Re: another major BPL deployment

[w1rfi@xxxxxxxx]

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html

Hello, Dave,

I wasn't accusing you of misquoting Woodie, although I can see how one
might take it that way.

Woodie was reporting what I had found, and it was not accurately
reporting what I had provided to the hams in Cincinatti.  That 60 dB
figure could well have been a typo on his part, or a misunderstanding,
but it was not accurate nonetheless.

If you feel I should clarify this on the list, I will gladly do so. I
agree; it is his figure that is incorrect.  If you feel an apology is
necessary over words that can be interpreted in a number of ways, I
will gladly offer you one.

No one "pulled my chain," Dave. The entry was sent to me by a routine
Google news search I have set on my callsign or name.

I don't know how long it has been since you have been to the ARRL web
site, Dave, but there has been a lot of information about US trials,
interference from same and from the present generation of BPL. You may
have to drill down a bit on the links, but there is information aplenty
that it is obvious you haven't seen. To save you the trouble, here are
a couple:

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/am-articles.html
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/other-articles.html
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html

There are two "FCC" limits that need to be met. The first is the
emissions limit. I have personally tested about 4-5 systems whose
levels exceeded the FCC limits by a considerable amount. These can be
difficult to measure, and not all systems have been tested by ARRL or
local amateur operators.

The second limit is related to harmful inteference. "Legal" BPL systems
operate at levels that, locally, are tens of dB greater than the other
noise levels in the area. Amateurs that report "S9" BPL noise that
completely fills an amateur band or three are reporting harmful
interference. I have seen many a BPL systems whose emissions were
strong enough to degrade Amateur and other communications significantly
-- at S9 signal levels, all but the strongest signals on a band are
covered up.

My observation that Current Technologies systems can cause interference
on other spectrum is not speculation, Dave. A simple analysis of
antenna physics tells you that "legal" BPL systems will generate strong
noise locally. I have personally seen Current systems generating strong
noise on top of shortwave broadcast and WWV time signals, for example.

I would think that some of the links I provided show that ARRL and
Amateur Radio is not opposed to BPL, but rather to interference.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you read them. If you still have some
advice to offer, it is more than welcome, and, being better informed,
you're advice will probably be more useful.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI@xxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
   Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
   Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
Member: IEEE, Standards Association, Electromagnetic Compatibility
Society
Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
Member: IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee
   Chairman, BPL Study Project
Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee Board of
Directors: QRP Amateur Radio Club International