Sponsored Links

FCC to Approve Powerline

  • Thread starter Thread starter Web Buddy
  • Start date Start date

Web Buddy

Guest
The FCC's deadline to receive comments in the Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket 03-104. The strong indication is that the FCC found no problems with Powerline & it looks almost certain to recieve full FCC approval. This looks like another step forward for Powerline.

In spite of complaints by various groups that Powerline would cause considerably interference the FCC findings were that there was no unacceptable interference from Powerline.
 
"The strong indication is that the FCC found no problems with Powerline & it looks almost certain to recieve full FCC approval. This looks like another step forward for Powerline.

In spite of complaints by various groups that Powerline would cause considerably interference the FCC findings were that there was no unacceptable interference from Powerline."

er, like total fiction.

Check;
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfilings/2003/bplcomments_08132003.htm
(when the NTIA says "jump", the FCC says “how high?”)

And
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/21/4/?nc=1
 
WTF happened 'PLC just say no' eh?.. did PLC run over your dog or something?

Unlike you (I suspect) there are a lot of people here without any form of broadband. People having to make do with shitty dialup, not just now but for the forseable future. People who don't have the luxury of dismissing a new broadband solution on a whim. So stop whining and complaining in every single bloody thread in this forum and try to put yourself in the position of those unlucky people. Then you may not feel quite so negatively towards PLC.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Ahh let him say what he wants, the real answer will be when they bring it out commercially on a big enough scale.

If/when they do that, it will make the disbeleivers into people who say, 'Its not good no, it creates this and that, ohh aarrr...'

Personally, Im looking forward to it. Probably wont get it myself, but very interested to see how it performs. The most interesting thing is the in house networking!! Groovy baby!

(Sorry, someone said disco was dead in another thread).:p
 
Web Buddy said:
The FCC's deadline to receive comments in the Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket 03-104. The strong indication is that the FCC found no problems with Powerline & it looks almost certain to recieve full FCC approval. This looks like another step forward for Powerline.

In spite of complaints by various groups that Powerline would cause considerably interference the FCC findings were that there was no unacceptable interference from Powerline.

Does news get that distorted when travelling across the pond ? The FCC solicited comments as this was a Notice Of Inquiry. This was not a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or Report and Order, so the FCC couldn't have made any findings as you suggest.

This is the worst bit of misinformation I've seen regarding broadband over powerline in a long time. The BPL industry submitted no measurements in defence of the technology and got pummeled by various organizations on technical grounds.

Please read the filings and educate yourself. Broadband over powerline is doomed in the States. To suggest that the FCC has found no unacceptable interference is a mistake of monolithic proportions.
 
FCC Requirements For US Powerline

FCC Part 15

PLC treated as “carrier current system”(CCS), defined as:

A system, or part of a system, that transmits radio frequency energy by conduction over the electric power lines. A carrier current system can be designed such that the signals are received by conduction directly from connection to the power lines (unintentional radiator) or the signals are received over the air due to radiation of the radio frequency signals from the electric power lines (intentional radiator).


FCC Part 15

PLC must operate on an unlicensed (non-interference) basis to other licensed services.

Must accept interference from them and not cause interference to them.

FCC Part 15


PLC must comply with radiated emission limits for CCS (<30 MHz) and Class A/B digital devices (>30 MHz)(§15.109(e))


Regulation


Distance


V/m


dB V/m


3


3000


69.5


10


270


48.5


30


30


29.5


3


300


49.5


10


90


39


30


30


29.5


3


100


40


10


30


29.5


30


10


20


Carrier Current Devices

1-30 MHz


FCC Class A Digital Devices

30-88 MHz


FCC Class B Digital Devices

30-88 MHz

FCC Part 15


PLC must also comply with conducted emission limits that apply to carrier current systems (§15.107):

CCS that operate between 535-1705 kHz: no emission limits

All others: 1000 uV between 535-1705 kHz

Recent FCC Report & Order defers changing limits, BUT FCC will address issue in future proceeding.

Influenced by IEC CISPR I standards in development, and UTC and industry comments opposing proposal.

Existing rules for carrier current systems continue to apply to PLC.


U.S. Trials


Ameren - Main.net

American Electric Power – Amperion

Cinergy – Current Technologies

City of Manassas – Main.net

Consolidated Edison – Ambient

Culman Electric Cooperative – PowerComm Systems

PEPCO – Current Technologies

PPL – Main.net/Amperion

Southern Company – Main.net/Ambient/PowerComm Systems
 
Sponsored Links
Teasy said:
eli_the_ice_man

Nice try 'PLC just say no' ;)

Whatever. What PR firm under contract from a telecom do you work for ?

How about debating me on the facts ? First generation PLC systems failed miserably due to interference issues. These second generation systems being deployed have the same problems. BPL proponents have taken a different approach this time, telling everyone to look the other way when the laws of physics are being ignored. The truth gets trampled in the rush for cheap broadband.
 
Re: FCC Requirements For US Powerline

Web Buddy said:
FCC Part 15

PLC treated as “carrier current system”(CCS), defined as:

A system, or part of a system, that transmits radio frequency energy by conduction over the electric power lines. A carrier current system can be designed such that the signals are received by conduction directly from connection to the power lines (unintentional radiator) or the signals are received over the air due to radiation of the radio frequency signals from the electric power lines (intentional radiator).


FCC Part 15

PLC must operate on an unlicensed (non-interference) basis to other licensed services.

Must accept interference from them and not cause interference to them.

FCC Part 15


PLC must comply with radiated emission limits for CCS (<30 MHz) and Class A/B digital devices (>30 MHz)(§15.109(e))

And what would be your point ? Part 15 has been in place for eons and has allowed PLC type operations, along with garage door openers and cordless phones -- that is not the issue. BPL proponents want to significantly relax emissions limits or in their wildest dreams eliminate the requirement to cease operation if they interfere with licensed operations. Currently even if they are within emissions limits but interfere, they must stop services. And the test areas have shown emitted signal levels that will interfere once this is widely deployed.

There is no FCC NRPM or R&O to change Part 15 related to PLC/BPL at this point.
 
I don't work for anyone that has anything to do with PLC. Its just that unlike you, and people like you, I don't have the luxury of simply dismissing something that could bring broadband to my area. AFAICS you've said nothing that shows that PLC still has these big interference problems. As for your comment on the laws of physics, don't be so rediculous, new technology is being produced all the time that makes things that were previously impossible possible. If you expect me to believe that your qualified to tell everyone what is and isn't possible then you must think I was born yesterday. In the end if PLC has such high levels of interference then we'll never see it used, so you have nothing to worry about. So WTF is your problem? Why do you see the need to try to prove how evil PLC is and disprove people who claim it is ok if you know that it'll never appear anyway? This is what I don't understand about people like you.

P.S. Even if PLC did have interference problems then frankly I don't really give a crap... I just wan broadband.
 
Last edited:
Contrary to what the critics say there is no significant problems with PLC.

In spite of their wild claims of gross polution & planes falling out of the sky (Does it remind you of the Y2K scare mongerers) they have not managed to come up with a single case of interference from PLC. Given the scale of PLC deployment they should be able to come up with hundreds if they are to be belived.
 
Sponsored Links
This isn't exactly new or groundbreaking technology, it has been around for some time, but over time it has become more physically able to do, but as with everything "new" you will always get someone who says, "this is not going to work - too many problems". If it was not economically viable and able to do, there would be no trials of it whatsoever. Perhaps the "knockers" should wait and see, and have all the fact to hand before they try and persuade people not to use it , or even supply it. ( Wind Powered Electricity and Mobile Phones spring to mind )
 
I hate to say this but ALL electrical cables produce electromagnetic radiation; but these radiations are at specific frequencies and can be easily allowed for.
The magnetic field arround a high voltage power cable is so intense that it can light a flourescent light tube, hyterodyning signels onto the cable results in the equivilent of a massive transmitter, thousands of miles long and hundreds of feet high/wide.
As an example you can test, go drive under a high voltage powerline while listening to the car radio on AM.
What you hear is the sound of interference from millions of electrical motors eddying back through the national grid.
To make a transission signel work it has to be louder that that interference AND cover a much wider bandwidth to accomodate the ammount of data that needs to be transmitted, such a wide bandwidth will always cause problems for sensitive equipment near the powerline; for sensitive read :- PC's , Radios, monitoring equipment, guidence systems, Radar, pacemakers, etc.
Dedicated HiFI nuts already filter the mains entering their houses due to the distortions caused by the "noise" carried on the mains supply and I have trouble with a high frequency welder used nearby that causes problems with TV and radio reception.
 
There have always been sceptics. Planes would never be able to fly.
Television would never work and people would not survive if cars went more the 15mph. They were all proved wrong & I expect the Powerline sceptics will also be proved wrong.

Deploying a new technology always has issues & problems and the path is never smooth. The real test is how many companies are trialling it & moving to commercial rollout as well as the number of equipment manufatures moving into the market.
 
I understand thalidamide was a real comercial sucess when it first came out.
 
You do not have to make the signal louder then the noise, just different. You need to be able to seperate the required signal from the mainly low frequency noise on the powerline. With modern elctronics that not that difficult. Also as Powerline uses the LV network most of it is underground and vertually all the emiisions are absorbed in the ground.


Captain_Cretin said:
I hate to say this but ALL electrical cables produce electromagnetic radiation; but these radiations are at specific frequencies and can be easily allowed for.
The magnetic field arround a high voltage power cable is so intense that it can light a flourescent light tube, hyterodyning signels onto the cable results in the equivilent of a massive transmitter, thousands of miles long and hundreds of feet high/wide.
As an example you can test, go drive under a high voltage powerline while listening to the car radio on AM.
What you hear is the sound of interference from millions of electrical motors eddying back through the national grid.
To make a transission signel work it has to be louder that that interference AND cover a much wider bandwidth to accomodate the ammount of data that needs to be transmitted, such a wide bandwidth will always cause problems for sensitive equipment near the powerline; for sensitive read :- PC's , Radios, monitoring equipment, guidence systems, Radar, pacemakers, etc.
Dedicated HiFI nuts already filter the mains entering their houses due to the distortions caused by the "noise" carried on the mains supply and I have trouble with a high frequency welder used nearby that causes problems with TV and radio reception.
 
Sponsored Links
If you want to drive a car you first need to take a test to prove first that you are safe. It is no different for PLC, first prove there is no pollution.

All the technical documentation published shows that PLC is a “gross polluter”. The time has come for the PLC companies to either submit technical proof that PLC goes not pollute or go back to the lab and fix the pollution.

There are alternatives to PLC that go faster and further.
 
PLC meets all statutary requirements and any necessary test results have been submitted to the regulatory bodies and or are held by the manufacturer.

That shoots that one down.


PLC can go faster & further then ADSL

Another one shoot down.



Come on where are all this hundreds of cases of interference can we see the reports of these cases of intereference.


Well I thought not !
 
Teasy said:
I don't work for anyone that has anything to do with PLC. Its just that unlike you, and people like you, I don't have the luxury of simply dismissing something that could bring broadband to my area. AFAICS you've said nothing that shows that PLC still has these big interference problems. As for your comment on the laws of physics, don't be so rediculous, new technology is being produced all the time that makes things that were previously impossible possible. If you expect me to believe that your qualified to tell everyone what is and isn't possible then you must think I was born yesterday. In the end if PLC has such high levels of interference then we'll never see it used, so you have nothing to worry about. So WTF is your problem? Why do you see the need to try to prove how evil PLC is and disprove people who claim it is ok if you know that it'll never appear anyway? This is what I don't understand about people like you.

P.S. Even if PLC did have interference problems then frankly I don't really give a crap... I just wan broadband.

That's the typical mindset of the uninformed, non-technical lay person in regards to BPL. "I want cheap broadband now, so screw everyone else that is utilizing this spectrum !" Your need for high-speed Internet does not outweigh the need for international wireless communications.

My problem is that BPL vendors and carriers are portraying this as the greatest end-all solution. Consumers like you think it is great and demand it. Unfortunately the proponents aren't giving you the entire story and have failed to defend their product in engineering circles.

Yes, new products are released everyday that do things previously impossible as you mention. None of these break the laws of physics as you imply. Unshielded wire radiated high frequency energy in Marconi's time, and it still does today. No amount of marketing will change that.

You know nothing of my qualifications, but that is irrelevant. An abridged list of FCC filings for your reading enjoyment is here: http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html . Plenty of people with more credentials than me have spoken regarding BPL's ill effects and weak technical foundation.

Twenty years ago one could rest assured that such a badly conceived technology would be laughed out of any regulatory agency. Unfortunately, in the United States and elsewhere, radio spectrum decisions are no longer made on the basis of science, but rather lobbyist funding and pressure, and politics.
 
Web Buddy said:
You do not have to make the signal louder then the noise, just different. You need to be able to seperate the required signal from the mainly low frequency noise on the powerline. With modern elctronics that not that difficult.

Oh really ? If that's the case, let's limit all BPL vendors to a maximum signal of -130 dBmW as this is the typical noise floor and will not cause any interference to licensed services. Since it's not that difficult with modern electronics, this shouldn't be a problem. It makes me wonder why BPL vendors are seeking to raise emissions limits in the US if they can operate below the noise floor as you suggest.

BTW, since you are familiar with electronics theory, can you explain the significance of my username in electronics theory ?
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6026)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2439)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules