Hams Annoyed FCC Dismisses BPL ComplaintsDoubt the legitimacy of tests conducted in Virginia ( old news - 09:17AM Tuesday Dec 26 2006) The FCC has dismissed complaints by ham radio operators in Manassas, Virginia, concerning interference caused by a much discussed broadband over power line (BPL) deployment in the area. ComTek, the local outfit deploying the technology, claims the ARRL and other radio groups have been engaged in a "campaign to turn back the clock on broadband in the United States" and states that all interference concerns have been addressed. The ARRL disagreed. The FCC allegedly looked into the complaints and dismissed concerns last week, but the ARRL believes interference is still occurring. FCC engineers took measurements at several locations in Manassas on October 25 and 26, noting the tests "demonstrate that the Manassas BPL system is in compliance with the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.611(b) of the Commission's rules." The ARRL, however, says the tests were conducted with the help of ComTek and without any complainants present. According to the ARRL, the FCC has "an overwhelming and obvious bias in favor of BPL" and has "done everything possible to deny or obfuscate the substantial interference potential of BPL."As we've reported, the FCC's Kevin Martin says BPL is a "top priority" and shows "great promise," despite the fact that limited deployment continues to suggest it is little more than a niche technology.
|
 |  | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! said by TK Junk Mail  :Basically, the thrust of the ARRL rebuttal to the FCC decision is that we don't trust you. Well you know what they say about government... trust but verify 
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
edit:
December 26th, @11:26AM
| said by TK Junk Mail :Basically, the thrust of the ARRL rebuttal to the FCC decision is that we don't trust you. There were no facts in their latest response to the dismissal other than that they believe a problem still exists. But the FCC twice ordered Manassas and ComTek to address concerns and ComTek replaced equipment. So why do they now believe that the FCC is letting them off the hook without proof of compliance. The ARRL will have to conduct their own tests now if they expect to challenge the FCC decision. I have to agree with TCH here. All I hear from the ARRL is a bunch of whining with no effort to HELP fix the issue.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! The ARRL has done the testing using scientific methods. Comtek has denied the problem, said it wasn't bad, replaced equipment and still denied the problem.
How can you help fix a problem when the opposite side refuses to even acknowledge a problem?  | |
| | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! said by moonpuppy :The ARRL has done the testing using scientific methods. Comtek has denied the problem, said it wasn't bad, replaced equipment and still denied the problem. How can you help fix a problem when the opposite side refuses to even acknowledge a problem? The "scientific testing" I saw on their website was some hackney driving around with a scanner in his car making whistles and pops.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. | |
| | | | | 
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs:
| Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! That "hackney" was Ed Hare, a well-respected RF Engineer. And it wasn't a "scanner" in his car, it was an ICom HF radio.
They've also done other testing using Spectrum Analyzers to clearly show the interference in the supposedly "notched" band segments.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
| | | | | |
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! said by drjim :That "hackney" was Ed Hare, a well-respected RF Engineer. And it wasn't a "scanner" in his car, it was an ICom HF radio. They've also done other testing using Spectrum Analyzers to clearly show the interference in the supposedly "notched" band segments. Right, but the FCC is stating it's within Part 15 requirements, so what's the problem?
--
Use the OS tool for the job. | |
| | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! said by MattE :Right, but the FCC is stating it's within Part 15 requirements, so what's the problem? And you believe everything the FCC says?
As for that "hackney", Ed Hare has probably more technical knowledge and know how then 80-90% of the people on this website. | |
| | | | | | | | Devistater
join:2004-02-13
Clovis, CA | Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! Only 90%?? | |
| | | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!! said by Devistater :Only 90%?? Trying to be conservative. My guess is higher but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  | |
| | | | | | |
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs:
| The problem is that Part 15 states an unlicensed service must not cause harmful interference to a licensed service. The FCC is trying make an end-run around their own rules by claiming the interference (they grudginly admit it's real) is not "harmful". The gist of the ARRL lawsuit against the FCC is to get them to follow thir own rules.
I have nothing against BPL or PLC. I (like most hams) just want the providers to deploy a system that doesn't pollute the radio spectrum.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
| | | | | | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
December 27th, @08:16AM
| said by MattE :said by drjim :That "hackney" was Ed Hare, a well-respected RF Engineer. And it wasn't a "scanner" in his car, it was an ICom HF radio. They've also done other testing using Spectrum Analyzers to clearly show the interference in the supposedly "notched" band segments. Right, but the FCC is stating it's within Part 15 requirements, so what's the problem? Much like there's never been a credible third party around with a good camera to document a UFO sighting, there's never been anyone around other than a BPL carrier or equipment vendor when the FCC takes BPL measurements. It's not within any BPL company's best interests to highlight bad areas or show the FCC what someone has filed a complaint about. And when the FCC publishes no measurement data or the measurement equipment list and technique, it's unknown whether their measurements are valid. I'm not saying the ham measurements are automatically valid, but nearly every claim I've seen so far has been backed up with published measurements. Why a government agency can't publish theirs poses a lot of questions.
This is just one in a long line of questionable actions the FCC has done with regards to BPL. Just a few weeks ago, the FCC passed a rule that exempts BPL systems from further action to remedy interference to mobile stations if their emissions are 20 dB below the emissions limit. The emissions limit was never intended to be a level at which there would never be interference to licensed stations, it was merely a regulatory limit. The new rule was arguably a gift with no technical basis for the BPL industry and it was passed without being published in any previous FCC proceeding, nor was it available for public review like all proposed FCC rules. What's even scarier, this rule exempts carriers if they go 10 dB below the emissions limit on low band VHF frequencies. There's still many communities (including mine) that have emergency services on this band. The new FCC rule allows the BPL carrier to emit levels that can interfere with these services, and they are not obligated to take action. Few emergency agencies would know how to identify BPL interference, and BPL carriers aren't required to notify them that they are using their spectrum in their systems.
I think the ARRL should just quietly walk away from this and hire an independent EMC measurement firm that has no amateur radio operators on their staff, collect measurements for a week and hire a video production firm to film it. Otherwise, this is going to continue to be a "the glove doesn't fit" situation. | |
| | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| said by MattE :I have to agree with TCH here. All I hear from the ARRL is a bunch of whining with no effort to HELP fix the issue. Where did that come from? Just as a few examples, ARRL has done the following:
1. Before access BPL was even envisioned, ARRL worked with HomePlug to help develop the standards for in-premise BPL. Joint testing with ARRL and HomePlug representatives confirmed the need to have spectral masks to protect licensed Amateur bands.
See »p1k.arrl.org/bpl/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf
2. ARRL worked closely with Motorola to help design a product that uses a wireless backbone and BPL on the 240-volt wiring to provide access BPL to homes and businesses.
See:
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/23/1/
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/29/1/
»www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/08/01/1/
3. ARRL worked closely with DS2, a major BPL chipset manufacturer, to help document the effectiveness of improved spectral masking.
See »www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/22/1/.
4. ARRL clearly outlined what technological improvements to BPL technology would help it avoid major interference problems.
See »www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/18/101/.
5. In its testing, ARRL has accurately characterized what it has found, pro and con. For example, ARRL took the first step in noting that the BPL installation in Cincinatti had avoided major interference problems. I have also reported that the newer DS2-based installation in Houston, TX appears to be operating without interference, for the most part.
6. ARRL staff serve on a number of industry EMC committees, from the ANSI ASC C63 committee to the IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee. In those two committees, I serve as Chair of one of the subcommittees and elected Secretary, respectively.
On what did you base your statement that ARRL has done little more than whining? As the one who has done most of the work outlined above, I strongly disagree.
Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org
ARRL Laboratory Manager
Tel: 860-594-0318 | |
| | 
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
December 28th, @03:29AM
| What tests have to be run??
This fucking crap is wiping out all HF bands,why doesnt the FCC even care?? (What TESTS do they need to see this??)
They are all in this for the fucka money and nothing else and it sickens me!!!!!  | |
| | |
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs: | The Fox is minding the Chickens.... And political favoritism, too.
Too bad they don't let REAL Engineers run the FCC anymore.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: The Fox is minding the Chickens.... said by drjim :And political favoritism, too. Too bad they don't let REAL Engineers run the FCC anymore. I think it's time the FCC is split into two separate agencies, one focused on technical standards and engineering, and the other dedicated to competition, politics, general policy, and Janet Jackson. Make the technical agency non-partisan with no reporting structure to the political agency. The political agency would be appointed by the President. I guess basically what I'm saying is take the commissioners and their aids and put them in their own agency. Let them make all the political speeches and political deals they want, just don't let them touch any rules dealing with engineering issues and don't let them tie the hands of Enforcement or OET like they have with BPL.
Will such a thing ever happen in our lifetimes? Hell no! | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| As everyone says, the FCC is not doing the job as MANDATED Although I have a feeling that a few people who do not understand the physics of communication theory and propagation of signals are probably cheering this example of the FCC's dis-functionality.
And this dismissal is legal, the FCC changed the law that they enforce and said the if BPL *sort of* makes an effort to alleviate interference (August 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order §15.611(c)(1)(iii)), then mobile stations (which Ham radio is considered) are out of luck and have to put up with the interference. Power companies do have a lot of political clout and buying power.
What is this now, 12 years of going down hill for the FCC? I wonder what will happen in 5 years when the sunspot cycle peaks AND if BPL is forced to actually be a significant low end provider and other countries get interference as a result? In case you are thinking I am blowing smoke, during the 1980 sunspot peak, my boss decide he wanted all of us remote people to have CB radios to communicate in case of an emergency (this was before cell phones). For those of you who are on the young side, CB was limited to 4 watts and was on the 11 meter (27 MHz) band and going under a power line was enough to lose communications. I could not talk to my partner 10 miles down the road, but I could hear people from the east coast as a roar of noise (I was in California) and I talked to people in Ohio and Virgina on that same 4 watts while I was in a car moving down I5 between Orland and Willows. To put that into perspective, 5 years before that I was able to talk 30 miles with no issues (the distance from work to my girlfriend's house), there was no skip to worry about then.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: As everyone says, the FCC is not doing the job as MANDATED said by RayW :And this dismissal is legal, the FCC changed the law that they enforce and said the if BPL *sort of* makes an effort to alleviate interference (August 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order §15.611(c)(1)(iii)), then mobile stations (which Ham radio is considered) are out of luck and have to put up with the interference. Power companies do have a lot of political clout and buying power. I did see one bit of encouragement. On page 9 of the report, the FCC is concerned about the large amount of Access BPL equipment, that won't meet the new rules, being installed. So they won't allow old stuff to be installed. Someone has to eat all that inventory.
Also, BPL manufacturers are now submitting their equipment for certification which they did not before. Looks like they have to play by some rules until the next round of FCC commissioner buy-offs. | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Strictly an Big Business August 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order §15.611(c)(1)(iii) from when the FCC rewrote part 15 to allow the BPL people to pollute the airwaves with no recourse from those affected (that is an interpretation from several sources).
To see the full text of the part 15 changes and commissioner comments, »appanet.org/files/PDFs/FCC-06-113A1.pdf has a copy of it as I post this, but I find it interesting that one of the commissioners talks about how BPL will be useful as a household network (plug into any outlet) and another commissioner apparently looks at BPL as a tool to help manage our power grid.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| BPL 200 Mbps
join:2006-11-05
Toms River, NJ
| FCC approves Broadband Powerline as "Information Service" FCC really wants consumers a choice in Broadband access from DSL, CABLE MONOPOLY. Why would I pay ~$50/month if other ISP could sell me $30/month for the same Internet access ? Why would I pay $30/month for phone if VOIP could charge me $16/month for the same service ?
Why would I pay $80/month for cable TV if others charge only $40/month for the same service !!!
Thanks for the FCC FOR SAVING broadband over power lines via legislations !!!!
--
Unleash the opportunities of a SYMMETRICAL 200 Mbps BPL/PLC for “Smart Grid”, IPTV and in-home networking ... commercial opportunities of BPL/PLC with killer applications & services: in-home MDU networking, IPTV and triple-play...!!! | |
| | 
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: FCC approves Broadband Powerline as "Information Service" said by BPL 200 Mbps :FCC really wants consumers a choice in Broadband access from DSL, CABLE MONOPOLY. Why would I pay ~$50/month if other ISP could sell me $30/month for the same Internet access ? Why would I pay $30/month for phone if VOIP could charge me $16/month for the same service ? Why would I pay $80/month for cable TV if others charge only $40/month for the same service !!! Thanks for the FCC FOR SAVING broadband over power lines via legislations !!!! I don't disagree with you that BPL should be explored and encouraged, but you really need to learn the definitions of the words your using.
The "DSL, CABLE MONOPOLY"? Um, if you have multiple companies in two different industries competing against each other, by definition it can't be a monopoly.
"Thanks for the FCC FOR SAVING broadband over power lines via legislations !!!!" The FCC doesn't pass legislation, they are an executive branch agency. They merely enforce rules that Congress passes.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
| | | BPL 200 Mbps
join:2006-11-05
Toms River, NJ | Re: FCC approves Broadband Powerline as "Information Service" It`s a monopoly because DSL is not available in my area. I`m stuck with higher cable fees right now, and I`m not happy about it. I`m been calling them to lower the pricing plan and they won`t !!! | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: FCC approves Broadband Powerline as "Information Service" said by BPL 200 Mbps :It`s a monopoly because DSL is not available in my area. I`m stuck with higher cable fees right now, and I`m not happy about it. I`m been calling them to lower the pricing plan and they won`t !!! And you think BPL will lower your bill?
Try again. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | It's not you cable company's fault that DSL isnt available at your location. And its their right not to give you a lower price. As they see it: if you don't like the service nor the price switch to something else. | |
| | | | | BPL 200 Mbps
join:2006-11-05
Toms River, NJ | Re: FCC approves Broadband Powerline as "Information Service" back to dial-up ???? | |
| | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
 ·buckeye cable
| Re: FCC approves Broadband Powerline as "Information Service" Yep! If they was a demand for DSL your phone company would put a DSLAM in your area if they had a high ROI. But they must not. You should be glad the Cable Co will actually provide you with service even if it is higher than what you want to pay. As they say beggers shouldn't be choosy. | |
| | BPL 200 Mbps
join:2006-11-05
Toms River, NJ
| "Manassas became the first American municipality to implement the technology citywide in 2003.
By plugging a modem into any city electrical outlet, subscribers can get high-speed Internet access for about $29 per month, approximately half of what cable providers charge.
COMTek's BPL service runs through the city's power grid and has about 850 subscribers."
--
Unleash the opportunities of a SYMMETRICAL 200 Mbps BPL/PLC for “Smart Grid”, IPTV and in-home networking ... commercial opportunities of BPL/PLC with killer applications & services: in-home MDU networking, IPTV and triple-play...!!! | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| BPL will NEVER be mainstream The FCC NEEDS to continue to PRETEND BPL is a viable alternative to cable and DSL.
The only reason the FCC is pushing BPL is to be able to occasionally say:
"look at this other broadband technology"
"there is competition in broadband, BPL is deploying left and right!"
"so much competition we MUST deregulate and free the market to work it's magic"
This is their magic shield against the correct charges that the FCC is allowing the remonopolization of wireline services. As long as the FCC pretends BPL is a viable technology, it "will" be a viable technology regardless of the lack of deployment and lack of success of current deployments.
And "BPL 200Mbps", you're dreaming if you think anyone will ever see anywhere near 200Mbps from a BPL deployment. | |
| | 
qkjenqwkj
@midco.net
| Re: BPL will NEVER be mainstream the more hams make problems for the fcc you start to wonder when the fcc says sorry all ham radio operators will be no more. i think that coming anyhow now with the redo of ham license classes in 2000, and redo of removeing code requirement in 2006. or it will be in 5 year the fcc may say no more test just one license extra class pay fcc $50 bucks here your license. then 5 years after that it goes the way cb does.... | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: BPL will NEVER be mainstream said by qkjenqwkj :
the more hams make problems for the fcc you start to wonder when the fcc says sorry all ham radio operators will be no more. i think that coming anyhow now with the redo of ham license classes in 2000, and redo of removeing code requirement in 2006. or it will be in 5 year the fcc may say no more test just one license extra class pay fcc $50 bucks here your license. then 5 years after that it goes the way cb does....
»www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Prep···view.pdf
Check out page 19 of the report.
And from what I have seen, $50 won't get you a license either. | |
| | rgsalinger
join:2006-11-02
Vista, CA
| We may never see 200mbps but I'm curious as to why you think it won't be mainstream? I'm in a monopoly situation for broadband where I live and while the price is not bad, the actual performance is just awful. There's no incentive, again where I live, for ATT to provide better service as I have no low cost alternative. Again, I'm curious as to why this can't go mainstream. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: BPL will NEVER be mainstream said by rgsalinger :We may never see 200mbps but I'm curious as to why you think it won't be mainstream? I'm in a monopoly situation for broadband where I live and while the price is not bad, the actual performance is just awful. There's no incentive, again where I live, for ATT to provide better service as I have no low cost alternative. Again, I'm curious as to why this can't go mainstream. The cost to deploy this type of service is much higher than other forms (with the exception of fiber.) BPL was NEVER meant to push the amount of data in a "typical" broadband connection. It was designed for meter reading and simple power grid monitoring. The 200MBps speed being thrown around is THEORETICAL at best.
Now, if ATT had someone else come in that could actually provide TV, internet and phone, then you might see them actually do something. Again, this brings in the competition argument. Without competition, there is NO incentive to upgrade your service. BPL is not any real threat to cable or the telcos since they don't have the bandwidth to compete. | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by rgsalinger : Again, I'm curious as to why this can't go mainstream. This can partly be answered by asking a question, why it hasn't gone mainstream already? It's been claimed to be faster/better/cheaper than cable and DSL and the "powerlines everywhere, Internet everywhere" mantra has been put into every press release and news article about BPL, with the current year proclaimed as "the year of BPL". In an age of voracious need for broadband, it still hasn't acquired even a modest number of systems or customers. I think the cause of this is that the claims don't match reality. | |
| | 
C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | who still uses ham radios anymore? Chicken and Turkey radios get better reception.  | |
| |
tryhffgh
@omcastbusiness.net | Re: who still uses ham radios anymore? The Somalis and the third world | |
|
views
@ca.us
| Hams Annoyed FCC Dismisses BPL Complaints The ARRL has filed so many frivolous complaints that they now have zero credibility. Ham radio is NOT in danger, but America's need for Broadband (including BPL) is. We are 16th in the world in the communication of the 21st century - BROADBAND. The ARRL is helping the enemies and competitors of the U.S. with their futile delaying tactics and paranoid nonsense. | |
| | | |
|
|
ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!!
·