How many amateurs out there are finding a general increase in background noise on the HF bands?

I am, and it isn't just PC clock noise. I am in a rural area with no ADSL nearby so it isn't that either. I suspect that trials of PLC might be started in UK. Does anyone know the status?

Dear Mr. nubbage,

There have been some ramblings about PLC here in the UK. Seems not that long ago I read a story in one of the rags about solving that "Last Mile" issue with the beast. I am not one of the Amateur Radio faithful, but do sympathise with your dilemma. It just does not make sense to fill the air with digital radio noise when for decades we have done so much to try to alleviate the airborne clutter below 1 GHz. I shall keep my eyes open for "legitimate" stories on PLC here and try to remember to report on them.

In the U.S. of A. we call PLC "BPL" for "broadband over power line".

Late 2006 the Federal Communications Commission stated that BPL does not interfere with radio communications. Then they created a new rule that says that when BPL interferes with HF communications that licensed radio communications are FORBIDDEN to file complaints about the interference if the victim of interference is a mobile station no longer able to use the licensed service. This applies to ANY FCC licensed communications, whether aeronautical, marine, commercial, short-wave broadcast, weather facsimile transmissions, time and frequency standards etc etc.

A little information on the legal action against the F.C.C. for its alleged illegal ruling on BPL; https://www.arrl.org/forms/fdefense/

An ARRL article about the FCC stupidity; http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/02/01/100/?nc=1

In the U.S.A. the best collection of information is at the ARRL.org site.

This page is a repository of BPL relevant information in the U.S.A. kept by W1RFI at ARRL headquarters
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html

This is the database that the FCC required to be made public so that we would have advanced notice of the interference;
http://www.bpldatabase.org/
All BPL in the U.S.A. sorted by zipcode (so you do not have to type in code after code after code)
http://www.bpldatabase.org/listing/

A electric power company in Indiana posts information about their attempts at BPL.
http://www.sciremc.com/HighSpeedInterne ... fault.aspx

W1RFI visits the now-shut-down bpl trial near Miami and verifies measurements made by WB9JTK. See photos of BPL equipment;
http://www.pbase.com/drennon/bpl

BPL in Manassas, Virginia, USA. One of the worst spectrum polluters;
http://www.k4gvt.com/bpl/ This site has audio recordings of some BPL

A collection of RFI recordings to help you identify what might be the source of HF RFI; http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/rfi-noise/

[/b]

I had seen reference to the action on QRZ, but I did not realize quite how crassly the evidence against BPL/PLC had been ignored by the FCC.
One of the links you provided (the first ARRL one) mentions how few customers have signed up for BPL. But the aim of power transmission companies is not to operate a commercial telecom network. It is to justify launching the technology on the grounds it might benefit Joe public (which it clearly does not), but in reality what they are intending to do is install remote telemetry meter reading modems to reduce the cost of meter reading/billing.

In France I know of a rail line that runs for 30 miles through wooded countryside between a remote town and a major commercial center. Gaining approval to construct and operate it was achieved by claiming it was a "pro bono publico" line, benefiting thousands of commuters. After it was built there are only 400 users per day on a good day. What everyone knew, but no-one could breathe a word about, was that half way along the line was a nuclear plant that needed a rail line to ship out the nuclear waste. After the public service closes at mid-night, there are 4 trains during the night that pass through heavily populated townships. Oh my.

The FCC is telling us that BPL will not cause harmful interference to licensed communications.

I find it interesting that they say that, and then give a list of frequencies which must not be used by BPL systems.

They say it will not cause harmful interference to licensed communications, and then put in the rules some lists of geographical locations where it is prohibited so it will not cause interference.

The FCC says it will not cause harmful interference, then creates rule 15.611 C iii that says licensed mobile communications stations can not complain.

Reading federal regulations is quite tedious. I have posted the section(s) of 47CFR15 that pertain to BPL so that it is a bit easier to read. http://www.jtkcommunications.com/FCC-BPL-rules.aspx

Remember due to higher RF outputs we the licensed services radiate and can cause more harm to there systems, thus giving there customer a poor quality product. This debate will go on, the key is whether it will be profitable. The FCC is looking at how much of the bandwidth we occupy and how much of is dead air. Just more the reason to recruit young minds full of mush, and make radio interesting again. Work the bands, all of them

_________________
The internet is the CB radio of the 21st Century.