[HCRA] Fw: [emergcomm] Digest Number 787
Rick Lindquist
[email protected]
Fri, 23 May 2003 00:07:09 -0400
Greetings!
Regarding the BPL Notice of Inquiry comments: Please note that (1) ARRL
is on top of this; staff already have visited areas where these kinds of
systems now are being tested. We'll have more to say as things develop.
My initial story on the topic is on our Web site
<http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/04/25/1/>. Subsequent reports
deal with how to reply to the NOI via the Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) on the FCC Web site. (2) It is significant that the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which
administers spectrum allocated to federal government users (kind of an
FCC to the feds) has made a point of saying to the FCC that, while BPL
(as the FCC calls this form of PLC) sounds like a wonderful idea, they
don't want to see it happen without assurances that licensed users are
protected from harmful interference. This is significant because the FCC
and the NTIA don't always see eye-to-eye on things and because federal
government users of the spectrum have, historically, been great sharing
partners for Amateur Radio over the years. This includes military users
of the spectrum, with whom we share all of our UHF allocations.
If you're planning to respond ("comment" is not really the right word)
to the NOI on BPL, *please* take the trouble to read the NOI in ET
Docket 03-104 first. There's a link from the ARRL Web site story. The
point is that BPL technically is now legal under FCC Part 15 rules, and
one of the questions the NOI raises is whether those Part 15 rules need
to be changed in light of the various issues BPL raises, since those
rules were not drafted with BPL in mind. The prospect that this
technology might be deployed elsewhere in the world has raised a lot of
opposition, and, despite the FCC's current enthusiasm, it's not
necessarily a done deal. Frankly, the least of Amateur Radio's worries
is that someone might blame hams for the interference BPL likely would
cause.
In any event, the most useful responses to the NOI will be those that
address the issues the FCC has raised in the NOI, not the typical "I'm
agin' it" remarks that often get filed when hams don't like something
the FCC has proposed or is asking for input on (and they're not
proposing anything new here--it's an NOI, not an NPRM--very big
difference). Keep your responses polite, concise and on topic. And use
the spell/grammar checker while you're at it. Rest assured, the ARRL
will certainly respond to this NOI in the most forceful way possible.
There are some other issues here too: BPL might be a neat-sounding idea,
but unless someone can actually make money on it, it's not going to
happen. Given the penetration of DSL and cable modem service for
broadband delivery, there's no particular advantage to BPL in urban and
suburban areas. The notion of serving rural customers who don't have
access to DSL or cable modem service looks good on paper, but it has to
pass the bean counters, too.
The Netherlands electric utility already has figured out that this is
not economical there and has abandoned plans to deploy BPL (as you'll
read on our Web site Friday). Some countries, including Japan, already
have decided against BPL because of the interference potential.
73,
Rick Lindquist, N1RL
(ARRL Senior News Editor)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 8:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HCRA] Fw: [emergcomm] Digest Number 787
______________________________________________
-------Hampden County Radio Association------- -----------e-mail list
(reflector)------------- ______________________________________________
Some interesting reading in the second article.
Eric Tuller N1QKO
flash floods+warlords+winter storms+callisto+tornados
WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS.....AMATEUR RADIO !!
earthquakes+monsters+hurricanes+evil gods+public service
CT+ MD+ VT+ King Richards Ren Faires
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 19 May 2003 08:52:05 -0000
Subject: [emergcomm] Digest Number 787
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/ELTolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Reminder - Oakville REACT Executive Meeting
From: emergcomm
2. Sounds Ominous... FCC Broadband over Power Lines
From: "Rick Harrison" <[email protected]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: 18 May 2003 23:32:28 -0000
From: emergcomm
Subject: Reminder - Oakville REACT Executive Meeting
We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.
Oakville REACT Executive Meeting
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Time: 7:30PM - 9:30PM EDT (GMT-04:00)
In the United Way boardroom, 466 Speers Rd. Suite 200, Oakville,
Ontario.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 00:22:19 -0400
From: "Rick Harrison" <[email protected]>
Subject: Sounds Ominous... FCC Broadband over Power Lines
Borrowed from another list.
----- Original Message -----
Thought the SARA, SVHFSociety, and RadioJove list-servers might be
a good place to mention something currently making the rounds as a hot
topic for comment to the FCC. This FCC Docket No.03-104 for using the
nation's power lines for data communications is the subject of my
"President's Page" editorial letter in the upcoming SARA Journal. But
with the comment period ending in mid June many might not have a chance
to read about it and research it on the Internet in time. So I'm
including the article and some hyperlinks below.
Its also the subject of the June 2003 QST "It Seems to Us.."
Editorial now hitting our mailboxes. After all, whenever anyone has TV
interference.. who gets blamed? The neighbor with the big antenna. This
may really stir up a hornet's nest of trouble like none we've ever seen,
with innocent hams taking the blame for Broadband Internet services the
neighbors themselves unwittingly purchase.
One thing I've found out since writing this is that the frequency
range for the primary modulation involved is a bit higher than I allude
to below. Its design frequency range is 2-80 MHz. And this is more than
just "last mile" infrastructure. They're talking about also using this
on much of the distribution side of the power grid, as in substation to
home. Do some reading. A search on "Broadband over Power Line" already
catches almost a thousand hits, and its growing fast.
Sounds like a real coast to coast RF noise and interference
generator. But with changes in FCC... the attitude seems to be "So?".
Have a look. Most of us who've done RF design, hams or not, are both
afraid, and incredulous, that this kind of thing could ever get to this
stage of discussion.
Regards,
Charles S. Osborne, K4CSO
Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers, President
Technical Director
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive, HC 73, Box 638
Rosman, NC 28772-9614
http://www.pari.edu
828-862-5813 direct
828-862-5554 main
828-862-5877 FAX
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
Broadband Over Power Lines (BPL)
This month's hot topic is an FCC Notice of Inquiry called
"Broadband Over Power Lines" [FCC ET Docket No.03-104]. Most of the time
I ignore FCC NOI and NPRM (Notices of Proposed Rule Making) that are
clearly going to generate a maelstrom of negative comments. They usually
disappear for six months and get reintroduced after radical changes. But
let's not trust that to happen in this case. See
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/04/30/2 for further info on how
to file comments with the FCC electronically.
You see the FCC has touted BPL as a potential way to get
high speed Internet to the masses. Cable-TV and DSL are only available
to citizens located close to cities and high speed points of presence
for the phone company. But everyone has AC power lines. So the FCC
thinks this will be the answer to getting the Internet to more people
who are still on slow speed dial-up. Politically this sounds great.
Technically it has ominous implications. Early tests indicate it could
raise the noise floor +30 dB above galactic background at HF. You won't
be doing much JOVE / Solar 20MHz work, or even regular ham radio under
those conditions. The chances for regular ham radio stations to
interfere backwards into such a network is also enormous.
One overlooked problem is feeding the bandwidth into your
area. Every transformer constitutes a block to high speed signals. So
somewhere close to the end users, even higher bandwidth needs to be
available to be divided out. Sounds like a job for fiber. Yet the
locales that this is really targeting probably don't have fiber or
they'd have DSL. This may be yet another idea that works at small
scales, but becomes a real mess, system engineering wise, when widely
deployed. Give it ten years, and 2.4 GHz wireless could also be an
example of that.
Ever walked by your PC monitor and picked up buzzing
interference on a ham handie talkie, scanner, or AM radio? Monitors have
steadily become faster and higher bandwidth devices themselves. But as
their bandwidths passed 100 MHz the SVGA cables started looking like
good antennas. Ferrite beads on the cords today help make them pass FCC
Part-15 emission specifications.
But what if the antennas become power lines, distributed
over your whole neighborhood via everyone's AC wiring? The local pole to
house wiring could look like a pretty good HF antenna. Anything more
than a tenth wavelength or with significant VSWR will start to radiate
signal. This is very obvious to those of us who have designed RF circuit
boards, finding that compact circuits, matched impedances, and ground
planes for shielding are needed to keep the signals from jumping from
one trace to another or radiating. Aside from using all underground
wiring to get to the house, there's very little we can do to stop a 1
MHz or 10 MHz signal from radiating from house wiring. In fact there are
significant regulations on computers and appliances to keep them from
radiating back out into that same AC wiring at low frequencies.
In an odd twist the FCC turned down a request to create a
new ham band at 136 kHz due to pressure from the power utilities who
already use VLF to send control and monitoring signals between high
tension line substations over the powerlines. The utilities were afraid
that a few hundred 50watt ham stations scattered across the country
would interfere with their substation controls. Guess they weren't
consulted about BPL. With millions of potential interferers coast to
coast, once they figure this out the utilities will likely also be on
the FCC's back for even proposing the idea.
Cable TV systems constantly fight broken shields,
unterminated lines, or poorly crimped F connectors turning the cable
into an antenna. When this happens, FAA airport approach frequencies,
and local television stations are jammed by the cable system signals on
those frequencies.
With
BPL the AM radio band could easily become unusable for over the air
reception of all but the strongest signals.
Digital signals are insidious for making harmonics. A 48
MHz PC clock crystal can easily be received all the way to 10 GHz and
beyond. So what's to make the BPL low frequency signals and all their
harmonics stay on unshielded wire? There are products out there
specifically made to use house wiring as a hidden ham HF antenna. In the
case of BPL, by some mystery the FCC thinks it will not cause harmonics
and excessive radiated interference. Tests show significant effects even
in the 327 MHz radio astronomy frequencies.
The evaluation tests on typical house wiring indicate that
one would have to be 219 km away to drop below the ITU-R RA769-1
recommended signal levels in the radio astronomy bands at HF. House
wiring looks like a -30 dBi antenna. Worse, if everyone in your
neighborhood is on this system, the noise power from many sources will
add. The overall effect the FCC is shooting for is that everyone's noise
floor gets degraded just a little. But with radio astronomy being down
in the -200 dBm range, the desired to undesired signal to noise ratio
will be at a disadvantage.
I'm hoping some of you will send comments to the FCC in
response to this NOI. Do not call them idiots, or make irrational "You
can't do this!" statements. They are the FCC. They can do it, with a
simple stroke of the pen. Arguments saying it will violate Part-15
limits have been met with FCC comments like "Well, we'll change part
15." So expect anything that
provides: "economic stimulus", "looks good politically" to the most
constituents, and adds "competition" to the market place to get a speedy
route through the regulatory process. We have until mid June for your
well thought out, cleverly articulated comments to reach the FCC.
Charles Osborne, K4CSO, SARA President
--------------------
Links:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-100A1.pdf
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2003/0,4814,80616,00.html
http://www.computeruser.com/news/03/04/25/news5.html
http://www.southern-telecom.com/pr08072002.asp
http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=40772,00.asp
http://www.gsblaw.com/practice/practice.asp?ID=21
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------Hampden County Radio Association-------
An ARRL Special Services Club for over 50 years
------------http://www.hcra.org------------
________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the list please visit:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra
Address any comments to:
-Jim, KK1W - [email protected]
_______________________________________________
HCRA mailing list
[email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hcra