To date, DSL has not caused hams any problems, but it stops a 1.1 MHz, though
it will soon be going higher. But twisted-pair telephone wiring is a much
poorer antenna than overhead power lines, so the amount of notching that BPL
would need would be unworkably high. I know hams who can literally hear a
neighbor a mile away turn on a computer power supply. How do we protect that
capability? How about apartment dwellers who aren't allowed outside antennas?
Do we "write off" that aspect of ham radio?
By my calculations, about 70 dB of notching would be necessary to protect
against BPL interference in quiet environs with antennas located about 100 feet
from a radiating power line, with more needed for the circumstances I described
above.
The bottom line, IMHO, is that signals much stronger than the present conducted
emissions limits should not intentionally be put onto power lines.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
ARRL is the National Association for Amateur Radio. It is supported by
membership dues, individual contributions and the sale of publications and
advertising. For more information about ARRL, go to
http://www.arrl.org/news/features/inside-your-league.html. For more information
about membership, go to http://www.arrl.org/join.html. Your contribution can
also help support ARRL's ongoing efforts to protect Amateur spectrum. Go to
https://www.arrl.org/forms/development/donations/basic/ to learn more about the
ways you can support the ARRL programs and activities of most importance to
you. You can help ARRL protect Amateur Radio for you and future generations to
enjoy.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:ka5s@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: Hare,Ed, W1RFI; rfi
> Subject: RE: Another "no interference" conclusion. . .
>
>
> Ed, the first-generation ADSL I worked with (and helped get
> to deployment)
> used a "carrierless" modulation which sounds rather like
> this. The good
> news is, even "up close and personal" I had problems
> detecting it with a
> narrowband receiver. However... it was _extremely_
> susceptible to impulse
> noise, and Discrete Multi Tone (DMT) ADSL has replaced it.
>
> DMT monitors the SNR on each tone, and marks out of service
> tones with poor
> SNR. This is how, I believe, the PLC folks intended to put
> Amateur-band
> notches in their signals. I do not see any notches for broadcasting,
> however, and that too is a service the FCC is _supposed_ to protect.
>
>
> Cortland
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Hare,Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
> > Subject: Another "no interference" conclusion. . .
> >
> > the potential of interference to radio users, thanks to a
> decrease in =
>
> > transmitted power spectral density. The OFDM modulation
> spreads the =
>
> > signal over a very wide bandwidth, thus reducing the amount
> on power =
>
> > injected at a single frequency. Field trials of PLC
> technologies carried =
>
> > . . .
>
> > It is easy to report "no interference" when the
> interference potential =
>
> > has not been studied by the industry and the interference
> studies done =
>
> > and reported by amateurs are not considered in reaching the
> conclusion. =
>
> > :-) Right now, I don't know of any industry interference
> study, but if =
>
> > any of you can point me to one, I want to include it on the
> ARRL web =
>
> > page for completeness.
>
>
>
>
>
|