(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message


Basically they come down to two ideas:

1) spectrum masking, which consists of not allowing the BPL systems to
use frequencies in the ham bands. Which is fine until something
nonlinear in the system causes intermodulation products, harmonics or
other spurious signals to fall in the ham bands. This method was used
to stop HomePlug and other in-building systems from tearing up 80
meters - AFTER our own W1RFI and other ARRL folks got the manufacturer
to recognize the problem.

2) "improved modes and modulations", which permit the use of lower
signal levels and hence lower signal leakage. Supposedly.

The BIG problem is obvious to anyone who actually goes out and looks
at a typical aerial distribution system. Lots of nice, long wires, way
up in the air, running all over everyone's neighborhood. Put a little
RF in them and watch it radiate.

Heck, one of the biggest problems in access BPL is that the lines are
"lossy" at RF. They're "lossy" because they radiate!

You can read the comments of others and leave your own at the FCC
website, via the ECFS system. Check out what the ARRL is saying and
doing at the ARRL website.

Where is the NTIA in all this?

Waiting for the right moment. Or totally oblivious.

They sure got their knickers in a twist
about hams having broad access to 60M because of the potential
interference to vital gummint HF comms from us.

Right - but they waited until AFTER all the comments were in and it
looked like FCC was gonna give us 150 kHz and full power. THEN they
spoke up, directly to FCC.

Prolly same thing going on now. If FCC stops BPL because of the work
of ARRL, IEEE and others, NTIA doesn't have to lift a finger.

BPL is not the same
kind of threat to the gummint itself than it is to us?

NTIA isn't going to admit that sort of thing right out in public
unless they have to.

Hams are not
the only users of HF, in fact we're close to being bit players
overall. What about the SWL's? All the gummint time & frequency
standards stations? All the HF military comms we don't know about? The
commercial PACTOR users?

Some of them are commenting. The IEEE Power Relaying committee did a
really good comment that recognized the need to protect hams and
others from BPL. There are also interesting safety and electrical
noise issues as well. Example: The access BPL systems use a bypass
filter to allow the signals to go around the pole pig, which is very
lossy at RF. What if the bypass filter develops a short, and tries to
put several KVs to ground through YOUR meter service? What about
electrical noise (besides the BPL signals) on the primary side getting
fed to the secondary side?

Question for Phil: At what point can opponents of BPL take it out of
the hands of the FCC and into the Federal courts? I'm thinking in
terms of the ARRL taking it to the wall and laying on the expert
witnesses Powell Jr. can't brush off like he can at this stage.

I'd say that sort of thing is a really, really, REALLY good way to get
the FCC seriously ****ed off at the BPL opponents (personally) and the
ARS in general. Even if such a case actually got to court, it would
have a one-in-a-google chance of winning. And if it was actually won,
FCC could make life VERY difficult for the winners, or the winners'
service, in a zillion different little ways.

Trying to "go over the FCC's head" is a last-ditch
nothing-left-to-lose desperation move, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

Its all hype Dwight. Ask the brits what it
sounds like. At 3 meters it is 30db over S9.
So if your in the house, or next door, or down
the street, or if the band is open, on the
next continent....you aint gonna hear nothing
but trash.


Man, that sucks. I suspected that might be the case. In the last place I
lived, I had a nearby transformer that absolutely raised heck on the radio.
However, someone else was obviously bothered by it also - someone shot it
full of holes one evening. Anyway, if the normal devices can do that on
their own, signals carried over or through those devices is almost certain
to cause problems.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

None of it is good news for hams.


It darn sure doesn't sound like it.


Basically they come down to two ideas:

1) spectrum masking, which consists of not
allowing the BPL systems to use frequencies
in the ham bands. (snip)


That has already been done with other devices and experience shows it
doesn't always work reliably.


2) "improved modes and modulations", which
permit the use of lower signal levels and
hence lower signal leakage. Supposedly.


On the HF frequencies, any leakage is significant.


The BIG problem is obvious to anyone who
actually goes out and looks at a typical
aerial distribution system. Lots of nice,
long wires, way up in the air, running all
over everyone's neighborhood. Put a little
RF in them and watch it radiate.


Exactly. That's what got me thinking about this in the first place. My
entire neighborhood is surrounded with power lines, some very high voltage
lines. While none are exactly next door, many are within sight.


You can read the comments of others and leave
your own at the FCC website, via the ECFS system.


I'll check into that, Jim. Thanks.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

Sure. Just enable your DSP filters, and all
will be well with the world.


DSP filters can barely keep up with the noise that exists occasionally
now. If that increases, I don't think that is going to do that much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

From the July 2003 issue (pg. 37) of PC World Magazine..


By the way, I'm surprised nobody commented on the mistake in the subject
line. That should have read "BPL" instead of "BLP." Sorry about that - the
result of typing too fast and not paying attention.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
| "Phil Kane" wrote in message
t.net...
| On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:02:43 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:
|
| Phil, I doubt you're kidding, but a single wire with a ground
return? That
| is going to have a ton of problems even *without* putting
broadband on it.
|
| That amazed me too - but there's only one insulator on the pole
pig
| and one wire crossing the street to same. Three phase primary
is
| three wire, so there isn't even a Wye Neutral for return.
|
| I first saw this system along the Trans-Canada highway in
Alberta in
| 1970 and I put it down to the rural-ness of the area. But
suburban
| Portland in the 21st Century?
|
| Are there NO other wires on the pole?
|
| Here in EPA, most residential areas have three-phase going down the
| larger streets (like South Devon Ave. here in Wayne), with
| single-phase feeders going to the side streets. The return is partly
| through the dirt but mostly through the main messenger that carries
| the 120/240 twisted wires.
|
| Earth return will work fine, if the ground is good enough. The few
| HVDC lines that have been installed can be operated that way if one
| conductor fails.
|
73 de Jim, N2EY
The problem is, in most parts of the country the ground conductivity
is VERY poor. Just ask anyone who is familiar with commercial AM
broadcast station operation. They all wouldn't bury literally MILES
of copper wire around their towers in order to get somewhat of a
ground if they didn't have to. Besides our local electric utility
had nothing but big problems with 3-phase feeder lines without a
neutral along with the hot lines. They lose transformers whenever we
have a dandy lightning storm.

As far as BPL is concerned, BIG PROBLEMS LOOM for almost all licensed
services, including amateur radio if this is allowed.

73, Sam

On 9 Jul 2003 06:07:34 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

Question for Phil: At what point can opponents of BPL take it out of
the hands of the FCC and into the Federal courts?

After the FCC hands down a ruling and the appellants can show that
the ruling will cause them harm.

The appellants must petition for reconsideration, and then take it
to the U S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but they
will have to show that the Commission did something that was against
public policy or in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

If we lose there, we always have the option of petitioning the
Supreme Court of the United States to take the case, but because it
does not involve Contitutional or other high-profile issues, the
chances of them doing so are slim IMNSHO.

The biggest hurdle would be that the appellate courts are loath to
overturn an agency ruling based on facts within the agency's
expertise as long as there was an opportunity for public comment
(there was), there is a record in the proceedings (there is) and the
Commission's order makes reference to the record (I'm sure that it
will, especially to the stuff submitted by the internet and power
utility interests).

The last time that the League tried this route was when 220-222 MHz
was yanked away. We all know how that turned out.

The other way to fight this crap is via The Congress, as if they
know what the dickens it is all about other than "universal cheap
internet".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 9 Jul 2003 11:55:18 -0700, N2EY wrote:

That amazed me too - but there's only one insulator on the pole pig
and one wire crossing the street to same. Three phase primary is
three wire, so there isn't even a Wye Neutral for return.

I first saw this system along the Trans-Canada highway in Alberta in
1970 and I put it down to the rural-ness of the area. But suburban
Portland in the 21st Century?

Are there NO other wires on the pole?

I checked it out a lot closer - there appears to be a neutral wire
running quite a distance below the primaries but above the cable and
telco stuff. It looked a lot like a messenger or guy wire, but it is
most probably serves as the neutral of a Wye primary.

Earth return will work fine, if the ground is good enough.

The rocks of western Oregon do not fall into that category.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message


Where is the NTIA in all this?

Waiting for the right moment. Or totally oblivious.

There was an earlier discussion on this topic. The ARRL petition for
ham ops on 60M was submitted well before the WTC towers came down. We
agreed that the reason that the NTIA finally piped up was probably
because 9/11 was a wakeup call for all federal agencies and they went
back and reviewed their homeland security assets and tightened 'em.

They sure got their knickers in a twist
about hams having broad access to 60M because of the potential
interference to vital gummint HF comms from us.

Right - but they waited until AFTER all the comments were in and it
looked like FCC was gonna give us 150 kHz and full power. THEN they
spoke up, directly to FCC.

Above.

Prolly same thing going on now. If FCC stops BPL because of the work
of ARRL, IEEE and others, NTIA doesn't have to lift a finger.

BPL is not the same
kind of threat to the gummint itself than it is to us?

NTIA isn't going to admit that sort of thing right out in public
unless they have to.

They already did that to some extent ref: The NTIA 60M maneuver. But
this BPL thing has to be another whole level up from their
perspective. Some of it might be underway behind closed doors. We
dunno.

Hams are not
the only users of HF, in fact we're close to being bit players
overall. What about the SWL's? All the gummint time & frequency
standards stations? All the HF military comms we don't know about? The
commercial PACTOR users?

Some of them are commenting. The IEEE Power Relaying committee did a
really good comment that recognized the need to protect hams and
others from BPL. There are also interesting safety and electrical
noise issues as well. Example: The access BPL systems use a bypass
filter to allow the signals to go around the pole pig, which is very
lossy at RF. What if the bypass filter develops a short, and tries to
put several KVs to ground through YOUR meter service? What about
electrical noise (besides the BPL signals) on the primary side getting
fed to the secondary side?

They're all vaild what-ifs but don't expect Powell, Inc. to bother
getting all wrapped around techo details like leaky filters and
insulators.

I doubt that the piles of objections to BPL posted by individual hams
will carry much weight in the decision process. We're a lousy 0.2% of
the national population and a big percentage of that tiny constituency
can't operate below 50 Mhz.

Heavy hitters like the IEEE weighing in against BPL is another whole
story however. I think the fates of BPL and HF ham radio will hang on
the coat tails of The Really Big Guys like the IEEE, NTIA, the spooks,
etc.

The ARRL did one helluva thorough job in their comments package and
are to be congratulated for that effort. Unfortunately there is a
question about ARRL clout.


Question for Phil: At what point can opponents of BPL take it out of
the hands of the FCC and into the Federal courts? I'm thinking in
terms of the ARRL taking it to the wall and laying on the expert
witnesses Powell Jr. can't brush off like he can at this stage.

I'd say that sort of thing is a really, really, REALLY good way to get
the FCC seriously ****ed off at the BPL opponents (personally) and the
ARS in general. Even if such a case actually got to court, it would
have a one-in-a-google chance of winning. And if it was actually won,
FCC could make life VERY difficult for the winners, or the winners'
service, in a zillion different little ways.

Don't believe it. Administrations come and go on regular 4/8 year
cycles, the top end of the FCC empire comes and goes accordingly. We
might **** off the transients at the top but screw them, they'll be
long gone shortly.

The pros within the FCC we normally deal with are there forever and
know BS when they see it. Professionals who hold grudges ain't
professionals. They don't take being dragged into court in civil cases
personally, it's just another business proposition they get paid to
handle. Engineers, hams and neighbors get ****ed off when they get
sued. Lawyers and regulators don't.

Trying to "go over the FCC's head" is a last-ditch
nothing-left-to-lose desperation move, I think.

If this isn't a last-ditch nothing-left-to-lose situation I dunno what
is.


Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

N2EY" wrote:

None of it is good news for hams.

It darn sure doesn't sound like it.

Visit the ARRL website and read their articles on it. Lots of good info. Note
the difference between existing PLC systems, Access BPL, and in-building BPL.

Basically they come down to two ideas:

1) spectrum masking, which consists of not
allowing the BPL systems to use frequencies
in the ham bands. (snip)

That has already been done with other devices and experience shows it
doesn't always work reliably.

Exactly.

2) "improved modes and modulations", which
permit the use of lower signal levels and
hence lower signal leakage. Supposedly.

On the HF frequencies, any leakage is significant.

Particularly given the ubiquity and proximity of power lines to typical amateur
installations.

The BIG problem is obvious to anyone who
actually goes out and looks at a typical
aerial distribution system. Lots of nice,
long wires, way up in the air, running all
over everyone's neighborhood. Put a little
RF in them and watch it radiate.

Exactly. That's what got me thinking about this in the first place. My
entire neighborhood is surrounded with power lines, some very high voltage
lines. While none are exactly next door, many are within sight.

The real villians for radiated noise are the medium voltage distribution lines.
For conducted and induced lines, it's the low voltage service wires.

You can read the comments of others and leave
your own at the FCC website, via the ECFS system.

I'll check into that, Jim. Thanks.

Comments are closed but reply comments are still open. You can read mine there
- search under my last name.

73 de Jim, N2EY