Broadband over Power Lines (BPL)

[J_R]

Taken from the D2 List:

From: AMA District 2 Discussion [mailto:AMA_D2@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Dave Mathewson
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:06 AM
To: AMA_D2@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: BPL - Broadband Over Powerlines

At all the club functions I have attended over the last nine months or so I
have made a point of mentioning BPL (Broadband Over Powerlines), and the
potential negative impact it may have on radio control modeling. When this
was first proposed to the FCC, AMA prepared a document outlining our
opposition to BPL, as did several other organizations. It appears as though
these objections didn't have the impact we were hoping for.

On Thursday, February 12, 2004 the FCC indicated they are issuing a NPRM
(Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) regarding BPL. This is generally a step
toward FCC approval. The AMA President, Technical Director, Frequency
Committee Coordinator, and AMA's legal counsel spent much of yesterday
working together to determine how best to proceed. A notice should appear
soon on AMA's Website.

FCC NPRMs include a period for public comment. It may come to the point
where we may suggest to our members that they take advantage of that
opportunity.

We will post updates here, as well as on our District 2 Forum, as we get
them. In the meantime you can visit the AMA Website at
http://www.modelaircraft.org to read our initial response filed a couple of
months ago. For more information on BPL and the FCC's position you can visit
http://www.fcc.gov.

If you have any specific questions fire away. District 2's Frequency
Coordinator, Dan Williams, who is also a member of the AMA Frequency
Committee participates in the discussion forum on our website and will be
happy to answer questions of a technical nature (since that's out of my
league!). You can post a question for him over there at
http://www.amadistrictii.org/d2forum/ in the "Frequency/Interference
Issues" section.

Dave


Dave Mathewson
AMA Vice President, District 2
7271 State Fair Blvd.
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
315.727.4275
315.635.1039 (Fax)

[goldguy]

More info on BPL........www.amperion.com

[J_R]

The AMA Frequency Committee has also posted an Advisory

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/freqcomm.asp

[Bud Morrison]

The big boys with the big money are already pressing ahead.

See this url.

http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3315881

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

The AMA has had it's head in the sand for years. If they really cared about radio safety they would have forced the mfg's to go to spread spectrum. But this would have taken their Second Reason For Being away from them -- another "Save the Frequencies" crusade.

[J_R]

Originally posted by SoCalGliderFlyr
The AMA has had it's head in the sand for years. If they really cared about radio safety they would have forced the mfg's to go to spread spectrum. But this would have taken their Second Reason For Being away from them -- another "Save the Frequencies" crusade.

I am curious. How do you think the AMA could do that? As an example of the AMA's lack of power to influence any part of the manufacturing community (and it is documented in the EC minutes available on the AMA website) was the claim by RC manufacturers that their Rx's were good enough to allow 2 mile seperation between Tx's without interference. The AMA scheduled a meeting, agreed to by the manufactures, to present data validating the claim. Of all the manufactures, only one actually showed up, and that one did not present data. The end result was that the separation between clubs is still 3 miles, based on data actually presented. The AMA could not even make the manufacturers show for a meeting. How can they make them produce a product?

The only way would be for the AMA to dictate to you, and to me, that we could not buy a current radio, thus placing financial pressure on the manufacturers. Are you willing to have the AMA tell you what you can and can not buy? I think it would be illegal for them to do so, but, I, for one, do not want the AMA telling me what to do. I suspect the manufacturers feel the same way.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

You are close. The AMA really has no legal power to force the radio mfg's to change. Some older members think that only the AMA has this power -- thus the "heads in the sand".

The separation between club sites has no legal standing either. Just a guide line based on available data. Been a few challenges to this recently.

As to "forcing" the mfg's to change; with the leverage of 170,000 members and the long standing ties with the industry some council members have, the AMA could do this. Instead a multitude of excuses are used to keep things the way they are. The only obvious reason is to resurrect the Save the Frequencies crusade.

[J_R]

There is no legal standing for any AMA rule in the sense that it is a law.

Having said that, the Safety Code, which includes the three mile separation requriment, must be read as "Potential Exclusions to AMA Insurance Coverage". Violation may leave an individual, a club or a landlord uncovered with liability insurance. Most individuals are going to have a homeowners or renters insurance to cover smaller claims. The same can not be said for clubs and landlords. Normally, the liability insurance provided to clubs and landlords is their primary insurance for modeling activities.

I can't imagine leagal challenges to the rule because of that. No one forces a club, or a member for that matter, to be an AMA member, so no rights are violated.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Wasn't a legal challenge. IIRC one club set up just inside the three mile of an existing club. Since the new club was gas power and the existing club was gliders the powers at AMA sided with the new club. The glider club had twice as many members. Another good ol' boy decission.

[J_R]

Originally posted by SoCalGliderFlyr
Wasn't a legal challenge. IIRC one club set up just inside the three mile of an existing club. Since the new club was gas power and the existing club was gliders the powers at AMA sided with the new club. The glider club had twice as many members. Another good ol' boy decission.

I would be very intersted to know the details. It is AMA policy that an existing club will be protected, and I have never heard of a club, with a field, not being protected. There are exceptions, where testing has been done to prove there is no interference, and clubs can coexist. The other type of exception I am aware of is in your area. The RC Bee's in Orange County have no field and are not protected (been like that for years). They are a club that shares information and are essentially a social club. The AMA is, and has been trying to get data to allow clubs as close as two miles. So far, these attempts have met with apathy from the manufacturers in providing the data necessary for insurance purposes.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

I find it difficult to accept that radio mfg's would be so reluctant. I get a feeling that this is just another AMA smoke screen.

I think I will call and ask a few long standing acquaintances in the RC radio business.

As to the details of the club to club conflict I will try to un-archive my saved messages.

[J_R]

Please do. It would be to the advantage of everyone involved if clubs could be closer together.

My understanding on the reluctance is that the manufacturers are concerned with the liability that would be placed on them if the Rx's were not what they are represented to be, in the event of an incident causing personal injury or property damage.

[Bud Morrison]

Originally posted by SoCalGliderFlyr
Wasn't a legal challenge. IIRC one club set up just inside the three mile of an existing club. Since the new club was gas power and the existing club was gliders the powers at AMA sided with the new club. The glider club had twice as many members. Another good ol' boy decission.

That happened localy here to a club I was a member of. The AMA more or less told them all to work it out for themslves and now we have a split frequency agreement. As well as contest date agreements. In my opinion the other club should have never been sanctioned within the 3 mile limit.

[J_R]

I agree with you. Was the other club chartered before or after it was determined they were within the 3 miles? Was the first club aware that the second was coming into existence?

[Bud Morrison]

Im not sure it was the LASS soaring club. I was just a member and not an officer or anything. I think quite a few of them frequent RCgroups maybe one of them will see this thread and fill in the major details. I do know the Soaring club was there many years before the other club.

http://lancareasoaring.org/Documents/freqagree.htm


More details there.

[J_R]

Well, in doing some poking around, I have found two sets of clubs within 25 miles of me that have frequency sharing agreements. The cases where this happens is much more prevelant than I was aware of.

Part of the problem lies with the clubs. For several years the AMA has been asking clubs for either the lattitde and longtitude of their fields, or more recently, GPS co-ordinates. The response has been underwhelming. The AMA has, in most cases, no idea where a club is physically located. When a new club requests a charter, and no one objects, the charter is granted. Then, when a frequency conflict appears, the AMA is dealing with two chartered clubs. As has been stated, the attitude then becomes "work it out". I guess the moral of the story is to make sure your co-ordinates are on file with the AMA.

On the positive side, when co-ordinates are on file, it makes it possible for the AMA to better list them in a club locator so that members can find a club in a new area to fly at, as well as protecting their area for frequencies. As it stands now, if you try to use the club locator, you get the club contact's (club president) address, which may be many miles from the actual site... unless the co-ordinates are on file.

I found that my club does not have the co-ordinates on file. Something I will have to point out to the club officers.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Data only works when you want it to. There is no money from non members. By letting this growing conflict occur the AMA is looking at income rather than the safety of the flyers it is supposed to represent. Heresy. This is where spread spectrum would cure this and many other contrived conflicts. It would also take away the AMA's Reason For Being Number Two.

Bet if you called the AMA and dug a little all of that GPS data is writen in a book somewhere and not in a seachable data base.

[Jim Branaum]

LOL!

You are sort of right. I recall a knowledgeable someone saying that it was just simply pitched, but I could be making that up.

[ctdahle]

JR, your patience never ceases to amaze me.

[J_R]

Hi Chris

It just seems to me we need every single member we can get, and if facts or a phone call or two will help, it's more than worth the effort.

JR

[J_R]

Try this locator.

http://www.ama-dist-8.org/Clubs/index.html

After you convince yourself that there are no coordinates in it, try searching within 100 miles of Dallas, in TX. The clubs that submitted the information are in a searchable database. The few that did are probably, also, in a book somewhere.

Bill Lee, D8 AVP wrote the program.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Notice that the "location" is the club's president's address. There is no flying at the address given for the Calif. Air Show Team at that address in Huntington Beach. This is just a rehash and scatter of the existing mailing addresses/zip codes.

There are tools on the net and many you can buy that will give you straight line miles and driving miles between addresses.

I find it disappointing that the actual coord's of the clubs flying site(s) are not listed and those miles shown. Not an impossible task.

I also question why Bill Lee, a non AMA staffer (meaning unpaid), had to write this program. Surely someone of the at least 58 paid staff at Muncie must be capable of doing this. Or are they too busy making plastic membership cards and flying off of those lush green airfields?

No slight to Bill Lee here. His enthusiasm and love of the hobby is quite honorable.

[Bud Morrison]

They could easily make it a required part of charter renewal. No coordinates no renewal. Quite simple IMO.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

IIRC they did. If you didn't find and submit the coord's you didn't get your club renewed the next year.

I'm pointing out that such a demand and threat from several years ago is still not implemented.

[J_R]

Sure they could. But... you have to keep in mind that many clubs are very, very independent.

A rule was just passed which requires each club to appoint a Safety Officer, starting in 2005. The SO must have an e-mail address. The crying and whining has already started that the AMA has to right to tell clubs how to run themselves.

Some clubs want to keep their memberships down and do not want to be found. They are scared that if they grow to over 25 or 50 members they won't get enough flight time.

The P&Ming over the requirement for by-laws is still going on, two years after they were mandated. Some clubs still do not have by-laws and the AMA has tried to accomodate them.

In the case of coordinates, it is also a safety issue. Many clubs are in the middle of nowhere and when an accident happens the club members have a difficult time communicating to emergency personnel the location of the field. Yet, unless a club has something happen to them, they refuse to comply with the requests.

Keep in mind that not getting a charter renewal is a death penalty where a club is concerned. No charter = no insurance for the club or landlord. No landlord insurance = no site, or flying.

As I said, many clubs are very independent.

[Jim Branaum]

JR,
I am not at all sure it is independence or something else not so pleasant.

Bill Lee did ALL the work to make the coordinate system work, but SOMEONE failed to do the follow up effort of loading the information. Hard to have a data base of non-existant (or not in MY machine!) data.

Yes, the recharter kits HAVE had a requirement for that information for a couple of years or more. Guess what that might mean.

Yes, there IS a REQUIREMENT for ALL clubs to have by-laws. I talked to several (including DB) about the 'hip pocket' clubs run by some dictator and the consensus was that there still need to be rules for the 'members' to follow.

[DCobra]

I thought this thread was about the BPL issue, but apparently it turned into a gripe session about the AMA. Fine, I'm not a member, so it really doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the possibility that BPL could put an end to this hobby. Now I don't know all the technical stuff and don't really want to have to get my head around this, but I do know this BPL stuff has the ham operators scared stiff. I've heard that BPL will totally pollute the spectrum that ham, CB and alot of different government agencies use with the portable radios. This last bit kind of surprises me, I don't know why the FCC would let that happen, but hey money talks right?
Anyways, if this is a serious threat to our hobby, we need to pull our heads out of our posteriors and get on the phones and such to our elected reps.

If I am wrong on this issue, please say so.
If not, what is the AMA recommending doing to stop BPL?

[J_R]

The current stance of the AMA is displayed on the AMA website. When it disappears from the front page, it will be archived in the "What's New" section.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/

It includes the following statement:

"AMA is currently discussing the NPRM with the attorneys who represent AMA before the FCC. Once the evaluation of the technical data in this document is complete, information regarding any suggested action by the AMA membership will be posted here. Until possible interference potential for our operations have been accessed, any action is premature"

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

The world is moving to the higher frequencies and spread spectrum. The Gud Ol' Boys at AMA haven't a clue. This is a good example of getting what you didn't vote for.

[Jim Branaum]

Originally posted by SoCalGliderFlyr
The world is moving to the higher frequencies and spread spectrum. The Gud Ol' Boys at AMA haven't a clue. This is a good example of getting what you didn't vote for.

Well.. yes, it is a good example of getting what you didn't vote for, but not JUST of the AMA.

The problem is that most of the voting of modelers generally do NOT even fly R/C, which has been repeatedly proven. The reason it seems to impact us is that most of them don't have a clue as to the exact issues facing the R/C world. That means that the 'pie' of possible ELECTABLE candidates is smaller.

That means WE have to find the solutions and present them to the elected bunch in a manner that makes sense and is not offensive. For many that is easy, but there are a few who make those contacts unpleasant for sitting members of the EC.

IOW, attacking folks who are trying is sort of like throwing gasoline into a fire. Rarely does THAT action put the fire out. The other thing that fact means is we MUST only deal with FACTS rather than unproven assertions and opinions. Many of us are guilty of failing in that particular endeavor.

[DCobra]

Originally posted by J_R
The current stance of the AMA is displayed on the AMA website. When it disappears from the front page, it will be archived in the "What's New" section.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/templates/ama/

It includes the following statement:

"AMA is currently discussing the NPRM with the attorneys who represent AMA before the FCC. Once the evaluation of the technical data in this document is complete, information regarding any suggested action by the AMA membership will be posted here. Until possible interference potential for our operations have been accessed, any action is premature"

Ok, so while the beaureaucRATS and liars (oops I mean LAWYERS)discuss the POTENTIAL for BPL interference, the power companies will be moving ahead with deployment of a product which has already been rejected in several countries, including Japan.

Please read this article. It states that BPL uses frequencies between 2-80MHz. If we are using 27MHz, 72MHz, and 75MHz for R/C air, ground, and water hobbies, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there will be some interference, signifigant or otherwise. Remember, BPL will be going out over UNSHIELDED power lines.

Ok you guys touting "spread spectrum"..... is that going to work with the hundreds of dollars of Tx and Rx equipment I've already invested in?
Why should anyone be forced to dump their existing equipment to upgrade so that the power companies can provide internet too?
Sure, the folks that are out of reach of DSL and cable may benefit from BPL, but is that really the case? Where do you think BPL will be deployed first, in the cities or in the rural areas? Just like cable and DSL services, it will go up in the cities, and maybe years from now will spread to the rural areas.

Anyways, the AMA needs to get off their butts and mobilize their membership before this is a done deed, not after.

Again, please read this article: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/08/08/2/?nc=1

[J_R]

If the AMA had the number of members, say, the NRA has, the approach of sending letters now might work. In the case of AMA members, there are only about 140,000 adult members (voters). Of that, maybe 10% are aware of what happens in the AMA's little world. If of that 10%, a handful start writing now, it will be lost on the FCC.

If, on the other hand, those of us in the 10% wait until the AMA says go, then try to spread the word, we might be able to generate at least a small campaign.

[DCobra]

Originally posted by J_R
If the AMA had the number of members, say, the NRA has, the approach of sending letters now might work. In the case of AMA members, there are only about 140,000 adult members (voters). Of that, maybe 10% are aware of what happens in the AMA's little world. If of that 10%, a handful start writing now, it will be lost on the FCC.

If, on the other hand, those of us in the 10% wait until the AMA says go, then try to spread the word, we might be able to generate at least a small campaign.

The whole lack of "power in numbers" argument is lost on me.
Politcal impact is measured more these days in how vocal the group wanting change/ no change is, not in how many they number.

Case in point, all the recent and not so recent controversies surrounding gay marriage/gay rights. Gays are purported to be approximately 1% of the population, but they are an extremely vocal 1%... therefore politicians listen to them. Like the saying goes, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

If the AMA is interested in keeping the frequencies allotted to R/C hobbyists, that 10% of 10% better get off their duffs and start fighting for not only our rights as hobbyists, but the rights of ham operators and anyone else that uses this portion of the spectrum. J_R, you live in California also I see, we could both start by bringing this issue to Sens. Feinstein and Boxer, as well as our local reps. From what I gather, Boxer is up for reelection this fall, and it would do well to remind her that California has a large amount of hobbyists, as well as a large amount of R/C related manufacturing and retailing.

One other suggestion to the AMA would be to contact the ARRL and work together with their membership. After all, we are all hobbyists that will be effected, why not align for our common good?

[Jim Branaum]

Originally posted by DCobra
The whole lack of "power in numbers" argument is lost on me.
Politcal impact is measured more these days in how vocal the group wanting change/ no change is, not in how many they number.

Case in point, all the recent and not so recent controversies surrounding gay marriage/gay rights. Gays are purported to be approximately 1% of the population, but they are an extremely vocal 1%... therefore politicians listen to them. Like the saying goes, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

SNIP



Well, I think you are right and you are wrong. The concept you have about vocal groups is almost right and becomes right when you factor in media that is friendly to the fringe wanna be's.

You are wrong in thinking that the AMA has anywhere near enough COMMITTED modelers intersted in rocking the boat of any politician. If you question that, check and see how many clubs have problems getting enough interested parties to run for office. Remember, they would be dealing with friends where your squeaky wheel folks would be wading into waters full of sharks.

However, do not let my bad attitude sway you. Call in your cards and play every one you have, we need it.

Revisit the spread spectrum issue with an open mind because I am sure that the best answer is in that particular technology. No, I did NOT say it would be easy or cheap but it will be effective.

[DCobra]

Care to educate me on spread spectrum? Not that Im interested in chucking the new Eclipse 7 I got last month, but interested in learning new things....

I get your point on the fact that the AMA membership probably can't self motivate enough to make themselves heard. It is sad though.

[Jim Branaum]

If you have a walk around phone at the house, it probably works on spread spectrum. The older stuff operates in the 900 mHz band, the newer stuff in the 2.4 GHz area, and the newest in the 5.8GHz band. Lots of room for many transmitters no longer on discreete frequencies.

How? Easiest is an explanation that is not really very good, but should get the idea across. The outgoing information is broken up into small segments and each is broadcast on a different frequency that may be determined by time. Each segment has a 'header card' with it so the RX knows which part of the information it has. Both TX and RX step through the various frequencies used in a preset manner.

[DCobra]

Ok I got you now...very similar to what military radios do with frequency hopping, determined by a preset key syncing of Tx and Rx.

I actually used to work with RF, but I've lost alot of the terminology. That brings me to to my next question.What frequencies would R/C spread spectrum operate on, and if it is still in the ranges we use now, I don't quite understand how spread spectrum would defeat interference. The phone analogy works well here...I can get too close to the computer or TV with the cordless phone and start getting interference.

[edit] I've seen the same problem on 900MHz and 2.4GHz phones

[Jim Branaum]

I can't answer that question. One conversation with a self proclaimed computer/communications specialist indicated that the current frequency allocation would not work in a spread spectrum environment. I don't know enough about the details to refute him, but generally I have found him to be rather verbose and not precisely accurate.

I understand there is a working model, possibly in the 900MHz range, but that is a developmental issue. The legal folks will determine where we might be allowed. I understand that 900, 2.4 and 5.8 are open to any user but there are transmitter power limitations. My impression is that the higher the frequency band, the more users can be on it (a function of time division and bit rate).

As for the interference issue spread spectrum allows multiple copies of the frame of data to be identified, sent, received, and executed on by the receiver. Sort of means the RX grabs data from the air and checks the header to make sure it is 'my' data. Then the data is passed to the next step in the execution process and more data is looked for. and compares it to the model to identify the header meant for it The TV and microwave both put out noise on several frequencies within the band and that is why your walk around has static.

We are getting beyond my capabilities here.

[DCobra]

Thanks for the help with this Jim.
Back to the original discussion...stop BPL!
Or at least slow down and study it some more. Maybe an "environmental impact" study is needed.:D

Those things take years and millions of dollars! And you can bet the end result on a BPL impact study would be "Wow! BPL will cause too much spectrum pollution!"

Another thing about BPL which noone has mentioned would be the "Big Brother" capability it will bring. Imagine having all of your household appliances connected directly to the internet, and being able to report your usage of all of those appliances back to Big Brother?

Sounds great huh?

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Say good by to crystals and any BoPL problems!

http://www.modelavionics.com/WiFLi/default.asp

or

http://www.auav.net/products/spread-spectrum/index.html

Good by to AMA's Frequency Crusades;their Reason For Being Number Two.

What's the AMA's Reason For Being Number One????

[ctdahle]

Originally posted by DCobra
Care to educate me on spread spectrum? Not that Im interested in chucking the new Eclipse 7 I got last month, but interested in learning new things....

I get your point on the fact that the AMA membership probably can't self motivate enough to make themselves heard. It is sad though.

When I first became interested in R/C in the 60's we had a few channels at 27mhz, which we shared with the CB radio people. These became unworkable due to interference. I was too young to actually be adversely affected, but I heard a lot of the grousing from people who had to chuck their old gear and buy new radios on the 72 mhz band. It sucked, but we all ended up with much better gear. (electric servos instead of rubber band escapements, infinitely positionable proportional control rather than wagging actuators)

At the end of the 80's, we were stepping on each other with our wide band 72 mhz gear and we had to chuck all of our great old Kraft gold boxes for new narrowband gear. This sucked for me because I was in college and was on a limited budget, but we ended up with much better gear and we got FM which made both glitches and radio failure comparatively unheard of.

We've had narrow band for 15 years now, and a lot of changes have occurred in the technology of sending and recieving radio control signals. While I am not eager to see it happen, the likelihood is that we will have to change again, and we will get much greater reliability.

I imagine we will have to replace all of our radio gear every 15 to twenty years for the foreseeable future, but if past practice is any guide, we will get a decent period of time to phase out our old gear and phase in the new.

Anyway, I suspect that before your radio gear is obsolete, you will have replaced your current computer at least twice. (I've replaced one R/C set and one pick-up truck since 1986, but I've replaced 10 obsolete computers in the same time frame)

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

When narrow band was enacted you could send many of the old radios in for upgrades. $50 or $75 IIRC and you got back a new receiver and upgraded transmitter.

Going to spread spectrum may not be as easy or reasonable unless the RC radio companies really get their curds together and do some mass production. Still it would be worth it NOT to have a frequency pin board and it's related hassels let alone any interference from BoPL.

[DCobra]

Wow, thats great! New gear! I'll go chuck the gear I've had less than a year right now!

Actually, BPL will affect alot more than the spectrum we're currenly using. BPL is a really idiotic idea, and all it will do is duplicate existing cable and DSL services. Don't believe the hype about BPL going to the rural areas, because no power company is going to spend the money on the equipment needed just to serve a few scattered rural customers. And having a third broadband option is not going to cause the price of current broadband offerings to drop, as some people claim. If you think so, just look at satellite and cable prices now. There are plenty of options, and none are all that cheap on a per month basis.

There is just no positive argument for sending unshielded RF over miles of unshielded power lines!

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Many flyers had to re-buy their equipment. I was at a lull in flying when it went narrow band. Only had two 2 channels and a six channel Futaba. Up graded the Futaba and made wall placks out of the AM two channels.

having a Futaba 8UAF the plug in modual is great. Has a HiTec Spectrum in it now. Reciever is a 9Z dial-a-crash.

I find the new $75 channel selecting reciever interesting. Any one been using it?

[Jim Branaum]

Originally posted by SoCalGliderFlyr

SNIP

having a Futaba 8UAF the plug in modual is great. Has a HiTec Spectrum in it now. Reciever is a 9Z dial-a-crash.

SNIP

Ahh... You might want to do a little reading and checking because I think what you just said you are doing is against the law. I would not want to be breaking the law and have to explain that to anyone who filed a suit. . . .

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Come and arrest me!

Now tell us what you found out in reading the second link.

[ctdahle]

As long as the modules are type certificated I don't believe there is a regulatory issue.

Anyway, liability wouldn't arise unless someone proved that SoCal made an unauthorised change to the RF deck that resulted in interference and that caused actual damages.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Yeah! All that stuff!

The use of the Spectra in the Futaba is a never ending issue. It's been proven to work with in spec regardless of what interpretation of the FCC regs you wish to rely on.

In all honesty if I thought for one micro second that this combination was a problem to other flyers I would not use it.

Futaba is coming out with it's own plug in dial-a-crash module. rumor has it that they just licensed the Spectra.

[J_R]

chris

The term "type accepted" has been dropped from the FCC vocabulary. It is my belief (to the point of a certainty) that the Hitech module has not been certified for Futaba, thus making it's use illegal in a Futaba Tx.

FCC Section 95.645 (b) states:

“An R/C transmitter which incorporates plug-in frequency
determining modules which are changed by the user must be certificated
with the modules. Each module must contain all of the
frequency determining circuitry including the oscillator. Plug-in
crystals are not considered modules and must not be accessible to the
user.”

[J_R]

<SNIP>

Now tell us what you found out in reading the second link. [/B]

No Company Information + No Price = Classic Defenition of Vaporware

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Gesh you guys are helpless!

Paul Beard (paul@modelavionics.com)

http://www.modelavionics.com/

[Bud Morrison]

Ok dudes lets try to keep this thread a lil more on track. Debate module swapping in another thread in the propper forum please

[ctdahle]

Originally posted by J_R
chris

The term "type accepted" has been dropped from the FCC vocabulary. It is my belief (to the point of a certainty) that the Hitech module has not been certified for Futaba, thus making it's use illegal in a Futaba Tx.

FCC Section 95.645 (b) states:

“An R/C transmitter which incorporates plug-in frequency
determining modules which are changed by the user must be certificated
with the modules. Each module must contain all of the
frequency determining circuitry including the oscillator. Plug-in
crystals are not considered modules and must not be accessible to the
user.”

Hmmm.... I don't have the regs before me, but I don't recall that they have deleted the "switching equipment" terminology. Seems to me that you can legally plug the TX module into any "switching equipment" you want.

Anyway, switchable modules seems to me to be the ideal, albiet unrealized, solution to Cobra's problem. He can keep his Eclipse and when he starts to have a BBOPL problem, he can simply get a new compatible spread spectrum module rather than chucking his whole radio.

This seems like a logical progression to address both potential Broad Band over Power Line interference issues, and to address global standardization issue for the industry.


Bud, please don't limit the debate here, we are all trying to play nice. Broad band over powerlines may well be the push the industry needs to get it past the limitations of 27, 53, 72 mhz. When it happens, there will be a necessary transition period and whether or not this can be addressed through the development of a common architecture for switchable modules is a reasonable extension of the discussion.

[Bud Morrison]

Yes, but the legality of switching modules was beginning to be an arguement that has been gone over many times in the past in many threads and was starting to get this thread off track.

As long as it dont cause the thread to start going down hill bickering back and fourth about the legalities of module switching you all can continue.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

The spread spectrum unit that Model Avionics is selling replaces the module(s) in existing transmitters. This is apparently possible because the regs for 900 Mhz and 2.4 Ghz are not as antiquated as the ones for 72 Mhz.

This is equivalent to using different RF "modems" in your lap top computer to WiFi.

So yes module switching is part of updating to SS.

Those that have an internally fixed tx will just stay on 72 Mhz with all of it's coming and existing problems.

[J_R]

Originally posted by SoCalGliderFlyr
Gesh you guys are helpless!

Paul Beard (paul@modelavionics.com)

http://www.modelavionics.com/

I guess I have become dyslectic. I would still swear that is the first link you posted and not the second.

I re-reading what I precieve to be the first link it states the unit WILL become available. Again, vaporware.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Posted in several threads. Could have reversed them.

[J_R]

The AMA Frequency Committee met at Toledo last weekend. As I understand, the Frequency Advisory Committee, made up of the major manufactures, showed very little interest in spread spectrum.

On the other side of the coin, the AMA appears to be joining forces with the ARRL in preparing an answer to the FCC NPRM on BPL. The AMA is also pursuing it's own tests on the effects of BPL using the ARRL methodology.

This is meant to be informative, and neither supportive or condemning the AMA actions, the actions of the manufactures, or lack of same.

[Jim Branaum]

Well I hope the AMA gets with it pretty soon because in another environment I have seen were it looks like the FCC is going to put BPL on fast track. If my other source is on target, we may have a real problem very soon. Wouldn't it be funny if we could no longer fly R/C because of action taken by the regulators and failures on the part of the vendors?

[ctdahle]

Ok, In the short run, BBOPL worries me. It has the potential to obsolete a lot of gear in a very short time without the usual study and consideration of interference to current users of bandwidth. In that respect, AMA needs to be, and apparently is watching it.

On the other hand, I understand that BBOPL has already been deployed in a few areas. Are we seeing interference? We need to answer that question as soon as possible.

Running out of hands here...on the third hand. I think our days in the existing narrowband 72Mhz environment are numbered, and unlike the switch to narrowband that happened over what? five years or so? I think they referred to it as an amortization period.

My gut feeling is that the next switch, when it occurs, will happen much faster. For owners of most gear, it's going to mean chucking out serviceable TXs and RXs.

It would be nice if the AMA and the RCHTA were at least discussing what a transition might look like.

Three hands and a gut, no wonder I am feeling queasy....

[Jim Branaum]

Agreed on all counts. BTW, the changeover was in 1991 so it is a 15 year cycle - sort of.

[J_R]

BPL testing is taking place in 4 or 5 locations, in the east. The ARRL has already done testing, to some extent. The AMA will be doing it's own. The testing is all being done in the BPL test areas. I have a friend that is a ham. He tells me that one of the test areas being used by the FCC has underground wires. Not a particuarly fair test if true.

BPL is by no means a done deal. Apparently, there are other technologies out there that are close to fruitation that would make it too expensive to pursue.

I just don't have the personal knowledge to report fully. The ARRL site continues to be a good place for updates.

[scurrier]

Here's what I was thinking when reading through this thread:

I think many of you have underestimated the usefulness of BPL. A powerline carries pretty much no information on it, just differing voltages (at 60 Hz I believe). This leaves it open for carrying a lot more data than it already does. When you account for the fact that pretty much anyone interested in getting the internet probably already has power to their house, you can see how it would be useful.

Now, I have seen people on this thread have said that there will be some kind of resource vortex with the BPL like there was with dsl and cable and such. What these people need to recognize is that internet data is carried by the same optic lines that voice has been carried on for years. Everyone's voice is digitized and then sent and re-analogized (ADC-->DAC). Computer data is already digital so it was natural to just add a point in the line where you could insert it. The problem with dsl and cable was that the fiber optic lines that these companies already had run for just voice were maxed out as far as data transmission was concerned. So they all had to reinforce their bandwidth to carry the extra load, and naturally the best place to start is where you can get the most customers and make the most money- the populated areas.

This would not be the case with BPL because the necessary bandwidth is already hanging over our heads and transporting our power. In a simplification of the system, all that someone needs to do is strap something to the two ends of the power line and start sending over it. This doesn't cost nearly as much as running lines, buying and installing new relay stations, etc.

Granted, everything I just wrote is only from my basic knowledge of how these things work, but I am fairly sure they are a close to accurate representation of the case on our hands. I agree that it does suck to have to change over your radio equipment, but imagine it how it will happen: gradually replacing your old stuff like you normally would, just with better equipment.

Spread spectrum works by the transmitter and reciever agreeing on some kind of way to accept only the data that is intended for them. This is why you have to touch your cordless phone to the base after you switch the battery or something. The phone and the base are agreeing on what they are going to accept. Imagine being able to go to the field and touch your tx to the rx and then not worrying about tx impounds or flags or that moment when you look up at the sky and hope that your on switch won't cause someone's model to go out of control. Also, higher frequency signals have a better amount of penetration through objects. A 5.8 GHz signal can make it through a forest better than a 72 MHz signal of the same power (not that you don't always have line of sight, but you can understand how this could help).

Ok now it's time for some sleep. I hope this clears a few things up for some people. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.