hovercrafter

I noticed an article today poasted on Yahoo. It seems the FCC is allowing power companies to move forward with BPL, which in turn could be a costly hit to our hobby.

[link=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1093&e=2&u=/pcworld/20040213/tc_pcworld/114793]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1093&e=2&u=/pcworld/20040213/tc_pcworld/114793[/link]

It seems that we are not the only group opposing this new technology. The FCC is saying they are sure most interference problems can be resolved, however when they weigh the economic values, I am sure that the interference that does come from BPL will be a small price to pay. With the hold corporate America has on politicians anymore, and the revenue that BPL will generate for the power companies, you can be certain that interference on frequencies such as ours will be a small price to pay.
I intend to follow the development of this story closley and see what is around the next corner. Hopefully Michael Powell and the rest of the FCC will see to it that the thousands who enjoy our hobby and the use of the 72 mhz band, as well as other hobbies and industries who require bands that are in dangered by this technology, will be given some attention in this matter. I sure would hate to see how much it would cost to get my 4 radios and 13 recievers "modified" to filter out any interference or, in worse case scenario, set to a new frequency.

If anyone heres any new developments about this, please post them here so we can all stay informed.

Thanks
Hovercrafter

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I was at the last AMA frequency committee meeting, and the last EC meeting when this was discussed.

The AMA is purchasing equipment that will help them make precision measurements of these BPL installations as they go in. The AMA is also staying in close contact with the ARRL as they seem to be most effective with the lobbying effort.

The issue will be addressed again at the next Frequency Committee meeting, at Toledo. I will be at that one too so I will report back.

Queue

The following is taken from a bulletin issued Thursday by the ARRL announcing the FCC's sellout decision:

The FCC has unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) to deploy Broadband over Power Line (BPL). The NPRM is the
next step in the BPL proceeding, which began last April with a
Notice of Inquiry that attracted more than 5100 comments--many from
the amateur community. The FCC did not propose any changes in Part
15 rules governing unlicensed devices, but said it would require BPL
providers to apply ''adaptive'' interference mitigation techniques
to their systems. An ARRL delegation that included President Jim
Haynie, W5JBP, attended the FCC open meeting in Washington, and
later expressed disappointment in the FCC action.

''The Commission clearly recognized that the existing Part 15
emission limits are inadequate to stop interference, but it's
placing the burden of interference mitigation on the licensed user
that's supposed to be protected,'' said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ.

Sumner said that if the FCC really believed current Part 15 emission
limits were sufficient, it would not have had to require that BPL
providers institute interference mitigation systems. The FCC has not
yet released the actual NPRM, and a presentation by the FCC's Office
of Engineering and Technology (OET) revealed only its broad
outlines. Sumner said the League would not take a formal position
until it reviews the full NPRM.

Anh Wride of the OET staff spelled out the scope of the NPRM, which
only addresses so-called ''access BPL''--the type that would apply
radio frequency energy to exterior overhead and underground low and
medium-voltage power lines to distribute broadband and Internet
service. She said the OET staff believes that interference concerns
''can be adequately addressed.'' Wride said the FCC's BPL NPRM:

* Applies existing Part 15 emission limits for unlicensed
carrier-current systems to BPL systems. Part 15 rules now require
that BPL systems eliminate any harmful interference that may occur
''and must cease operation if they cannot,'' she noted.

* Requires BPL systems to employ ''adaptive interference-mitigation
techniques, including the capabilities to shut down a specific
device, to reduce power levels on a dynamic or remote-control basis
and to include or exclude specific operating frequencies or bands.''

* Subjects BPL providers to notification requirements that would
establish a public database to include such information as the
location of BPL devices, modulation type and operating frequencies.

* Proposes guidelines to provide for consistent and repeatable
measurement of the RF emissions from BPL and other carrier-current
systems.

Too early to tell what it really means to the R/C community. Its impact will certainly vary by geography, proximity to power lines and a host of other things not under our control. However, it is not a given that BPL will be be implemented everywhere so (IMHO) while concern is warranted it's not time to panic or engage in rampant conjecture.

Perhaps this will provide further impetus and a sense of urgency to development of "bullet-proof" radios using the latest spread spectrum and digital signal processing techniques.

Q

J_R

Taken from the D2 List:

From: AMA District 2 Discussion [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Mathewson
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:06 AM
To: [email protected]
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)

airega1

My Feedback: (204)

Pedophiles and hackers 1

AMA and ARRL 0

For the love of money, and the hell with everything else

Thanks FCC

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I hope you are correct because it is clearly PAST time for the hobby radios to be upgraded to newer technology. However, even with all the naysayers and their negative attitudes I am sure there is a way to solve the problem. The only outstanding quesiton is the level of investement needed.

hovercrafter

Jim, I have to agree with you 100%. I would like to see our hobby take better advantage of the new technologies out there, especially when it comes to the radio side. I just hope it isn't a an extreme cost to make the transition. It may however get to a point of using a high frequencie and digital signals instead of analog. In the long run this would be a lot safer for our hobby, as it can be made that we can share channels, and set up identifiers using digital technology. It would highly reduce radio interference, and accidental use of the same channel. I am not as up on electronics as I use to be, but when you look at the cost of new electronics compared to what they were 10 years ago, we should be able to go too new updated systems, as long as there is enough demand to offset the cost for the manufacturers. Of course that is the biggest area that we can play a part in, by recruiting new people into our hobby .

I do remember when computer radios first came out, they were in excess of $600.00, and had a lot more limited capabilities than the new ones today have. I just bought a Futaba T6EXA radio system a couple months ago. I needed a new reciever and servos for my piper cub, and our local hobby shops had this radio system for $170.00, so it didnt cost much more to get a new computer transmitter along with the reciever and for servos.

I guess we are at a point that we just see what happens and pray. But in the mean time we can still try to get more people in the hobby so that there is a greater demand out there and that can help with prices of new equipment if we need to go in that direction.

Just my 2 cents worth
Hovercrafter

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

How will broad band over power lines be a problem for us.
IS 72mhz a intermediate frequency?

Queue

There is a pretty good overview with links for BPL relates to amateur radio and other radio services at:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

Q

Geistware

My Feedback: (16)

Thanks

J_R

The AMA Frequency Committee has posted a statement on the AMA page
http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/freqcomm.asp

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

I really expect that with our receiver-saturating RC signals and very narrow bandwidths we don't have much to worry about. The ones that will really be hurt will be hams, particularly HF DXers, like myself. The FCC used to be a fine organization; now its driven by politics with science taking a back seat.

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

I should also add that 72 MHz propagation is almost exclusively line-of-sight, so any BPL interference will be limited to what is generated locally.

Spread spectrum may help but is not a cure all. cetain minimum signal level is still required, nomatter high wide the spreading and how elaborate the coding.

dave jones

Hello My name is Dave Jones I have been fly a 2.4 Ghz Digital Spread spectrum Rc system that I designed for over a year. You can see the system on my web page at http://www.auav.net/spread_spectrum_radio.htm also look under the videos page there you will find a short video of me flying a heli with the same 2.4 Ghz Digital Spread spectrum Rc system.
Dave Jones

Sport_Pilot

I don't see why we should care? They have been doing the same thing with phone lines for years and to my knowledge there is no problems.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Nothing going over the phones is this high frequency. When I was working on ADSL, the highest frequency compenent was 2.5 MHz (it has been awhile)

I think maybe VDSL will be higher (or SDSL) but they are not that prevalent, and VDSL is really unproven at all.

The BPL will have energy up to 80 MHz. But as someone said, it will be hard for the modelers to prove interference, as it will just increase out noise floor. The HAMs have got the real beef.

But imagine all of the phantome shootdowns, they will all get blamed on BPL!

Sport_Pilot

If it must meet Part 15 then it cannot interfere on any frequency. So I don't see that it matters which frequency it is on, it cannot be allowed to transmitt any RF!

JPMacG

My Feedback: (2)

Power lines make good antennas while phone lines don't. The conductors of phone lines are in close proxmity and therefore act as transmission lines. Power lines conductors are often separated by a distance that is a substantial portion of a wavelength at 72 MHz, and therefore they will radiate.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Just about everything electronic radiates RF. It is HARMFUL interference we are interested in.

And we are the Part 15 guys, they are Powells's buddies, they will get anything they want, as evidenced by the recent actions of the FCC.

Sport_Pilot

Wrong we are part 95, all transmitters must also meet part 15 as to transmission of unassigned frequencies, in fact all electronic devices must meet part 15 including for example computers. BPL is supposed to meet part 15 on all frequecies including ours. So what's the harm?

Phil Cole

Matt's major point is that the guys with the money seem to able to get the FCC to do what they want. Recently, the incumbent carriers (Verizon, SBC, etc.) have been able to get their way regarding access to local telephone loops for broadband.

This leaves the internet service providers with the problem of getting their signals to the residences and businesses they want to serve. Everyone has power wiring, so that would seem attractive, since it's not owned by the cable or telephone companies. I can see why the FCC might want to allow BPL to restore the competitive broadband environment, fending off criticism regarding the favouring of the few big incumbents which generally are seen to have a monopoly in their service area.

Even so, I'm with some of the others here. R/C signals are generally quite strong at the receiver, so raising the noise floor isn't going to make a big difference. If you have low voltage power wires on your field boundaries, far from the pilot stations then there might be a problem if you get close. If are that close, you'll be hitting the wires or poles fairly often.

I don't imagine that HV distribution wires will have BPL on them. It will be the local 110 V wiring, terminated at residences. So if you see significant amounts of BPL RF noise you are probably pretty close to a residential area. Probably close enough for the locals to be complaining about engine noise.

Low band VHF two-way radios, as used by police, fire brigades, etc. are at more risk. They have to operate in suburban areas, and over large areas. Of course, they have the option of moving to UHF, if the city can afford to replace all their radios.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I was wrong, the new radio I am working on is Part 15. My confusion.

From what I understand, the FCC would agree with you....ie "what's the problem?"

Their attitude is until comeone can show there is interference, there is not any. They will handle any complaints as they come up.

The HAMs will be all over this. This should be an interesting fight.

I agree with Phil's technical assesment BTW. THere might be some marginal increase in noise, but not much, highly localized. It just seems to me that there is so much nervousness flying on these narrowband channels that this will just add to the folklore!

Sport_Pilot

That wouldn't work, the 440/220/110 system starts and stops at the transformer at my street. BPL has to go across the HV line.

Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

I don't think the attitude is, or should be, that BPL is a bad thing and should never be implemented. The main concern is that it's implemented PROPERLY and SAFELY.

Wouldn't we all love cheap broadband internet access?

Sport_Pilot

I am sure they will do testing, if they can't comply then they would have to use shielded conductors, or manage to use it with less power.