Power Line BroadbandFCC prepares to move technology forward ( old news - 03:20PM Wednesday Oct 13 2004) tags: alternatives · BPLPowerline Broadband (BPL) offers an alluring dream: broadband available via every outlet, cheaper DSL and cable thanks to competition, and an easy way to get America wired. The FCC's dream is troubled by reality however, namely interference concerns, iffy trial results, and a growing number of engineers who say the technology will never work. This week the FCC will move BPL forward all the same. Michael Powell has been anything but friendly to the CLECs. His belief that the telcos shouldn't have to share their networks with competitors is clearly reflected in his policies. While those policies may eventually reduce competition in the broadband sector, he believes that balance can be restored to the "competitive force" via a third broadband delivery avenue to the home: BPL. While FCC leaders should be reasonable and cautious in regards to unproven technology, Powell has been BPL's greatest champion, dubbing the technology the "great broadband hope" before even seeing viability studies. After witnessing a preliminary AT&T and Pacific Gas and Electric trial this summer, Powell stated that "Power-line technology holds the great promise to bring high-speed Internet access to every power outlet in America."Powell isn't alone. FCC commissioner Kathleen Abernathy has also referred to BPL technology as an important step on the path to "Broadband Nirvana." Unfortunately this rampant optimism isn't shared by many engineers, or those who actually work with the technology. As explored in a recent Broadband Reports editorial by an industry engineer, BPL has some serious problems to overcome. BPL's primary medium, namely the power-lines running near your house, is unsuited for broadband data, and unlike copper twisted pair, coaxial cable, and fiber (which are all inherently non-radiating self-shielded mediums), power-lines leak signal into the air causing serious communications problems across the HF radio bands. With plenty of money to be made, these interference concerns have been largely dismissed by the power industry as inconsequential. While some trials have made efforts to remedy the problem, a cost-effective solution has yet to be found. In fact, many companies have recently cancelled trials with no expansion plans, finding the steps needed to curb interference could be counter-intuitive to the concept of profit. Not only are there interference concerns, but some have found geographical limitations make BPL more of a niche technology than the sweeping cure-all envisioned by the FCC. Alliant Energy's BPL Project Leader Dan Hinz - someone who should know - says he considers BPL to be a "strategic deployment technology," not one that could successfully be deployed anywhere in America with the hopes of competing against DSL or Cable. That hasn't stopped the FCC from cheerleading. Neither has warnings from emergency professionals and government agencies concerned about a disruption to emergency communications. Nor has a growing list of global failures in places like Finland (interference), Austria (interference), and Japan (interference). Nor have almost weekly warnings and evidence (see this 24MB film) from radio hobbyists. The long road for power-line technology comes to its zenith this week, as the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will present its BPL Report and Order to the FCC on Thursday, and the FCC will announce new rules governing the deployment of said technology. The FCC spent yesterday touring trials in Manassas, Virginia in preparation for the upcoming vote. With so much money at stake for the power companies, and Powell desperately in need of a new avenue of competition for those he's helped eliminate, expect an optimism packed announcement from the FCC tomorrow on the future of BPL technology with FCC brewed data to support it.
Related:- DirecTV, Current Offer Broadband Over Powerline
- Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) Stumbles
- 2008: The Year Broadband Over Powerline Died
- Broadband Over Power Lines Gets An Autopsy
- IBM Didn't Get Memo That BPL Is Dead
- IBM Hopes To Reach 200k Customers With BPL
- Manassas Tries To Keep Dying BPL Network Alive
- Powerline Broadband Just Won't Die
|
 navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | Tsk... tsk... Cable and DSL companies are not gonna be happy about this... FINALLY SOMETHING IN OUR FAVOR! | |
|  | subman87
Another day in the Brentwood
join:2000-11-24
Harrison, NY | Re: Tsk... tsk...
I couldn't agree more, Con Edison (here in Westchester County) is one of the electric companies that is a major player in this BPL testing. | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| BPL BS Powell doesn't really believe in BPL. It's just a distraction to keep the focus away from the fact that he's handing the ILECs back their monopoly. As soon as that's re-secured, the FCCs push for BPL will end and we'll all be on expensive severely bandwidth-limited port-blocked abominations provided by our friendly neighborhood ILEC. | |
| | jporter07
join:2004-03-22
Mobile, AL | Re: BPL BS If the availability of cable and DSL are both present at one location then that is enough competition. Kind of like the lesser of two evils! HOORAY FOR CABLE! | |
| doppler
join:2003-03-31
Blue Point, NY | FCC: Damn the torpedo's FULL SPEED AHEAD Someones going to sink, when they hit. | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: FCC: Damn the torpedo's FULL SPEED AHEAD Yeah, what credibility Powell still has.
--
Rise and take away their lies | |
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| Haven't we heard enough already? You have other countries who have tried it & dropped it
You have a growing number of engineers who speak out against it.
You have a growing number of emergency & government professionals who use the radio are finding that the interference is unacceptable. This does not even mention the Amateur Radio Operators (Ham's), who by their building & troubleshooting their own radios know what interference is all about & it's causes, who have been the most vocal.
I think the current leadership in the FCC is more managerial than technical - it should be the other way around. They should check out & evaluate the technical aspects before making managerial descions.
In this case, it looks like the leapt before they looked - and landed in a swamp of conterversity! | |
| 
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Just goes to show... just how far Powell has his head up his a$$. It is so far up there he cannot hear or see how bad this is going to be. Has his own personal opinion about what should be and disregards any trials and their failures showing how this is going to effect users in other frequency spectrums. | |
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Not to mention *received* interference... The radiated interference issues aside, the technology relies on so many hacks and paper-clipped work-arounds that it is laughably susceptible to destructive interference to itself! The very areas where this is being trumpeted as The Solution--rural, low population density areas along with some of outlying suburbia--have notoriously bad power. Anyone who has tried to listen to weak AM or shortwave stations near such a power line knows this will never fly.
The power companies would be $Billions ahead if they just strung fiber along the static drains and neutrals like they routinely do with HV transmission lines, and deployed wireless as the "last mile", which in this case is the last 100 feet.
Didn't the dot-bomb economy teach investors anything?
--
Rise and take away their lies | |
| | TruthConcern
join:2004-09-19
Kennett Square, PA
| Why can't power companies see the obvious?
"The power companies would be $Billions ahead if they just strung fiber along the static drains and neutrals like they routinely do with HV transmission lines, and deployed wireless as the "last mile"..."
I've been seaching for a rational answer to this comment for ages. Can anyone tell me why the power companies just can't see the bloomin' obvious?
It's a bit like the DC versus AC argument [Edison v. Tesla] all over again, except here the case against BPL is much clearer and more defined.
It's a no-brainer for most thinkers--that's anyone with a room-temperature IQ and above--but it's not for Powell, the FCC and the power monopolies. But on earth why?
| |
| 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| Well... ...if it ever comes to my area, I will be looking into getting it. Our powerlines are under ground, so if it is able to be implemented here, interference should not be an issue. 
--
Nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out. | |
| | 
Heterman
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Fayetteville, AR
| Re: Well... Well, I don't know much about this but... Why couldn't they use another frequency spectrum? It seems to me they could use the 2.4 or 5.8ghz to broadcast this. Those freq's are not in the HF band and they don't seem to travel far. Now I know this will probably cause havoc to the wireless routers and cordless phones we now have, but they surely could find a better frequency to broadcast this on.
All of the new lines around here are going underground anyway, so there shouldn't be much interference...let's hope. | |
| | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Well... One company is using 2.4 / 5.8 Ghz »www.corridor.biz/ . This has tons more capacity than HF BPL, no interference potential, and it actually has a future. It appears the FCC has all but ignored it in favor of promoting HF BPL. | |
| | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
| It has already been proven that under ground wiring only attenuates the interference signal by 3db. This is largely because once the wires come up above the ground into your house wiring in the walls and ceilings, the antenna is alive and well again. Also the interference into BPL will be heavy and at times you will be kicked off the internet by the CBer or Ham down the street. As a matter of fact it also already has been shown that a meager 100W mobile station transmitting only with a quarter wave GP will effectively take out whole blocks of BPL service. Now with the increased interference and raised noise floor we will be forced to transmit much higher power levels than that and with high gain antennas. With 1500 watts at 14Mhz and a 3 element yagi up only 35 ft. all BPL users will be kicked off the internet for 10 blocks or more every time I key up. And guess what , there's nothing you or your power co. can do about it because your are not the licensed user of this spectrum. Beware... | |
| 
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
1 edit |  BWL
/Sarcasm | |
| | | | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA | Re: BWL Not to get to far off topic,Cant they just supply juiceboosted
for the rural areas and the *last mile* .Instead of bpl.? | |
| | |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| quote:
I suppose, even though you're being sarcastic, that your proposal really isn't much different than other ones along the same lines. For example, using flourescent tube lighting to transmit data. Flicker the light fast enough where humans can't detect it, but be sending binary transmissions that a light decoder can understand.
Why not a smilar concept with water pipes. Send low voltage pulses through and decode.
Because when the system malfunctions and sends a high-voltage blast through the system it could potentially cook people who are showering... I mean the idea of the water-utility providing internet isn't impossible but it seems as odd to me as the BPL stuff does as useless.
Justin | |
| | | | 
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: BWL I suppose there's always that possibility, but I would imagine you could minimize it pretty well. ANyway, it's a silly but fun idea. | |
| | | | |
jwsmiths4
Part Man, Part Mac
Premium
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA
| Re: BWL Well most of the route from the internet equipment to the house would be well grounded in almost all locations (underground plumbing with plenty of metal connections to the ground) but imagine the sheer amount of interference one could expect whenever there were lightning storms. Anything to avoid BPL though. | |
| | 
Agent 86
| "Hey Guys I have a great idea for a way of delivering broadband with virtually NO interference.... we can send our internet over our water pipes.... advanced devices measuring extremely slight variations in water pressure will facilitate sending data through our water supply... Great idea right? Should have Powell and the FCC look into that one...."
That is a great idea! The Internet to every toilet in America! Browse while you poop!
Seriously, I agree with the person who said that if the power companies want to get into telecom, they should string fiber. This BPL stuff is crap, and will never be competitive with Cable or DSL even if they can make it work. | |
| PthirusPubis6
join:2003-05-24
00000 | If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings! Finally broadband for rural America!
I'm glad the FCC didn't listen to all the self-proclaimed experts that have been working so hard to block this.
Heh heh heh!
| |
| | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings! If you live in the rural area and have been ignored by cable and telco, then I'm happy BPL is coming to you! It's about time people out that far have a chance for something.
Hopefully when you can the county public safety services, the transmission won't be hindered by your ability to have "fast Internet access."
--
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ | |
| | 
AJ5TT
join:2003-08-17
Friendswood, TX
| Hey folks, Broadband over power lines sounds like a good idea and the field trials have proven that you can move data. You can get data from point A to point B over power lines. You have to wonder why you have not seen any results of problems or interference from these field trials. They are secret. They do not want you to know. Trials have been shut down and there are existing trials that should be shut down. You may have read about a term call “notching” (which really is not correct) to reduce interference. Notching is not working too well either and the more you notch the less bandwidth they have to play with.
From just a couple of items I have read from the FCC web site, filings about BPL you can find: HAM radio operators report and have documented interference, government agencies have requested if BPL is implemented zones of silence where the equipment should not be installed, a company who provides HF communications for pilots submitted their objections and documentation of interference
Then it makes you wonder about the ARRL filing to have the FCC Chairman to Recuse himself from the BPL vote due to "It's a glaring, glaring violation of the ex parte rules,". Rules that the have been set to restrict avocation of a product but to have the commission act as an independent body to judge. A real kicker.
One last thing.. “Rural America” you got to be kidding. Some have labeled Kansas City as rural! This will be implemented (and if implemented) only where the CEO’s can make money. Do not believe for a second they are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts to help the person out in the boonies. | |
| | | kauiman3
join:2002-08-16
Redondo Beach, CA
| Re: If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings! ARRL doesn't post cases where the claims of interference were unfounded. It also claims victories where perhaps the issue was not just noise issues. Ever heard of Business Cases regarding large Capex?????
It's not surprising that some BPL trials are going underground because the ARRL has people in a panic about
BPL.
Believe it or not the NTIA and FCC engineers actual do testing and are not complete idiots. The FCC and NTIA are also responsible for making sure that co-existance with Government needs for spectrum works, including emergency and security needs (spies, planes etc.) If they now feal comfortable with BPL, perhaps we should be open to thinking the same way.
If the FCC took your current whatif? fear mantra we still wouldn't have 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz available. Hence no WiFi.
The HAM radio operators are co-existing in PA, NY and other places with BPL. Notching seems to be working at a lot of BPL test sites today, with little or no loss of bandwidth. Granted some other BPL sites were causing problems. Actually all from one particular manufacturer. Which I understand they have resolved now.
Powerlines are inherently noisy, a BPL deployment might actually make utilities clean up there lines, perhaps even better for HAM's. Nevertheless HAM's and Power Companies have co-existed for decades, no reason why they can't here.
BPL in Europe and S.America seems to be taking off. Like all nascent technologies certain failures happen on the way. Doesn't mean the solution can't be fixed.
Check out CVEC...seems that rural BPL does work. Doesn't get much more rural than rural central Virginia.
All I am asking is stop predicting martians landing and lets get a 3rd broadband pipe going here. In many cases the Power companies have worked with local HAM's and come to agreeable solutions.
I much prefer my electric company over cable and telco. Give a nascent technology a chance. Especially if it has the opportunity to make our grids smarter for security and possible less power generation needs.
And since we are on the topic of martians landing...if Utilities get more comfortable with providing internet services well see FTTH the home deployments much faster than ever Verizon, SBC, Qwest, or Bell South ever will.
My 2 cents.
| |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
1 edit | Re: If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings! said by kauiman3  :
ARRL doesn't post cases where the claims of interference were unfounded. It also claims victories where perhaps the issue was not just noise issues. Ever heard of Business Cases regarding large Capex?????
We'll never know for sure, but it's likely interference was another "brick in the wall" that killed BPL in Raleigh and Cedar Rapids. I think in some cases, though, the interference issues directly affect Capex. If a utility has to deal with interference mitigation, it's likely they have to reduce power and deploy more repeaters to compensate. Notching reduces available bandwidth and will ultimately dictate smaller network segments, and more capital for feedpoint equipment. So in some instances it's all tied together, IMO.
The ARRL has actually stopped many potential unfounded interference complaints. Switching power supplies, commonly found in computer equipment, can emit a signal that resembles an OFDM based BPL emission and some hams erroneously thought they were hearing BPL. Recordings and correspondence with the ARRL resolved these before a utility would need to investigate. On the other hand, the ARRL has educated hams on what the interference sounded like. Without knowing anything about BPL, it would be difficult for many amateurs coming home one day hearing wall-to-wall interference to easily track it down. The BPL carriers testing it certainly weren't knocking at doors informing people they might have interference.
quote:
It's not surprising that some BPL trials are going underground because the ARRL has people in a panic about
BPL.
Believe it or not the NTIA and FCC engineers actual do testing and are not complete idiots. The FCC and NTIA are also responsible for making sure that co-existance with Government needs for spectrum works, including emergency and security needs (spies, planes etc.) If they now feal comfortable with BPL, perhaps we should be open to thinking the same way.
The NTIA did an excellent report and will probably be used extensively to shape whatever restrictions are applied to BPL frequency usage. The FCC on the other hand has yet to show a really complete in depth report. The FCC NPRM reads like an inside the cover summary of a novel, and pales in comparison to the issues the NTIA uncovered. The recent FCC drive test of the now-defunct Raleigh site lacked significant numerical data. There are smart technical people at the FCC, anecdotal (and unverifiable  ) information I've heard is that political pressure has muffled the technical voices.
quote:
If the FCC took your current whatif? fear mantra we still wouldn't have 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz available. Hence no WiFi.
The so-called "fear mantra" hasn't stopped HF BPL, so I doubt it would stop microwave BPL. From a technical standpoint, microwave BPL is win-win. One can run much higher power levels and the incumbent spectrum users are regulated by the same FCC rules, Part 15. Due to the line-of-sight nature of microwave frequencies, interference concerns will be about nil, even to home wireless networks. Anyone who wants to fight microwave BPL doesn't have much of a regulatory leg to stand on, it's Part 15 versus Part 15. I've talked with an engineer involved in this technology. It's truly exciting and has a lot of potential, beyond home Internet access, including mobile applications. The bandwidth potential is staggering.
quote:
The HAM radio operators are co-existing in PA, NY and other places with BPL. Notching seems to be working at a lot of BPL test sites today, with little or no loss of bandwidth. Granted some other BPL sites were causing problems. Actually all from one particular manufacturer. Which I understand they have resolved now.
There are open interference complaints at Briarcliff, NY and Cottonwood, AZ, to name a few. From what I heard about Raleigh and Cedar Rapids, notching was less than precise and intermodulation products often caused emissions to spill over into notched frequency bands. If the FCC puts into place the NTIA suggested aviation band protections, this will raise the bar significantly as far as notching capabilities. Those who can't deal with the notching requirement will probably have to stick with 22 to 30 Mhz, and that's not considering the notching to protect ham bands there. Notching is in direct conflict with bandwidth that you can deliver to the end user, and this limits the potential for BPL to support customer bandwidth demand.
This hasn't been limited to one manufacturer. Amperion has probably taken more of the brunt since they have the most sites. Mitsubishi is involved in Cottonwood I believe. Briarcliff, NY is Ambient. The Main.net system in Emmaus, PA was mentioned in the NTIA report as being over Part 15 emissions limits at the time they did their measurements.
quote:
Powerlines are inherently noisy, a BPL deployment might actually make utilities clean up there lines, perhaps even better for HAM's. Nevertheless HAM's and Power Companies have co-existed for decades, no reason why they can't here.
It's very true that utilities must clean up power transmission noise, however when this raspy, frying noise is replaced with a spread spectrum or OFDM signal, perhaps tens of dB stronger there's no gain for hams or other spectrum users.
quote:
BPL in Europe and S.America seems to be taking off. Like all nascent technologies certain failures happen on the way. Doesn't mean the solution can't be fixed.
In Germany I hear it is, but they have much stricter emissions limits called NB30.
quote:
Check out CVEC...seems that rural BPL does work. Doesn't get much more rural than rural central Virginia.
It's not necessarily economically viable. Co-ops like CVEC may chose to deploy it, but ROI will be measured in decades, if that.
quote:
All I am asking is stop predicting martians landing and lets get a 3rd broadband pipe going here. In many cases the Power companies have worked with local HAM's and come to agreeable solutions.
I don't think anyone is saying planes will drop out of the sky or martians will land, but there is a mountain of evidence of the problems. The FCC quite simply didn't give the hams or others a fair shake. The NTIA can pull rank, and they'll undoubtedly have their concerns addressed. The NTIA report showed extensive concerns, to the point were they've said "not in my backyard". Why can't other spectrum users be granted the same podium? Why can't Powell take a day to visit to a ham station to see just what BPL's impact is? Instead, he goes to a BPL site within the sunshine period for the Thursday meeting. The story of BPL has been a trial of false starts, politics, denials, misleading press releases, bad engineering, sloppy journalism, topped off with a snow job by the FCC. | |
| |
AJ5TT
join:2003-08-17
Friendswood, TX
| Ok.. Toll bait.
The interference that I have read about generally have been created by engineers. So I would consider them experts.
I am still waiting on the results from the companies doing the BPL field trials about interference mitigation. Seen Any? If you find any post the links | |
| | | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
| Re: If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings! The companies responsible for interference will never publicize anything like that. After all they are trying to sell this crap.
If you had a used car that the engine smokes and it leaks gas onto the road but a buyer came to look at it, You would not tell him these things, you would let him find them himself, now it's the same thing here except a much bigger scale and with too much loin licking beaurocratic BS also involved, not to mention a complete idiot staff at the FCC. | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| BS and full of it not only is the FCC spouting BS, they're full of it too.
In the articla above, Karl has it exactly right:
Michael Powell is not a stupid man; he must know full well all the problems with BPL. He and others at the FCC are pushing BPL so it looks like there is a "new competitor" in the broadband market. All they have to do is keep the BPL show going for a little while longer, so they can shout "look, more broadband competition, to give those ILECs and cablecos a run for their money" while they go about the business of deregulating the telecom and broadband industry.
They may be able to fool enough senators and congressmen (most of whom seem woefully ignorant on this subject) that the FCC dereg agenda slides by.
It's not entirely clear to me that a different administration would make the situation any better. If you really want fast broadband sooner than several years from now, move to Japan. | |
| 
Jan Janowski
join:2000-06-18
Skokie, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Catchy Title: RFI Is going to be the bugaboo of this...
My bet would be spend the $$ for Fibre along the infastructure.... That would be far less problamatical!!!
If my Ham transmitter can jam TV's without filters, just think of what PLB can cause!!!
--
Looking for 1939 Indian Motocycle | |
| | 
PlagueX1
Plague
join:2004-08-27
Twining, MI
| BPL I don't know about you all but if broadband over power lines brings high speed capability to every home in the U.S. then im all for it. Like me (and many others) there is no digital cable line or digital subscriber line in my area, the only lines there is are the power lines, phone, and cable lines. I used to be on regular dialup until I moved to Direcway. If BPL provides a high speed line with lower ping to every house then it will be alot better then any dialup or satellite connection. Also, I have found a site on the internet that says they have found a way to get BPL at very low ping times, at great distances, with low radiation (or interferance).
As for all of you cable or dsl consumers out there that thinks it is a bad idea, perhaps you should have dialup where there is no dsl or cable line for a while....
--
»techvis.hyperboards.comDW6000,Re···.25ghz,3 computer wireless LAN | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: BPL said by PlagueX1 :
I don't know about you all but if broadband over power lines brings high speed capability to every home in the U.S. then im all for it. Like me (and many others) there is no digital cable line or digital subscriber line in my area, the only lines there is are the power lines, phone, and cable lines. I used to be on regular dialup until I moved to Direcway. If BPL provides a high speed line with lower ping to every house then it will be alot better then any dialup or satellite connection. Also, I have found a site on the internet that says they have found a way to get BPL at very low ping times, at great distances, with low radiation (or interferance).
As for all of you cable or dsl consumers out there that thinks it is a bad idea, perhaps you should have dialup where there is no dsl or cable line for a while....
First off, look at my previous postings. BPL will not deploy to sparsely populated rural areas. There is too much infrastructure needed to deploy it to areas that do not have enough subscribers to pay the bills. It will go to cities and suburbs with dense populations.
Secondly, I lived in a downtown area and had NO access to either cable or DSL. Cable had no service and DSL was too far (due to a hospital and its university taking a huge loop.) I lived with dial up until I moved.
As for the site you mentioned, post it. Be very interested who wrote it and what proof they have about the no interference claim. | |
| | | | ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Enola, PA | Re: BPL i think before they really work on bpl, they need to work on getting a more outage-proof power grid particularly in the northeastern corridor of the u.s. bub | |
| | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
|  Re: Catchy Title:
Yup and just think of what your ham transmitter can do to BPL!!! Legally too | |
| | | KB2PSM
join:2002-08-06
Long Beach, NY
| Nextels may work in Brooklyn, but not everywhere. Nextels may work for you...most of the time. It is not a global solution for reliable communications.
I am a senior official of the NYC Marathon. Some of the newer doctors love to have Nextels for emergency communications (although most seasoned Marathon doctors, from experience, prefer to have a trusty ham radio operator by their side).
During the Marathon, major problems with Nextels and cell phones occur when the many families and friends of runners along the 26.2 miles of the course are trying to use their Nextels and cell phones too. That has easily and confidently busied out the networks, making them useless at times and at least very unreliable in some areas. For a doctor who needs to make a medically-necessary contact, that is not the time for the Nextel to fail.
[Incidently, the same thing happened during the recovery efforts of Flight 800. There were so many news agencies around the area of Center Moorichies tying up the usually quiet cell network, that cell phones became extremely unreliable when you needed to make or receive a call. Likewise, there were no major weather or technical events that caused power disruptions.]
Why do I make this case?
Some folks have claimed that when the "poop hits the fan" that power will be out, BPL down and the airwaves clear for communications on the HF band. (This example is flawed on so many levels- ).
In the case of the Marathon, the power will be up, but the Nextels can fail. I am not suggesting that any HF is being used for the NYC Marathon, but there can be other scenarios across the U.S. in which the cell phone or Nextel may simply become ineffective communications needs and the HF communications of public/emergency service agencies will be needed. Since not all "emergencies" means that the power will be out, active BPL will cause interference.
Even if the power was out, given the propagation characteristics of the HF frequencies, operational BPL in adjacent (or even distant) areas can affect and disrupt local communications which may be at the limits of "line of sight" or ground wave communications. For folks that are not familiar with radio wave propagation or how atmospheric conditions affect radio communications, I agree that this does not make sense, but the physics can not be dismissed because it might be unpopular with or unfamiliar to some.
In addition, if BPL gets the green flag, it would potentially be universally deployed across the U.S. In populous Brooklyn, the Nextels or a 800 MHz trunking system may be largely unaffected by BPL, but in many other municipalities across the U.S., low band communications can be seriously affected. If a technology is to be given open reign for deployment across the U.S., we need to consider how it will affect communications beyond our own backyard.
Planes flying over Brooklyn will be in VHF contact with the airports due to their proximity. That same plane, traveling over large bodies of water relies on some HF technology and the land-based stations that they are in contact with will need interference-free frequencies to be able to hear them.
Bluemagoo...I am not dumping on you and appreciate your questions and experiences with regards to communications. I am using your post as a building block for related points.
Be well,
Rob | |
| | | TruthConcern
join:2004-09-19
Kennett Square, PA
| You're right and it's been a damn hard lesson.....
Rob,
You've summed it up pretty well really.
I think what I detect in your voice--and in others too, myself included--is the utter frustration of how something as mad as BPL / PLC could have ever slipped through the net in the first place, given the government supposedly employs qualified and experienced people to advise it on interference matters and to manage the radio spectrum properly.
It's a conundrum, but I suppose it comes back to something similar in meaning to the saying "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". …And we citizens were just not vigilant enough: BPL's techno-carpetbaggers beat us to the punch and flawed us.
Somewhere along the way, we dropped the ball. It's a very hard lesson and we must not to forget it.
The fight has just begun. Those to the rally, those to alms?
| |
| w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
| BPL field trial in N.Y. to shut down
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. | |
| w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO
|  FCC Chairman to Recuse Himself from BPL Vote
Get him out of there NOW!
NEWINGTON, CT, Oct 13, 2004--The ARRL has asked FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell to recuse himself from participating October 14 when the full Commission considers a broadband over power line (BPL) Report and Order in the proceeding, ET Docket 04-37. The League alleges Powell broke the Commission's own ex parte rules by appearing at a broadband over power line (BPL) demonstration in Manassas, Virginia, just two days before the FCC meeting. In general, Sunshine Agenda rules prohibit any such contacts between the FCC and stakeholders once a proceeding has formally been placed on the FCC agenda.
"It's a glaring, glaring violation of the ex parte rules," ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, asserted today. Because of the short fuse involved, Imlay filed the Motion for Recusal of Chairman Michael K. Powell October 12 via e-mail on an "emergency basis." The petition asks that Powell recuse himself from participating in the BPL proceeding, "both generally and specifically," at the October 14 meeting.
Powell, an open proponent of BPL, played host to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Pat Wood III as they toured various sites in Manassas, the site of a BPL field trial, and explained why BPL may be another broadband option.
The ARRL's motion asserts that Powell "either knew or should have known that his participation in that presentation is in clear violation of Section 1.1203 of the Commission's Rules." As a result, the League said, the FCC's consideration of a Report and Order in the proceeding "is irrevocably tainted."
The FCC released its October 14 meeting agenda on Thursday, October 7. The ARRL learned the following day that Powell and Wood were planning to attend the BPL demonstration. The City of Manassas is running a BPL field trial on its municipal power system. The ARRL immediately protested via e-mail "in the strongest possible terms," but did not receive any response until October 12, since Monday, October 11, was a federal holiday for Columbus Day.
Imlay said he finally heard back from two staffers in the FCC Office of General Counsel who said that the attendance by Powell and Powell's legal aide was legal under an exception to the ex parte rules spelled out in Section 1.1204, Subsection 10, of the FCC's rules.
Well I would like to know under what loin licking exception to the ex parte rules spelled out in Section 1.1204, Subsection 10, of the FCC's rules this lawyer is referring to? What a bunch of beaurocratic BS. | |
| |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA | Re: FCC Chairman to Recuse Himself from BPL Vote Just to clarify, the ARRL asked Powell to recuse himself. I'm not aware that he had actually done that. | |
| | | w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | Re: FCC Chairman to Recuse Himself from BPL Vote Sure and I am positive that he will not. Must do as much damage as they can to the bands before elections. | |
|
ispjournalist
@internet.com
| check out amperion Check out Amperion (»www.amperion.com). They told me that any powerline connection to the home runs a very remote risk of sending several thousand volts directly into the living room.
They advocate Wi-Fi for the last mile with a powerline backbone, which I think makes a lot of sense.
Hybrid has real potential here. Many power companies already own some metro fiber, so a mix of fiber, wireless, and BPL should not be underestimated. | |
|
Nick233
@203.acc01-sum
| Microwave BPL > HF BPL I believe Corridor Systems went bust didn't they? Looks like Microwave BPL isn't going anywhere then. What a joke, HF BPL is obviously not a real solution, Microwave BPL has real potential and yet none of these idiot PLC companies can see it.
BPL is not going to solve any broadband problems, the FCC themselves proclaim it as a 3rd broadband connection into the home, that doesn't sound like rural friendly talk to me, where 0 broadband pipes are currently going into the home. How about getting 1 broadband connection into EVERY home THEN start talking about getting 2 and 3, eh?
The only way that will ever happen is with WiMax, EVDO and other wireless technology that will spread far enough per base station to warrant the initial costs. I wouldn't count Stratellite out either, but HF BPL? Comeone, what a joke, it is a rolling snow ball of BS promises and technical flunders, the delusion of suddently switching a power station on to BPL and everyone in the country getting BPL access is a reality that will simply never eventuate. | |
| | | |
|
|
Broadband through the Gas Mains?