 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / February 2004Broadband over Power Lines (BPL)
Taken from the D2 List: From: AMA District 2 Discussion [mailto:AMA_D2@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Dave Mathewson Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:06 AM To: AMA_D2@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM Subject: BPL - Broadband Over Powerlines At all the club functions I have attended over the last nine months or so I have made a point of mentioning BPL (Broadband Over Powerlines), and the potential negative impact it may have on radio control modeling. When this was first proposed to the FCC, AMA prepared a document outlining our opposition to BPL, as did several other organizations. It appears as though these objections didn't have the impact we were hoping for. On Thursday, February 12, 2004 the FCC indicated they are issuing a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) regarding BPL. This is generally a step toward FCC approval. The AMA President, Technical Director, Frequency Committee Coordinator, and AMA's legal counsel spent much of yesterday working together to determine how best to proceed. A notice should appear soon on AMA's Website. FCC NPRMs include a period for public comment. It may come to the point where we may suggest to our members that they take advantage of that opportunity. We will post updates here, as well as on our District 2 Forum, as we get them. In the meantime you can visit the AMA Website at http://www.modelaircraft.org to read our initial response filed a couple of months ago. For more information on BPL and the FCC's position you can visit http://www.fcc.gov. If you have any specific questions fire away. District 2's Frequency Coordinator, Dan Williams, who is also a member of the AMA Frequency Committee participates in the discussion forum on our website and will be happy to answer questions of a technical nature (since that's out of my league!). You can post a question for him over there at http://www.amadistrictii.org/d2forum/ in the "Frequency/Interference Issues" section. Dave Dave Mathewson AMA Vice President, District 2 7271 State Fair Blvd. Baldwinsville, NY 13027 315.727.4275 315.635.1039 (Fax) I don't understand what problems AMA would have with BPL as it should run at a different freq than the 72Mhz we currently use. That and I for one would rather not fly in the vicinity of high power lines anyway. FWIW > Taken from the D2 List: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > 315.635.1039 (Fax) BPL - Broadband over Power Lines. The range of frequencies will cover the spread from 2Mhz to 80Mhz. Seems to me that covers 72Mhz ! ! ! ! If the BPL crap is allowed, the interference that it creates to amateur radio, and that which it gets from same, will cause its very quick demise. The amateur group ARRL (similar to AMA) has already shown that a simple 100W amateur transmitter will totally blast the BPL signal and make it completely unuseable. David >I don't understand what problems AMA would have with BPL as it should run at >a different freq than the 72Mhz we currently use. That and I for one would [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >> >> 315.635.1039 (Fax) > BPL - Broadband over Power Lines. The range of frequencies will cover > the spread from 2Mhz to 80Mhz. Seems to me that covers 72Mhz ! ! ! ! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > simple 100W amateur transmitter will totally blast the BPL signal and > make it completely unuseable. It already is pretty much unuseable. Other technologies exist and arecoming on stream. It will die the death. It doesn't reaslly work and probably never will. I can amen to that! When I lived in Pasadena, my little mobile Kenwood 220 rig at 25 watts would completely obliterate the picture on HBO to my end of the block. If the cable shielding is that ineffective to block incoming RF radiation I doubt it will do much to prevent RF radiation from leaking out. In Sunland, the cable lines there would periodicly emit a signal (was carrying a local FM radio broadcast, KIIS FM), that would wipe out the squelch on that same Kenwood, even in CTCSS mode. I would have to turn my rig off to get any peace. I think most modelers would be unhappy if their planes took a hit due to somebody sending IMs on AOHell!  SignatureDan KE6ERB AMA605992 I've heard the screams of the vegetables... http://fubar1.freeservers.com > BPL - Broadband over Power Lines. The range of frequencies will cover > the spread from 2Mhz to 80Mhz. Seems to me that covers 72Mhz ! ! ! ! [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > >> > >> 315.635.1039 (Fax) >BPL - Broadband over Power Lines. The range of frequencies will cover >the spread from 2Mhz to 80Mhz. Seems to me that covers 72Mhz ! ! ! ! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >simple 100W amateur transmitter will totally blast the BPL signal and >make it completely unuseable. The real reason the ARRL is worried about BPL is not because of interference from BPL, it is interference _to_ BPL. Historically, when amateur radio affected commercial interests, amateur radio lost every time. The r/c hobby is in a much worse predicament, because our use of the frequencies is shared and not protected. Nothing to stop FCC from finding in favor of commercial interests at the expense of the r/c hobby. THAT is what's scary about BPL. Not that it doesn't work any too well, nor that it is likely to be a seriously 'leaky' system, but that it will be prone to interference from non-commercial users like us and that we'll have no say when the r/c interests are ignored by FCC. Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust http://home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber > The real reason the ARRL is worried about BPL is not because of > interference from BPL, it is interference _to_ BPL. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > from non-commercial users like us and that we'll have no say when the > r/c interests are ignored by FCC. You nailed that one. I'd also like to throw in pagers into the mix. With them in the neighborhood of our frequencies, we should get some help from those guys. OTOH, BPL is really, really attractive in rural areas, and wont die as easy as some people are hoping. >>The real reason the ARRL is worried about BPL is not because of >>interference from BPL, it is interference _to_ BPL. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > OTOH, BPL is really, really attractive in rural areas, and wont die as > easy as some people are hoping. There is third generation microwave kit coming along that will punch a tight beam up to 20 miles on very low power. Power lines will not adequately transmit broadband speeds at those distances without a lot of expensive kit and high power at both ends. In teh UK, the power lines are being re-equipped with optcal fibes in teh earyh line to get excellent coverage: Then local dsitrribution is done by phone lines (expensive) and latterly low power microwaves in eoher tight beam for point to point, or using 'wifi' nets in clustered locations. This has had problems to date because the current WiFi power and frequenciues are suscpetible to absorption by water in rain, fog and wet leaves. Newe power levels and frequency changes are imnproving this. Transmitting broadband down unshielded power lines is a recipe for disaster. Not only will it splatter everything else, but as pointed out it will pick up anything else. Let nature take its course. Right, all this is really to understand, even for non-tech types. So what I don't get is why the discussion has gotten as far as it has. BPL should have come up in discussion as "one" possibility, discussed for about 2 minutes, and then quickly DISMISSED as an option considering all the bad stuff that "we" seem to understand so easily. I don't understand :-) MJC > There is third generation microwave kit coming along that will punch a > tight beam up to 20 miles on very low power. Power lines will not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Let nature take its course. > Right, all this is really to understand, even for non-tech types. > So what I don't get is why the discussion has gotten as far as it has. >BPL should have come up in discussion as "one" possibility, discussed for >about 2 minutes, and then quickly DISMISSED as an option considering all the >bad stuff that "we" seem to understand so easily. > I don't understand :-) You don't appear to understand the problem we have. BPL bears no obligation to prevent interference to shared secondary users of the spectrum : US. They only have to prevent interference with other primary and protected secondary users : r/c is neither of those. From the perspective of the BPL proponents, r/c interference is literally a non-issue. BPL interference with r/c could be devastating to a flying site, but the BPL folks don't have to worry about that problem 'cuz it's not _their_ problem, it's OUR problem. Alas, we are shared secondary users of the 72/75 MHz spectrum, and thereby have no protection against interference in that spectrum. BPL proponents know full well we r/cer's have no say in the matter at all. Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust http://home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber | Alas, we are shared secondary users of the 72/75 MHz spectrum, and | thereby have no protection against interference in that spectrum. R/C users have to accept interference, yes, but we're not secondary users of the 20 khz chunks of the 72/75 mhz bands that we use. Or, at least if we're secondary users, there is no primary user. (We share the 72 mhz band with pagers and who knows what else. It's dividied up into chunks -- 20 khz for us, 20 khz for them, 20 khz for us, etc.) Still, BPL is bad. It's a disaster for ham radio -- it would effectively ruin anything that involves weak signals under 80 mhz, and it's a possible disaster (it depends on the specifics) for us. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. and we know all this HOW EXACTLY?? I've seen a lot of knee jerk stuff here but I'm waiting for the evidence >Still, BPL is bad. It's a disaster for ham radio -- it would >effectively ruin anything that involves weak signals under 80 mhz, and >it's a possible disaster (it depends on the specifics) for us. >and we know all this HOW EXACTLY?? > >I've seen a lot of knee jerk stuff here >but I'm waiting for the evidence Test have already been done in Europe, Germany I think, and they abandoned it because of the interference problems. I don't have any links to offer absolute proof. Dan Thompson (AMA 32873, EAA 60974, WB4GUK, GROL) remove POST in address for email | and we know all this HOW EXACTLY?? | | I've seen a lot of knee jerk stuff here | but I'm waiting for the evidence Ask and ye shall receive ... http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Video Ham radio isn't all about frequencies below 80 mhz, but that's a certainly a huge part of it. It's the part that's used for DXing, so BPL could effectively kill any sort of long distance ham radio communication, especially those doing it with low power. | >Still, BPL is bad. It's a disaster for ham radio -- it would | >effectively ruin anything that involves weak signals under 80 mhz, and | >it's a possible disaster (it depends on the specifics) for us. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com One dollar, one vote. BAH mostly bad links or links that have been hijacked and take you somewhere else. got anything better? >Ask and ye shall receive ... > >http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Video >R/C users have to accept interference, yes, but we're not secondary >users of the 20 khz chunks of the 72/75 mhz bands that we use. Or, at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >dividied up into chunks -- 20 khz for us, 20 khz for them, 20 khz for >us, etc.) We are secondary users of the 72 MHz band. We have a channel every 20 KHz and the pagers/commerical R/C are every 20 KHz but offset by 10 KHz which puts them between our channels. That is why we must stay within +-4 KHZ of our assigned frequency. BPL is bad news for everyone. Our flying field is in the middle of a triangle of three cities at a land fill. You would think we would not have a worry. Guess what, in addition to 7200 volt lines around the field there is a very high tension line only 2500 feet away. Dan Thompson (AMA 32873, EAA 60974, WB4GUK, GROL) remove POST in address for email | >R/C users have to accept interference, yes, but we're not secondary | >users of the 20 khz chunks of the 72/75 mhz bands that we use. Or, at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | We are secondary users of the 72 MHz band. But we are primary users of our 20 khz chunks, are we not? Certainly, the FCC hasn't allocated them for anything but R/C flying. | We have a channel every 20 KHz and the pagers/commerical R/C are | every 20 KHz but offset by 10 KHz which puts th between our | channels. That is why we must stay within +-4 KHZ of our assigned | frequency. Don't they have the same requirement of staying within their assigned frequencies? | BPL is bad news for everyone. Not quite everyone. Assuming it works as advertised, it's good for those needing fast Internet access cheaply. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com Blessed is the end user who expects nothing, for he/she will not be disappointed. maybe the AMA should look at changing frequencies to the 2 meter band. Pretty soon all that is going to be required is to sign your name to get a license. Nah!, Somebody will start "No Sign International and you will just have to make an X, so as not to exclude those unable to write. Then they will get someone to post messages for them that writing is just an ego trip to make others feel bad. > maybe the AMA should look at changing frequencies to the 2 meter band. > Pretty soon all that is going to be required is to sign your name to get > a license. > Right, all this is really to understand, even for non-tech types. > So what I don't get is why the discussion has gotten as far as it has. > BPL should have come up in discussion as "one" possibility, discussed for > about 2 minutes, and then quickly DISMISSED as an option considering all the > bad stuff that "we" seem to understand so easily. > I don't understand :-) Think Enron. You will understand. > MJC > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >>Let nature take its course. There is no real need for BPL as technology is already overcoming the distance problems with ADSL over phone lines. I have a good friend that works at the NOC for a major west coast supplier and they already are using these techniques to connect subscribers over 10 miles from the switch. He suspects that distance will cease to be a problem in a few years. > > The real reason the ARRL is worried about BPL is not because of > > interference from BPL, it is interference _to_ BPL. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > OTOH, BPL is really, really attractive in rural areas, and wont die as > easy as some people are hoping. But the real advantage to BPL is the last mile of wire is already installed. Traditionally the so called last mile of connectivity, Central office to customer, is by far the most expensive to install and maintain. Eating up as much as one third of the allotted budget. BPL, having the grid already there, maintained and budgeted, is flashing big dollar signs to providers and customers alike. Just imagine, every room in every home and office will now, suddenly be wired for the internet at no extra charge! > There is no real need for BPL as technology is already overcoming the > distance problems with ADSL over phone lines. I have a good friend that > works at the NOC for a major west coast supplier and they already are using > these techniques to connect subscribers over 10 miles from the switch. He > suspects that distance will cease to be a problem in a few years. Except that I doubt that ANY of the transformers installed for stepping down high voltage transmission line current to household current will pass the HF signal, so there will have to be some kind of bridge circuitry at every stage of transformation. Transformers (coils) are low pass filters! > But the real advantage to BPL is the last mile of wire is already installed. > Traditionally the so called last mile of connectivity, Central office to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > these techniques to connect subscribers over 10 miles from the switch. He > > suspects that distance will cease to be a problem in a few years. > Except that I doubt that ANY of the transformers installed for stepping down > high voltage transmission line current to household current will pass the HF > signal, so there will have to be some kind of bridge circuitry at every > stage of transformation. Transformers (coils) are low pass filters! Still a good deal less expensive than running coax, fiber or whatever to each and every room in each and every home or business. True, but if you are 30 miles off the main road and your power has to go through the average of 2-4 step down transformers from the main trasmission line, I doubt that ANY provider will go through the expense of installing all the MDMs necessary. You will still be without broadband. Conversely, the technology is emerging to bring broadband to virtually any house with a phone line. > > Except that I doubt that ANY of the transformers installed for stepping > down [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Still a good deal less expensive than running coax, fiber or whatever to > each and every room in each and every home or business. > True, but if you are 30 miles off the main road and your power has to go > through the average of 2-4 step down transformers from the main trasmission [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Conversely, the technology is emerging to bring broadband to virtually any > house with a phone line. Its not emerging. Its been around for many years. It just got a bit better. It still has an upper limit tho, way below the other alternatives - fober or microwave. At best its an intermedieate stopgap. >>>Except that I doubt that ANY of the transformers installed for stepping >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>Still a good deal less expensive than running coax, fiber or whatever to >>each and every room in each and every home or business. Those living 30 miles off the main are a tiny minority! They're also the ones without cable TV. Even so, the transformers don't last forever! They will be replaced/serviced on a regular basis. It will get to them eventually or, the next great leap will step in. Like a UAV orbiting at 60k and functioning as the great cell tower in the sky! Don't laugh! It's being tested and developed as we speak! > True, but if you are 30 miles off the main road and your power has to go > through the average of 2-4 step down transformers from the main trasmission [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Still a good deal less expensive than running coax, fiber or whatever to > > each and every room in each and every home or business. Yes, they are a tiny minority. But, they are just the minority that BPL technology seeks to supply broadband to. Telco and cable services already reach something like 95% of the US population right now. I don't see transformer replacement as an issue. The issue would be having to place some kind of bridge around every transformer in the line as these signals just can't be forced through a transformer. In the UK, small towns and rural hamlets have to wait until they get 300-500 subscribers before BT will install the switching equipment for broadband. How many rural US customers do you think it would need to get bridging equipment installed? It won't be cheap so I would bet that the small minority that would benefit from it still won't get it. > Those living 30 miles off the main are a tiny minority! They're also the > ones without cable TV. Even so, the transformers don't last forever! They [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > Still a good deal less expensive than running coax, fiber or whatever to > > > each and every room in each and every home or business. | Except that I doubt that ANY of the transformers installed for | stepping down high voltage transmission line current to household | current will pass the HF signal, so there will have to be some kind | of bridge circuitry at every stage of transformation. Transformers | (coils) are low pass filters! Coils are indeed low pass filters, allowing low frequencies through and attenuating higher frequencies. And transformers are basically just two coils really close to each other. However, they've got some way of making it work, and I doubt it involves equipment at each house's transformer. Perhaps the signal is strong enough, and the receivers sensitive enough, that any attenuation caused by the transformer is not a problem. BPL has already been deployed in some places. Obviously it does work, at least to some degree. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute. The problem with coils and transformers passing HF is the farther you are from the pass frequency, the more it is attenuated. Of course, these transformers are designed to work well with the 60hz AC in the US. Passing 72mHz would seem to be impossible. If it ever makes it mainstream we'll see how well it works with all the other interference available! > | Except that I doubt that ANY of the transformers installed for > | stepping down high voltage transmission line current to household [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com > Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute. > Except that I doubt that ANY of the transformers installed for stepping down > high voltage transmission line current to household current will pass the HF > signal, so there will have to be some kind of bridge circuitry at every Precisely. You will need the equivalent of ADSL DSLAMS at every transformer. Which will put the cost right back up again. Thats why Microwaves are so promising. No need fo last 10 miles of copper or fibre, and the termination cost per customer is hugely lower. Of course it won't make money for incumbent PTT's or power companies, so it will probably be subject to cries of 'interference' and 'health hazard' from carefully funded lobby groups... > stage of transformation. Transformers (coils) are low pass filters! > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >>>suspects that distance will cease to be a problem in a few years. and wait until the system has a problem....just like everything else it works great on paper. Garbage in , garbage out. > But the real advantage to BPL is the last mile of wire is already installed. > Traditionally the so called last mile of connectivity, Central office to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>these techniques to connect subscribers over 10 miles from the switch. He >>suspects that distance will cease to be a problem in a few years. of course, all these comments ASSume that there is a carrier or provider WILLING and ABLE to provide an alternative form of service. There ARE places where dialup is STILL THE ONLY way to connect to the internet short of paying exorbitant fees for satellite service which is STILL not all that fast. >There is no real need for BPL as technology is already overcoming the >distance problems with ADSL over phone lines. I have a good friend that >works at the NOC for a major west coast supplier and they already are using >these techniques to connect subscribers over 10 miles from the switch. He >suspects that distance will cease to be a problem in a few years. Maybe you guys should check out: http://www.plca.net/ It's the Power Line Communications Association web site and it has quite a bit of information. > > The real reason the ARRL is worried about BPL is not because of > > interference from BPL, it is interference _to_ BPL. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > OTOH, BPL is really, really attractive in rural areas, and wont die as > easy as some people are hoping. Read the tea leaves. > BPL - Broadband over Power Lines. The range of frequencies will cover > the spread from 2Mhz to 80Mhz. Seems to me that covers 72Mhz ! ! ! ! [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] >>> >>>315.635.1039 (Fax) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.