PLT chair: UK Radio Society is 'living in a dream world'

"notching [...] often poorly implemented"

Whatever the merits or not of the overall argument, the point about notch filters often being poorly implemented sticks out.

If there was a standard to meet, then "poorly implemented" filters would fail it, and that particular problem would be solved. That's a reason to have a standard, not to not have one.

Disasterous EMC handling !!

This FprEN50561-1 is just a way for the PLT industry to bypass EN55022:2006.

A very bad idea regarding EMC, and it shows that as long as the industry can make money on poorly designed products even if it creates havoc with the radio spectrum, they are going to run all over HF/VHF radio spectrum users and they don't care at all.

The only responsible solution would be that the national regulators turned down PLT/PLC all the way and remove these products from the market, as they do not pass the already established EN55022:2006. This standard is active from october 2011 and that actually means that most PLT/PLC units are illegal as most of them do NOT pass the EN55022:2006 testing.

The national regulators and the EU are not doing their job in protecting the already established radio spectrum users, they seem to not care. The EU spokesman in this case needs to be replaced with someone who is responsible and understands what he is doing. I can just shake my head as I read the comments above. "Inflexible attitudes" means that the EMC standards should be followed, not adjusted to suit the producers who wants to turn the entire HF/VHF spectrum into a complete wall of radio noise.

Example of PLC noise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMR4wPDUM9g&feature=relmfu

There is nothing more to say about it........ it is very dissapointing to witness such poor handling of EMC regulations. To allow such poorly designed products like PLT/PLC to even be allowed onto the market is just a big failure.

See what professional EMC technicians write about FprEN50561-1:

http://www.compliance-club.com/pdf/Issue96.PDF

Look at page 7, 8, 9, 18, 19.

These EMC experts know what they are talking about ! I see too many postings here that is just nonsense.

Wow.

Just how much rubbish can these people spout with a straight face.

" our kit isn't generating the interference, the mains wiring is"

So if i disconnect your kit, the mains will continue to generate interference all on its own will it? Funny but last time I had to have some of my kit tested for CE marking, we had to connect it up using representative wiring...as called for by the CE regulations? Why do you get a free pass, alone amongst the whole electronics industry?

" in many homes the wiring is sufficiently shielded that no interference is generated anyway".

Err. What country are you living in? Care to point me at the wiring regulations that call for shielded wiring as standard? Care to point me at a housing development that uses shielded wiring?

Taking their argument to its logical conclusion, PLT kit should be banned from being used in any house that does NOT have shielded wiring. Wonder how big that market is? Zero?

"UK Ofcom .. saying it can't do anything as the devices themselves aren't radio transmitters so fall outside their remit." What utter complete rubbish. Their remit is anything that causes interference. Whether you call it a 'transmitter' or not is deliberately playing with semantics to avoid the issue.

"Ronald Storrs agrees that PLT kit is generating unacceptable interference, but reckons that every day there isn't an applicable standard more unrestricted kit is getting into the marketplace" Again, that is not an issue with having a standard, but having existing standards that are not policed properly (or at all it seems). Issuing a new standard without policing it will not help one jot. Try prosecuting a few of the suppliers of these PLTs generating unacceptable interference and just see how fast they get withdrawn from sale.

"Today's equipment has no restrictions". Again, utter tosh. They all have to conform to CE standards to be legally allowed to sold in this country. The fact that suppliers seem to be able to skirt around the regulations points to the lack of effort in monitoring and policing the standards, not the lack of standards. Adding an extra standard, without policing it, is a complete waste of time.

"detect and avoid busy bands dynamically." does not help reduce the interference TO other users. It helps protect itself against interference FROM others. To somehow argue that this helps reduce interference to other users in the band is, at best, a mis-understanding of the technology and, at worst, a deliberate attempt to throw out a smoke-and-mirrors argument.

Smoke and mirrors seems to be the only consistent thing about this whole saga.

Worked at Bearley Radio Station years ago....

It was an HF receiving station (Paired with Rugby - the transmitting side), to provide communication for countries that couldn't use the (now defunct) Goonhilly Downs Satellite station. IIRC, biggest customer was Uganda. Had about 100 receivers. Huge things, about 2 metres tall, 19" across (sorry to mix measurements), 2 channels (USB, LSB) apiece. Plessey PVR800 I think...

Anyway, I worked in the R&D lab 50 metres away from the radios, and between projects we could do our own thing. So, for fun, I knocked up a voltage doubler from the mains, and fed it into an old car ignition coil. Sparks everywhere, running down the outside of the coil, onto the table - spectacular! I let it run for 10 minutes, until the coil gave up the ghost.

Knocked the entire radio station off the air for that time. Mercifully, valve receivers, so didn't damage anything. Might have prevented Idi Amin's surrender plea getting through, tho'.

Now, as a radio ham, if these buggers start sending shit down the wires, I might have another go at that 'experiment' and see if CAT-5 is really that well screened. It'll certainly take out the neighbours ethernet cards if it isn't. Not valve technology, don't think they'll survive it....MWAHAHAHA!

Problem solved.

Ronald Storrs - not THE Ronald Storrs?

Isn't he the boss of TELIA, the Swedish telecom operator and leading Nordic communication company, PLC service provider?

The majority of the committee (22 out of 42) are employed in some capacity by similar companies, so you have to admire them for the way they search for what is best for the consumer rather than merely puch the company line. :rolls eyes:

http://cq-cq.eu/cispr22part2 (Note, this list is a couple of years old).