Regarding the BPL issue, first I would suggest that one should obtain and
have good documentation with regard to noise vs. frequency vs. direction in
the case of directive arrays. This should be obtained BEFORE BPL comes to
your area. This will establish a base line to technically document that BPL
is indeed causing a problem. The next step, once a person believes that BPL
is causing a problem to a licensed service, is to notify the provider/power
company of the complaint. Again, historical documentation will be required
to support the case/complaint. If the provider/power company does not or is
not able to resolve the issue it then can be escalated to the FCC for
action. It is very important to have documented historical information to
support ones case.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clifford" <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:03 AM
Subject: RE: [TenTec] BPL Update
> Okay, I read the FCC Notice. As a ham I am also concerned about possible
> interference and I believe Ed Hare and others when they say that BPL as
it's
> implemented now causes massive across-the-band interference well above
Part
> 15 limits.
>
> But the FCC Notice says that BPL will be required to abide by Part 15. If
> BPL causes interference to licensed services (including us hams) then it
has
> to come up with a way to cease interfering and if this can only be done by
> ceasing operation then so be it.
>
> So, this gives the BPL implementors motivation to come up with a way to
> reduce interference to a point that it doesn't affect us. There seem to
be
> several methods, but the obvious one (and provided/called for by the
Notice)
> is for them to lock out frequencies that are causing interference. If
they
> don't transmit anything below 30 Mhz or notch out all of the amateur freqs
> as well as freqs that would cause problems from harmonics, then
interference
> to HF amateur radio should be impossible... right?
>
> If BPL is implemented so that it doesn't interferere with ham radio, then
> why should we as hams give a fig about it? Having more options for
> broadband access is a good thing as long as no problems occur (I agree
with
> the FCC on this). If it DOES interfere, then under Part 15 the BPL
provider
> is required to fix it.
>
> It looks like the future will see widespread rollout of BPL. I wonder if
> there will be reason for widespread complaints filed by amateurs, and how
> quickly the response to correct the problems will be (and that quickness
is
> a real problem because if they only have to be as responsive as they are
> concerning ordinary power line interference then we're in trouble).
>
> Finally... seems to me that it would be more cost-effective for the power
> line providers to set up neighborhood Wi-Fi nodes every 1/4 mile or so and
> then charge for that. The equipment is out there, no interference
problems,
> and Wi-Fi is being built-in to more and more equipment. Maybe the cell
> phone companies will beat them to the punch.
>
> - jgc
>
> John Clifford KD7KGX
>
> Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9
> Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2/KPA100
> Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1, Centaur, 238B
> Alinco DR-605TQ, DJ-V5
> Icom T90A
>
> IRLP #3978
>
> email: kd7kgx@arrl.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|