FEMA Blasts BPL (Broadband over Powerline)

On December 4, Barry West, the Chief Information Officer of the Federal Emergency Management Agency filed comments opposing deployment of Broadband over Powerline (BPL).

West stated that the introduction of BPL on utility powerlines will result in serious detriments to their ability to use the HF spectrum as a key and necessary part of their disaster operations.

He went on to say that the introduction of BPL signals will raise the HF noise floor to unacceptable levels. And, that power levels would have to be increased by 30dB to maintain satisfactory communication to and from areas employing BPL.



His comments.



I'll go on to further say that as an avid ham operator, BPL spells trouble for worldwide and local communications from our point of view as well. We have long fought the battle to keep background noise in the RF spectrum down and policed ourselves to clean up our own transmissions. Is this type of braodband service really worth it when the side effect vitually destroys our ability for emergency management communications both on an official and civilian level? In effect what the side effect of this technology does is throw a wet blanket all over the RF spectrum. I urge each of you to not let your views of FEMA (which I share) make you think just because they oppose it it must be good. This technology is flawed. Its bad for everyone. I ask all of you to not support such carelessness and wreckless abandoned for emergency communications. If you've never had a ham operator help you get in touch with a loved one in a dissaster area, then you may wonder what I'm talking about but rest assured its a valuable service.

Being a former ham (Amateur radio operator, www.arrl.org... ), I concur. Modulating power lines would cause a significant amount of radio spectrum noise in the HF band (3 - 30 MHz) which is also used by short-wave listeners to hear foreign news and other broadcasts. more: www.arrl.org... [Edited on 22-12-2003 by SkepticOverlord]

Ignorant comment after viewing the facts i take it back.

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by DiRtYDeViL]

Hi Astro!!

Thanx for raising this!!

I'd also be against BPL: I'm a radio ham in UK (since 1982), so you might say I have a vested interest in trying to keep the HF radio spectrum less polluted as well!! As it is, radio amateurs don't get much allocation but the amount of QRN/ QRM that is experienced already is very annoying (even with DSP and filtering).

Consider what has happened, too, with "light pollution": this can effectively stopped people in cities seeing the night sky - with BPL we might not even be able to hear others across our cities as well??

Connect to the WWW with dedicated cables, I say, not power lines!!

Alot of the field studies on BPL were done in scottish villages to the south of me, it seems it all went very well and nobody complained at all, its being further rolled out here into urban area's soon... and i plan on getting it.

25 a month for 2+mb down and 512k up

I pay that now for 512 down and 256 up.

We actually have that here in Finland..

In test use at least..

Have had for quite sometime..

Theres really some problems to it i belive..

Hi all!!

There is an intersting article by RSGB *Radio Society of Great Britain) at

www.qsl.net...

A quote from this says:

This should not be news to the power firms. Five years ago, the utility Nortel abandoned a project in the UK to use power cables to carry telecoms signals after this was found to cause street lamps to radiate signals that interfered with radio reception (New Scientist, 30 May1998, p4)

This lesson appears to have gone unheeded, because a system set up by Scottish and Southern Energy (S&SE) has run Into similar problems in tests carried out in Crleff, Perthshire. BBC engineers who measured the interference created by the service were horrified its effect on shortwave radio reception in homes.

"In some cases of power-line interference you are hearing more noise than short-wave radio signal," says Andrew Oliphant of the BBC. Though the interference only extenas a metre of two from the the mains cable this is far enough to affect most radios in homes.

Nevertheless, S&SE Is now offering the service In two towns: Stonehaven, Kincardinshire, in Scotland and Winchester in southern England. In each town a 1-megabit-per-second broadband service will be available to around 500 homes for �30 a month. S&Sl says it has had no problems with radio, but it has been looking at AM medium-wave transmissions not short-wave radio.

Ironically, the problem comes just as leading broadcasters worldwide, including Radio France International, Deutsche Welle and the BBC World Service, have agreed a new standard called Digital Radio Mondiale. which broadcasts digital signals over short-wave frequencies. It uses built-in error-correcting codes that will allow short-wave broadcasts, which can travel thousands of kilometres round the Earth by bouncing off the upper atmosphere, to sound far better than they do at present.

The BBC fears power-line telecoms could jeopardise the whole future of short-wave radio, and is lobbying for broadcasters and power utilities to agree limits on interference levels."

You have been warned!!

Oh boo #ing hoo, why is radio more important than net cable anyway?

I don't even OWN a radio apart from the one in the stereo, and even then thats a DAB Digital radio.

Interesting, and thanks for the research and links. This one's a keeper!

Originally posted by Nerdling

I don't even OWN a radio apart from the one in the stereo, and even then thats a DAB Digital radio.

That is *your*choice Nerdling: some of us *still* own radios however - would you deny *us* the chance to listento - and use - it?? Or, is this medium to be relegated to the back burner?

As a ham, I have comfortably "worked" into the USA with 10 watts RF with CW (Morse code) with a bandwidth of 250Hz using a simple dipole. Many more have done the same.

*When* the "lights go out" (post Aplocalypse) you *might* just want these skills (and limited technological resources) you know...

In most of our topics on ATS, we end up choosing side between private sector corperations and the individual and the government. This is one case where I believe that corperations are screwing the individual out of resources and trying to use the government to do it. In every other area where the RF spectrum is used, harmful interference is one of the chief concerns. We, as a society are regulated as to how much we pollute it so why, now , would we allow unbridled destruction of it by the private sector for no more than cheap streaming pornography?

I want cheap net service too. Who doesn't but in this modern day of smaller, faster, cheaper I think we sometimes forget to prioritize the cost.
This is one instance where we're destroying a valued dependable resource for an expendable luxury.

Originally posted by Genya

Originally posted by Nerdling

I don't even OWN a radio apart from the one in the stereo, and even then thats a DAB Digital radio.

That is *your*choice Nerdling: some of us *still* own radios however - would you deny *us* the chance to listento - and use - it?? Or, is this medium to be relegated to the back burner?

As a ham, I have comfortably "worked" into the USA with 10 watts RF with CW (Morse code) with a bandwidth of 250Hz using a simple dipole. Many more have done the same.

*When* the "lights go out" (post Aplocalypse) you *might* just want these skills (and limited technological resources) you know...

Would i deny you that chance? Yes i would.

It would bring extremely fast net lines all over the country at a fraction of the cost, each school. hospital, library and public building could be linked up on superfast backbones enabling them to increase efficiency.Encyclopaedia's, maps, medical records, books and pictures could be digitised and sent to somewhere and be in the hands of someone seconds later. I would happily scrap HAM etc which is used by a minority for nothing more than idle chatter.

The world is moving forward and its still survival of the fittest, radio's failure to adapt is its downfall.

We aren't talking about a miniscule hobby used by a few for idle chatter..we're talking about needed emergency communications. Just because your not trapped under a pile of debris at the moment doesn't insure you never will be. If we scrap radio in liu of BPL, what happens when the powerlines fail? You know what we have then? Nothing?

We can have high speed net service without wreckless abandoned for vital communication. Its not a question of do or die for high speed net. Its just an advocation for responsiblity in providing it.

Originally posted by Nerdling
[quote I would happily scrap HAM etc which is used by a minority for nothing more than idle chatter.

Point taken - BUT, whilst you claim that the increased connectivity of the Internet would be a "good thing" (by inference - hospitals, schools, etc, all being "on line") - could *you* assure *me* that much of the Internet bandwidth (at present) is used for such laudable things, Nerdling, rather than in the exchange of equally "idle chatter" eg what about "Spam" mail? Isn't *spam* "idle chatter" (and unwanted too) which is robbing us of bandwidth?

Incidentally, as you don't claim to possess a radio (other than DAB) how do you *know* what hams talk about in any case??

The ARRL said Broadband over Power Line (BPL) proponents have failed
to substantiate their claims that the technology will not cause
widespread interference. In reply comments filed August 20, the
League said that if the FCC is going to rely on industry statements
in making decisions on BPL deployment, the industry should back up
its assertions with technical studies and hard data and make these
public.

While BPL advocates claim no interference, ARRL said its own field
tests lead inescapably to the conclusion that BPL will, if deployed,
create widespread harmful interference. "The interference was
manifest and widespread and would be so even to an untrained
observer," ARRL said.

Originally posted by Nerdling Oh boo fucking hoo, why is radio more important than net cable anyway?

Because, in a local emergency, wireless HF communications will very often be the only communications out of an emergency zone. While power-line interference won't be a problem for the emergency zone that has lost power (duh), it will be for the people attempting to receive communications from an area in emergency.

Originally posted by Genya QRN/ QRM that is experienced already is very annoying (even with DSP and filtering).

Damn! It's been a while since I used "Q". Didja ever QRP? Pretty much impossible now if you live near an urban area.

"Japan--responding in part to concerns expressed by its amateur community--decided last year not to adopt the technology because of its interference potential.

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 22, No. 17 April 25, 2003 "

What an enlightened country....

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Damn! It's been a while since I used "Q".
Didja ever QRP? Pretty much impossible now if you live near an urban area.

Sure did OM!! In fact, it's my prefered method of operation (QRO causes too much TVI around here hi!!)

VHF - used 6 ele Quad and 10 watt transverter(at 3 watts ERP) to work Scotland during lift condx, with CW - 579 sent/received- a distance of 450 miles.

HF - JA worked with 5 watts ERP to vertical antenna on 20M - 599 both ways. Rig was home brew incidentally.

Vy 73's es gud dx OM!! de G4OYP VA tu ..