another major BPL deployment

.. by resurrecting a favorite _straw_ horse as a vehicle for gratuitous insult in comp.home.automation?

The subject of this new c.h.a article is "another major BPL deployment", but this is not "another" deployment. As I posted more than a year ago in this newsgroup, this deployment by the utility serving my and Dave's region (Cinergy / Duke) was one of the first (March 2004) and (still) few deployments nationwide.

... Marc Marc_F_Hult

The quote you offer came from:

I would think that folks may prefer seeing it in its entire context.

The quote isn't exactly correct. My trip to Cincinnati was a one-day session in which I met with the local amateurs there and we did some limited testing. In the spots we measured, and based on my driving around, the system there was operating at a level that appeared to be below the FCC limits. The design of the BPL manufacturer, Current Technologies, does indeed notch the ham bands, but nowhere near -60 dB

-- the modems used typically get 25 to 30 dB of notching. From what I have learned about the Current Technologies systems, the emissions would more typically be just about at the FCC limits in many installations. It is likely that a combination of the distances between my portable test setup and the premise wiring carrying BPL and the variations in the nature of the premise wiring explain most of the differences.

In general, at this location, the system was not causing harmful interference to the Amateur Bands. The reception of international shortwave broadcast, governement WWV time signals and similar uses was degraded appreciably, and as I drove around the general area, there were areas near active modems where the noise levels were pretty high outside the notched spectrum. As a separate issue, yes, as in all areas, there were also areas where other devices were causing noise levels strong enough to be intereference. It was my opinion that the combination of notching and the intermittent nature of BPL operation there would generally protect mobile operation. This would leave some potential for interfence to fixed Amateur stations, but with a low enough incidence of occurrence that it would be practical to deal with it on a case-by-case basis.

If the point is that in parts of this system that are operating at a lower level than permitted and that use notching for the ham bands do not have major interference issues, I would tend to agree. In fact, this type of deployment formed part of the basis for ARRL's Petition for Rulemaking to the FCC, asking that the rules be changed to reflect the more successful BPL installations:

It is significant that one of the BPL manufacturers that has set out to avoid major interference problems is among the more successful. Not all BPL manufacturers have set out to avoid interference by specifically protecting spectrum, and those manufacturers that have not have not enjoyed commercial deployments as large as Cincinnati nor the pending deployment in Dallas. Others have been embroiled in interference problems and the associated complaints and costs associated with them.

So summarizing the concerns of Amateur Radio as "further horse corpse desecration by ill-informed hams" is not a fair characterization at all. In those cases where there has been significant interference, the characaterization is inaccurate and in cases where Amateur Radio has recognized improvements in the EMC performance of some designs, the characterization is a downright mispresentation.

A good summary of this difference can be seen in an editorial written by ARRL's CEO, Dave Sumner:

Amateur operators are not opposed to BPL -- why should they be? They are strongly opposed to BPL that pollutes Amateur spectrum, and causes local harmful interference. Those BPL operators that are willing to address it when it occurs can expect cooperation and help. Those that "resolve" it by claiming it doesn't exist can expect firm opposition.

For background in BPL and its impact on spectrum users, see:

Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Laboratory Manager

225 Main St Newington, CT 06013 Tel: 860-594-0318 Internet: snipped-for-privacy@arrl.org Web: 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

If you are accusing me of misquoting Daniel Woodie, I took the quote verbatim merely eliding one sentence (which I replaced with an elipsis so any literate person would recognize that fact). I did not quote the entire page.

The sentence I elided said, "His findings were very promising for the future of both amateur radio and BPL."

I have not misrepresented anything.

Mr. Woodie cites the 60dB figure so, if you disagree, your disagreement is with him.

The Cinergy system has been deployed for about two years. AFAIK there have been no interference issues.

Most of the hams who have posted here on this topic have either talked about trial systems that they claimed failed to meet FCC limits or, like Mr. Woodie, opposed even the Current Systems technology which appears to meet the FCC limits. They are doing you more harm than good.

From what I've read, DS2 (Spain) technology also meets the FCC limits. I do not know whether Current developed their own proprietary technology or is using DS2 or some other system.

My only point is that Current Technolgy (and their customers and partners) appear to have met the FCC limits. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof would seem to be yours. Speculation that they might not meet them under other conditions is just as nasty an innuendo as your implication that I misquoted you or Mr. Woodie. I did not!

You will not find a single instance where I have said anything other than the system used by Cinergy appears to meet the FCC limits and appears to comply with FCC rules. I resent your implication that I have done otherwise and think you owe me an apology.

I haven't looked at the ARRL site for a few months. When I did look most of the interfering systems listed were either outside the USA or had used technolgy that had been abandoned a few years ago.

I'm sure that you don't monitor this newsgroup on a regular basis so have to wonder who pulled your chain.

If the ARRL no l>Dave Houst>

> >

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:

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: snipped-for-privacy@arrl.org Web: 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

Ed,

You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this topic before letting your knee jerk you into deep waters.

I'm glad to see that the ARRL no longer opposes all BPL. In fact the statement by the ARRL CEO that you cited makes many of the same points that I made here in October 2004 when the FCC first gave its blessing to Access BPL. I even cited the NTIA study. I also opined that the ARRL was "shooting itself in the foot" by opposing all BPL. It's good to see that you folks have finally caught up with me.

Since "Woodie" cited incorrect figures, I guess that makes him an ill-informed ham. ;)

I couldn't resist that but my "beating a dead horse" ploy was meant to bait the ill-informed hams who attacked me here in October of 2004. Now that your CEO is saying the same things I said I guess they'll have to direct their flames at him. ;)

Would you care to comment >

Is that one of those do-as-you-say, not-do-as-you-do sort of things? You were pretty clear that you hadn't researched ARRL's web page or position in months, yet you knee-jerked yourself about it in a way that was rather painful to watch, I would say.

ARRL has never > I even cited the NTIA study.

Did you cite the part where NTIA said that at the FCC emissions limits, harmful interference was probable for hundreds of meters from a power line carrying BPL, or for tens of kilometers to aircraft?

BPL. It's good to see that

Are you now saying that you believe that access BPL should not be permitted to operate below 30 MHz on overhead power lines and that it should not be permitted to use the Amateur bands? If you really believe that ARRL has "caught up with you," that is our position. Surely you wouldn't have said that without doing the research you chided me to do... would you? :-)

The bottom line is that BPL that operates at the limits of the present rules will cause strong interference locally on any spectrum it uses. Those "legal limits" are high enough that, according to the NTIA report you cite, interference for distances greater than typical receivers are located from power lines is likely.

Nothing in ARRL's position has changed with respect to noise levels that cover up all but the strongest of signals locally. Nor should it. What has changed is that part of the industry is committing itself to operating well below the FCC emissions limits in the Amateur bands. Why you would believe that such a change somehow represents anyone "catching up with you" is absolutely beyond me.

He was incorrect. If you feel you need to call that "ill informed" for some reason, I see no need to dissuade you.

At least you are willing to admit it. Good for you. Baiting others publicly is something that most people wouldn't do, and fewer would admit to.

Some of them have, although most understand the reasons that ARRL can be in opposition to rules that simply don't work for BPL and radio services' mutual compatibility and recognizing and, to some extent, supporting those companies that do it exactly the way that ARRL's petition asked the FCC to mandate for all BPL systems.

If you want this industry to be successful, you would try to get it to support successful rules. If you just want to bait people on a newsgroup, that's entirely different.

I think that my original post addressed pretty accurately the degree to which Current's design prevents interference to Amateur Radio and the fact that it offers no additional protection over the existing rules (and NTIA conclusions about interference distances) for other spectrum.

Ed Hare, W1RFI ARRL Lab

Maybe you should actually read what's on the ARRL website. I'll quote from

"Radio amateurs are not opposed to broadband services. On the contrary, they tend to be early adopters of new technology. However, there are ways to deliver broadband that do not pollute the radio spectrum as Broadband over Power Line (BPL) does. These include fiber-to-the-home, cable, DSL, and wireless broadband. The ARRL--The National Association for Amateur Radio-- is supportive of broadband access for all Americans; however, it opposes BPL as a way to achieve this goal because of its high potential for causing interference to radiocommunication."

Sure seems like it says they >> You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this

BPL. It's good to see that

Wow! I found an extensive quote from a real ARRL expert that seems to contradict much of what you are saying. It's from...

and I'll provide the entire quote. Otherwise, you might be tempted to mischaracterize it. ;)

RE: New ARRL Petition Seeks to Resolve BPL Standof Reply by W1RFI on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

You are right, Lee; you are confused. From a regulatory perspective, the goal is NOT to set limits and conditions that would make interference impossible. You would not want those limits placed on Amateur operation, would you? To unconditionally protect Grade B TV service would require 110 dB of harmonic supression, IIRC. If Amateur Radio were being proposed and TV broadcasters asked the FCC for regulations that were stringent enough to make interfernce impossible, none would think them reasonable.

Remember, this is a petition for rulemaking that is intended to set reasonable rules under which BPL can function, but without widespread harmful interference. Just like the rules that apply to our stations, in which limits are set that will limit our harmonics to a degree, then depend on the "no interference" clauses in the rules to require some of us to add low-pass filters when needed.

Good regulations have balance, and a supportable regulatory goal is to have restrictions that will reduce the number of interference problems to a small enough number that is practical to handle them on a case-by-case basis, thus allowing the rules about harmful interference to have a chance at working.

Current Technologies'

"Sufficient to say?" Do you really believe that all ARRL has done is to just say so? C'mon, Lee. That sounds good echoing from your soapbox, but I have personally put three years into studying and analyzing BPL, and ARRL would not take these steps unless there were good reasons for them. However, seeing as you presume deception or incompetence unless you are personally given the background, let me provide you with some of it. (Most people would be sure that they had justification before jumping on a public forum and cricitizing, btw...)

Current Technologies systems use HomePlug technology. (See

The HomePlug modems operate between 4 and 20 MHz, with the amateur bands notched. They operate only from 120/240 volt wiring, thus have a much smaller geographical footprint than overhead power lines. They are dead quiet except when in acutal use. Their ham band notches are about 25 dB lower than the present FCC limits and, in most cases, house wiring appears to radiate somewhat less than the FCC's limits, from all I have seen.

When you combine these, a simple calculation (you did all those simple calculations before you wrote your post with all the "news for ARRL", didn't you, Lee?) shows that this level should be enough to protect mobile amateur operation.

From a rules point of view, considering that there is no way that ARRL will be able to persuade the FCC that the limits on BPL should be about 100 dB lower than the limits on our spurious emissions, I think that this is a good balance, and that the number of cases of interference to fixed stations should be manageable on a case-by-case basis. As a minimum, the rules changes ARRL sought are a tremendous improvement for the Amateur Radio Service under the present BPL rules, wouldn't you say?

This is all borne out in practice. In Cincinnati, the Current Technologies system passes about 60,000 homes at this point. There have been no reports of harmful interference to the Amateur Radio Service from Cincinnati hams, and the locals have organized a pretty good team. I have been to Cincinnati and have personally looked at things and I concur with myself that mobile operation is protected.

BPL. It's good to see that

Here's another article where Dave Sumner is quoted...

"If the commission decides that BPL cannot operate in this country, that'd be fine with us."

So based on the ARRL website and statements by its CEO, it's obvious that your claim that the ARRL has never opposed all BPL is unadulterated bullshit. A lot of the ARRL membership must be suffering from whiplash given ARRL's sudden shifts in the party line.

Ed, you and the ARRL have zero credibility.

I really d>> You might be better served to research what has been posted here on this

BPL. It's good to see that

And then you opposed HomePlug before the FCC saying that despite the well publicized joint tests (your "help"), your computer models predicted that harmful interference was still a possibility.

I think the public record makes it abundantly clear that nothing you have to say should be given any credence whatsoever.

And your public record of admitting that you haven't read ARRL's web page in months, but know all about is credible how?

Dave, it is pretty obvious that you think that you can think about this for a few minutes and know all the answers -- a symptom seen by most usenet pontificators. I see little benefit to trying to discuss this with you, as your insults and profanity are not techniques used by reasoned people who want to have a reasonable discussion. I will gladly let my response to "Lee" speak for itself. Your choice of "ARRL experts" is interesting, unless you were trying to be selective in finding one other ham that agreed with your general viewpoint.

You have twisted the point of every point I tried to make.

I have spent three years of my life working on this. I serve on IEEE industry committees working on EMC and BPL standards, chairing some of its study projects and sub committees.

You bring to the table a few minutes of thought about the subject and a few insults and profanities.

It is pretty clear that you don't want to discuss this; you want to argue and insult and curse like a high-school child.

I wish you well. I shall not trouble you again or contradict the authority you have tried to establish on this NG.

And I sure understand why you noted that some of the other Amateurs who posted here argued with you. :-)

Ed

As I noted up front I first posted here on the topic in October 2004 when the FCC approved BPL. I had been aware of the Cinergy trial which had started more than a year before that and had checked with contacts in the local media (who have used me as a resource in the past).

Gee. I've been thinking about it and sharing my thoughts here since I first heard of HomePlug. I think that goes back more than three years. I've recently posted about the approval of the HomePlug AV spec and will probably post about the forthcoming release of the HomePlug Command & Control spec when it's approved.

What profanity? Your understanding of English is on a par with your technical proficiency.

From Dictionary.com...

"Profane: Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred"

Please point out where I've done that. What's sacred? ARRL? Ed (March) Hare? Male bovine excrement? What?

I've merely quoted you or the ARRL web site or the ARRL CEO. Any twists would seem to be your doing.

Then we're in deeper trouble than I imagined.

As I noted above I've been monitoring and commenting on this topic for a few years.

Please point out where I have cursed.

Once again from Dictionary.com...

"Curse: profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger"

I may have far more expertise in this area (and other areas) than you can even dream of. Whoever solicited your help in this thread neglected to warn you that I do my research and have an extensive technical and managerial background.

I wish you and the ARRL the oblivion you deserve.

I sure do! Some bought into the ARRL propaganda and are now undoubtedly deeply chagrined by the recent doublecross. A couple have argued that licensed hams are entitled to buy and use devices that are illegal to sell under FCC rules. They deserve something other than oblivion and should the FCC ever get the personnel and budget to again enforce the rules I intend to see that they get what they deserve. You really should do better research.

Let's reiterate a few key points, shall we?

1. Cinergy started their trial in 2003 using HomePlug technology which they say you had tested and blessed before their trials began. (You refused to comment on this point.)

1. The FCC approved Access BPL in October 2004. The ARRL adamantly opposed this.

2. ARRL opposed in-house BPL before the FCC despite the results of their joint tests with HomePlug. (I bet HomePlug felt your definition of "cooperation" was a bit different from theirs.)

1. ARRL petitioned the FCC in February 2005 asking them to rescind their approval of Access BPL. (Seems you were still opposed to all BPL at that time.)

2. ARRL filed an Emily Litella petition with the FCC in October 2005.

The only thing that seems to have changed between the time that Cinergy started their trial and your October 2005 petition are your views on the HomePlug technology Cinergy uses. The technology hasn't changed but you've gone from opposing in-house BPL (HomePlug 1.0) to praising Cinergy for their implementation of Access BPL (which uses HomePlug 1.0). Go figure.

(I have to admit that, in this thread, you've waffled significantly on your approval of HomePlug 1.0. You seem to like being on both sides of an issue or maybe it's just that you lack the competetence to decide which end is up.)

I'm amazed that the ARRL membership hasn't demanded that you and the ARRL CEO be fired for gross incompetence. Actually, I'm amazed that they haven't been gathering faggots of wood and looking for stakes.

Given that the EU approved Access BPL last year and that there are BPL trials underway in Australia and Asia, the change in the ARRL position has all the earmarks of a deathbed conversion. RIP.

Ed,

From your posts I learned more about the evolving status of Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) technology and ongoing and past efforts to improve it. Thanks.

You, and the non-profit organizations you are involved with, are to be commended for trying to make it better.

It may be useful for you to know that Dave has characterized himself in this newsgroup as a curmudgeon. From the same dictionary he uses for his attacks on you

):

"Curmudgeon, n. "An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions"

so Dave's self-analysis is spot-on in my opinion and experience.

As Dave wrote in this thread, his original post was a "ploy [that] was meant to bait".

The subject line of the thread he started was flat-out wrong, the general subject barely on-topic for this newsgroup, and Cinergy BPL technology not available at his apartment.

In other words, the post was for the sole purpose that your (Ed's) response achieved -- to satisfy Dave's personal needs.

IMO, part of Dave's pathology is the need to be 'fer or agin'. Which leads him to connive and twist and misrepresent in order to set up and maintain a dog fight as he has transparently done in this thread.

So despite his specific claim to the contrary, he does "have a dog in this fight" -- namely his ego and his compulsion to belittle and bully.

Dave's also a feller compelled to bet on dogs and hosses -- dead, live, straw, Technologies, HA gizmos -- don't much matter long as thar's squawkin', cussin', an' dodgin' -- an' his dog comes out on top or his hoss is first.

And once the race is on, there's no changing hosses for Dave. And so he can't actually be objective in the discussion despite the smug veneer and his Word-Of-The-Month vocabulary.

Said McCoy to the rest of his kin, See, them Hatfields jes' ain't gonna win. Now our wimmen, awright, Got no dog in this fight, But us fellas, we's fer or agin." (Credit:Chris Doyle in OEDIF)

We all wish Dave well. Some of us also wish that he would get better.

Happy Holidays ... Marc Marc_F_Hult