[HCRA] 2nd interference complaint - Progress Energy Phase II BPL

[Larry Krainson]

Hi All,

I got this from my friend KG4IZA in Raleigh, NC.

Larry - WB1DBY


> >
> > To: Len Anthony, Progress Energy Regulatory Affairs
> >
> > From: Gary Pearce KN4AQ
> > 116 Waterfall Ct.
> > Cary, NC 27513
> > 919-380-9944
> > kn4aq@arrl.net
> >
> > cc:
> > Bill Godwin, Progress Energy
> > Anh Wride, FCC
> > James R.Burtle, FCC
> > Riley Hollingsworth, FCC (FYI)
> > Ed Hare, ARRL
> > Frank A. Lynch, ARRL
> >
> > Monday, March 29, 2004
> >
> > This e-mail letter is a second formal complaint of interference received
> > from several Broadband over Power Line (BPL) installations operated by
> > Progress Energy in the Wake County, North Carolina area.  This complaint
> > covers interference on NEW frequencies that was not present in my first
> > complaint filed on March 13th.
> >
> >
> >
> > In my March 13th complaint I detailed interference that I observed while
> > operating my mobile amateur radio equipment in the vicinity of the
> Progress
> > Energy Phase II BPL trial areas in southern Wake County, North
> > Carolina.  No one from either Progress Energy or the FCC has contacted
me
> > as a result of that complaint (except a request from the FCC to drop
David
> > Solomon from the recipient list, which I have done).  I have seen Bill
> > Godwin in a somewhat chance encounter at the Holland Church site, and we
> > had a good discussion on the state of the trial.
> >
> > I have observed that Progress Energy has changed the spectrum used for
the
> > overhead line segments in both trial areas.  If I'm correctly assuming
> that
> > this was done to respond to complaints, and demonstrate frequency
agility
> > and the ability to mitigate interference by avoiding amateur radio
> > spectrum, the attempt is appreciated, but it was not completely
> > successful.  New amateur radio and shortwave spectrum is now receiving
> > interference, and that is the basis of this complaint.
> >
> > On March 20, 2004, in the Woodchase subdivision area near Fuquay-Varina,
> > where BPL signals had covered the 12 and 10 meter bands, I observed
clear,
> > strong BPL signature signals from 21.5 to 24.90 MHz, and 25.49 to 28.0
> > MHz.  This almost cleared amateur radio spectrum, but not quite.
> >
> > The lower segment, from 21.50 to 24.90 MHz, encroached clearly on the
> > bottom 10 kHz of the 12 meter band, from 24.89 to 24.90 MHz, and what
I'll
> > call "residual" BPL carriers - carriers at the edge of the main spectrum
> > that trail off in amplitude over the course of 10 to 20 kHz - encroached
> > further.  The residual carriers present a correspondingly decreasing
> > problem of interference, but when the bulk of the BPL carriers are
strong,
> > the residual carriers can also interfere with weak amateur radio
signals.
> >
> > Note that if a BPL operator is attempting to place a BPL block adjacent
to
> > the bottom of an amateur band, they should be aware that these residual
> > carriers will fall across an area of extreme interest where amateurs use
> > Morse code to communicate with distant, often very weak, amateurs in
> remote
> > parts of the globe.  Additional care should be taken to avoid letting
this
> > "residual" interference cross the bottom few kHz of any amateur band.
> >
> > The higher segment, from 25.49 to 28.0 MHz, also left some residual
> > carriers encroaching on the bottom of the 10 meter band at 28 MHz.  The
> > main carriers did cover all 40 CB channels and interfered with signals I
> > monitored there.
> >
> > Then I drove through the Holland Church Road trial site and observed no
> > change since my March 13th complaint - the BPL signals still covered the
> 12
> > and 10 meter ham bands and adjacent spectrum.
> >
> > On March 23, 2004, I returned to the Holland Church Road trial
> > area.  That's when I ran into Bill Godwin and two other Progress Energy
> > engineers, observing and reporting on some difficulty that Amperion was
> > having moving the spectrum on the overhead line.  The signals were gone
> > from the 12 and 10 meter bands, and appeared erratically elsewhere.
Since
> > this was an effort in progress, I didn't worry about the signals I
> received.
> >
> > On March 28, 2004, I returned to the Holland Church site again.  This
time
> > I monitored signals on the following spectrum blocks:
> >
> > 14.29 - 16.805 MHz
> > 17.33 - 21.00  MHz
> > 24.53 - 28.00  MHz (with 12 meter notch?)
> >
> > Reception was somewhat difficult because of a high general noise level
> > (what we usually refer to as "power line noise," ironically in this
> > case.  The true source of this particular noise is unknown).  The BPL
> > signature signals were generally strong and clear above this noise.
> >
> > After observing what appeared to be an attempt to completely avoid
amateur
> > radio spectrum at the Woodchase trial area, I was disappointed to see
that
> > two busy amateur radio bands were partially or fully covered here: 20
and
> > 17 meters.  The BPL carriers interfered with many signals as I tuned
from
> > 14.29 to the band-edge of 14.35 MHz in the 20 meter band.  Strong
signals
> > were audible, but BPL carriers placed a loud "beat note" behind them,
> > making reception irritating at best.  Weaker signals were rendered
> unreadable.
> >
> > I had the same situation across the entire 17 meter band, from 18.068 to
> > 18.168 MHz.  Weaker signals were impossible to receive, while stronger
> ones
> > were accompanied by a loud heterodyne whistle.
> >
> > I also tried listening to some shortwave broadcast signals in the
spectrum
> > immediately above the 20 meter ham band.  Switching to AM reception with
a
> > 6 kHz band pass filter, I noticed that the BPL signals were a continuos
> > "blanket" across the spectrum.  Since the BPL carriers were 1.1 kHz
apart,
> > I heard the expected 1.1 kHz heterodyne tone as part of that
interference
> > blanket.
> >
> > The 15 MHz signal from WWV was completely inaudible.  Stronger shortwave
> > signals were audible with varying degrees of interference.  Weaker
signals
> > on 15.160, 15.205, 15.300, and 15.350 MHz were detectable but not
> > readable.  This was just a brief sample of the many shortwave signals
that
> > received interference from the BPL energy.
> >
> > I could not observe any "residual" carriers spilling into the 15 meter
ham
> > band as the "power line noise" made it difficult to hear the weakest BPL
> > carriers.  With some difficulty I observed what appeared to be a notch
in
> > the 24.53 - 28.0 MHz block.  The carriers were at least attenuated in
the
> > 24.89 - 24.99 MHz area (the 12 meter ham band), but I thought I could
hear
> > some weaker carriers through the "power line noise".
> >
> > That is my report.  I'll repeat my contention from my first complaint
that
> > interference reports from mobile stations are warranted because:
> >
> > - amateur radio is a very mobile radio service,
> >
> > - these are very limited trial areas, and the experience and results
must
> > be extrapolated to predict the effect BPL will have if widely deployed
in
> > densely populated areas.
> >
> > I'll conclude with an example of truly random interference caused by BPL
> to
> > a mobile ham who was not part of, or recruited by, our investigation
team:
> >
> > Over the past few weeks I've had an e-mail exchange with Andy Stoy
K4MTN,
> > from Wake Forest, NC.  Initially, Andy's e-mail sounded like many that
Tom
> > Brown N4TAB, Frank Lynch W4FAL and I have received from area hams who
> > suspect that they are hearing BPL interference from areas where none is
> > known to exist.  Andy said he had been hearing loud interference - he
> > called it "static" - for months along a half-mile stretch of Falls of
the
> > Neuse Road near the Woodfield subdivision.  He was describing the Phase
I
> > trial area which we believed to have been disconnected, and his
> description
> > of "static" didn't sound like the BPL signature we're used to.
> >
> > I pressed him for more specific details, and he finally described the
> exact
> > location, and the signature sound (closer-spaced carriers with a
clicking
> > sound) of Amperion's BPL.  Tom Brown traveled to the site and confirmed
> > that the Phase I equipment was still operating on the overhead line
along
> > Falls of the Neuse Rd.  Andy traveled that route daily, and regularly
> > operates on the 10 meter band.  He had been receiving interference and
> loss
> > of communications on that stretch of road since  at least last fall, but
> > didn't know what caused the problem until we began publicizing the
> > trials.  Then he contacted us.  He will be filing his own report of
> > interference.
> >
> > Andy's story may seem isolated, a rare, chance occurrence.  It is
> > significant for several reasons.  One is that it happened at all, since
> > there is a total of less than two miles of BPL coverage along Wake
County
> > highways.  Another is that hams don't know what BPL is yet.  We've
reached
> > a few with our message, but many more have never heard of it.  So there
> may
> > be a few more Andy Stoy's out there who have passed through the existing
> > trials areas, received interference, and didn't know what it was or who
to
> > call.
> >
> > I appreciate the fact that Progress Energy and Amperion are responding
to
> > our reports and complaints of interference.  I'd prefer to just call
them
> > "reports," but public proclamations that "there have been no
interference
> > complaints" have pushed us to this formal posture.  My goal is to make
you
> > (Progress Energy and the FCC) aware of the real conditions for radio
> > amateurs and other HF spectrum users in the trial area so that you can
> > anticipate the level of difficulty you can expect in a broader
> implementation.
> >
> > I'd expect that Progress Energy and Amperion could completely avoid
> amateur
> > radio spectrum in the overhead segments of this limited trial area.  I'm
> > surprised that after the first complaints, you moved to occupy different
> > amateur radio spectrum.  But even if you had completely missed ham bands
> in
> > this first move, success in this limited arena is not a good predictor
of
> > the ability to mitigate interference in a full system, where you will be
> > constrained to use more spectrum and not re-use spectrum for several
line
> > segments.  And the question of interference from the underground line
> > segments has not been addressed at all.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Gary Pearce KN4AQ
> >
> >
> >
> > ================ KN4AQ's March 13, 2004 complaint, for reference
> > ==================
> >
> > I encountered all of this interference while mobile, or visiting the
> > stations of other amateur radio operators.  I do not hear any BPL
> > interference at my home in Cary at this time.
> >
> > November 16, 2003.  I first encountered BPL interference on this date,
> near
> > the Wakefield subdivision in north Raleigh, along Falls of the Neuse
Road
> > near Wakefield Pines Rd.  The interference appeared as a series of
closely
> > spaced RF carriers, approximately 1 kHz apart, covering the lower half
of
> > the 10 meter amateur radio band, from 28 to near 29 MHz (and some
spectrum
> > below that band, including the 40 CB radio channels near 27 MHz).  Some
of
> > the carriers had a little "tik-tik-tik" sound at about a 2 Hz rate.  The
> > interference was strong - S-9 - for about a half mile along Falls of the
> > Neuse Road, and obliterated several amateur radio signals that I was
> > monitoring.
> >
> > I understand this was the Phase I trial area, and the test has been
> > discontinued.
> >
> > January 15, 2004.  On this and several subsequent dates, I received
> > interference while driving along Holland Church road between 1010 Road
and
> > Pagan Rd. in southern Wake County, specifically in the vicinity of
Feldman
> > Dr.  The signature of the interference was the same: closely spaced
> > carriers, about 1 kHz apart, some with a tik-tik-tik modulation, and
> > occasionally a longer burst of what sounded like data.  The interference
> > covered two blocks of spectrum, from 23.44 - 26.08 MHz (including the
> > amateur radio 12 meter band) and 27.9 - 31.7 MHz, (including the amateur
> > radio 10 meter band).  The interference was strong - S-9 - for about a
> half
> > mile along Holland Church road, and audible in places along Pagan Rd.
It
> > obliterated several amateur radio signals that I was monitoring as I
drove
> > through the area.
> >
> > I also received interference with the same signature in several spots
> along
> > Feldman Dr., in various other segments of the high-frequency spectrum -
> > near 11 and 15 MHz in particular.  The signals were weaker, but plainly
> > audible.  Onc caused a "beat note" against the 15 MHz WWV time and
> > frequency reference signal.
> >
> > I have subsequently been through this area several times, and the
> > interference is still present.  My last visit was on February 28th.
> >
> > February 20, 2004.  On this and several subsequent dates, I received
> > interference while driving along NC Highway 55 and James Slaughter Rd,
> just
> > north of the town of Fuquay-Varina.  The interference was strongest
along
> > James Slaughter Road, opposite the Woodchase subdivision.  Again, the
> > signature of the interference was RF carriers, about 1 kHz apart, with a
> > bit of digital modulation now and then, including the tik-tik-tik at
about
> > a 2 Hz rate.
> >
> > This interference was across 21.9-25.7 MHz (including the amateur radio
12
> > meter band) and 27.5-30.0 MHz (including the amateur radio 10 meter
> > band).  The interference was S-9 along James Slaughter Road, and S-5 in
> the
> > Food Lion parking lot at NC-55, and obliterated several amateur radio
> > signals that I was  monitoring.
> >
> > In the Woodchase subdivision, I also heard the "BPL signature" signals
on
> > several other points in the high frequency spectrum.  The signals were
> > weaker, but plainly audible.  I also heard signals in the 7 and 24.5 MHz
> > area about a mile further north on James Slaughter Road, near the
> > Whitehurst subdivision.  These signals were S-6 to S-9 for about 1/4
mile
> > along James Slaughter Road.
> >
> > I most recently heard this interference on March 5th, 2004.
> >
> > Finally, on February 28, 2004, I personally visited the homes of three
> > amateur radio operators who live in the vicinity of the Progress Energy
> > Phase II BPL trials, and observed interference as received at their
> > stations as follows:
> >
> > Mike Payne KM4UT
> > 5813 HEATHILL CT
> > Raleigh, NC
> > Mile lives .7 miles south of the trial site on Holland Church Road.  He
is
> > using a dipole antenna at about 30 feet.  I observed that he was
receiving
> > a clear but weak BPL "signature" in the top half of the 10 meter band,
> > above 28.8 MHz, and many smaller clusters of individual carriers in the
> > band below that.
> >
> > Ted Root N1UJ
> > 509 WYNDHAM DR
> > Fuquay-Varina, NC
> > Ted is about a half mile southwest of the James Slaughter Road site.  He
> is
> > also using a dipole antenna at about 40 feet.  He was receiving weak but
> > clear BPL signature signals across the 25 and 28 MHz areas.
> >
> > Roland Erickson WA0AFW
> > 201 WILBON ROAD 301B
> > Fuquay-Varina, NC
> > Roland is about a half mile south of the James Slaughter Rd. site.  He
is
> > using a dipole antenna in the attic of a retirement village building.
He
> > has a very high ambient noise level (S-6) across the 25 and 28 MHz
bands,
> > but was receiving the BPL signature signals clearly above that noise
level
> > across those bands.
> >
> > You might ask if my complaint of interference while mobile, some
distance
> > from my home, is justified.  I contend that it is, for several reasons.
> >
> > First, amateur radio is a very "mobile" service.  Tens of thousands of
> > amateur radio operators have and use high frequency mobile equipment,
and
> > we can be found anywhere, using all hf bands, at completely
unpredictable
> > times.
> >
> > Second, the Progress Energy Phase II trials are in very limited area
> > tests.  There are no amateur radio operators living inside the
> > neighborhoods being served, though there are several within interference
> > range - about a mile.  We are justified in traveling to the sites with
> > normal amateur radio equipment, operated in a normal manner, to observe
> and
> > complain about interference we receive.  This observation must be
> > extrapolated to a wider geographic area to anticipate the kind of
> > interference that would be received if BPL were to be widely deployed,
> > especially in denser suburban and urban neighborhoods.
> >
> > You might also ask if weak BPL signals constitute harmful interference.
I
> > contend that they do.  Amateur radio operation is unlike most other
radio
> > operation, in that amateurs tune across their band segments looking for
> > signals.  Often we are looking for weak signals from distant parts of
the
> > world.  Our predominant modes are single sideband and cw.  In those
modes,
> > a series of carriers 1 kHz apart presents a most irritating series of
> "beat
> > notes" - tones that vary in pitch as the spectrum is tuned.  At 1 kHz
> > spacing, they are continuously present in a receiver using customary
> > bandwidth filters.  And even weak BPL signals can make weak amateur
radio
> > signals difficult or impossible to receive.
> >
> > The presence of any BPL signal of any strength at either a home or
mobile
> > station at any location is an unwarranted incursion in the amateur radio
> > bands, and is also a problem for anyone tuning shortwave broadcast or
> other
> > radio services.
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration.  I look forward to hearing the results of
> > the investigation into my complaints.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Gary Pearce KN4AQ
> >
> >
__________________________________________________________________________
> >         Gary Pearce KN4AQ        editor, SERA Repeater Journal
> >         Cary, NC                 www.sera.org
> >         919-380-9944             kn4aq@sera.org
> >         kn4aq@arrl.net
> >          AOL/Yahoo Instant Messanger: KN4AQ
> >          (send e-mail to be put on my "buddy list")
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rars-l mailing list
> > rars-l@rtpnet.org
> > http://rtpnet.org/mailman/listinfo/rars-l
>
>