Read the link I provided. Many have been independently tested and found not to comply. Norway banned those particular new from sale (also in the link).
In an idle moment last night (nothing on TV ) I followed Winston_1's link (www.ban-plt.org.uk). In all honesty the site's approach (outraged users, conspiracy theories, evil companies, evil OFCOM) makes it difficult to see any rational evaluation. There are test reports for 2 or 3 devices (one from a lab, another by an amateur) but they are so full of techno-gabble it is hard to see whether there is a real problem.
Current statistics on PLT complaints
[Ofcom has maintained statistics on PLT since July 2008. As of December 2013 there have been a total of 289 reports of interference attributed to PLT. Every report of interference concerns an inability to receive a transmission on the shortwave band and is made by amateur radio users.
Complaints of PLT interference have shown considerable decline. Since January 2012, 2 complaints have been identified as PLT related (compared with 287 between July 2008 to December 2011). This is against an increased take-up of the technology.
The truth is that PLT devices benefit vast numbers of users whilst adding slightly to the wide variety of interference sources that have affected radio amateurs for generations.
So you are not technically qualified enough to understand.
If you want people to come on side and support the cause, alienating them by assuming that the reader has an electronics degree and putting down those who don't isn't going to drum up support.
If it approached the topic at a high level, explained how the things work in simple terms, what they may be interfering with, the ramifications (facts only) and why people should not use them and/or lobby for their banning, then it'd be much better.
It'd be helpful also if the website turned down the rhetoric and hyperbole - "spectrum abuse", "deliberate interference" and others are going to put people off and that's just the first line. It sounds more like something some petulant manchild would say. There are recordings of interference but without an explanation of context, what it is actually interfering with and whatever HPA or UPA are
Ofcom seem to be lumping in SW listeners with amateurs).
PLT manufacturers notch out amateur frequencies because they know amateurs understand the issues and will complain.
It would also be wrong to assume that all SW listeners are dumb and don't know a thing. Someone can be a radio amateur by passing an extremely simple test (with a course that runs over a weekend or two) that doesn't necessarily qualify them as an expert or necessarily make their opinion worth more to you or Ofcom
There is no benefit to vast numbers of people who are too lazy or too mean to pay for CAT6 to be put in. Cabling can always be put in. After all the mains cabling that is being used was put in. If Homeplugs did not exist people would manage. Most interference sources can be suppressed at source. Homeplugs rely on creating interference to work.
People who rent may not be able to string cat5/6 anywhere they want, and they won't be willing to pay for a professional installation for the benefit of the landlord and future tenant. In an ideal world, proper network cabling would be seen as necessary as phone or TV aerial/satellite cabling, but property developers have already proven that they'll cut costs where possible
I never assumed SW listeners were dumb, far from it.
If a landlord is not prepared to provide 21st century cabling in the 21st century it is up to the tenant to vote with his feet, not pollute the RF spectrum for others.
You really have lost the plot now.
What you are suggesting is more than extreme. Not a doctor but asking someone to leave their home because the landlord won't agree to spend money on providing network cabling is beyond comprehension, let alone revealing your sense of reality.
Anyone else agree this has now gone totally beyond the bounds of free speech ?
I offer this link as something this poster should consider as well as the moderators on this forum.
What you are suggesting is more than extreme. Not a doctor but asking someone to leave their home because the landlord won't agree to spend money on providing network cabling is beyond comprehension, let alone revealing your sense of reality.
/QUOTE]
Not at all. It is no different to the landlord not providing a TV aerial feed. Many won't. If you don't like the conditions go elsewhere. It's the only way landlords will learn.
You certainly don't have any idea of how the real world works. I suppose this is why you continuously spout rubbish, that, no one is really interested in.
Nothing is going to be done about PLT now or in the future. The technology is only set to grow as more and more people find out about it. All power to it.
Come back in five years time and tell us how many enforcement notices have been issued.
Well assuming they bother with the legislative changes I'd take a punt at 120 per year. If they don't 3 per year.
Seems a complete waste of time given that
Accordingly, in 2013 and 2014, there were 158 and 114 complaints respectively, involving undue interference caused by apparatus in use that might have been capable of resolution by means of regulations made under section 54 of the Act (and the related provisions of the Act).
... the average time it took to reach resolution within the 2013 cases was 14 hours and 20 minutes. In 2014, the average was 12 hours and 20 minutes. However, of those, only 3 cases from each year were complaints in which Ofcom would have been able to take action pursuant to the existing regulations made under section 54. The remainder fell outside those regulations.
In other words 98% of the cases were resolved by simple cooperation, people behaving reasonably
On the plus side however all they are actual seeking to address is devices that are no longer functioning as they were supposed to i.e.
the requirement only restricts the intensity of the electromagnetic energy to a
level consistent with the maximum intensity of electromagnetic energy which was
permissible at the time when the apparatus was put into service or made
available on the market;
I notice the Ofcom paper doesn't specify exactly how many of those 100+ complaints were the result of PLT equipment though. It just lists 13 sources of interference with no indication of proportion attributed to each.
No I wasn't. I take it you just read the sensationalism in the article and not the complete proposal? Nothing is changing other than the fact that OFCOM will have a new act to back up the request they now make but can't enforce.
It won't stop the sale of PLT's, it won't stop people using PLT,s, it won't increase the paltry number of complaints....It won't change the EMC regulations that apply currently.
So sorry, if it actually raised your pathetic hopes....As I said.......Nothing will change and the technology will move onward and upward......
They will now be able to enforce it. When people see that at Ofcom are doing something at last they will themselves complain rather than not bothering as now.
How will the technology move onward and upward.? There is nowhere for it to go. It is flawed technology that steals other people's frequency allocations. Do you mean it will steal even more spectrum?
You didn't read the consultation document..............Either you are getting interference or you are not. If you are you will make the complaint, if not, you won't.
This won't increase complaints, because, PLT's that comply with EMC regs don't cause any problems.....Again, read the consultation document.....
Do you wish to ban all the items listed in the Consultation document? Good luck with that...............By the way....Get out into the real world now and again, you may enjoy it...
Ofcom have resolved every single complaint received - they have not had one instance where they needed to enforce it but didn't have the legislative powers to do so
This is a non-issue.
All they are looking for is making their life easier in being able to automatically issue enforcement notices rather than having to have a conversation, which shaves a few hours off the turn around of the issues
When people see that at Ofcom are doing something at last they will themselves complain rather than not bothering as now.
If this causes an increase in complaints about equipment that is not faulty; that is operating as per the specs at the time it was purchased; then there's going to be a lot of effort wasted on cases where the enforcement notice should / will not be issued.
Again:
the requirement only restricts the intensity of the electromagnetic energy to a level consistent with the maximum intensity of electromagnetic energy which was permissible at the time when the apparatus was put into service or made available on the market;
"Deliberate interference", really? So I can petition to ban my nextdoor-but-one neighbours' array of "Amateur" Radio aerials coz they upset my TV and he wont pay for high and/or low pass filters for me?? Oh, they're legal(!), well so is my PLT gear - boo-hoo.
I think his call-sign is G3SelfishTosserWithNoLife, do you know him??
CQ, CQ, CQ a life. Oh dear, maybe it's a bit too DX to find.... :D
You must have old CRT TV's ham radio won't interfere with modern sets hihi and 73
You must have old CRT TV's ham radio won't interfere with modern sets hihi and 73
Perhaps you can explain why you are quoting a questionable post from 14/12/2014 about power line adaptors when you are already posting about it in this current thread. It was just another of winston's silly threads, ignore it.
Perhaps you can explain why you are quoting a questionable post from 14/12/2014 about power line adaptors when you are already posting about it in this current thread. It was just another of winston's silly threads, ignore it.
Comments
FFS lighten up dude, really miss the rolleyes smiley LOL
In an idle moment last night (nothing on TV
I also took a look at the relevant OFCOM page (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/plt/?a=0). By contrast this is clear, well written and not sensational. The most telling item I noticed is this:
Current statistics on PLT complaints
[Ofcom has maintained statistics on PLT since July 2008. As of December 2013 there have been a total of 289 reports of interference attributed to PLT. Every report of interference concerns an inability to receive a transmission on the shortwave band and is made by amateur radio users.
Complaints of PLT interference have shown considerable decline. Since January 2012, 2 complaints have been identified as PLT related (compared with 287 between July 2008 to December 2011). This is against an increased take-up of the technology.
The truth is that PLT devices benefit vast numbers of users whilst adding slightly to the wide variety of interference sources that have affected radio amateurs for generations.
If you want people to come on side and support the cause, alienating them by assuming that the reader has an electronics degree and putting down those who don't isn't going to drum up support.
If it approached the topic at a high level, explained how the things work in simple terms, what they may be interfering with, the ramifications (facts only) and why people should not use them and/or lobby for their banning, then it'd be much better.
It'd be helpful also if the website turned down the rhetoric and hyperbole - "spectrum abuse", "deliberate interference" and others are going to put people off and that's just the first line. It sounds more like something some petulant manchild would say. There are recordings of interference but without an explanation of context, what it is actually interfering with and whatever HPA or UPA are
It would also be wrong to assume that all SW listeners are dumb and don't know a thing. Someone can be a radio amateur by passing an extremely simple test (with a course that runs over a weekend or two) that doesn't necessarily qualify them as an expert or necessarily make their opinion worth more to you or Ofcom
People who rent may not be able to string cat5/6 anywhere they want, and they won't be willing to pay for a professional installation for the benefit of the landlord and future tenant. In an ideal world, proper network cabling would be seen as necessary as phone or TV aerial/satellite cabling, but property developers have already proven that they'll cut costs where possible
You really have lost the plot now.
What you are suggesting is more than extreme. Not a doctor but asking someone to leave their home because the landlord won't agree to spend money on providing network cabling is beyond comprehension, let alone revealing your sense of reality.
Anyone else agree this has now gone totally beyond the bounds of free speech ?
I offer this link as something this poster should consider as well as the moderators on this forum.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/obsessive-compulsive-personality-disorder-symptoms/
Well assuming they bother with the legislative changes I'd take a punt at 120 per year. If they don't 3 per year.
Seems a complete waste of time given that
In other words 98% of the cases were resolved by simple cooperation, people behaving reasonably
On the plus side however all they are actual seeking to address is devices that are no longer functioning as they were supposed to i.e.
consultancy paper is here:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/wta-notice-propossals/summary/WTA_SI_2015_Consultation_Document.pdf
This is a non-issue.
All they are looking for is making their life easier in being able to automatically issue enforcement notices rather than having to have a conversation, which shaves a few hours off the turn around of the issues
If this causes an increase in complaints about equipment that is not faulty; that is operating as per the specs at the time it was purchased; then there's going to be a lot of effort wasted on cases where the enforcement notice should / will not be issued.
Again:
Most AM radios these days are transistor based, but yes you can still get valves, they are still made.
I have some 50+ year old ham radio rigs that use valves...great bits of kit
I use four home plugs at home and get no interference from them with my ham rigs.
Slam dunk!.....Argument over.......Thank you.;-):)
You must have old CRT TV's ham radio won't interfere with modern sets hihi and 73
Perhaps you can explain why you are quoting a questionable post from 14/12/2014 about power line adaptors when you are already posting about it in this current thread. It was just another of winston's silly threads, ignore it.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2185587
I had no idea there was a 'reply by' date on posts. I find utter rubbish difficult to ignore at times Anthony.
I'm at times a gumpy old git but thankfully I can afford to be :cool:
Winston clearly has some issued that need to be addressed.
I might reply here again tomorrow if the urge takes me ;-) Off to my radio shack now (where I have a PLA fitted and which causes me zero problems).