Well here in Northern Virgina three of our local clubs have started working
to do just that. We have the Manassas BPL operating in a off and on trial
where it looks like we will be able to document the existing noise floor and
document the BPL created noise floor. We are working on both a manual
protocol for hams without test equipment as well as some automated measuring
stations. This will give us ground truth.
We already have the test data taken by the ARRL in addition to test data
take later that shows both the interference from BPL and the BPL
susceptibility to HF transmissions.
73, Tom n4zpt
vienna, virginia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.Net>
To: <johnclif@ix.netcom.com>; <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] BPL Update
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|