NEWS PAGE

 

Here we will post news such as recently discovered information relating to our fight to get rid of power line adaptors!

23/11/08

BT seem to have replaced the DH10-PF with PowerGrid 902's
These units would seem to be much more customisable by the end user and in cases of near networks they have the ability to increase their output!

On checking the specifications for these new adaptors I find them to be worse still.
Very interestingly they claim compliance with CIS/I/89/CD as an amendment to CISPR 22.

This CIS/I/89/CD amendment would seem to be totally illegal to quote as some sort of approval standard - it has never been approved for use - it was merely a "committee draft" put out during the standards process.

We also discovered that the CISPR subcommittee that deals with the EMC compatibility of information technology equipment, multimedia equipment and receivers is called CIS/I.
Chairman of CIS/I is Martin Wright, his day job is . BT EMC Manager.
So clearly BT must have known of the issues with these devices yet still choose to pump them into our market.

23/11/08
'Freedom of Information' request has been made by UKQRM member to Ofcom asking "Please supply copies of all notes, meeting notes, policy documents, emails, technical analyses which make reference to the powerline adaptors recently supplied in the UK by British Telecom and made by Comtrend"

We will let you know what, if any reply we get!

25/11/08 FOI

Enforcement action with respect to PLT equipment.
Please provide copies of all correspondence and reports related to the possibility that enforcement action be taken to remove PLT apparatus from the market.
Testing of electronic equipment for EMC compliance
In the last four years how many EMC compliance tests has Ofcom
requested be undertaken by EMC testing laboratories.

25/11/08 FOI

How many interference complaints have been received by Ofcom that relate to PLT equipment?
What is the average time between initial complaint to Ofcom the complainant been fully satisfied that the interference has been
resolved?
How many PLT interference complaints have not been resolved to the full satisfaction of the complainant?
What are the ages of the oldest five unresolved PLT interference complaints?
What has been the cost of investigating PLT interference complaints?

28/11/08

Just published by the IEEE Communications Magazine a NATO report regarding PLT!

Here are a couple of extracts!

The implication for NATO is that an increase of the existing HF noise floor by the use of PLT
and/or xDSL may cause problems for military radio users as well as for HF communication
intelligence (COMINT) in all NATO countries.
The signal-to-noise ratio may thus be reduced for tactical and strategic HF radio"

"A great number of in-house PLT systems (e.g., HomePlug [2, 3]) are expected to be
deployed. Such products are readily available on the market and can be installed by anyone, with
no verification of the quality of the installation.
For these reasons, in-house PLT rather than access PLT has been the main concern for parts
of the study."

Editors comment: How long can this ridiculous equipment remain in use?
So not only an assault on the listening public and radio users but could have implications for national security.
All the time Ofcom stalls for time and the EU fails to grasp this matter.

05/12/08

A set of Comtrend adaptors have been tested for us by a UKAS Accredited Testing Facility. They failed the required regulations by a very wide margin!

15/01/2009

The media has started to pick up on this dreaful abuse of UK and EU laws and regulations!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/15/bt_vision_interference/

 

17/01/09

Letter sent to Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP Secretary of State.

Dear Sir

My name is Mike and I am the founder member of UKQRM a group of shortwave radio users and radio amateurs who have come together to oppose the dreadful abuse of the radio spectrum by power line adaptors (PLT) and other devices.

I have been given a copy of a letter from you to an MP in response to a constituents complaint about this very topic.


Having read it I truly feel you have a number of errors of understanding of the problem, such that if corrected you may take a very different view point.

To that end I hope you will permit me to correct these and offer some information from the point of view of the radio listener.

You say:

"PLT does not use the radio spectrum in true sense as it uses radio frequency energy within the mains cables"

Unfortunately this is not correct! (no matter how much the PLT lobby would like it to be) A mains cable is nothing more than a length of wire. If you inject radio frequency energy (RF) into a length of wire what you have in effect is a radio aerial.
Any length of wire when injected with RF energy will emit radio waves into the open air.
This is a fact of physics and can not be changed.

Only if you inject RF into a screened and balanced cable will the RF energy be conducted from one place to another without significant transmission to free space.

This fact is further backed up by one PLT manufacture (that I am aware of) who has designed their home power line adaptors to find other networks nearby and agree between themselves which part of the radio spectrum they will use.
Further more a simple test I carried out which involved plugging in a Comtrend PLT in my house and my neighbours house proves the point.
The devices found each other no problem and the only way they could do that is by picking up the externally radiated RF energy from each and processing it.

You say:

"Due to the low signal levels involved, good shortwave reception requires the use of a well sited external aerial"

I am afraid this is not the case either. Regularly we find PLT interference at 50 metres plus. I myself have it from a Comtrend adaptor located at 294 metres from me and we have a number of reports of interference at 500 metres plus.
There are very few of us who own such a large amount of land that we can site our aerials away from the PLT.

Further to this the cumulative effect of a number of PLT devices in a given area will mean even larger signal levels.

Is it really the governments intention to turn every built up area in the UK into a wide band radio jamming site?

I am very glad to read that your officials DBERR and Ofcom will monitor this on a on going basis.

However I really do feel that either information is being withheld from you or a blind eye is being turned to this equipment.

After all, its not even really required as there are far better alternatives available that do not cause interference.

I would urge you to view our web site.

www.ukqrm.org and maybe have a look at the video page for demonstrations of PLT problems.

I also ask that you view this petition page http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveShortwave/


Which clearly shows the radio users of the UK will not take this lying down.

We see it that PLT has hijacked the radio spectrum.
The devices have been tested and shown in some cases not to comply with essential EMC regulations and further more we also feel that if the government do not take action to stop the mass deployment of PLT they will be in contravention of the Human Rights Act!

In that:

"“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” [2]. This has placed the right to access information firmly within the body of universal human rights law"

Clearly HF radio which is international comes under this law and UKQRM will seek to have it complied with.


So it would seem that so far these devices are being allowed to trounce our laws and regulations making a mockery of the law.
They are wiping out the full usable HF radio spectrum for all users be they listeners, amateurs or commercial and military users (see NATO report)
They are causing neighbour disputes, using up large sums of public money for investigations etc.
There is nothing good to be said about them.


I urge you on behalf of the 503 members of the UKQRM discussion group, the 3312 petition signatories, the many hundreds of thousands of short wave radio listeners and the many companies that make a business selling equipment to those people to take action to halt PLT before it becomes too big a problem to tackle.


Yours faithfully


Mike

(full name and address suppied)


www.ukqrm.org

The end of world broadcasting?

UKQRM has the full support of the RSGB, BDXC, WDXC and many hundreds of UK HF radio listeners.
Along with this we are supported by the organisations and companies to be found on this web link:
http://www.mikeandsniffy.co.uk/UKQRM/ukqrmlks.htm

20/03/2009 no reply ever received! how rude but typical

20/03/2009

A small glimmer of hope from RSGB RadCom magazine!

Extracted:

RSGB John Pink reports back from South Africa and the CISPR meeting held there.
(Looks like the end is in sight for Comtrend PLT with its UPA method!)


"TDMA would not be able to comply there were some emotional exchanges"
And


"This should mean that Comtrend modems should be non-compliant at some point in the future"


So there we have it, BT backed the wrong standard and now its customers are going to have to ask what they do and who will foot the clean up bill! Interesting, but by no means the end of the story. Our thanks to the RSGB for its efforts.

20/03/2009

The Government replies to the UKQRM petition!

Here the most significant text from the reply:

"As with all electrical and electronic products sold in the UK, Power Line Technology (PLT) equipment is required to meet the relevant regulations before it can be placed on the market. In particular, it must comply with the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2006 (the EMC Regulations) which are based on a European Directive, and any person who places such products on the market (usually the manufacturer or the importer) must ensure that the products comply and apply the ‘CE’ mark."

As we all know these things don't and can't comply so the next step is quite clear!

 

 

Go back to main page