Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: QRN 2 - BPL Threat to HF Amateur Radio

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 14:57:49 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: Steven Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: QRN 2 - BPL Threat to HF Amateur Radio

Just finished watching this shocking video. My wife
asked me "what is that horrible noise?" My response
was that it's the sound of ham radio's future... down
the toilet. I can't believe the government and
commercial broadcasters are sitting back and allowing
BPL to devastate the HF bands. What about amateurs
living in areas effected by BPL? If there aren't any
now, surely there will be in the future. Thus far, it
seems only the amateur community has seen the future
and is attempting to correct it. Is this a correct
observation, or are we not fighting this alone? 

73,

Steven/KG6JEV/4
Hampton, Va.

--- Colburn <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 02:27, Gerry Santo wrote:
> > I just downloaded and played this video clip. 
> Much, much worse than you can imagine.  
> > I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this
> could end HF for many hams.
> > kiyoinc <[email-masked]> wrote:From 
> >
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1deah6gi/4 
> > 
> 
> This requires more than pressuring the handful of
> bureaucrats &
> political appointees who will make this decision at
> the FCC.
> 
> We need to let the politicians who appoint them and
> the media who
> notifies the public about threats to their
> well-being from government
> errors know as well.  This could interfere with
> emergency communications
> via HF.
> 
> We need to make "the big noise" this time else the
> big noise BPL makes
> will silence HF in much of the country.
> 
> This means contacting our Congressman and asking our
> State level
> representatives to use their contacts to rattle some
> cages as well.
> 
> This also means talking to some lawyers -- jamming
> is illegal via
> federal regs and international treaties -- by the
> sound of this those
> would appear to be violated by BPL.
> 
> This would ease FCC enforcement duties --
> destruction of HF for Amateur
> Radio would remove a whole segment of their
> responsibilities!
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:48:50 -0400

This issue is about to explode not just on the ARRL front but on the public safety front too. Vendors are trying to
get the 1st word in by contacting public safety officials to plea their case.

[email-masked] wrote:

> was that it's the sound of ham radio's future...

---

From: "Todd Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 17:57:08 -0400

Boy, is this interesting.  Couple of observations.OK, a BUNCH of questions
about this "test".

1.	There are obviously two technologies being employed.  Has the ARRL
engineer learned which manufacturer makes each system, and how it was
configured in the two different locales?
2.	What distribution voltages were the BPL transmission folks using?
3.	Were they inductively coupling at all locations, and how were any
possible repeating devices employed?
4.	What kind of inductive signal levels were measured at the locations
where the interference was highest?
5.	How far away was the mobile antenna from the power lines in
question?  
6.	How far away perpendicularly from the power lines was he able to
get?  Or did he?
7.	What were the measured levels in dBm at different prescribed
distances?  I saw S-units.  That's not calibrated signal level.
8.	Many of the "tests" were run on several non-ham frequencies, such as
6 MHz.  What were the levels at ham frequencies at those same locations?
9.	What was the condition of the electrical system where the BPL
equipment installed?  Was a condition assessment conducted?

And this is just a basic start.  I think it is an excellent observation that
yes, BPL-induced interference can happen on the ham bands.  However, few
hams operate mobile HF.  I think it would be a simple observation of how
many screwdriver/hamstick/Hustler whip antennas you see in a month or year
to understand that.  How far away is the typical ham antenna from the power
lines?  Most folks are intelligent enough to not put them within falling
distance of any hot wiring.  

Lots and lots of questions.  Seems like someone has shot off their kneecaps
in the act of a fast draw contest.

Todd Ellis, N2XL

Raleigh, NC

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 2:58 PM
To: [email-masked]; WFHSG
Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: QRN 2 - BPL Threat to HF Amateur Radio

-------- Original Message --------
From: Steven Peterson <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: QRN 2 - BPL Threat to HF Amateur Radio

73,

Steven/KG6JEV/4
Hampton, Va.

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:31:28 -0500

The MPEG file shows someone with an HF rig in their lap as they sit in a 
card and drive around. The audio sounds like someone making popcorn in 
the front seat. Either that or it's the first live video documented case 
of hail falling on the roof of the car and melting before it cleared the 
windshield.

It's pretty damning evidence, IMHO.

-rick

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:51:57 -0500

Todd Ellis wrote:

> Boy, is this interesting. Couple of observations…OK, a BUNCH of 
> questions about this "test"…
>
Most of these questions - while interresting - aren't very relevant to 
the core issue:

Does BPL cause interference above and beyond an acceptable threshold?

 From my perspective, the specific noise maker technology, whether 
spark-gap or BPL is beside the point if it makes too much noise. Now, if 
your questions are aimed at trying to identify - and fix - the problem - 
then great. But it better get fixed quick before too many of these 
things get rolled out!

> And this is just a basic start. I think it is an excellent observation 
> that yes, BPL-induced interference can happen on the ham bands. 
> However, few hams operate mobile HF.
>
I don't agree with the logic here either. The noise doesn't impact 
someone solely because they operate mobile HF. These guys wanted to 
cover some territory so they threw an HF rig in a car and drove around. 
If it was a station wagon full of AMPS and CDMA signal quality measuring 
gear I think you wouldn't argue. From the video you can see the scenery 
scroll by as the vehicle moves down a street. I have to imagine that the 
noise heard inside the car is comparable to the interference that would 
be found on each and every house in that street.

> I think it would be a simple observation of how many 
> screwdriver/hamstick/Hustler whip antennas you see in a month or year 
> to understand that. How far away is the typical ham antenna from the 
> power lines? Most folks are intelligent enough to not put them within 
> falling distance of any hot wiring.
>
The conspicious antennas show you who has a ham rig and actually 
transmits but there are many listeners with a shortwave receiver. They 
just like to listen - maybe to some overseas radio station to check on 
news from the "home country". These guys might not use or want a large 
aerial (or it doubles as the clothes line).

> Lots and lots of questions. Seems like someone has shot off their 
> kneecaps in the act of a fast draw contest.
>
Again, I disagree. They've done an excellent job of calling attention to 
the matter. This was a plea for public outcry - mission accomplished.

-rick

---

From: "Todd Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 08:48:12 -0400

Well Rick, we can agree to disagree, LOL.  I see too many assumptions being
made and too many decisions based on those same malformed assumptions.  Oh
well...next topic?  How about fiber to the home?  NO NOISE!!  :)

Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Parrish [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 9:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] Re: QRN 2 - BPL Threat to HF Amateur Radio

Todd Ellis wrote:

> Boy, is this interesting. Couple of observations.OK, a BUNCH of 
> questions about this "test".
>

-rick

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:50:58 -0500

Todd Ellis wrote:

>Well Rick, we can agree to disagree, LOL.  I see too many assumptions being made and too many decisions based on those same malformed assumptions.
>
Understood. Your questions appeared to come from the point of view of a 
consultant offering to go in and do a study to diagnose and correct the 
problems. You'd think the manufacturers would run a much tighter show in 
these early trials. We'll see.

>Oh well...next topic?  How about fiber to the home?  NO NOISE!!  :)
>
Fiber is an important part of a healthy diet that includes lots of 
vitamin "E" (as in e-mail, e-commerce, etc.)

High fiber = high bandwidth.

;^)

>Todd
Just in case the fiber-to-the-home option fails to materialize, Todd M. 
and I are still hedging bets on a UWB solution.

-rick

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Low on Ink? Get 80% off inkjet cartridges & Free Shipping at 77Colors.com.
We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark, Canon, Compaq and more!
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5981
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DmnqpB/IyhGAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---

From: "Todd Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:35:24 -0400

>Well Rick, we can agree to disagree, LOL.  I see too many assumptions being
made and too many decisions based on those same malformed assumptions.

Nope.  No interest to do a study for these folks.  I'm more concerned about
watching a technology that *could* impact the lives of millions in more
rural areas that broadband cannot reach any other way.  There's some towns
in Northern Georgia that cannot carry more than 2400 baud!  Believe it or
not.some of us do NOT jump to the snap of a $100 bill.

;^)

LOL.  Alcatel has one heck of an interesting system that is ATM-based and
runs directly to the home (passive optical network or PON).

-rick

It will be great to go back in 5 years and see which one materializes and
stabilizes.

Todd

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:06:03 -0500

Todd Ellis wrote:

> Believe it or not…some of us do NOT jump to the snap of a $100 bill.
>
No, but I'll bet your kids do!

[ and yes, I admit - I am a consulting slut. ]

> LOL. Alcatel has one heck of an interesting system that is ATM-based 
> and runs directly to the home (passive optical network or PON).
>
Now ... if you can just convince SBC and PacBell of that! (or even 
Reliant Energy).

> It will be great to go back in 5 years and see which one materializes 
> and stabilizes…
>
I don't want to wait five years ... but I'm not holding my breath either.

> Todd
Cheers;
Rick

---

From: "Paul J. Zawada" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:33:54 -0500

Todd raises some interesting points here...  The League has done a 
fairly good job at trying to beat back this threat but I think they 
are not quite making it...

The video does a great job of demonstrating the effect of BPL but 
they give no frame of reference.  They have a guy driving around in a 
beat-up station wagon with a ham receiver... I know a full blown van 
equipped with RFI measurement gear may be out of their price range, 
but couldn't they scrape up some sort of calibrated receiver?  How 
about showing some relative distances between the power lines and the 
car?  They claim that the field strength readings were within Part 15 
limits; what were the readings?   How close are they to the limits? 
How far away from the BPL lines do the readings still show 
significant influence from the BPL?  If they don't show absolute 
candor now, they leave the door wide open for their BPL opposition to 
come in and slam them later.  This is the big leagues they are 
playing in, but they don't seem to look like they realize it. 
Hopefully the filing they make with the Commission will look a little 
less emotional and a little more professional.

Another problem I have with the ARRL is that too often they try to 
tell the Commission what to do in no uncertain terms.  While the ARRL 
may believe that the Commission does not have the authority to do 
this or that, they need to persuade the Commission to join their view 
not beat them over the head...  They need a little more finesse in 
how they operate.  In their BPL filing, the ARRL continues to harp on 
the Commission for the lack of an LF allocation because of concerns 
of utility PLC (protective relaying) systems.  Complaining about 
losing a past debate is not the way to win the current debate- it 
sounds more like sour grapes...

Finally I worry that the letter writing campaign they've started will 
backfire.  I think it's good for any interested person to file 
informed comments with the FCC.  However, if the ARRL get's enough 
half-cocked hams spouting off on stuff they don't know much about, 
the ARRL will start to look like the tinfoil-hat brigade and 
ultimately their credibility may be damaged...

I hate to say it, but maybe what the ARRL needs are a few lessons 
from Timmy on "how business gets done."

--zawada
K9MN

-- 
Paul J. Zawada, PE       | Principal Network Research Engineer
[email-masked]          | National Center for Supercomputing Applications
+1 217 649 2233          | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

---

From: "Todd Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:56:17 -0400

I agree with Paul on all points.  But then again, I normally agree with Paul
on all points!!

Just read some of the "comments" that hams, once they figure out the ECFS
system, spout.  The comment of the crowd looking like a "tinfoil-hat
brigade" isn't far off.  As a ham (for 25 years as of next month), it's
embarrassing.

Without a full and respectable response from technical folks who hold
engineering degrees and are a heck of a lot smarter than the average Joe,
the technical crew at the ARRL should know better.  If they were reporting a
jammer or an unlicensed ham or simply a lid (that's ham jargon for an idiot
with diarrhea of the mouth), then they would have added criteria like
distance to the interference source, time of day, and a number of very
simple variables that make the difference between a weenie calling Big Riley
over what ends up being nothing and the real issue of interference.  

Calling the Fire Department and telling them that you smell smoke doesn't
necessarily cause them to hit the sirens.  What if it's just your neighbor
burning leaves next door or another neighbor burning hamburgers on the
grill?  You'd look like a dingaling for dialing 911.  Well, that's how the
national ham organization is coming off as.again!!  We won't get into 220,
but believe it or not, I received a private e-mail equating this whole thing
to the 220 issues.oh my.

One suggestion - type up a letter that's well-written and puts the facts
forth that the ARRL wants to promote.  Put it on the ARRL webpage so folks
can download it and add their name to it.  Give them simple instructions to
access the ECFS.  Improve your credibility!  Reap the rewards!

Todd Ellis, N2XL

Cary, NC (next door to Raleigh)

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul J. Zawada [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NEXTEL-1] Re: QRN 2 - BPL Threat to HF Amateur Radio

--zawada
K9MN