ARLA/CLUSTER: Re: [BPLandHamRadio] Re: Claims that Australian
broadband powerline regulations breach WTO treaties
Carlos Mourato
radiofarol gmail.com
Sábado, 16 de Janeiro de 2010 - 13:40:13 WET
Hi
I bought a pair of CORINEX AV200
http://www.hantzundpartner.com/corinex/pdf/Brochure_CXP-AV200%20WME-F_dual_pack.pdf
PLC for in home use, for testing it in a severe RF environment. My job is
in a shortwave transmitter station, and I have possibility of testing the
PLC in an 3 X 250 Kw hall. During a 3 minuts STBY for QRG change I put the
PLCs in the wall power outlet , about 20m away, waiting for synchroning,
and apply data. The speed was about 40Mbps. I expected that everything
crash. But for my surprise, only a decay in the speed happened. The PLCs
remain synchronized and working altough a 3 X 250 Kw transmitters are on
air in 3995KHz in DRM, 6075 Khz in AM and 11865 AM. Is unbelievable that
these divices, with a broadband SW receiver working in a hight RF field
strengh environment. At last, the AGC sould be cut the receiver, but no!!!!
It working!!!...In my QTH I discovery that the QRG of 24MHz, with only 100
watts crash the PLCs, but is only in 24MHz. In other bands, also with 1 Kw,
nothing happens
So the way to crash this kind of PLC is a big hammer.
I was big interferences from home plugs ( without any notchs in ham bands)
used by MEO in home TVIP, that make a hard QRM above 12 Mhz in any QRG and
up to 35 MHz, with a signal about S9+10/20. Now fortunately, ANACOM, the
Portuguese Authority for Comunications, are in field, and I have the problem
near solved. 4 of the 6 PLCs that make me QRM was shutdown. Now I have only
a residual QRM about 5/5 on 24Mhz and 28 Mhz. I`m waiting for a new
inspection from ANACOM, for "KILL" all PLCs.
73 and happy new year 2010, witout PLCs QRM
CT4RK
2010/1/16 Carlos Mourato <radiofarol gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi arrl.org>
> Date: 2010/1/16
> Subject: RE: [BPLandHamRadio] Re: Claims that Australian broadband
> powerline regulations breach WTO treaties
> To: BPLandHamRadio yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
> That should still hold when we have more sunspots, perhaps even more so.
>
> The testing done involved turning off the carriers in the broadcast band
> when the modem detected strong signals from SW BC stations. When those
> carriers were turned off, in three of four cases tested, the data rate the
> modems could achieve dropped by no more than a few percent. My conclusion
> from those results was that the tradeoff was a reasonable one -- by notching
> as needed to protect licensed reception, the BPL system can continue to
> function.
>
> In the fourth case, the data rate *increased* when the adaptive notching
> was turned on! My speculation is that the strong BC signals were
> interfering with the modem. Those carriers were already lost to the system,
> and the overhead of trying to reconstruct the data stream from the other
> available carriers did chew up some of the data rate. When the unsuable
> carriers were no longer used, the system did not need to try to rebuild the
> data stream, and the speed improved slightly.
>
> No matter which way you look at it, turning off carriers to avoid local
> licensed users is a useful tool to allow BPL to deploy successfully. IMHO,
> the nature of the Amateur Radio Service is such that the carriers should be
> permanently notched. This is a model used by HomePlug, the Home Phone
> Networking Alliance and the newer high-speed DSL services. The broadcasters
> are apparently satisfied that adaptive notching can protect the shortwave
> broadcast bands. The Citizens Band allocations should also be notched.
> Other local use can probably be identified from licensing databases and
> notched as needed.
>
> One need only look at the results to see that interference problems harmed
> the BPL industry. To quote John Joyce, the CEO of the Ambient Corporation:
>
> "BPL does not perform well in the overhead U.S. electrical distribution
> topology, and thus today a BPL signal cannot communicate over long distances
> or through a transformer without couplers and repeaters to boost the signal.
> This additional equipment increases overall deployment costs and eliminates
> cost savings associated with using the existing wires. . . There are
> further problems in transmitting BPL signals over power lines, including
> interference issues caused and experienced by a BPL system. Overhead
> electrical distribution wires are unshielded from radio frequency (RF)
> interference, therefore, BPL signals traveling on medium-voltage overhead
> lines have the potential to interfere with shortwave radio operators. Local
> RF using unlicensed spectrum also can interfere with the BPL network signal,
> and because the spectrum is unlicensed, mitigation can be timely and
> costly."
>
> I and many other hams raised those issues early on. Those concerns were
> met with absolute denial. The result is as seen above, and BPL systems that
> could have been showpieces were instead shut down by utilities, often at
> considerable cost. (IDACorp shut down IDAComm and announced that its foray
> into BPL cost it $10M US.) Those same hams worked hard to help this
> industry resolve those problems. At this point, we know what works. It
> doesn't appear that the industry, however, has really learned from the
> lessons of the past, because even after all this, even after having
> solutions at hand that have the support of licensed radio users, it
> systematically avoids incorporating those good solutions into regulation and
> standards that could help everyone feel that the past is behind them.
>
> The food fights in the IEEE P1775 EMC standard group go on to this day,
> where the group would not include a number of key points that the industry
> is already doing as standard practice. The result is that the IEEE EMC
> Society, a co-sponsor of the standard, provided comments to the Working
> Group during the balloting process, to try to help it understand some of the
> EMC issues that are not done correctly in the standard. If the WG doesn't
> take that seriously, the end result will be another opportunity lost, as
> there will be a standard that doesn't have the support of the very
> stakeholders the standard is intended to serve. The BPL industry has
> bemoaned that the lack of standards has held it back. Yet it is developing a
> standard that does NOT have the support of key stakeholders. A standard that
> serves to deepen the chasm that separates stakeholders is, in some ways,
> worse than no standard at all.
>
> The ironic part is that there are a number of BPL companies that have been
> leaders in trying to address interference. IBEC and Current Technologies
> come to mind. Yet these very companies are also leaders in trying to keep
> that successful model out of the regulations and standards that are still
> under development. Current's staff have been very active in P1775, fighting
> fiercely to keep notching, notch depth and limits out of the standard.
> IBEC has consistently voted the same way.
>
> We all know what works:
>
> 1. Notch the ham bands.
> 2. Do so with state of the art filtering of -35 dB.
> 3. Measure systems correctly. to ensure that the system does not exceed
> the emissions limits. This requires a scientifically justified, not
> politically justified, extrapolation factor.
>
> I have seen this work, and reported so publicly. In Houston, the BPL
> system was notched to protect the ham bands and I did not see widespread
> interference, just a few dB (very few) of BPL noise directly under a few
> injection points.
>
> Take this successful model and turn it into good regulation and standards.
> This will help all stakeholders and finally allow the spectre of
> interference to be put back in the box. The industry can then find its
> natural place in access BPL and smart-grid deployments.
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
> ARRL Laboratory Manager
> 225 Main St
> Newington, CT 06111
> Tel: 860-594-0318
> Email: W1RFI arrl.org
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Barry White [mailto:bewhite bigpond.net.au]
> *Sent:* Fri 1/15/2010 11:28 PM
> *To:* BPLandHamRadio yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [BPLandHamRadio] Re: Claims that Australian broadband
> powerline regulations breach WTO treaties
>
>
>
> Hello Ed,
> I noted this comment from your response;
>
> An ETSI study (ETSI TR 102616) shows that adaptive notching used to
> protect HF SW BC did not have a major effect on data rates.
>
> Do you think this will be still valid when the sunspot cycle gets back to
> normal ?
> Here in Australia we have very strong signals from many Asian SW BC
> stations in normal times on a north south path.
>
> 73 Barry VK2AAB
>
>
> Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:
>
> Hi, Glenn,
>
> My main role in that filing was to prepare Exhibit A. My usual technique
> is to provide whatever technical paper may be appropriate, and separately,
> offer my input to Chris on the remainder of the filing. The major points in
> Imlay's work were the legal points he raised, though. I do offer some views
> on that once in a while, but Chris is much smarter at that than I am.
>
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender<w1rfi arrl.org?subject=RE:+%5BBPLandHamRadio%5D+Re:+Claims+that+Australian+broadband+powerline+regulations+breach+WTO+treaties>| Reply
> to group<BPLandHamRadio yahoogroups.com?subject=RE:+%5BBPLandHamRadio%5D+Re:+Claims+that+Australian+broadband+powerline+regulations+breach+WTO+treaties>
> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPLandHamRadio/message/13102;_ylc=X3oDMTM3NnJvOTVjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDMwODIwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARtc2dJZAMxMzEwOQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjM2NDM5NzQEdHBjSWQDMTMxMDI->(
> 8)
> Recent Activity:
>
>
> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPLandHamRadio;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNnZndjRzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDMwODIwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNjM2NDM5NzQ-> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BPLandHamRadio/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbTh2MW5nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDMwODIwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjM2NDM5NzQ->
> MARKETPLACE
>
> Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14kbc64q1/M=493064.13814333.13821539.13298430/D=groups/S=1705063108:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1263651174/L=/B=yTwcGkPDhFU-/J=1263643974997619/K=Pn9FWrbHr.CrQXblCyy7rg/A=5922843/R=0/SIG=11ckn2mo6/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/green/>
> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGN1bmxpBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEwNDMwODIwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2MzY0Mzk3NA-->
> Switch to: Text-Only<BPLandHamRadio-traditional yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<BPLandHamRadio-digest yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe<BPLandHamRadio-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
>
>
> --
> Best 73 from: regards from: CT4RK Carlos Mourato - Sines - Portugal
>
> Save the Radio Spectrum! Eliminate Broadband over Power Line. Salve o
> espectro electromagnético!. Não use a rede electrica para transmitir dados.
> Os "homeplugs power line" e a tecnologia "power line" causa fortes
> interferencias noutro serviços sem voce se aperceber. Diga não à tecnologia
> power line. Proteja o ambiente
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
Best 73 from: regards from: CT4RK Carlos Mourato - Sines - Portugal
Save the Radio Spectrum! Eliminate Broadband over Power Line. Salve o
espectro electromagnético!. Não use a rede electrica para transmitir dados.
Os "homeplugs power line" e a tecnologia "power line" causa fortes
interferencias noutro serviços sem voce se aperceber. Diga não à tecnologia
power line. Proteja o ambiente
-----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- próxima parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: http://radio-amador.net/pipermail/cluster/attachments/20100116/b325d52a/attachment.htm
Mais informações acerca da lista CLUSTER