 
RoguePimp
join:2001-01-31
Phoenix, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | You've got to be kidding me They are joking right? Who does not have a complaint about BPL? There must be a way to work out the issues at hand. I refuse to believe that with the state of our technology we can't work on a way to avoid interference. I just don't but it that all of the problems can be so bad. After all, I get my High speed cable through the same line as my digital cable in the house and I do not get any interference. | |
|  | 
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| Re: You've got to be kidding me said by RoguePimp  :
They are joking right? Who does not have a complaint about BPL? There must be a way to work out the issues at hand. I refuse to believe that with the state of our technology we can't work on a way to avoid interference. I just don't but it that all of the problems can be so bad. After all, I get my High speed cable through the same line as my digital cable in the house and I do not get any interference.
Cable and Electricity are two completely separate entities. It is very easy to separate one cable frequency from another and filter the frequencies etc..whereas electricity it is much more difficult
--
Forum Posts:3504 | |
| | |
RoguePimp
join:2001-01-31
Phoenix, AZ | Re: You've got to be kidding me I agree it is much more difficult to filter the freq fof cable vs electricity but don't tell me we can't figure out a cheap and easy way to do it! I just refuse to believe that we can't figure out a way to do it effectively. | |
| | | | 
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: You've got to be kidding me said by RoguePimp :
I agree it is much more difficult to filter the freq fof cable vs electricity but don't tell me we can't figure out a cheap and easy way to do it! I just refuse to believe that we can't figure out a way to do it effectively.
If there was a way to do it cheaply and easily without causing interference, don't you think it would be happening?
--
Hey - there's this thing called spell check... | |
| | | hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD | also cables are shileded to minimize interference..power lines are not and therefore will only increase the EMI and RFI they already geneerate
--
God Blesshttp://www.faithwalk.org | |
| | | | | | | TACSPEED
Premium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA
·Advanced Stream
| Re: You've got to be kidding me quote:
also cables are shileded to minimize interference..power lines are not and therefore will only increase the EMI and RFI they already geneerate
Phone lines aren't shielded, and most likely generate interference too. The key is to keep the intensity of the RFI low enough as to not cause RFI problems with the majority of the people or to interfere in a frequency spectrum that's not occupied.
Also shielding is not perfect, fittings leak and critters chew on the cable. In other words, shielded cables leak RFI too.
--
Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum. | |
| | | | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: You've got to be kidding me said by TACSPEED :
quote:
The key is to keep the intensity of the RFI low enough as to not cause RFI problems with the majority of the people or to interfere in a frequency spectrum that's not occupied.
Exactly! Which is why the 5GHz UNII band is the place for this stuff! 5GHz permits interference management through geography. | |
| | TACSPEED
Premium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA
·Advanced Stream
| quote:
hey are joking right? Who does not have a complaint about BPL? There must be a way to work out the issues at hand
It looks like they are working on the interference issue.
From ISOC
Electro-Magnetic Radiation Issues
Earlier PLC systems such as the one developed by Nor.Web in the UK emitted a high level of radio noise in the 1-30 MHz bandwidth. This resulted in conflicts with the British government's Radio Agency, when it disrupted radio signals from the BBC World Service. The Department of Trade and Industry (UK) subsequently made it impossible to use PLC in the UK and contributed to the withdrawal of Nor.Web from the business.
Learning from the failures of Nor.Web approach, second generation PLC technologies are using techniques like OFDM, which substantially reduce the potential of interference to radio users, thanks to a decrease in transmitted power spectral density. The OFDM modulation spreads the signal over a very wide bandwidth, thus reducing the amount on power injected at a single frequency. Field trials of PLC technologies carried out during the last 2 years in Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany), North America, South America (Chile, Brazil) and Asia (Singapore) have shown that interference with radio users is no longer a problem for PLC.
--
Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum. | |
| | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
|  Re: You've got to be kidding me
said by TACSPEED :
Learning from the failures of Nor.Web approach, second generation PLC technologies are using techniques like OFDM, which substantially reduce the potential of interference to radio users, thanks to a decrease in transmitted power spectral density. The OFDM modulation spreads the signal over a very wide bandwidth, thus reducing the amount on power injected at a single frequency. Field trials of PLC technologies carried out during the last 2 years in Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany), North America, South America (Chile, Brazil) and Asia (Singapore) have shown that interference with radio users is no longer a problem for PLC.
In other words, rather than pollute just a few frequencies, we spread the noise across the entire spectrum thus raising the noise floor for everyone. Forget it. So far the only BPL system that looks good is the 5GHz system. | |
| | | | | | | TACSPEED
Premium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA
·Advanced Stream
| Re: You've got to be kidding me Does the emission level due to PLC using OFDM exceed FCC regulations?
Do FRS radios and cell phones raise the base noise level?
We wouldn't want breaker, breaker Bob's CB or the kids walkie talkies to interfere with that emergency call.
--
Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum. | |
| | | | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | Re: You've got to be kidding me The FCC part 15 emission level is only a guide. No unlicensed device can cause harmfull interference, regardless of emission level. | |
| | | | | | TACSPEED
Premium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA
·Advanced Stream
| Re: You've got to be kidding me quote:
The FCC part 15 emission level is only a guide. No unlicensed device can cause harmfull interference, regardless of emission level.
There's obviously more to it. Since when I drive my car under a high voltage power line I get interference with my AM radio reception. Unless you are saying that power lines are licensed devices. In which case, interference caused by PLC is legally acceptable.
--
Fiber Optics is the future of high-speed internet access. Stop by the BBR Fiber Optic Forum. | |
| | | | | | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | Re: You've got to be kidding me Actually, you could file a complaint with the utility and the FCC about the interference from the power line. | |
| | | | | | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| The interference you describe from power lines is not legally acceptable. The FCC has written advisory notices to over 30 power companies to date, requiring that they correct the harmful interference from their power lines.
ARRL has a cooperative agreement with the FCC to try to resolve these cases directly with the power companies, but after those reasonable efforts fail, the FCC is willing to start waving the stick.
See:
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html
for information about the FCC Part 15 regulations.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager | |
| | | | | | | | 
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| Re: You've got to be kidding me said by W1RFI :
The interference you describe from power lines is not legally acceptable. The FCC has written advisory notices to over 30 power companies to date, requiring that they correct the harmful interference from their power lines.
ARRL has a cooperative agreement with the FCC to try to resolve these cases directly with the power companies, but after those reasonable efforts fail, the FCC is willing to start waving the stick.
See:
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html
for information about the FCC Part 15 regulations.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
I would like to see them correct the severe RFI from the new traffic signal lights (LED) used in CT now. When I'm 1/4 mile or less from one of those things, it buzzes louder than the audio of the AM station I'm trying to hear.
Who the heck approved these solid state traffic lights without RFI testing first? They would have put in filtering had they bothered to test them before deploying thousands around here.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
'»www.dv-clips.com
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
| | | | | | | | |
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: You've got to be kidding me I hate to turn this into an "interference annoyance" forum, but I live less than a mile from an FM tower for a local station and it jacks with at least 2 other stations that I enjoy.
--
Hey - there's this thing called spell check... | |
| | | | | | | | | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | Re: You've got to be kidding me Have you filed a complaint? | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by TheMadSwede :
I hate to turn this into an "interference annoyance" forum, but I live less than a mile from an FM tower for a local station and it jacks with at least 2 other stations that I enjoy.
It may be an issue with your receiver. A lot of pieces of consumer equipment can't deal with strong signals nearby, especially if they fall on the right frequency (aka the "IF image frequency") or are adjacent to a distant station you're trying to receive. So this may not be the fault of the local FM station. You should probably start by talking to the chief engineer of the station and give specifics. They don't like FCC compliants and should be willing to help or at least figure out what's really going on. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| I live within the fall zone of a 50,000-watt FM tower, and ya know what? Not a damned thing anyone can do about it. They were here since 1959 and the houses came in the 1960s.
It is called 'blanketing' interference and radio receivers have to accept it.
It wipes out the ENTIRE FM dial up here, on my Jensen car stereo, and most of the dial on the wife's Sansui. Forget about using a portable or clock radio. 100% obliteration.
Not a damned thing anyone can do about it.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
'»www.dv-clips.com
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
| | | | | | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
1 edit | Re: You've got to be kidding me said by 91439306 :
It is called 'blanketing' interference and radio receivers have to accept it.
It wipes out the ENTIRE FM dial up here, on my Jensen car stereo, and most of the dial on the wife's Sansui. Forget about using a portable or clock radio. 100% obliteration.
Realize, though, that it's not necessarily the fault of the radio station. Every receiver contains a filter in the "front end", the first part of the receiver that gets the signal from the antenna. The job of this filter is to attenuate signals that we aren't interested in receiving. A perfect filter would infinitely attenuate unwanted signals. In the real world, though, a front end filter attenuates the unwanted signals a large amount, but some of the unwanted signal gets through the filter. Taken to the extreme, when you have a powerful transmitter next to a receiver, a large amount of unwanted signal will get through. This unwanted signal gets to subsequent stages and gets detected and converted to audio.
Better receivers have better filters and will be able to tolerate strong signals, especially ones that are adjacent or close by your intended receive frequency. One could also put a "notch filter" ( »www.scott-inc.com/html/fmnotch.htm ) in front of the receiver to add additional attenuation to the unwanted signal.
quote:
Not a damned thing anyone can do about it.
Actually, FM stations are required to help resolve blanketing issues in some situations »www.current.org/pb405.html and »www.scott-inc.com/html/73318.htm ...
( Update: Ooops, I didn't see the dates in your post. Buy a notch filter  ) | |
| | | | | | | | | |
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| Re: You've got to be kidding me I hung a 1/4-wave shunt across the 300 ohm terminals of the Sansui, and that brought in at least the 5 big CT stations, but I find it unreasonable that a 50,000 watt FM with a tall E-plane pattern is allowed in a residential neighborhood. We didn't have this problem when they used 6 bays of Dialectric antennas. But now that they increased power and decrease to two bays of ERI antennas, we have a 20X increase in ground level field strength.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
'»www.dv-clips.com
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
| | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| > Learning from the failures of Nor.Web approach, second
> generation PLC technologies are using techniques like
> OFDM, which substantially reduce the potential of
> interference to radio users, thanks to a decrease in
> transmitted power spectral density.
OFDM does not decrease the transmitted power spectral density. It takes a certain amount of spectrum to transmit a certain data rate at any specific signal to noise ratio. In the US, the OFDM BPL systems operate at the FCC Part 15 radiated-emissions limits of 30 uV/m at 30 meters, just like other BPL systems.
Go to the ARRL video at »www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc#video and look at trial area #4, the Ambient BPL system in Briarcliff Manor, NY. It is an OFDM system based on the DS-2 chipset. That will demonstrate quite well that OFDM does not reduce the inteference potential. 30 uV/m is 30 uV/m is 30 uV/m when it comes to interference and the simple laws of antenna physics predict what signal levels will be received on nearby antennas.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab | |
| | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | It's not a technology problem; it's a physics problem. Energy in the 2 to 80 MHz frequency range, imposed on the power lines as they exist today will radiate; end of physics lesson. | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | TV cable is sheilded from interference, RG-6, is pretty decent. Tell me how many power lines are sheilded, with the exception of the segment from the pole to house. | |
| | | 
snorpus
join:2000-10-02
Export, PA
| Re: You've got to be kidding me said by en102 :
... Tell me how many power lines are sheilded, with the exception of the segment from the pole to house.
Actually, the drop from the pole to the house isn't shielded either... it's just insulated so the customers don't get fried. | |
| | qc832
join:2003-06-07
Scottsdale, AZ
| Actually I do get interference on my digital cable with my NHL Center Ice Package. If I am rendering video clips or using my graphics card to it's fullest potential with a game or something, it'll chop up my hockey games on the TV and the other discovery channels that are digital stations as well. It's kinda odd, it won't affect my DL speed when I watch a game, but when I play a game on the PC, it chops up the game feed, all pixelated and whatnot.
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
--
MPRmedia.com | |
| | | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
| Re: You've got to be kidding me This is because of time share multiplexing of the cable signal. When your pc's datarate to/from the internet increases it uses more of the available dutycycle on the incoming cable signal. They can only fit so much data on that cable per second, and when the internet connection demands more data, the TV data signal suffers. This would not happen if it were a fiber optic system as the bandwidth of that would far outperform cable. If it were BPL your TV would have lines and hash going through the picture constantly, even if you were not on the internet. | |
| |
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT | BPL is a bad idea.
It can be compared to converting an old VW beetle into a supersonic jet. It's just not designed for that, and the results could be equaly devastating. | |
| | jacour
join:2001-12-11
Ypsilanti, MI
·Comcast
| There is a way to fix this problem, and that is to design a power grid that will contain the signal and not radiate the signal. That is how cable systems work, and that is why all CATV uses coaxial cable with an outer shield. The problem is that the power grid was not designed with BPL in mind and as it sits, it acts as a huge antenna.
The problem for the power companies is that if they are forced to shield their installation, the cost would be so high as to make the price of the service non-competitive. It would be much cheaper to string coax to customers that don't have cable service than to retrofit the power grid.
This is not just a regulatory issue - this is where physics meets up with economics. Ultimately it comes down to a public policy decision on whether to wipe out 80 MHz of HF radio spectrum to benefit those users in rural areas that do not have access to DSL or cable. While the rural users might have a need for speed, this may just be a red herring to get regulatory approval; I don't see the tests being done in rural areas. | |
| | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| > They are joking right? Who does not have a complaint
> about BPL? There must be a way to work out the issues
> at hand.
With BPL, that might be very difficult. And it is moot, because rather than addressing the interference problems head on, as did the cable industry, the DSL industry and industry consortiums like the Home Phone Networking Alliance, the BPL industry has taken the firm position that BPL cannot and will not cause interference to radio services. It is not possible to work with anyone on a problem they claim doesn't exist.
> I refuse to believe that with the state of our
> technology we can't work on a way to avoid
> interference. I just don't but it that all of the
> problems can be so bad.
The solutions to BPL interference would require that BPL radiated noise be from 1,000 to 1,000,000 times (30 to 60 dB)less than the present FCC limits for unlicensed emitters. That is a lot of supression to achieve on a regular basis. Studies done by ARRL and the British Broadcasting Corporation demonstrate that 60 dB of supression would be required to prevent most -- but not all- levels of interference. And a 30-dB reduction in BPL signal levels would virtually mean that BPL can't work, because the BPL manufacturers have been very clear in their comments to the FCC that their systems have to operate at higher levels than the present levels of man-made noise on power lines.
As to how bad, in the US, BPL would be permitted a radiated emission of 30 uV/m 30 meters from the source. If you put a typical shortwave antenna in a 30 uV/m field, the received noise level will be very strong, S9+ by receivier "S" unit conventions. This is about 1,000,000 times stronger than the weakest signal that could normally be copied by that station. ARRL and others have verified this by 3 or 4 different calculation methods.
Most of the BPL marketing trials are small, at least in the US -- from 10 to a couple of hundred homes. Because there were virtually no amateurs in these trials, ARRL did the second best thing and brought an amateur station to the trial areas. The interference was just as predicted, and it would have been apparent to even an untrained observer that radio reception was being degraded significantly. ARRL and a number of European amateur societies have documented this effectively on the video recordings at »www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc#video.
> After all, I get my High speed cable through the same
> line as my digital cable in the house and I do not get
> any interference.
Inside that cable -- a well-shielded environment -- the modem and TV channels all use their own frequencies, separate from each other. They are able to be separated the same way that you can have multiple TV channels inside the cable, each uniquely tuned by your TV set or set-top converter.
BPL will not be the only device that has emissions at the FCC Part 15 limits. As an amateur operator, I can hear "birdies" from my neighbors' computer systems. A few are strong, but I can easily move frequency a bit and avoid them. Such devices generally have a local interference potential, so I am not apt to hear one from a mile away.
That may not always be true, however. A few years back, an early version of wireless modem jacks operated on 3.53 MHz. Like BPL, they were carrier current devices that operated at the FCC limits. They were purchased in volume by TCI Cablevision to use with their digital cable TV installations. Very soon, there were hundreds of reports of harmful interference. In some areas, the lower portion of the 3.5 MHz amateur allocation was blanketed with dozens of signals. Ultimately, AT&T Broadband, who had purchased TCI, did a system-wide recall of these devices. The manufacturer acted responsibly and redesigned the product to use a different frequency, but someone's ox was getting gored.
Phase II of that problem represents a different ox. Aeronautical, Inc operates 4 aeronautical HF communications centers. In their California facility, they were getting interference on 3.013 MHz. They contacted the FCC, who tracked it down to a number of devices in a nearby neighborhood, but they were unable to pinpoint the exact source because the power lines were radiating the signal everywhere. AIRINC had to abandon the use of that frequency at that facility.
These are some pretty serious problems from carrier-current devices that operate at the FCC limits. Both operated on a single frequency and were intended to be used on residentail and business electrical wiring -- ostensibly a localized interference potential. But both caused some pretty serious problems.
Now, take that same "legal" level and operate it on entire swaths of spectrum. Operate it 24 hours a day. And build it as big as an entire community. That's BPL.
The best analogy I can think of is airplanes. We all hear the occasional small plane that flies overhead, making more noise than we would like. We don't like it, but we live with it. Now, could we live with the same level if it were flying around the house 24 hours a day? Could our society live with the same level if every town had dozens and dozens of such planes flying everywhere all the time?
I think that FEMA has it exactly right when it says that the benefits of BPL -- and there are benefits -- do not outweigh the harm to virtually losing a unique and valuable international resource -- shortwave communications. In those areas where BPL is deployed and on any spectrum BPL uses, if it operates at the FCC Part 15 limits, nearby radio communication will be degraded to the point of unusability. ARRL and Amateur Radio are concerned; FEMA is concerned; the ITU is concerned; the BBC is concerned, and in many countries where the regulators have taken a close look at the impact, the decision was reached not to permit BPL operation.
ARRL's information and links on BPL is well worth the read. See »www.arrl.org/bpl and follow the links. I have recent information about official interference reports and official reguator decisions in Europe that I hope to get onto the page this week. A few of the links appear to be busted, so try the page in a few days as I figure out the new URLs.
Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org
ARRL Laboratory Manager | |
| 
aSic
application specific
Premium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL
clubs:
| Hah Bout time big brother stepped in to smack these BPL tards upside their heads. We knew serious interference existed under the current layout, nobody wanted to listen....till now. Now all we need is the FCC to do its part and make it legal...but like thats gonna happen :\
KE4SOX
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say. | irc.fj33r.com #dslr | Starband and DirecWay Certified Installer - Starband SRS GE4 C4/S69 | |
| | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
| Re: Hah Yes and don't forget the NTIA's study going on this very minute. They will release their results after the 1st. I'm sure they will also express serious concern over the noise floor problems BPL causes in the HF spectrum. This release will be before the next FCC move, and it will crush this crappy technology once and for all. What a waste of time and money this has caused for many, the engineers who are responsible for not paying attention to physics 101 lessons should be flogged. You cannot put an RF signal on a long wire and expect it to stay within the wire - DUH! It will radiate. Those who ignor history are doomed to repeat it.
So all you bitheads don't listen to us hams who are highly knowledgable in RF issues next time just wait for the big boys to come and back us up again. | |
| | |
aSic
application specific
Premium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL
clubs:
| Re: this technology is flawed... Heh...actually, we all DONT have cable or DSL. And no, we shouldnt invest a dime in fibre. The telcos have already mooched enough of my money to be invested in a fibre network that will never materialize.
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say. | irc.fj33r.com #dslr | Starband and DirecWay Certified Installer - Starband SRS GE4 C4/S69 | |
| | | | | | | N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: this technology is flawed... There will be no contracts, at least not where there is concern for interference. On the other hand, if you are a dictator this is just what the doctor ordered. You can force your entire population to use communication channels controlled by you and earn a monthly income while at the same time jamming the only communication path into your country that requires no infrastructure and uses inexpensive, one time purchase radios (I.E. shortwave).
Yes, there may be some places that is attractive. | |
| | | | | andyp6
join:2003-01-28 | I hear they are offering BB over powerlines here.. Take a look at this site: »www.hydro.co.uk/broadband/
seems they are already offering it in some areas in the uk seems like there isnt as many concerns about interference here. | |
| | 
minidu
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Mackinac Island, MI
| Re: I hear they are offering BB over powerlines here.. said by andyp6 :
Take a look at this site: »www.hydro.co.uk/broadband/
seems they are already offering it in some areas in the uk seems like there isnt as many concerns about interference here.
If you read the FAQ on that site it is a trial.
--
Experience -- a great teacher, but the tutition fees... . BOFH | |
| |
aSic
application specific
Premium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL
clubs:
| said by from mentioned site:
We are in advanced stages of our trials on a technical level and early stages on a commercial level.
It doesnt say what their technology is.. they could be doing that 5ghz BPL idea that was floating around for all we know. Not to mention, most of the power lines in the UK are underground.. meaning theres shielding involved, so less interference from whatever technology they're using gets out into the world.
There are versions of BPL that would work, but are too costly to implement as of yet..who knows? They just might have deep pockets...
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say. | irc.fj33r.com #dslr | Starband and DirecWay Certified Installer - Starband SRS GE4 C4/S69 | |
| | | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
 ·Be There
| Re: I hear they are offering BB over powerlines here.. Crieff - BBC report
»www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp067.html
Abstract
A brief site visit to Crieff is reported; it took place, at the invitation of Scottish and Southern Electricity, to examine some Power Line Telecommunications (PLT) installations (used to connect domestic and commercial premises to the internet). Two competing systems are described, examples of which were seen, and the scope for interference to HF broadcasting assessed. The circumstances of the trial limited the scale of scientific experimentation, nevertheless some clear conclusions are drawn. Both systems caused interference to HF reception, although one system appeared to have made some attempts to limit this. Some suggestions are made how co-existence between PLT and home radio reception might be investigated; such investigation would be essential before any wide-scale implementation of PLT. Audio recordings demonstrating the interference are available. | |
| 
trisomy
Premium
join:2002-05-23
Houston, TX
·Comcast
| Aren't We Splitting Hairs I mean no disrespect to those of you who are technically proficient but it seems to me that the issue about BPL is really splitting fine hairs. If I understand the arguments the potential interference to other Voice (Radio) services is what causes concerns. Are we not really talking about technologies that are likely like VOIP to end up in a convergence in any case? Should we not have redundancy for IP transmissions for the last mile in order for this convergence to accelerate? In the event of an emergency isn't it an end user we are trying to reach and aren't they better served with redundant methodologies to reach them?
If any issue should be debated perhaps it is to upgrade a mission critical 'wireless' network to better address these concerns. Sorry but it seems that rather than create a robust and dependable IP infrastructure we are more concerned about special interests, albeit important ones, but not ubiquitous enough to eliminate a 'naturally occurring' (as natural as copper wires can be) Right Of Way in just the area of greatest concern which is 'last mile'. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | The kiss of death Well folks this is the end FEMA is very powerful and they have just given the kiss of death to BPL....RIP | |
| | 
Stewy85
Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI
clubs: | Re: The kiss of death Yeah....and doesn't FEMA have the black choppers to take care of any up risers?
--
0111010001110010011101010111010001101000 | |
| 
Healbot
Premium
join:2003-07-16
Vancouver, WA | NOT everyone has cable/DSL I think this would be good for us the people in the sticks(like me). I would kill for a ping in the 500s and lower with my 1700 ping satellite. Just because you have DSL/cable doesn't the rest of us have it. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: NOT everyone has cable/DSL said by Healbot :
I think this would be good for us the people in the sticks(like me). I would kill for a ping in the 500s and lower with my 1700 ping satellite. Just because you have DSL/cable doesn't the rest of us have it.
From what I have read, you will still be out in the sticks with your satellite. Transmitting RF over power lines is a lossy business, and the variations I have read about have repeaters to boost the signal. That is expensive. It will be just like DSL and fiber, those in densely populated areas will get it, those not will not.
Of course I have not looked at the latest variations and promises, so I could be out of date.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| Re: NOT everyone has cable/DSL said by RayW :
From what I have read, you will still be out in the sticks with your satellite. Transmitting RF over power lines is a lossy business, and the variations I have read about have repeaters to boost the signal.
From what I've read, transformers kill BPL signals and so transformers have to be "jumped" with special devices -- the cost to do this isn't so high in urban areas, where many customers may be on a single large transformer (apartment buildings, etc.), but is fairly expensive in suburban areas and ridiculously expensive in rural areas.
BPL has been deployed much more quickly in Europe because in general, European power grids have far fewer transformers than those in North America, mainly because of population density.
-SC
--
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: NOT everyone has cable/DSL said by roamer1 :
BPL has been deployed much more quickly in Europe because in general, European power grids have far fewer transformers than those in North America, mainly because of population density.
-SC
'Several' years ago my dance partner hosted some guys from a European country near Germany. They were amazed at the wide open spaces we have (this was the Dallas, Texas area). They wanted to do a dance in Denver and it was hard getting them to understand that although they can go two COUNTRIES over and back for a dance, Denver was a 14 hour drive, one way!
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| quote:
I think this would be good for us the people in the sticks(like me). I would kill for a ping in the 500s and lower with my 1700 ping satellite. Just because you have DSL/cable doesn't the rest of us have it.
The real question is whether you would be willing to see the world lose all shortwave communications capability to get it. From the signal levels that Part 15 and other regulations permit, that is exactly what will happen in the immediate vicinity of a BPL installation on any spectrum that it uses, and it uses tens of MHz of spectrum simultaneously.
The regulations that work reasonably well for localized sources of interference, such as the computer I am using right now, do not work if applied to systems that occupy tens of MHz, operate 24 hours a day and are built as large as entire communities.
I have been to a number of the BPL marketing trial areas. The levels of signals they emit resulted in severe interference, to the point where even the multimegawatt international shortwave broadcast stations were noisy. Weaker signals, such as the smaller broadcasters, were obliterated. Amateur Radio and ARRL are concerned, but as can be seen by the FEMA filing, more and more users of the HF spectrum are also concerned. NTIA is expected to weigh in any time now, with the results of the studies they have done in the BPL areas.
There are a number of URLs that may be of some interest to the tekkies here:
»www.arrl.org/bpl - ARRL's BPL resource page
Exhibit C: VOACAP propagation analysis of the effect of Part-15 signal levels on worldwide communication »gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···14683434
Power Lines as Antennas: »www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory···nnas.pdf
Calculated Impact of BPL Signals on Amateur Radio: »www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory···vels.pdf
Exhibit A: Description of the ARRL video recording of BPL noise in trial areas »gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···14683403
Video link referenced in Exhibit A: »www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#video | |
| David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| WiMax is the rural solution Backed by Intel - Houston County system
»www.macon.com/mld/macon/7378346.htm
Nov. 30, 2003
Houston could be first wireless county in U.S.
Internet would be available anywhere in the county without plugging in
By Charlie Lanter
Telegraph Staff Writer
WARNER ROBINS - Computer hardware manufacturer Intel Corporation is talking to local officials about bringing a new wireless Internet technology to Houston County next year.
If the deal pans out, subscribers to the new service could surf the Web from anywhere in the county without plugging their computer into any phone jacks, cable jacks or other immobile connections.
Terry Smithson, education marketing manager for Intel, said the new technology, called 802.16 or WiMax, could make Houston the first completely wireless county in the United States. It also could later be expanded to provide wireless Internet access throughout Georgia.
"I would like to highlight Georgia nationally as a state that other states should look to to move into a wireless model," Smithson said.
But many details must be worked out before the service is implemented.
For example, who will pick up the estimated $2 million price tag for building communications towers and other start-up costs?
Warner Robins City Councilman Matt Stone, who has sat in on meetings with Intel and other local officials, said it's too early to tell who would pick up the tab and who would actually provide the Internet service.
Intel is only interested in helping the county get started by providing experts to study the issue and possibly selling the necessary start-up equipment. The company would not provide internet service. That would probably be left up to a telecommunications company such as Cox or BellSouth.
"Our hope has really been to have a community effort with a cooperative public-private partnership," Stone said.
The next step will be for Stone and other local officials involved in the discussion to approach the Houston County Commission, the Board of Education and the three city councils in the county and ask for a nonbinding resolution of support. That resolution would basically say that the governments agree that wireless Internet access is worth pursuing.
Stone said that likely will happen at government meetings over the next week.
Then, Smithson is coming to Houston County in January and bringing Intel's wireless technology experts to talk more in-depth about how to get started.
Smithson said providing the service to all of Houston County would probably require two communications towers, each providing service in a 30-mile radius.
He said the service is consistent, reliable and faster than dial-up, DSL or cable Internet access.
Stone said the service is expected to cost $15 to $30 a month and accessing it would only require the customer to install a card on their computer that would cost $20 to $30.
The talks arose out of Intel's recent cooperation with Houston County High School.
Intel has given the school a $30,000 wireless technology lab and is involved in an experiment this year that provided some students and teachers with Tablet PCs. The company has named Houston County High a model school, giving it access to grants for technology services and products.
Local officials learned of the 802.16 WiMax technology from Smithson when he visited Houston County High.
"I heard about it and thought it would just be a tremendous opportunity for Houston County to get involved at the ground floor," Stone said.
Morgan Law, executive director of the Houston County Development Authority, said the service could have an important impact on the county's ability to attract and retain businesses.
Law said it would catch the eye of many high-tech military contractors, such as those already located around Robins Air Force Base, as long as the service could promise security.
"The one concern is the security of wireless," Law said. "A lot of the government contractors rely on heavy security, and as long as that concern could be alleviated I think it would be something that would interest them."
| |
| Minotaur
join:2003-06-10
Ronkonkoma, NY
| Do we really need more Broadband? If we keep getting more competition into the area existing companies now wont be able to stand on their feet. In the 80's there was Job security then came the PSC and they allowed competition to come in the area Non Jobs at Verizon, Cablevision and so on are dying they are constantly laying people off at Cablevision and rehiring again. I understand the country doesnt want Monopolies but sometimes too much competition will hurt the consumer more because the consumer will lose their jobs. | |
| downstreamer
join:2001-12-18
Paron, AR
| Why so negative? I do not understand why so many of you are so opposed to even the idea of BPL. Granted it does not seem to be good in it's current state but will you not even concede that it may be possible to solve the noise problem. Just because you can't think of a solution doesn't mean there isn't one.
How do you know that if BPL was implemented that it would never become available to people in rural areas. It just might.
As for the physics lesson, I'll bet some tried to give the Wright brothers a lesson in physics as well. Thank goodness they did not listen. | |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| BPL - history of a failed legacy technology First a little history (those that ignore history get to repeat the mistakes).
BPL (AKA PLC/PLT/DPL) is a tired old legacy technology that has struggled with interference issues since it was first rolled out in Manchester, England in 1997 (one year before the introduction of DSL to Europe). Nortel designed the system. The UK authorities tolerated the interference for a time but when the emergency services traced interference to BPL it was shut down.
Development moved to Germany, Nortel struggled on and eventually decided that the interference issues could not be resolved. Siemens then took up the lead, after several thousand customers had been connected up, Siemens came to the same conclusion as Nortel and exited the business. The next company to enter the business was Ascom based in Switzerland. Then an Israeli company called Mainnet entered the BPL market using chips from a Spanish company called DS2.
Tests were made in Japan and the authorities banned BPL due to the interference problems. Next Finland shut down their BPL system due to interference problems.
By 2003 there were 7,000 users in Europe with a multitude of test sites, all small scale. BPL customer growth was stagnant.
The U.S. was never considered a market for BPL because of the architecture of the electrical distribution system. In most of Northern Europe electrical distribution is underground with about 200~300 houses for each transformer. In the U.S. much of the electrical distribution is overhead with up to 6 houses sharing a transformer.
In what can only be described as a desperate last ditch attempt to sell product and survive, the BPL industry created a "phantom" product that answered the FCC's need for rural broadband. The myth was propagated that BPL was the answer to rural broadband deployment. The FCC commissioners bought the story, the press talked about Internet at every socket.
The reality is that of all the Internet distribution technologies BPL is the least suited to go any distance. Every 2,000 feet an expensive repeater in needed to boost the signals.
Now to the myths
Clean technology myth
Tales of interference had preceded BPLs arrival, the myth that the interference issue had been solved (first generation problem!) was told to anyone who would listen. The lobbyists were very successful, they managed to get an FCC commissioner to state that the interference complaints were "unsubstantiated". How the interference problem had been solved was not made clear (trust us!!!!).
The reality is that the interference is even worse than ever, the modulation technique has been changed so that the interference sounds like noise and for many users it will look like a faulty radio issue. Tracking the source and proving the cause will be difficult, "skip" will take it thousands of miles.
High speed myth
To add speed to the solution for rural broadband was "icing on the cake". To create the illusion of speed, trial/demo systems where set up where four or five users enthused about speeds in the megabit range. BPL is a shared system and real world results with typical economic user numbers are about 250K (Broadband? more like Midband).
In conclusion
The only people who will profit from BPL are the power companies who will roll out niche systems in the few markets where the economics make sense. It will only take a few systems to trash the radio spectrum for a substantial portion of the western hemisphere.
There are many better ways to provide Internet access, when the choices are rated, BPL but any test comes bottom of the list however you make the measurement. | |
| | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
| Re: BPL - history of a failed legacy technology Well said David, now let the NTIA finish their study (to be released after the 1st). The results of this study along with FEMA's comments to the FCC now, and the 6000+ posts to the FCC's ECFS system previously will kill this dead horse once and for all, and bury it forever. Can you kill something that's already dead? The ham radio operators were only the first to warn against the idea of RF on the power lines, the government entities who have interest in the HF spectrum either were banned from commenting, or waited until they had meaningful data to make decisions against, like the NTIA is doing this minute. This says alot more for them than what the BPL guys have. They have done nothing to prove interference levels, only that it does work to connect a few internet users and who cares what else it does to anything else. Absolutely no studies were done on possible ingress from other services in the same spectrum. All these facts prove the incompetence and/or don't care attitude of the responsible engineers. They just want to throw it onto everyone and let them do the studies. Well I got news for them, IT AINT GONNA WORK SAM. The interference is very real and if implemented on a large scale would cause shear havoc on the airwaves. This includes baby monitors, garage door openers, cordless phones, not to mention your UPS system will have to be removed and the computer connected directly to the power because the UPS has EMI filtering built in and will block the BPL signals. Did they tell anybody any of these yet? NO and they wont. | |
| 
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX | I wish I could get PLoE... Is there such an animal? Power Lines over Ethernet? | |
| | | David95037
join:2003-04-16
Morgan Hill, CA
·Be There
| The German "FCC" on PLC (AKA BPL) Germany has three commercial BPL systems with about 6,000 customers that have been operating (and polluting) for the last year.
Recently there was a meeting of the European regulators to discuss the request of the European BPL/PLC/PLT lobbyists to raise the level of permitted pollution from their systems.
The national delegations presented detailed and colorful PowerPoint presentations on the pollution issue except for the German delegation who presented a two page typed statement which opened with the appropriate pleasantries then got to the point.
“German Government does not regard a European legal framework which results in general freedom to use PLC as desirable at the present time, because Germany has a lot of negative experience with the compatibility of radio networks and line-bound networks. Initial findings about PLC applications suggest that, despite contrary assurances by the manufacturers, the ceilings in force nationally cannot be adhered to.”
The country with the most PLC (BPL) users says it is not compatible, so why are we bothering with this broken, failed and legacy technology? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
winky
Turn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO
| Hold On Just One Minute I'm very surprised that no mention is being made of BWP. Over the existing infrastructure, only the addition of transmitters, repeaters, and transducers are necessary. In addition there is no emitted radio frequencies whatsoever.
--
NEGATIVE...I am a meat popsicle. | |
| busin800
join:2005-01-27
Gardena, CA
| Can the Electric Company just run new Lines shield "Norway" has
Upgraded its whole Electric network from the old system it took some time but it happened...;)
Why don't the Electric Company just put up New Lines shielded from Interference.
I guess that Blew my new Idea CPLS
Cable over the Power Lines "LOL"
First we must figure away to stop Interference with
BPL. - b4 cable over the Power lines someday..
Imagine, getting cable from any Power Outlet i nthe house or office. That will be someones dream?.!!!!
An Upstate NY, Police, DEP. has been using BPL technology for some time, and over 2000 Customers, in one Ohio area gets BPL, the City escapes me at the Moment.
Had the Fema had problems in those 2 area's>.. or any other places I forgot to Mention. | |
| | | |
|
|
FEMA Cites BPL Concerns
·
this technology is flawed...
