The AM Forum

Folks:

Read it and weep...FCC finalizes rules for BPL:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/125524

Dan

Maybe time to hook up a carrier current transmitter...

Division of Civilian Marksmanship to the rescue.

BPL vs bullets?

Those little boxes ARE hard to hit, but...

Oops... :-\

73DG

Fortunately it's probably more economically feasible for a community to establish decent wi-fi than trying to carry data over the power lines.

I doubt if the FCC rule is going to make this any worse.  I think the free market has done more damage to BPL's deployment than anything else.  If it were going to get any worse it would have by now.  I could always be mistaken of course--not the first time.

Didn't Manassas, VA shut their BPL down?

I think bpl already requires a bypass around the transformers. They'll be doing half the work for us, lol. Maybe a nice round number, like 5000w, might be a good starting point.

I believe there were a lot of places that canned the trial runs of bpl. I personally thought it was dead for good. The video's floating around the internet are ridiculous showing guys in mobiles riding around in the bpl areas with s9+50 sigs of digital garbage everywhere below 50Mhz.

We have so many ways to get internet these days that slow bpl is just a waste of time. Sprint just started 4G (WiMax) service in my area. I get 10+ megs down and 2-3megs up anywhere in the city while riding around doing my job. It's great for the laptop in my truck, and it only adds 10 bucks a month to my phone bill compared to the $60/month I used to pay for the aircard which was fulltime 3g. When I'm out of the area, my computer drops back to 3g.  

This dubious "technology" has failed nearly everywhere it has been deployed around the world. I'm not saying some utilities won't give it a shot, but for all the hardware they will need to invest in, and the expertise they will need to employ to deliver it, I doubt they will find much profit in this. The only place where this might work is in the rural areas where DSL or cable are not present. Most suburbs have a choice of broadband options already available that are cheap and faster.

Their "plan" to notch the ham bands to mitigate interference is a joke:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DfdxjRkpU

Ah well, just add it to the list along with powerline noise, plasma televisions, cell phone chargers, switching power supplies, and an infinite list of other consumer junk.

They should be fired in disgrace.

This is probably a necessary precursor to a "National Broadband Project" to bring the internet to the masses everywhere. They've been tossing around that idea for a while, and I've been suspicious that it's a code word for BPL. A federal project based around BPL is probably the only way the politically connected original investors will ever get their money back out of a bad technology. Based on the performance of the FCC on the issue so far, I'd say they have good connections.

http://www.broadband.gov/

I don't see how it could possibly be cost-effective in rural areas.  Repeaters are required to boost the signal along the line every few thousand feet, and it has been touted as covering only the "last mile", using other technology to bring the signal to that point. Add to that the ubiquitous problem of power line noise (even "clean" lines give off audible buzz when you hold a receiver right next to a utility pole); in the unlikely event that it could be initially made to work, the cost of maintenance to keep the lines clean enough to reliably pass a signal would be prohibitive, particularly with municipal power companies nationwide already crying "budget".  And this is not to mention vulnerability to interference from licensed radio services.

Fibre optics would be a better alternative.

I am in a very rural location (5 miles from a village of 1,200 population) and internet is provided by wireless to a connection point on the village grain elevators.  I believe coverage extends out to around 10 miles, they use two microwave bands-one of which provides better penetration of light tree cover.  My speed is 2 Mb down and 1 Mb up, the company has business plans up to 6 to 10 Mb and the capability to support faster.  The antenna/interface box is about 4 inches tall and the width of a gutter downspout which is where it mounts.   There is another company with similar technology also competing in the area.

I seriously doubt that there is anyway BPL could come close to the performance of this system given the very wide possible bandwidth and relative quiet of this part of the spectrum.  The main access point antennas are divided into directional "beams" so frequency pairs can be reused if needed.   I would love to have fiber but that isn't going to happen.  But I am sure the lobbyists are already on the move to get BPL money for the power companies.  Currently the money is flowing in IL to override the governor's veto of a "smart grid" plan that was carefully crafted to bypass much of the existing oversight of the rate commission.

While we are funding obsolete technology maybe I can get a government grant to install new hitching posts in the village.

I wonder how carrier current comms will be with a Model T spark coil ::)

Rodger, I think what you have there is the model that many providers are moving towards. I had a chat with an engineer from my local cable provider and he indicated that within 5 years they planned to move from their wired "last mile" infrastructure to a neighborhood or full node wireless solution for television, phone, and internet delivery. I'm not sure what portion of the spectrum they intend to lease, but it definitely will not be HF! They expect this to eliminate most of the local issues with things like squirrels chewing on the RG-6 and the persistent degradation of numerous exposed connections due to weather.

I have the same fear that WB2EMS has stated. Politicians have become involved and seem to think that they will appear to be innovative and cutting edge by pushing BPL as the backbone to a national broadband plan. They are every bit as savvy about how things work as Rep Ted Stevens (R.I.P.) was when he was leading the charge towards net neutrality by explaining that the internet is actually a series of tubes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

BPL has not succeeded where it has been deployed because it's a smoke and mirrors technology that can't compete with other free market services that are out there. However, with massive government funding propping it up, no one will care. It's my understanding that the only people in this country who are interested in BPL as a broadband offering are those (politicians) who are using it to attain rural development funding.
 
Rob W1AEX

Hmmmmmm.....................

I have 4 or 5 of them................... ;D  ;D

or a furnace transformer

Sounds like payola flowing in the beltway

Some place I have original plans for a 1+ KW spark gap xmtr.

So is the ARRL going to be beating the BPL drum more loudly now about how we need to give them more money to fight this?

How about a RTCA DO160 WF5A level 5 lightning generator. Pop the main and pin test the feed.
Might need to unplug the meter

If they do, you can just ignore it, and if BPL happens to be installed in your area, you can just fight it with your own money.

How about a 400w Tesla coil at about 1 megavolt!

BPL is dead technology. It may have had some attractive features for some businesses back in the day but those advantages have since disappeared. Some day we'll all have a single fiber optic cable entry to deliver voice video & data because speed will be paramount to anything else.

I'm not buying this BPL story. Google anything about BPL or go to the FCC site. Nothing can be found that is current, just all old stuff. Show me the beef!

The beef is easy to find:

See:
Second Report And Order dated October 24, 2011:
ET Docket No. 04-37 and ET Docket No. 03-104
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1024/FCC-11-160A1.pdf

We had a BPL trial here in Tasmania a couple of years ago which cost millions of $ to setup and was shut down about 12 months later, a complete failure.
As more licenced services complained about interference the more notches had to be inserted resulting in slower speeds for the intended users and as more users signed on the slower still the system became. The smallest amount of RF induced into the system by an HF transmitter close to the overhead wires would also block the data.
The selected users of the system were banned from disclosing any information about their experience with the system until the trial was over and no licenced Hams were permitted to take part in the trial.

A report on the whole saga with pictures of the installations and sound recordings of the interference are posted on our club website at:

http://reast.asn.au/vk7bplwatch.php

Bob

Thanks for finding the BEEF Pete! Good job.

Interesting story Bob. I guess the manufacturers will do and say anything to make a buck! 

The link is loaded with information Bob. Thanks for posting it. Hopefully, whatever flavor of BPL gets rolled out here and there will similarly go away once people find that it's not a viable solution.

Rob W1AEX

I don't think this system could compete in any area with cable. Way too much hardware to maintain.

 ;D ;D

Strap softly and turn up the wick.

cyn·i·cal/Adjective: 1.Believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
 
 I read the entire R&O and to say I have come away with a cynical distrust of human sincerity or integrity regarding the FCC and it's ruling is an understatement.

One glaring admission of the boards understanding of just how seriously BPL will effect HF communications is the preclusion of shared spectrum on military, public safety and air traffic control HF sub bands. Other services like the AM broadcast band, foreign government communications and so on will be removed from the BPL spectrum if needed but the Amateur radio service is just going to have to live with it. Shows how much they value this service and to what ends they will go to sell out when big business comes knocking.

Who stands to gain here? At the top of the list are the power companies. If you Google Smart Grid you will see grandiose plans to revamp the entire electrical grid to generate and transport power more efficiently. They have wanted to do this for a long time but it will cost an enormous amount of non revenue earning capitol. Hundreds of Billions. This isn't what they want really, they will get to it when the government steps in with funding or allows the companies to bill the improvements to the rate payers.

Very quickly the talk of Smart Grid turns to smart metering. NOW THIS is the meat between the slices. Every utility in the nation wants smart metering. No more meter readers. No more house calls to turn on or off service. Power theft alarms. Outage mapping, smart (people less and paperless) billing. All of which are labor intensive JOBS right now and all will be redundant with the smart metering. The only thing they have been missing is the funding to install this technology and spectrum to communicate with the meters.

As far as the funding goes, the government is ready to hand out cash for so called green tech and that last mile internet BS. Now we see the FCC has given up on part 15 and given away the entire ham spectrum to special interests. As far as the power companies are concerned BPL could flop and it wouldn't mater a bit. They get free smart metering and save a ton of money in wages and benefits. And what about all of the other part 15 equipment builders. Do they get a pass on the new interference measurement specifications?

The best argument the fed can make in favor of BPL spectrum is to point at PLC broadcast that has been in use for decades and doesn't interfere with other services. I KNOW, It's a crock but they seem to think it's reason enough to think BPL will be just as invisible.  The Feds have written off mobile HF operation by acknowledging that NOTHING can be done about notching spectrum for a moving target and a car will certainly pass closer than 30 feet from the power lines which they admit is too close to the interfering signal to avoid interference. Hell, my doublet is closer than 30 feet at home.

For those interested, the ARRL has done a great job fighting this case. They landed some solid punches that set back the feds and business lobbyists. This will probably have to be settled in court and a case like this will cost quite a bit. Regardless of your personal attitude towards the league, a donation for spectrum defense might help.

Mike

Here's the link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1024/FCC-11-160A1.pdf