrum had to be reserved every 4(?) years, I can tell you what. Not much until they can not talk without a problem.

said by 53059959:

---

amateur radio hobbyist's: move your technology ahead. try streaming your radio on the internet cuz thats where its all going anyways.

---

We already stream on the internet. »www.echolink.org
and have in one form or another for years.

Hmm... In California there is a chance that the internet will fall victim to an as yet undiscovered fault. Might take the provider a bit of time to repair that one. In the meantime, RF communications will be the order of the day. This is exactly why Amateur Radio is classed as a service by the FCC.

As a Ham, I do not have the luxury of opening a trouble ticket with my provider to restore communications should my rig fail. I either fix it or go off the air. If I can't repair the rig, there are numerous Hams in the community that will lend a hand.

Kudos to Broadband Reports for reporting on this issue and to the supporters of Amateur Radio

I don't think LEO satellites will gain enough of a market share for companies to seriously invest in them due to the inherent latency involved with the technology (Electrons vs. Radio Waves).

It would be nice, and it rules out extremely rural areas

I support BPL, but only as a broadband of last resort. I think people in remote areas or w/o other broadband option will benefit from it. Offering it as a mainstream broadband product will cause some serious problems.
As said above, fiber is the answer.

I think you need to be very careful before accepting the grand claims being made for Powerline Internet access. Don't forget the power companies have to talk up this technology, they have invested lots of time and money getting it to work at all.

There are some serious problems with powerline Internet

1/ Radio interference issues, this is a real and serious problem that the various Powerline broadband companies simply pretend doesn't exist. It cannot be fixed and is due to the fundamental way in which the powerline network is built.

For some background on this Please visit the ARRL website here
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
The BBC made some measurements in the Crieff trial area in Scotland and found serious problems, you can read their report here
»www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/wh ··· 067.html

2/ Range. the Power line communications people keep quiet about that one. Current systems in use at the moment have a line reach of around 300m (~1,000 feet) before needing a repeater to be fitted.
Bridging work also needs to be done to get around transformers and metering equipment so it's going to require a house call to install. It is not simply a matter of injecting at the substation, it usually injected at the 11 KV to 110v transformer close to the end user. Backhaul from this transformer has to be done by other means, PLC does not work for backhaul, it's not fast enough and cannot reach far enough .
It is not going to ever provide true rural broadband. Perhaps if the economics are right it may work in smaller towns and bigger villages but like the incumbent operators they are going to go after the most lucrative markers first and they can only go places that have a backhaul solution.

3/ Bandwidth, Operators may talk of up to 80 Mbs yet currently trailed systems barely manage 2 Mbs and this bandwidth is shared by all users on the inject point. Nice and fast when you only have 1 or 2 users not so good when you have 50 or 100. Higher bandwidth systems will require radio interference limits to be raised but it is likely that permitted Interference levels, here in Europe at least, will be reduced.

This is never going to be a solution to the rural internet problem and has never even been trialed in a rural area since the operators know it cannot possibly work in a rural setting.

.Brendan

They just want to blow everybody's chance of having a network connected electric razor, toaster, sonic toothbrush, and [insert your favorite appliance here].

»www.arrl.org/news/storie ··· /1/?nc=1

NEWINGTON, CT, Nov 13, 2003--The office of FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy has expressed regrets that her remarks in a September speech may have failed to make Abernathy's concerns sufficiently clear about potential interference from Broadband over Power Line (BPL).

"We regret that the Commissioner's remarks may have been interpreted as suggesting an absence of concern over harmful interference," said Abernathy Senior Legal Adviser Matthew A. Brill, responding to complaints from the ARRL and individual amateurs. From a policy perspective, Brill said, Abernathy is "keenly interested" in seeing multiple broadband platforms develop, but that she didn't intend to suggest that BPL "necessarily will emerge as a viable platform or that it does not present interference issues."

In her speech, Abernathy expressed unabashed enthusiasm for BPL and suggested it was a step along the pathway to "Broadband Nirvana." Brill noted, however, that near the end of her remarks, Abernathy--referring to the FCC's approach to PCS regulation--said the Commission was "right to adopt strict interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their costs. The same principle will apply to BPL."

Brill assured the ARRL that "ensuring that BPL and all new technologies avoid causing harmful interference to licensed RF users is a bedrock position for Commissioner Abernathy." He issued similar responses on Abernathy's behalf to several amateurs who had complained following her address to the United Powerline Council's annual conference September 22 (see "ARRL Rebukes FCC Commissioner's BPL-Related "Broadband Nirvana" Remarks").

ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, expressed delight at Abernathy's recent clarification. "Commissioner Abernathy's affirmation of this important principle as a 'bedrock position' is most welcome and reassuring news," he said. From the outset of the FCC's BPL Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 03-104 last April, Sumner said, the League's goal has been to hold the FCC to its statement in the NOI that "each of these authorized services in the spectrum [including the Amateur and Amateur-Satellite services] must be protected from harmful interference."

"Since that time the presence of harmful interference at BPL test sites has been thoroughly documented," Sumner noted, "confirming that our original concerns were well founded."

Following her "Broadband Nirvana" remarks, Sumner had faxed Abernathy on the League's behalf to point out that technical showings submitted by the ARRL and others in response to the NOI "clearly establish that BPL is a significant source of radio spectrum pollution" and that BPL "cannot be implemented without causing harmful interference to over-the-air radio services."

It is obviously a fact of making money. The amateur radio hobbyists can gripe about it but the fcc has this inevitable thought in their mind of deployment. They appearently could care less who gets in their way as long money is being made on the other side. Theoretically speaking of course, i bet that FCC would take another look at BPL if it was free.

We just need another company that just does data, to build fiber. Once they feel threatened magicly we will have 10m to our homes. City by City Bell will loose, it would be great.

Yes, and just how much are you guys willing to pay for the service once the $$billions are spent to create the infrastructure? $30/month? $40/month? Because if it happened it would probably be in the $100's/month.

If they can iron out the interference issues, I say everyone will switch to the electric grid.

said by DaveW:

---

Yes, and just how much are you guys willing to pay for the service once the $$billions are spent to create the infrastructure? $30/month? $40/month? Because if it happened it would probably be in the $100's/month.

---

i'd happily pay 100 or 100s per month for a fiber solution that encorporates internet, hd television, phone solution. add reliability significantly better than dsl and i'll even ask to pay more than that.

Why do we need to go faster? What is the purpose? I download at 288 kb/sec and its fast enough for me. I download 10 mb songs, 50 mb movies, etc... and its darn fast enough. So why do we need to go any faster? If this were a push for something like a "multi national communication system" it would be great...but its not.

--
He that feeds a disease, feeds an enemy. Some diseases are starved. Starve your sins by fasting and humiliation. Either kill your sin, or your sin will kill you. - Thomas Watson Harmless as doves 131

said by exocet_cm:

---

Why do we need to go faster? What is the purpose? I download at 288 kb/sec and its fast enough for me. I download 10 mb songs, 50 mb movies, etc... and its darn fast enough. So why do we need to go any faster? If this were a push for something like a "multi national communication system" it would be great...but its not.

---

the same reason 1200 baud modems don't cut it today. technology evolves and requires more and more and more...

Although fiber (over powerline) makes more sense technically and financially than BPL for rural areas, I do not think it is nirvana either as it does not make sense financially either.

The mild backpedaling on the earlier statement that "BPL was a step toward Broadband Nirvana" is still *very* weak and just about as irresponsible as the initial statement. Wireless deployments in sparse rural areas make much more sense and still suggesting that BPL remain an option screws up all the small wireless entrepreneur efforts toward building (&financing) more realistic solutions in rural areas. BPL investors would be better off redirecting their hard earned dollars appropriately.

If the Abernathy FCC commissioner wishes to get out of the torture stretcher she is under since attending the original BPL "demo", she would be better off putting the burden on the BPL Vendors to take full ownership in demonstrating non harmful interference, including the area of intermodulations which will really screw up the spectrum. The working stiffs call this a "Test Plan". That would also mean suspend BPL "market" trials and hold a real technical trial with full load where this scary thing gets properly checked. Meanwhile she would be better off withdrawing the NOI and apologize for having contributed to issuing such an irresponsible document in the first place. Does she not have enough highly paid consultants? I look forward to the next backpedaling effort.

BTW, I have gone on BPL from albatross, to dead horses, cows being milked for all they are worth, and smelling rats and am now looking for one that goes backward and can reincarnate into Nirvana...

...there hasn't been nearly as much Ham-hating as I expected. Way to go!

IMHO, I think what we have going on here is the people who don't have BB want BPL and those who have BB don't really care. I am not an Amateur but have read up on the subject long ago. I'm also not the best with electronics like I used to be, but still know somethings! If BPL doesn't cause any interference with ANYTHING then I say go for it. If it causes the least bit of problems with ANYTHING ditch it. I know if I was playing out in my band or at band practice I would hate to hear the computer noises coming through my amp's/pa system. I hear enough garbage coming through my amps from crappy lines, bad grounding, interference from neon signs etc, even through properly filtered and properly grounded electrical systems. Now we are going to add some (I'm guessing here) square waves over sine waves across the system? I feel like some people here, there are better ways to get BB to the people that don't have BB. Other than some companies (cable/phone) really don't want to put the money into it right now due to the way the economy is. I admit, I don't know what it would cost, or what goes into BPL, but if the cost is going to be up there with running fiber/cable/dsl to the people, why not just invest in that?
Also, if it does go through, what would keep the hams from pulling anarchy with their equipment to screw up BPL? What about the illeagle CB'ers that run around screwing things up? Could it really work in the USA? Just my thoughts, and trying not flame or troll to bad!

Ham radio is a hobby to most - most of the time. It is during emergencies like 9/11 and the Eastern grid blackout where Ham hobbyists really shine. When phone lines are down, when cell phones are useless, this is when you thank God for the Ham operator when you need an emergency vehicle. The Ham can string a wire into the nearest tree and communicate with the outside world using nothing more than batteries and key. That message will be heard and repeated by other hams until it reaches its destination. There is no other communication tool as effective 24/7 or dependable as the lowly Ham Radio Operator. Unlike cell phone users, Hams are licensed by the FCC.

Isn't the point of trials to bring to light problems? Wouldn't trials shine a very bright light on the interference problem and push those that want to implement BPL technology to fix the interference problem in order to have BPL.

It seems to me trials are a good thing. Although they have failed in other countries don't we need to have these trials to see if they fail here as well. Are the trials exactly the same as the ones already conducted in other countries or are there some different variables? Seems to me that a whole technology should not be dumped if a solution could be found.

Yes BPL has been tested and failed in many other countries already. Why the engineers responsible for this crappy technology didn't learn from these studies is a mystery to me. If they went to college they would know from electro magnetic waves 101 that any HF signal introduced on an open wire WILL radiate! Physics will not change - Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Surely after all is said and done, heads will roll for this waste of time and money.

Most publicized trials have been "market" trials. Technical trials would put the system under a heavy load test and all the spectrum would get very carefully scrutinized by the BPL Vendor in full control of the test coordination.

Markets trials with a handful of subs (and even underground powerlines!) are more Public Relations efforts to get investors&subscribers to buy into this technology as it can't be further deployed without committing more $s. It is really not in the BPL Vendor interest to bring up these interference issues. Hence someone having to do this testing under the most adverse test coordination conditions, i.e. not controlling loading under test in a spread spectrum technology.

BPL Vendors technical trials real results did not get publicized other than through lobbying the FCC to redefine Part 15 with this NOI. Looks like it backfired and this damn internet thing got in the way, and ironically via the hams assumed to not work on the net. The scammers will eventually learn that it is getting much harder to scam smarter investors that do monitor these forums for real substance as they will not get it from the Vendors.

BTW we never heard back from that CEO/Public Relation lad after asking for more substance on the last BPL soap story. If you really think that BPL is technically and financially sound, then you need to show your cut of the FAQs or an NOI response and withstand some hard scrutiny with your potential investors monitoring this forum. This will have much more impact than press release on "finally working with hams".

building some type of 'interference generator' that totally floods the BPL spectrum with noise so BPL wouldn't work anyways? I am not saying HAMS are malicious, but if BPL is generating interference on the HAM bands, isn't it possible to do the same to the BPL signal? I can't see this happening somewhere should BPL go big.

As a licenced Ham operator and an avid on-line gamer, I have been keeping an eye on some of the current tests for BPL and things are not looking good. Not just for Ham's but many local government agencies either. The current tests show the most interference in the 25-100mhz range, this covers all the 12m,10m, and 6meter ham bands plus the frequencies that California Highway Patrol uses, many small town Police/Fire agencies and other uses that could be crushed by the interference, also all aircraft traffic is in the 108-138mhz area so if BPL goes into full nation wide use the interference could cause major trouble for air travel. I would love a new Cheap/Fast internet service provider but just cant see giving up or dealing with all the new troubles that it would bring. Just my thoughts on the Idea, Steve

That sounds like the second and third harmonics. What about the fundamental frequencies? I would think that the 80, 40, and 20 meter bands would be wiped out the worst. At least in the ARRL video it shows s-9+10db noise on the 20 meter band. I am wondering how this study is being carried out, and by whom? I am already documenting the noise levels out here in my area near the rockies in order to have a "baseline" to measure against just in case it ever gets deployed out here. In this way I will have a solid technical reference in which to launch complaints. All my equipment is NIST traceable.