• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

Good News for Hams AND CBers!!!!!

C W Morse

Active Member
Apr 3, 2005
1,022
12
48
Retired
From arrl.org:

==>FCC DIRECTS MANASSAS BPL SYSTEM TO RESOLVE AMATEURS' INTERFERENCE
COMPLAINTS

In two strongly worded letters, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau has directed
the Manassas, Virginia, BPL system to take appropriate steps to eliminate
harmful interference to Amateur Radio operators. Several hams in the
Manassas area have complained, some repeatedly, about severe interference
from the BPL system, operated by COMTek on the city-owned power grid. The
FCC minced no words in detailing what it wants the city and BPL operator
COMTek to do to ensure its system complies with Part 15 rules governing BPL
systems and even hinted that it may shut down all or part of the system. One
of the FCC letters followed up on a complaint from Dwight Agnew, AI4II, of
BPL interference to his mobile operations.

FCC Spectrum Enforcement Division Chief Joseph Casey told the city and
COMTek June 16 that within 20 days he wants a "detailed report on the
actions you have taken and the progress you have made in resolving the
interference complaint or reducing the emissions in the area referenced in
Mr Agnew's complaint to 20 dB below the Part 15 limit," a level the FCC
maintains generally is sufficient to eliminate BPL interference to mobile
operations. Additionally, Casey said the Commission wants to know "the
specific steps you will take to inform customers of a cessation of service
in the event you are directed to cease operations, either in part or
system-wide."

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, said the League is "especially gratified" that
the Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division has ordered the City
of Manassas to take steps to prepare for a cessation of BPL services.
"Clearly, the FCC has lost patience with COMTek's reliance on misleading
news releases as a substitute for meaningful solutions to the ongoing
interference," he said.

In an April 7 news release COMTek Vice President Walt Adams called the
Manassas BPL system "a real success story" and said its testing showed "an
almost identical" level of interference whether or not the system was in
operation. It made a similar claim to the FCC in Agnew's case.

COMTek has indicated it expects emissions can be reduced to 20 dB below the
Part 15 limit once second-generation BPL equipment is in place along the
Virginia Business Route 234 corridor by the end of July. Casey said that's
not good enough. "We note that a failure to respond until the end of July to
any complaint alleging harmful interference in an effort to determine if the
new equipment resolves the matter is not sufficient," he pointed out in a
footnote.

Casey said Manassas and COMTek must address and "reach a resolution" with
regard to Agnew's interference complaint "as soon as practicable."

Based on the engineering reports the FCC received from the city and COMTek
in response to the Agnew complaint, Casey said, "it appears that the BPL
system is not in compliance with the Commission's emission requirements at
several frequencies," although none were in the amateur bands.

Manassas and COMTek must detail within 30 days steps taken to clean up the
system as well as any additional actions necessary for the system to remain
in compliance with Commission rules.

In a second letter, Casey requested Manassas and COMTek to examine and
address specific longstanding interference complaints from George Tarnovsky,
K4GVT; Donald Blasdell, W4HJL; Bill South, N3OH; Jack Cochran, WC4J, and
Arthur Whittum, W1CRO. Manassas and COMTek must "take appropriate remedial
steps to eliminate any instances of harmful interference" or reduce
emissions in the areas cited in the complaints to 20 dB below the Part 15
limit, he instructed. He also reiterated his call for system compliance.

Casey said the FCC wants a report within 30 days on steps taken to address
the five radio amateurs' specific interference complaints and eliminate
excessive emissions.

Tarnovsky said the complainants are encouraged by the FCC's response to
COMTek's reports and are looking forward to the results of the
Commission-directed testing.

"I think I can speak for all parties in saying that we're looking forward to
a BPL interference-free Manassas," he said.


This is GOOD news for all HF radio operators! Pressure is being placed on FCC to do something about Part 15 interference by BPL systems. This *could* be the beginning of the end for many BPL systems unless they upgrade to newer non-interfering equipment. And then, there is the prospect of wireless products and systems against which BPL may not be able to compete! :D Finally! A breakthru for us radio geeks!

73

CWM 8)
 

The utility guy's remark that the interference level with the BPL turned off was about the same as with it running made me wonder how many rotted-out ground rods are emitting wideband "BUZZ" RF noises from utility poles all over Manassas. I suppose if all that arc-buzz RF is loud enough, you might not hear the BPL data-carrier interference, maybe? Until you turned on your noise blanker, anyway. Makes me wonder if their field-strength survey equipment has a NB on it? Probably not. Wonder if it could have saved them some embarrassment if it did.

73
 
Thanks CWM for the good news. a positive story. :D
With all the noise in the country's elec systems it makes you wonder if maint is a foreign word in the elec company business.
 
todt061458 said:
Thanks CWM for the good news. a positive story. :D
With all the noise in the country's elec systems it makes you wonder if maint is a foreign word in the elec company business.


You're welcome! It brings up a couple of questions that I have always been interested in. As you know, FCC already does answer complaints from hams regarding powerline noise, right? Well, it just seems to me that, sooner or later, the BPL thing would have resulted in a lawsuit against FCC anyway. IMHO, FCC was painting itself into a corner by, on one hand, citing utility companies for power line noise and there was plenty precendent in place, and OTH, turning a deaf ear to complaints regarding BPL. I ain't no lawyer, but how could FCC legally distinguish ONE type of radiated noise from the other? Radiated noise is radiated noise, to my mind, which is actionable above a certain level according to THEIR own rules. So, it would seem that the FCC would HAVE to act, and the courts couldn't ignore precendents that have been set for YEARS!

I have always held the opinion--and that is all it is------that BPL is actually not going to be the bugaboo it was touted to be after all. Motorola has already demonstrated the ability to abate the noise, and competition from faster modes of transmission will eat BPL's lunch! Therefore, ultimately BPL may become a viable alternative for rural areas, FCC will force BPL to adopt the abated protocols, OR BPL will simply die in the fact of competition such as wireless or satellite! :)

73

CWM
 
C W Morse said:
Therefore, ultimately BPL may become a viable alternative for rural areas

CWM

I wouldn't bet on it. Rural areas usually have the lowest user density and the worst power lines...I wouldn't be surprised if the expense to income ratio is prohibitive for BPL deployment.
 
cyclops1970 said:
C W Morse said:
Therefore, ultimately BPL may become a viable alternative for rural areas

CWM

I wouldn't bet on it. Rural areas usually have the lowest user density and the worst power lines...I wouldn't be surprised if the expense to income ratio is prohibitive for BPL deployment.

We can hope so! ;) I think other protocols will eat BPL's lunch. Maybe that's why FCC has acted the way it did. IOW, just let things shake down the way they shake down. Then when it flops, the powerful $$ interests couldn't say that FCC was biased, or that the process was policitized--although it IS! Anyway, the Manassas thing is GOOD for all of us!

73

CWM
 
Not to mention those dreadful ICE storms we get around in here! Wouldn't it be nice not to have to have power off for days at a time?

CWM 8)
 
Yes it would be nice BUT who would pay for all the burial and not to mention all the added expense of maint from floods and earth quakes.
I wonder how much it would have cost if New Orleans would have had buried elec lines?
For each solution their is a neg side to it Mostly money, and property rights, and all those dug up cables when a contractor dig one up by mistake because the elec company mis located a locate request.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.