how-to block ads
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to ctceo
Re: Let's hope so
said by ctceo  :
Notice that when spending 5 minutes googling for Failed BPL trials all of the negative press comes from HAM supporters, or sites that are associated with the ARRL or it's friends. Most BPL trials are cancelled due to poor equipment that a company is not interested in repairing, those trials that were cancelled that had ideal and well kept wires/insulators were cancelled because of direct complaints from the ARRL, it's lobbyists, or the unlucky fellow stuck being surrounded by the trial area grid 
Penn Yan, Cedar Rapids, and Charlotte/Raleigh were all Amperion sites with new out-of-the-box equipment and were high profile areas presumably tweaked and fine tuned by the vendors and carriers involved. The complaints were all based on your old friend, Title 47, Part 15, and you can read some of them on the web in fact. Maybe you'd realize by now this goes beyond fixing broken insulators and Ham Radio. Or is it still Amateur Radio's fault, even after the interference is measured and proven to exist?
quote:
And also notice when you google for 5 minutes, there are absolutely NO Law Enforcement agencies or Emergency Services complaining about the interference, Only HAM'ers and their buddies??? Hmmm. I wonder why...
Me, too. Imagine how fast the trial areas would be shutting down if there were public safety complaints, or if the effects to aircraft communications outlined in the NTIA report were surveyed further. It's probably good for the BPL industry that APCO or some other organizations haven't gotten heavily involved. It's better this stops now before widespread deployment leads to bigger problems, beyond interference with Ham Radio.
Ctceo, you worked on a BPL system, Manassas if I recall correctly. Did you see the problem with passing trucks interrupting the BPL service like was mentioned in this article »www.newsobserver.com/business/nc···21c.html ? I'm trying to figure out if it's impacting the WiFi portion of the system, or if there's something weird with the proximity of trucks to the power lines. Who knows, maybe it's even ingress interference from CB. | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| To date, I have received no complaints from Emergency Service officials in any area that has had a trial cancelled or continued, and that is the first thing they would do if it were an issue. So we know at least that they are not receiving significant interference or don't have a problem with what is being generated. So it seems that the only complaints come from those scanning for such iunterference... What this tells me is that based on the complaints of HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint with the FCC is the major hurdle here. Now we wait for the FCC to ring in on official standards once testing is complete, and spectrum re-allocation occurs (if it will be necessary)
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by ctceo :
To date, I have received no complaints from Emergency Service officials in any area that has had a trial cancelled or continued, and that is the first thing they would do if it were an issue.
So you are now the FCC? Complaints must go through you? 
BPL providers, like you, still say there is no interference problem. Not really an un-biased opinion. That coupled with the fact that you, yourself, refuse to divulge any testing methods or results while the HAM community does both.
said by ctceo :
So we know at least that they are not receiving significant interference or don't have a problem with what is being generated. So it seems that the only complaints come from those scanning for such iunterference... What this tells me is that based on the complaints of HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint with the FCC is the major hurdle here.
YOU may say there is no interference but the data proves otherwise. For you to debate this issue, you need to provide supporting data which you have refused to provide.
said by ctceo :
Now we wait for the FCC to ring in on official standards once testing is complete, and spectrum re-allocation occurs (if it will be necessary)
Spectrum allocation? Care to explain? You think the FCC is going to tell all the HAMs to leave the HF spectrum? You do understand that this will violate international treaties concerning the HF spectrum.
For a guy who is so against the government, you sure seem to want the FCC to protect you. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to ctceo
said by ctceo :
To date, I have received no complaints from Emergency Service officials in any area that has had a trial cancelled or continued, and that is the first thing they would do if it were an issue.
This has been asked before, but has anyone in the BPL industry engaged public safety to see if there actually was interference to their services? I haven't seen any evidence of it. There's been several Amateurs that experienced the interference, but couldn't identify what is was. Once information was out on what BPL was and what the interference looked like, these people popped up, noting they where hearing the interference for months.
quote:
So we know at least that they are not receiving significant interference or don't have a problem with what is being generated.
This is the old "we have no complaints, so there is no interference" stance. That was disproven last year.
quote:
So it seems that the only complaints come from those scanning for such iunterference... What this tells me is that based on the complaints of HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint with the FCC is the major hurdle here.
This is basically the same thing Progress was whining about, you "searched out" the interference, so it's not really interference and you don't have a valid complaint. The thing these providers have to understand is that if you are conducting a trial, you have to take into account everything you're going to find in a real-world full scale deployment. Amateurs and other HF users are mobile. Also, while a 50 home deployment may not "touch" any HF users in the immediate vicinity, a wide scale deployment will. I think Progress and others wanted a successful test in an unrealistically small, controlled environment that wasn't scientifically resprentative of a large real world deployment. But, it's easier to blame lack of planning or poor technology on the messenger that brought the kinks in the plan to light. Amateurs said there would be interference before these trail areas went up, based on age old engineering knowledge and basic physics. The BPL industry said the claims were baseless, and there was no proof. So, Amateurs went to the areas and made measurements that proved interference. Now Amateurs seem to be guilty of "entrapment" or something to that effect.
quote:
Now we wait for the FCC to ring in on official standards once testing is complete, and spectrum re-allocation occurs (if it will be necessary)
Spectrum re-allocation is a pipe dream and not based in reality for all the reasons we've said before (cost, time, no other spectrum available with the properties of HF, etc.). Read the NTIA report again, or read it for the first time. Note all the frequencies they want to protect that would have to be moved, and realize they don't even mention Amateur frequencies in their list. Spectrum reallocation for BPL would be political suicide for anyone at the Commission. And if BPL needed spectrum for itself, why hasn't anyone pursued a dedicated allocation? The answer is simple -- a wired network shouldn't need allocated wireless spectrum. | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Twist what I said into whatever you will. My response on this thread was based on data we received from our own field trials, and not those of others. I am not disputing nor did I say anywhere that the interference issues that have been reported were false or mis-represented. The issue is that when asked emergency services that we have contacted about interference issues, they either did not respond to our phone calls, or have responded and quite clearly stated that the interference is minimal or non-existent to their services. I agree that the technology needs more testing, but testing cannot be done appropriately when the pursuing companies either abandon their tests, or perform incomplete trials. As for the data relevancy question, You are asking me to divulge information that was included in a legal document protected by law to be non-disclosable. I would have preferred that that information to be public myself, but that is up to the client I work for, not me. I will not commit a crime simply because you think I should make the data public. That is my response.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
tenbase
join:2000-07-19
Alexandria, VA
| What a non-answer that was.
In one breath you vilify amateurs for deliberately seeking out interference (as if it needed to be searched for), while trumpeting the claim that no public service officials have reported impact to their services (how many PSA's use HF and low VHF in the trial areas?).
Then you turn around and claim legalities prevent you from refuting rf_engineers assertions.
Must be a nice cozy position, being able to take pot shots whenever you please, and then hide behind "legalities" imposed by your "clients" and dodge the bullets whenever fire is returned.
--
I would kill everyone on this forum for a drop of sweet beer.. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
2 edits | reply to ctceo
said by ctceo :
Twist what I said into whatever you will. My response on this thread was based on data we received from our own field trials, and not those of others. I am not disputing nor did I say anywhere that the interference issues that have been reported were false or mis-represented. The issue is that when asked emergency services that we have contacted about interference issues, they either did not respond to our phone calls, or have responded and quite clearly stated that the interference is minimal or non-existent to their services. I agree that the technology needs more testing, but testing cannot be done appropriately when the pursuing companies either abandon their tests, or perform incomplete trials. As for the data relevancy question, You are asking me to divulge information that was included in a legal document protected by law to be non-disclosable. I would have preferred that that information to be public myself, but that is up to the client I work for, not me.
Twisting your words? You said this :
quote:
To date, I have received no complaints from Emergency Service officials in any area that has had a trial cancelled or continued, and that is the first thing they would do if it were an issue
You've only claimed to work on Manassas, and that trial hasn't been cancelled. There's been only three trials that have been shut down: Penn Yann, Cedar Rapids, and Raleigh. I don't want to twist your words, so please tell us if you mean you worked on these three trials as well. Or did you mean you never received calls in Manassas? Please clarify.
You said:
quote:
I am not disputing nor did I say anywhere that the interference issues that have been reported were false or mis-represented
But had previously written:
quote:
What this tells me is that based on the complaints of HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint with the FCC is the major hurdle here
So if you're not claiming the reports are false, your beef is with the "HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint"?
quote:
I will not commit a crime simply because you think I should make the data public.
Most every time you come here you drop items that we're supposed to accept as fact, but then you hide behind an NDA or go on your "commit a crime" rant. What's the use of making claims that no one, not even you can verify? If the Amateur community made claims and then said we couldn't reveal the details because it was confidential, you would probably scream bloody murder. It would be unfair for someone involved in a BPL trial to come in here and make claims against BPL based on information that was NDA protected, IMO.
There's no proof area emergency services were engaged beyond a phone call or voice mail to someone. You can't disclose whether you actually provided details of the frequency plan you were using or the geographical coverage area, or if you're even using area public safety frequencies. You can't mention whether technical staff from these agencies actually took field measurements.
The details of your alleged work have never seen the light of day (according to you), and it's not even provable you're even involved in a field trial. You have yet to reveal your real name. If you were as ethical as you'd like us to believe, you wouldn't allude to NDA protected material here. If you were as involved as you claim, you wouldn't be anonymous, IMO. I really don't care whether or not you make data public -- it's a matter of principle.
| |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
·HughesNet Satellit..
| tenbase:
"What a non-answer that was". Hmmm. I've heard this one a bunch before. You make the assumption through a carefree interpretation of what I said, that I "Vilify amateurs". Not once did I say or imply that they were villains or doing such acts, this was your own undertaking. As for taking pot shots, I consider them opinions, derived directly from observations of fact. Pretend what you will.
rf_engineer:
By saying "If you were as ethical as you would like us to believe,..." you are stating that I am either less ethical, or not ethical which can only be interpreted as a direct flame, shame on you.
Just because I've worked on one field trial does not mean that I have, am, or intend on working on others, and last I checked it is not your choice to determine wether or not I state this publicly, or at all for that matter.
To clarify the Manassas question.
Yes I worked on it, for a total of 144 hours. I have contacted By Mail, Phone, and e-mail Law Enforcement and Emergency services in the area to assert the impact of any interference that was being received, and to date NONE of those agencies have declared that there was any interference noticeable on their equipment. Squelch control and pilot tones are good things.
And YES, I have worked on 2 other BPL trials one has yet to be made public, and the other was discontinued, That is all I am going to say at the moment.
I apologize for the statement "HAM operators utilising their right to voice a complaint", After reviewing this statement I can see where it could be easily wrongly interpreted. To clarify: The paperwork, and legal concerns associated with the type of complaints lodged by concerned members of the amateur radio and other RF dependent persons and agencies along with the sheer volume of such accounts has led to substantial "Aversion" in investors seeking to perfect this technology through trials.
Only when I am confronted with breaking the law will I state that I cannot divulge information. Perhaps with these posts and a few members of the interested engineers and companies/persons involved in BPL and it's trials will show them that making information public during trials is the way to go in the future, But that is not for me to decide.
If and when details become public I will surely post what I am able to type or scan here if they are already not available. Rest Assured. As for future comments or posts, I do not post false or misleading material purposely, any incidents past/present/future are either mis-interpretations, or poor wording on my part.
Again my apologies if my statements were taken in wrong context as that was not my intention.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
tenbase
join:2000-07-19
Alexandria, VA
| Ctceo, I'm not into whitewashing, I call it like I see it. You have made a number of totally uncalled-for ad hominem attacks on amateur radio operators in the past and frankly I see no reason to play games with semantics.
Feel free to make any carefree interpretations of this post you wish. Your previous posts on this subject speak for themselves.
--
I would kill everyone on this forum for a drop of sweet beer.. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
1 edit | reply to ctceo
said by ctceo :
By saying "If you were as ethical as you would like us to believe,..." you are stating that I am either less ethical, or not ethical which can only be interpreted as a direct flame, shame on you.
If the shoes fits, wear it. You have a history of postings with claims that can't be verified and you can't back up what you say by answering questions because of an NDA. How ethical is it to make claims in public you can't back up?
quote:
Just because I've worked on one field trial does not mean that I have, am, or intend on working on others, and last I checked it is not your choice to determine wether or not I state this publicly, or at all for that matter.
In your "I haven't received any calls", you set yourself up as an authority on the issue. I asked you to back up your implication that you are an authority. If you don't want to be asked to back up what you say or elaborate, don't post in a public forum.
quote:
Yes I worked on it, for a total of 144 hours. I have contacted By Mail, Phone, and e-mail Law Enforcement and Emergency services in the area to assert the impact of any interference that was being received, and to date NONE of those agencies have declared that there was any interference noticeable on their equipment. Squelch control and pilot tones are good things.
But you can't give any details as to whether you're actually using their frequencies in the systems you worked on. You also can't answer what information you actually gave them. For all we know, they simply asked their dispatchers if they had any problems that day and they said "No.". In essence, what I'm saying is that we have no way of knowing whether your test or conclusion was scientific or thorough.
quote:
Only when I am confronted with breaking the law will I state that I cannot divulge information.
I recommend you don't get involved in debates that are going to inevitably end with you stating you can't divulge information as it wrecks your standing in this forum. It's your choice and this is merely my opinion, and you can do what you want. | |
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Assume and interpret what you will. It is clear that you don't understand my reasons, and even clearer that you don't respect a persons right to voice opinions wether their based on fact or not.
Just because the shoe fits doesn't mean that I have to wear it, that's stereotyping. All of my postings are based on fact, or derived through the logic process, if you do not understand logic then I suggest refraining from commenting on things you fail to understand through your own shortsightedness. Ethical or not, I am allowed to post what I know to be true wether or not I have proof. When it is presented you have an inconclusive-itis attack as if you don't wish to believe what I say even though I agree with every posting here, just not always the method or opinions voiced, but that is my right as is yours.
You interpretation of assigning me as "An authority" is false. I have not insinuated or stated that I was an authority, nor do I. I simply state that I have talked closely with agencies that may be impacted by interference issues, and all of them through multiple communications have voiced that they were able to communicate without hindrance through the trial in question. If you would like to find this out for yourself go ask them yourself. I was being paid to do it. It is my right and obligation to post in a public forum in which I am expected to be a contributing member, just because you do not like my method of posting is no reason for talking down to me, or playing down my legitimacy here. I do not talk down to others unless they do the same to me, and in the case of legitimacy I always try to assist in clearing up speculation with what I know which may not always be 100% accurate.
Again the details issues as I have said are not my property, this would be like asking NASA to discuss with me methods which they have used to secure government communications with Jo Shmoe in a side street cafe. What is private knowledge is just that, Why do you fail to respect those guidelines?
Again I did not get just one "No" over the phone. I was present at the testing sites, talking with employees of agencies, traveling with them on some instances using equipment to analyse the interference when there was RF communication taking place, using all equipment at my disposal. Some was my equipment some was on loan. Methods were all the usual types used in a field trial of it's kind, it's not that hard to figure out.
I will take your recommendation into consideration, however I have a duty to state what I have seen, or know to be true to the best of my ability regardless. Every bit of information I am able to divulge to the community is helpful in one fashion or another. Just because you don't approve or like the information posted is not any reason to downplay it, or assume that it is false or start telling other people to not listen to it, You have a right to not respond to my posts, and Since it's obvious that You can't agree to disagree, but I can; You should refrain from making requests of me that you yourself have stated I cannot answer.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
|
