California Eyes BPL

Sure, go ahead and spend more money that you don't have.

There are way too many questions around this technology that need to be answered before they (CA) spend any money on it. Let some other state that isn't laying off policemen and firefighters foot the research bill.

The budget problem isn't that bad. Were not struggling to survive here. That aside, I don't think BPL is too necessary here, as a majority of the population gets DSL or cable.

Wha? I thought Kalifornakastan had plenty of money. Didn't they just approve $3 billion in bonds for stem cell research by a 2:1 majority?? Surely those peeps would beg to sign up for another tax increase. lol, I think we should play them for suxorz and let them foot all the research billz. More power to ya CA!!! you foot the bill and I will reap the reward.

The questions have already been answered. The technology has already begun to get deployed, without interference problems once they get bad lines replaced, and equipment working to par. I don't see what the hold up is.

You're partially correct...

The questions have already been answered and the answers were:

a) The technology is bad.
b) The interference is real and is a byproduct of the equipment working as designed.
c) The interference is due to the laws of physics and as such cannot be wished away.

The fact that the technology has already begun to be deployed doesn't alter the fact that it's intrinsically bad technology.

A "good" powerline radiates just as well as a "bad" one. You're confusing power transmission noise with BPL emissions.

At what site is the equipment working to par? There's been emissions measured and/or audio communications receiver recordings made on most every BPL site in the country.

...wait until you hear the California ones. There are a ton of them out there and they will voice their opinions on this.

Seems Susan Kennedy is looking for a job in the telecommunications or utility field.

Broadband over power lines is NOT necessary, rediculous and dangerous. I am a licensed ham, and have been since before broadband existed. Broadband is fine as is. What should be CRIMINAL, is to interfere with long distance radio communications which have served the world so well in times of war and disaster.

it would be worthwhile if they were able to bring the prices down to compete.

It is far from criminal not to have it though. I think much more research needs to be done.

First off, prices for DSL may have come down BUT cable just raises the speeds (which DSL can't do due to distance.) BPL is far worse in that respect and can't compete on distance.

As for it being criminal not to have it, the spectrum pollution put out by BPL is criminal enough. My guess is that the power companies will put out the cheapest solution and try to say there is no interference. Hope California can pay for the lawsuits.

Stupid idea? Hardly. It's a rather genius idea, really. Right now the technology is being tested. Sure, it has interference issues. But if they fix them, wouldn't you agree that it's going to be useful?

Its already past the "test" phase. The only reason new areas have to start as "test" beds is because they cannot guarantee that the service once powered up won't create interference due to oversensitive radio equipment, or bad wiring/equipment.

It's also because power utilities move at glacial speeds and there's still regulatory uncertainty.

"Oversensitive radio equipment" is a matter of opinion. Equipment that communicates around the globe with low power levels needs to be able to detect weak signals close to the noise floor. It's funny how people on this forum bust on Amateur Radio communications being outdated, meanwhile hams use advanced communications equipment more sensitive than most lab equipment. This illustrates a problem with BPL. The carriers and manufacturers don't understand the nature of HF radio communications and have built a system totally incompatible with the spectrum in which it emits energy. Now that they have sunk costs in a flawed system and can't turn back, engineers step aside, and PR people and lawyers are needed to push it.

You don't even need an "oversensitive" receiver to have a interference problem from BPL. Even a 50 year old shortwave receiver will be rendered useless by it. BPL is still in the "test" phase. Why do you think the FCC only issues part 5 experimental licenses to the test sites so far? It's because if a part 5 licensee running a part 15 device interferes with any licensed services, they will have to be shut down.

I know the difference between a transistor and a transformer, it was mistake. You seem to have read up on this so I have a question. What spectrum does BPL transmit in, and what is the total available bandwidth for the forward and return paths (eg. what modulation is used)? Also, how many homes are usually on a transformer?

BPL uses the spectrum between 1 and 80Mhz, the entire HF and low VHF spectrum where natural ionospheric skip occurs. Nowhere else in the known spectrum does this happen, and as a matter of fact, with ionospheric skip zone properties the BPL interference signals can unintentionally also skip to far away places. It is not hard to work a station in Europe from Colorado running only 1watt of power at 14Mhz. Anyway this is another unstudied aspect of BPL, when interference skips over the pole to USSR and elsewhere, they will again have to shut down because of the ITU and international Laws. The FCC has no control over these international laws concerning interference from other countries. When interference from the USA BPL sites grows strong enough to become a problem overseas, there will then be great concern. To answer your other question, I believe that each step down transformer can handle anywhere from 6 to 10 houses typically. Now with BPL, a bypass device must be placed across the transformer to allow hf signals to pass around the transformer which normally would be greatly attenuated through the transformer. This from the medium voltage side to the house 220V side. If this bypass device should fail "shorted" even for a milisecond, all of your appliances would have upwards of 30KV applied. I don't know about you but I would'nt want 30KV+ on the wiring in my house even for a short time. I cannot believe they have tested these bypass devices enough yet to be safe. There is no data that shows any results of testing of these devices that I know of, and nobody hardly even talks about it. Just another gottcha that is hiding under the politics.

Oh and your third question about bandwidth, it seems that with the test sites running so far, they are running around 1.5Mbps up and down that with very low numbers of users. Now when more users are added to the system the speeds will only go down because there is no more spectrum for it to use. The idea of using up the entire 1-80Mhz spectrum with spread spectrum like noise is really a blatant attack on a natural resource. This spectrum has been in use for many many years by licensed services as well as short wave listeners, military, aviation, maritime, government, and many others. Spectrum in this region is normally given out in Khz, not tens of Mhz at a time. We all have been using this spectrum in harmony with each others needs and concerns etc., and have been insuring we have the cleanest non interfering signals possible. Now with BPL, it creates pure havoc across the entire spectrum and ruins all practical communications even at short distances.

That is 1.5Mbps per user. What is the total available bandwidth from 1-80Mhz using what ever modulation method they are using. That number would have to be much much higher.

No, because power is stepped down enough at the pole tranformers (ed :P) that they can't run data over the main line. They have to run all the data on fiber almost all the way. I don't know how many homes passed per transistor, but for the most part they are running fiber to the pole, then offloading on power. This practice is nearly pointless, because once they are that close they might as well skip the power part and use 802.11 wireless.

Interesting point. Could that be their longterm strategy, to get all the infrastructure in place for delivery on their own wires, and then once they have their foot in the door, argue to be allowed to use the infrastructure already in place to deliver by wireless?

First off the poles have no transistors, they have transformers. Secondly Power is not stepped down, the voltage is.

802.11 wireless barely has enough power to push through a couple layers of Sheetrock. You are expecting it to go through Siding, Insulation, Studs, Old Paint (lead filled probably), and a layer of Sheetrock (or 2) you might as well put your router outside within a few feet from the pole.

Through testing we've found that most 802.11 routers b or g, can barely push 150 feet under standard conditions (no walls of any kind between WAP, and AP. Testing included 2Wire, Belkin, Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, ParkerVision, SMC, and about 10 others.

The BPL in Manassas, VA is no longer in an FCC "Trial" phase it is now in it's first year of Market Testing to see if enough subscribers hop onboard.

Amperion is somehow using 802.11 from the pole to the subscriber successfully. Corridor is using 802.11 natively on the powerline and depending on the natural radiation from the line to provide service to mobile and home customers (albeit very much in a testing phase).

It's funny how you're bullish on BPL, a technology with a handful subscribers and still fraught with problems, and down on 802.11

BPL is not "Standard" 802.11 gear. It is Extended 802.11 equipment capable of broadcasting at more than twice the maximum wattage of ANY typically used consumer 802.11 gear.

Any 802.11 equipment can operate at the Part 15 limits which is 30 dbmW or about 1 watt (there is no concept of extended 802.11 that I'm aware of). Typical consumer gear operates around 24 dBmW or .25 watts. So the ratio is about 4 times, or 6 dB. However, coverage isn't strictly determined by transmitter power, but rather effective radiated power. This is where the antenna pattern comes into play. A cheap omnidirectional antenna may have 1 dB of gain whereas a tighter pattern antenna will have 6 or 8 dB of gain. Antenna gain is a two way street, so any gain in a better antenna at the pole can compensate for a lousy CPE antenna.

In any case, Amperion is using standard off-the-shelf 802.11 gear for CPE I believe, and they appear to be the most successful, at least from a numbers standpoint. 802.11 is very doable.

EIRP standards affect the maximum wattage output depending on broadcast pattern. Take for example a Linksys 7dBi antenna. When using such a higher gain antenna the wattage output is adjusted to 4 watts, not 1. This is determined as a result of the antenna spread pattern being somewhat more uni-directional than omni, thus less potential for interference with other radio devices.

Also, the equipment that Amperion uses to broadcast internet to the home is NOT "standard off-the-shelf" broadcast equipment, It's made by partially Government funded companies such as Griffon Corporation, and Amperion Corp. I dare you to go to your local Circuit City, and find an 802.11x device that broadcasts at up-to 60 watts, with a broadcast range of 2,000 ft. These devices may be Part 15b, but they are by far available to end users for home application. I will stand corrected if you can show me the light, and point me to a seller of such equipment so that I may replace my "standard off-the-shelf" equipment so that I am able to broadcast my Signal through 2 Layers of Sheetrock...

You're right about the concept of EIRP, however it's not a standard, it's a measurement/calculation. It's not an adjustment per se, transmitter output power and EIRP are different measurements. A one watt output transmitter feeding an antenna with 6 dB of gain will have an EIRP of four watts.

You won't find 60 watt 802.11x devices at Circuit City, or anywhere for that matter, because Part 15 limits all devices to four watts EIRP.

"In any case, Amperion is using standard off-the-shelf 802.11 gear for CPE I believe, and they appear to be the most successful, at least from a numbers standpoint. 802.11 is very doable."

Then what exactly do you mean by off-the-shelf equipment. Perhaps a badly worded statement?

As for EIRP being a standard, classes I took at cook nuclear stated "In order to provide a common reference for radiated power, an ideal isotropic radiator is used as the standard."

If I remember correctly the formula is as follows.

EIRP = P@Output ofTx - LossTx to Antenna + GainAntenna(ae)

I suppose it's a matter of the way the word standard was used in both contexts.

Trying to use consumer equipment designed for in home use is stupid and shows how truly clueless the BPL engineers really are.

With the right WiFi equipment you can cover whole neighborhoods;
»www.vivato.net/press/pre ··· 004.html

You said "But if they fix them" this is not possible to do considering an open wire with an hf signal applied will radiate period. This is in physics 101 and you can't change physics, so it will never be "fixed" until they use a shielded line and that sure as hell ain't gonna happen.

BPL? Sheesh. Didn't the PUC learn anything from that whole Enron debacle?

The state is having to cut services to try and eliminate debt.

How can we possibly afford any sort of government run broadband service?

If this comes up on a ballot, I'd definitely vote no.

I support a few of these clients--BPL's and it seems to work solidy, and remote users love it, because they either can get any access or just dial-up and it will blow dial-up out of the water. This should be huge!

So far no "remote users" are getting it, and they probably never will. Sure it's a great idea if it worked without the inherent interference to licensed services. But the fact is that BPL will always interfere as long as it uses open wires to propagate the signal. Don't get caught up with the political bsers who claim it will be deployed in remote areas. That will never happen. They just want their money back before the investors and the nation sees it's a failure.

. . . and it failed with an F grade;
»www.arrl.org/news/storie ··· 00/?nc=1

ATT went on to link up with the WiMax folks;
»AT&T Embraces WiMax

Commissioner Susan Kennedy refers to BPL as the “forth wire” a drop in one position since the lesser Powell called BPL the “third wire”.

No mention by the Commissioner of FTTH which is clearly the way forward.

You said "the way forward" the way forward would be to outlaw BPL right now nationwide and waste no more time or money on it. Spend it on something that would work well FIBER. You guys are gonna hate the words "I told you so" when we all have to pay for this waste of time and money in the form of higher utility bills. If you don't have broadband and can't live without it for a while more then move, if you do already have broadband and are pro-BPL you know very little.

Down with the ham freaks

Actually, the audio clip containing California Public Utilities Commissioner Susan Kennedy's comments about the "criminality" of there not being any big BPL deployments in California can be found at this URL:

»www.etopiamedia.net/empn ··· 212.html

For an interview with BPL equipment maker Ambient Corporation's President and CEO, John Joyce, in which he says that BPL will not be allowed to generate any "harmful interference" with amateur radio operations, go to:

»www.etopiamedia.net/bplw ··· 212.html

For more about broadband over power line in general, go to:

»www.etopiamedia.net/bplw ··· 12.html/

This is a total lie – Ambient has been grossly polluting with their Briarcliff Manor, New York system and failed to fix the pollution..

»www.arrl.org/news/storie ··· 10/11/3/

ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial
NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 11, 2004--As the FCC is poised to act this week on a BPL Report and Order, the ARRL has asked the Commission to shut down a BPL field trial system in Briarcliff Manor, New York, that has been the subject of past interference complaints. The ARRL says the system, being operated by Ambient Corporation under an FCC Part 5 Experimental license (WD2XEQ), continues to cause "harmful interference" to Amateur Radio stations, and the FCC must require it to cease operation immediately.

"The operator of the system has attempted what it referred to as 'adjustments' in this system in order to reduce the severe interference potential to licensed radio services such as the Amateur Service," said ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD. "These 'adjustments' have come to be inaccurately referred to as 'notching' of certain bands, and as a solution to interference to Amateur Service stations, they are incomplete and inadequate."

The ARRL's October 8 letter of complaint was sent to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David Solomon, Deputy Office of Engineering and Technology Chief Bruce Franca and Experimental Licensing Division Chief James Burtle. A copy went to Yehuda Cern of Ambient, which is headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts. The complaint asserts that the Briarcliff Manor system currently is causing interference and fails to comply with either applicable FCC Part 15 regulations or with the terms of its FCC experimental authorization.

ARRL member Alan Crosswell, N2YGK, a resident of the community, has documented interference, complaints and related information on his "BPL in Briarcliff Manor" Web site.

ARRL said the BPL facility at Briarcliff Manor should not be permitted to resume operation until it can demonstrate "full compliance" with FCC rules regarding radiated emissions as well as with the non-interference requirement of §15.5 and the system's experimental authorization.

Accompanying the League's complaint were technical exhibits substantiating the degree of interference the League alleges. One exhibit shows the results of frequency-shifting adjustments Ambient made to the system in the wake of "multiple interference complaints from licensed radio amateurs." The complaint maintains that the adjustments failed to reduce interference on "a substantial portion" of the HF amateur allocations.

"Notching has not been done on all parts of the system," the ARRL noted. Despite Ambient's efforts to resolve instances of harmful interference, the ARRL said the system continues to cause interference, in some instances radiating at levels that fail to comply with FCC Part 15 radiated emission limits. The ARRL study says Ambient has been trying for more than a year to mitigate interference at the Westchester County site by using "notching" techniques, "but to no avail."

The ARRL said measurements taken at 14.3 MHz along Chappaqua Road in Briarcliff Manor "revealed 30 to 40 dB of degradation to Amateur Radio operations along a stretch of road over a kilometer in length." Another sweep showed that BPL signals at Chappaqua Road and North State Road occupy the entire 15-meter band and are still strong more than a quarter mile from the BPL injector.

"The levels of interfering BPL signals are sufficient to obscure virtually all Amateur Radio received signals and preclude Amateur Radio communications in the areas and on the bands identified in the report," the ARRL concluded.

Another exhibit provides "baseline" measurements at a non-BPL location for comparison. ARRL Laboratory Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI, took the measurements and tests October 3 and compiled the results which, the ARRL complaint says, "are representative of current conditions at the test site." Hare said in a report summary that the system "continues to intentionally use spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service at full-strength Part 15 levels, with no attempt made to protect amateur spectrum locally in those areas."

The ARRL called on the FCC to not only shut down the Briarcliff Manor BPL system immediately but asked the Commission to impose "appropriate monetary forfeitures" against Ambient.

The Briarcliff Manor BPL system, which is operated by the local electric utility Consolidated Edison, was the focus of a March 2004 front-page Wall Street Journal article, "In This Power Play, High-Wire Act Riles Ham-Radio Fans," by technology writer Ken Brown. ARRL staff members accompanied Brown to the BPL site so he could hear the interference firsthand.

Ambient manufactures the BPL equipment, which uses orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing and generates multiple carriers in groups of three, spaced approximately 1.1 kHz apart. The system occupies multiple segments of the HF and low-VHF spectrum.

The full FCC will consider a draft Report and Order in ET Docket 04-37 when it meets in open session Thursday, October 14.

For more information on BPL, visit the "Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) and Amateur Radio" page on the ARRL Web site.
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/