I'm pretty certain if somebody with the right test gear was able to measure
the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would constitute
an illegal transmitter under the act. So would many of the cheap wall warts
and 5v usb psus and laptop power adaptors as well. We thought back in the
last century that cars and vacuum cleaners and mashing machines and 405 line
tellies were bad, but today the issue is many times worse and if we ever do
need to use the radio spectrum now known as short wave we are stuffed,
unless we go miles away from the towns and use our local power. Of course
adsl internet on over the ground wires are also a source of interference
since these along with mains wiring were never meant to carry wide band
data. The only reason nobody has stopped this is convenience in my view, and
as I say who cares about a few hobbyists?

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Brian Gaff wrote:

> the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would constitute
> an illegal transmitter under the act.
Expect more of the same; at present electric vehicle charging uses
rather simple signalling (diode and PWM ratio), as they get smarter
they'll switch to G.hn which is the same underlying protocol that
powerline uses ...

In message <s8ggcb$ntq$1@dont-email.me>, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>I'm pretty certain if somebody with the right test gear was able to measure
>the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would constitute
>an illegal transmitter under the act. So would many of the cheap wall warts
>and 5v usb psus and laptop power adaptors as well. We thought back in the
>last century that cars and vacuum cleaners and mashing machines and 405 line
>tellies were bad, but today the issue is many times worse and if we ever do
>need to use the radio spectrum now known as short wave we are stuffed,
>unless we go miles away from the towns and use our local power. Of course
>adsl internet on over the ground wires are also a source of interference
>since these along with mains wiring were never meant to carry wide band
>data. The only reason nobody has stopped this is convenience in my view, and
>as I say who cares about a few hobbyists?
>
While radiating transmitters certainly have specs for out-of-band
emissions, AIUI OFCOM decided that as these devices were not radiating
transmitters, no radiation specs were required. Also, it's not so much
the devices per se that do the radiating - it's the wiring they're
connected to. As the wiring varies from installation to installation,
it's impossible to devise any standardised test procedures - so the best
course of action is not to do any.
--
Ian

On 24/05/2021 20:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <s8ggcb$ntq$1@dont-email.me>, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
> <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>> I'm pretty certain if somebody with the right test gear was able to
>> measure
>> the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would
>> constitute
>> an illegal transmitter under the act. So would many of the cheap wall
>> warts
>> and 5v usb psus and laptop power adaptors as well. We thought back in the
>> last century that cars and vacuum cleaners and mashing machines and
>> 405 line
>> tellies were bad, but today the issue is many times worse and if we
>> ever do
>> need to use the radio spectrum  now known as short wave we are stuffed,
>> unless we go miles away from the towns and use our local power. Of course
>> adsl internet on over the ground wires are also a source of interference
>> since these along with mains wiring were never meant to carry wide band
>> data. The only reason nobody has stopped this is convenience in my
>> view, and
>> as I say who cares about a few hobbyists?
>>
> While radiating transmitters certainly have specs for out-of-band
> emissions, AIUI OFCOM decided that as these devices were not radiating
> transmitters, no radiation specs were required. Also, it's not so much
> the devices per se that do the radiating - it's the wiring they're
> connected to. As the wiring varies from installation to installation,
> it's impossible to devise any standardised test procedures - so the best
> course of action is not to do any.

That's odd. All the electronic devices that we manufacture have to meet
strict limits on emitted radiation. Any that does come out is purely by
mistake as they are not intended as transmitters. (except those that
have WiFi, and in that case it meets the WiFi standards)

Andy

On 25/05/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
> That's odd. All the electronic devices that we manufacture have to meet
> strict limits on emitted radiation. Any that does come out is purely by
> mistake as they are not intended as transmitters.

There tend to be two issues here. One is that those standards have been
set at compromise levels, even, I believe, within the amateur bands, so
as not to restrict manufacturers too much. They are well above the
sky** noise levels. In the case of power line adaptors, they also
assume an unreasonably well balanced power network.

The second is that many, at least for imports, the device is often
certified with interference suppression components included, but then
goes into production with those parts of the circuit board unpopulated.

The RSGB has been campaigning about these issues for many years, on
behalf of amateurs.

Incidentally, I don't believe that the Wireless Telegraphy Act covers
unintentional transmitters, I think those are covered under different
legislation (which probably originated from EU law).

** Nothing to do with the satellite broadcaster. Most of the natural
noise in the short waves originates from outside the earth.

On 24/05/2021 20:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <s8ggcb$ntq$1@dont-email.me>, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
> <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>> I'm pretty certain if somebody with the right test gear was able to
>> measure
>> the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would
>> constitute
>> an illegal transmitter under the act. So would many of the cheap wall
>> warts
>> and 5v usb psus and laptop power adaptors as well. We thought back in the
>> last century that cars and vacuum cleaners and mashing machines and
>> 405 line
>> tellies were bad, but today the issue is many times worse and if we
>> ever do
>> need to use the radio spectrum  now known as short wave we are stuffed,
>> unless we go miles away from the towns and use our local power. Of course
>> adsl internet on over the ground wires are also a source of interference
>> since these along with mains wiring were never meant to carry wide band
>> data. The only reason nobody has stopped this is convenience in my
>> view, and
>> as I say who cares about a few hobbyists?
>>
> While radiating transmitters certainly have specs for out-of-band
> emissions, AIUI OFCOM decided that as these devices were not radiating
> transmitters, no radiation specs were required. Also, it's not so much
> the devices per se that do the radiating - it's the wiring they're
> connected to. As the wiring varies from installation to installation,
> it's impossible to devise any standardised test procedures - so the best
> course of action is not to do any.

I thought another issue was that the adaptors were covered by the EU
Directive which meant Ofcom couldn't block the sale of kit which was
certified for sale in the EU. (And in passing I thought it is widely
sold and used in the EU.) Which is why Ofcom took powers in (I think)
2015 to deal wit kit which was later found to be emitting more than the
Directive allowed. And has used those new powers in cases where the
adapters are emitting more than is allowed.

Of course that leaves the issue that what they are allowed to emit may
be more than a shortwave enthusiast wants.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
>> That's odd. All the electronic devices that we manufacture have to meet
>> strict limits on emitted radiation. Any that does come out is purely by
>> mistake as they are not intended as transmitters.
>
> There tend to be two issues here. One is that those standards have been
> set at compromise levels, even, I believe, within the amateur bands, so
> as not to restrict manufacturers too much. They are well above the
> sky** noise levels. In the case of power line adaptors, they also
> assume an unreasonably well balanced power network.
>
> The second is that many, at least for imports, the device is often
> certified with interference suppression components included, but then
> goes into production with those parts of the circuit board unpopulated.
>
> The RSGB has been campaigning about these issues for many years, on
> behalf of amateurs.
>
> Incidentally, I don't believe that the Wireless Telegraphy Act covers
> unintentional transmitters, I think those are covered under different
> legislation (which probably originated from EU law).
>
> ** Nothing to do with the satellite broadcaster. Most of the natural
> noise in the short waves originates from outside the earth.
>

I’m afraid the ship has sailed as far as short wave enthusiasts are
concerned. They have no economic power, whereas power line adaptors have
both real utility for many people, and also economic backing in the market
place.

Even if you apply standards and regulation to such devices, that is only as
good as the will and ability to enforce these regulations. As we can see
from the total unwillingness to remove lethal wall warts from the likes of
Amazon/eBay, where there is a genuine risk of electrocution and/or fire,
the chances of removing non conforming power line adaptors is approximately
zero.

Moan as much as you like, but in the real world power line adaptors are not
going to go away.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 07:41:45 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>> ** Nothing to do with the satellite broadcaster. Most of the natural
>> noise in the short waves originates from outside the earth.
>>
>
>I’m afraid the ship has sailed as far as short wave enthusiasts are
>concerned. They have no economic power, whereas power line adaptors have
>both real utility for many people, and also economic backing in the market
>place.

Plus short wave stations are shutting down all the time. The days of tuning
in to Radio Tirana at midnight and having a good laugh about the latest tractor
factory heros are long gone. Its far easier for governments to get their
propaganda across via the internet these days.

As for radio hams , they have more than enough power to blast through the
noise.

>Moan as much as you like, but in the real world power line adaptors are not
>going to go away.

Speaking as someone who has no choice but to use a couple - bloody awful
things , constantly dropping the connection and refusing to reconnect. I'm
having to do a hard reset on them at least once an hour. Meanwhile my IP
connections drop out.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 07:41:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Even if you apply standards and regulation to such devices, that is only as
>good as the will and ability to enforce these regulations. As we can see
>from the total unwillingness to remove lethal wall warts from the likes of
>Amazon/eBay, where there is a genuine risk of electrocution and/or fire,
>the chances of removing non conforming power line adaptors is approximately
>zero.

Every now and then there's an article in the popular press about
somebody's phone catching fire, sometimes while being charged. The
make of phone is usually given, but no mention of what they were using
to charge it, so all the bad publicity goes to the manufacturer of the
phone. You'd think they might try to exercise some influence, perhaps
by encouraging governments to endorse technical standards.

Rod.

On 26/05/2021 09:38, MrSpook_082193rz3@ojw83l2zdyzn6kl.gov.uk wrote:
>
> Speaking as someone who has no choice but to use a couple - bloody awful
> things , constantly dropping the connection and refusing to reconnect. I'm
> having to do a hard reset on them at least once an hour. Meanwhile my IP
> connections drop out.

It's a long time since I last looked, so not sure if there any suitable
used routers around on eBay, but I have a couple Cisco WRT320N flashed
with an appropriate DD-WRT build which act as Client Bridges for my main
router, a BT Home Hub 5a flashed with OpenWRT. The only time the
connection is lost is when the the main router is rebooted without
rebooting the Client Bridges, you have to reboot them after the main
router has finished rebooting. Apart from that, it's seamless, just
slower than the wired LAN, which is all GBit.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

The problem is its all going to be regretted one day, and as per usual
nobody will have seen it coming. If you want mains to carry rf, a totally
different cabling installation is needed.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:ih22prF4km5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would
>> constitute
>> an illegal transmitter under the act.
> Expect more of the same; at present electric vehicle charging uses rather
> simple signalling (diode and PWM ratio), as they get smarter they'll
> switch to G.hn which is the same underlying protocol that powerline uses
> ...
>

That is a cop out surely? I did get offcom to remove some a few years back
but suddenly there is an explosion of them. Walk up and down the road with a
radio and you can never get away from them unless you find a field and stand
in the middle of it.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:L54X5CPS9$qgFw5q@brattleho.plus.com...
> In message <s8ggcb$ntq$1@dont-email.me>, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
> <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>I'm pretty certain if somebody with the right test gear was able to
>>measure
>>the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would
>>constitute
>>an illegal transmitter under the act. So would many of the cheap wall
>>warts
>>and 5v usb psus and laptop power adaptors as well. We thought back in the
>>last century that cars and vacuum cleaners and mashing machines and 405
>>line
>>tellies were bad, but today the issue is many times worse and if we ever
>>do
>>need to use the radio spectrum now known as short wave we are stuffed,
>>unless we go miles away from the towns and use our local power. Of course
>>adsl internet on over the ground wires are also a source of interference
>>since these along with mains wiring were never meant to carry wide band
>>data. The only reason nobody has stopped this is convenience in my view,
>>and
>>as I say who cares about a few hobbyists?
>>
> While radiating transmitters certainly have specs for out-of-band
> emissions, AIUI OFCOM decided that as these devices were not radiating
> transmitters, no radiation specs were required. Also, it's not so much the
> devices per se that do the radiating - it's the wiring they're connected
> to. As the wiring varies from installation to installation, it's
> impossible to devise any standardised test procedures - so the best course
> of action is not to do any.
> --
> Ian

Also if you bought a radio transmitter and connected it to a bit of wire you
would get a visit, but if you merely used a dummy load you would not, so the
house wiring is like the bit of wire, often called an Aerial?
hint the clue is in the name.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Vir Campestris" <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:s8jnp3$li8$3@dont-email.me...
> On 24/05/2021 20:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <s8ggcb$ntq$1@dont-email.me>, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
>> <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>> I'm pretty certain if somebody with the right test gear was able to
>>> measure
>>> the internet powerline adaptors output over its spectrum it would
>>> constitute
>>> an illegal transmitter under the act. So would many of the cheap wall
>>> warts
>>> and 5v usb psus and laptop power adaptors as well. We thought back in
>>> the
>>> last century that cars and vacuum cleaners and mashing machines and 405
>>> line
>>> tellies were bad, but today the issue is many times worse and if we ever
>>> do
>>> need to use the radio spectrum now known as short wave we are stuffed,
>>> unless we go miles away from the towns and use our local power. Of
>>> course
>>> adsl internet on over the ground wires are also a source of interference
>>> since these along with mains wiring were never meant to carry wide band
>>> data. The only reason nobody has stopped this is convenience in my view,
>>> and
>>> as I say who cares about a few hobbyists?
>>>
>> While radiating transmitters certainly have specs for out-of-band
>> emissions, AIUI OFCOM decided that as these devices were not radiating
>> transmitters, no radiation specs were required. Also, it's not so much
>> the devices per se that do the radiating - it's the wiring they're
>> connected to. As the wiring varies from installation to installation,
>> it's impossible to devise any standardised test procedures - so the best
>> course of action is not to do any.
>
> That's odd. All the electronic devices that we manufacture have to meet
> strict limits on emitted radiation. Any that does come out is purely by
> mistake as they are not intended as transmitters. (except those that have
> WiFi, and in that case it meets the WiFi standards)
>
> Andy

In article <o54sagtug3qbjo2allj7mbv0khg2he9fmc@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2021 07:41:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Even if you apply standards and regulation to such devices, that is only
> >as good as the will and ability to enforce these regulations. As we can
> >see from the total unwillingness to remove lethal wall warts from the
> >likes of Amazon/eBay, where there is a genuine risk of electrocution
> >and/or fire, the chances of removing non conforming power line adaptors
> >is approximately zero.

> Every now and then there's an article in the popular press about
> somebody's phone catching fire, sometimes while being charged. The make
> of phone is usually given, but no mention of what they were using to
> charge it, so all the bad publicity goes to the manufacturer of the
> phone. You'd think they might try to exercise some influence, perhaps by
> encouraging governments to endorse technical standards.

What catches fire is usually the battery while being charged. Being turfed
out of a hotel at 4 in the morning into -5C is not fun. One guests's phone
on charge was responsible. I understand it's usually 'cheap' replacement
batteries that cause the problem.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 26/05/2021 09:38, MrSpook_082193rz3@ojw83l2zdyzn6kl.gov.uk wrote:
> As for radio hams , they have more than enough power to blast through the
> noise.

Amateur radio operators have power limitations orders of magnitude below
those of broadcast station, and far from ideal antenna site. If
broadcast stations cannot make it through the noise, radio amateurs have
no hope at all.

Often they are trying to operate at the theoretical limits of the
medium, which is not possible when man made noise is orders of magnitude
higher than natural noise.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:23:10 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 26/05/2021 09:38, MrSpook_082193rz3@ojw83l2zdyzn6kl.gov.uk wrote:
>>
>> Speaking as someone who has no choice but to use a couple - bloody awful
>> things , constantly dropping the connection and refusing to reconnect. I'm
>> having to do a hard reset on them at least once an hour. Meanwhile my IP
>> connections drop out.
>
>It's a long time since I last looked, so not sure if there any suitable
>used routers around on eBay, but I have a couple Cisco WRT320N flashed
>with an appropriate DD-WRT build which act as Client Bridges for my main
>router, a BT Home Hub 5a flashed with OpenWRT. The only time the
>connection is lost is when the the main router is rebooted without
>rebooting the Client Bridges, you have to reboot them after the main
>router has finished rebooting. Apart from that, it's seamless, just
>slower than the wired LAN, which is all GBit.

The router isn't the issue, its a particular piece of software I have to
use for work which throws up its hands in horror and dumps the connection when
the LAN is stalled for more than about 20 secs.

On 26/05/2021 10:43, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Also if you bought a radio transmitter and connected it to a bit of wire you
> would get a visit, but if you merely used a dummy load you would not, so the

And you wouldn't be if you connected it, as you almost certainly would,
through a feeder cable, which constitutes a transmission line.

> house wiring is like the bit of wire, often called an Aerial?

No. Ideally it is like a transmission line, and that is the behaviour
required for powerline transmission. It will be a balanced one, unlike
a co-axial cable, but like cat 5*, as used by Ethernet (cat 5 uses
twisted pairs and high quality construction, to minimise radiation and
cross-talk losses).

The actual problem arises in that equipment gets certified on a well
installed model, which has a high level of RF balance between
conductors, but real house wiring is not that tidy.

> hint the clue is in the name.

On 26/05/2021 08:26, Robin wrote:
> I thought another issue was that the adaptors were covered by the EU
> Directive which meant Ofcom couldn't block the sale of kit which was
> certified for sale in the EU.  (And in passing I thought it is widely
> sold and used in the EU.

That comes over as rather anti-EU, but I suspect that it is the EU that
was pushing for legislation, and the UK probably wanted to let business
continue unregulated.

In article <s8l7e8$nqc$1@dont-email.me>,
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 26/05/2021 08:26, Robin wrote:
> > I thought another issue was that the adaptors were covered by the EU
> > Directive which meant Ofcom couldn't block the sale of kit which was
> > certified for sale in the EU. (And in passing I thought it is widely
> > sold and used in the EU.

> That comes over as rather anti-EU, but I suspect that it is the EU that
> was pushing for legislation, and the UK probably wanted to let business
> continue unregulated.

As I recall, the UK couldn't work out what to do and was glad that the EU
had come ideas.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

<MrSpook_67380@vx1vrwts1e4y4_1f.tv> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:23:10 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 26/05/2021 09:38, MrSpook_082193rz3@ojw83l2zdyzn6kl.gov.uk wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking as someone who has no choice but to use a couple - bloody awful
>>> things , constantly dropping the connection and refusing to reconnect. I'm
>>> having to do a hard reset on them at least once an hour. Meanwhile my IP
>>> connections drop out.
>>
>> It's a long time since I last looked, so not sure if there any suitable
>> used routers around on eBay, but I have a couple Cisco WRT320N flashed
>> with an appropriate DD-WRT build which act as Client Bridges for my main
>> router, a BT Home Hub 5a flashed with OpenWRT. The only time the
>> connection is lost is when the the main router is rebooted without
>> rebooting the Client Bridges, you have to reboot them after the main
>> router has finished rebooting. Apart from that, it's seamless, just
>> slower than the wired LAN, which is all GBit.
>
> The router isn't the issue, its a particular piece of software I have to
> use for work which throws up its hands in horror and dumps the connection when
> the LAN is stalled for more than about 20 secs.
>
>

Get some proper mesh network devices. I have experience of both BT Whole
Home WiFi and Linksys Velop. Both work extremely well. They don’t drop
packets, let alone stall the LAN.

On 26/05/2021 11:56, Tweed wrote:
> <MrSpook_67380@vx1vrwts1e4y4_1f.tv> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:23:10 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 26/05/2021 09:38, MrSpook_082193rz3@ojw83l2zdyzn6kl.gov.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as someone who has no choice but to use a couple - bloody awful
>>>> things , constantly dropping the connection and refusing to reconnect. I'm
>>>> having to do a hard reset on them at least once an hour. Meanwhile my IP
>>>> connections drop out.
>>>
>>> It's a long time since I last looked, so not sure if there any suitable
>>> used routers around on eBay, but I have a couple Cisco WRT320N flashed
>>> with an appropriate DD-WRT build which act as Client Bridges for my main
>>> router, a BT Home Hub 5a flashed with OpenWRT. The only time the
>>> connection is lost is when the the main router is rebooted without
>>> rebooting the Client Bridges, you have to reboot them after the main
>>> router has finished rebooting. Apart from that, it's seamless, just
>>> slower than the wired LAN, which is all GBit.
>>
>> The router isn't the issue, its a particular piece of software I have to
>> use for work which throws up its hands in horror and dumps the connection when
>> the LAN is stalled for more than about 20 secs.
>
> Get some proper mesh network devices. I have experience of both BT Whole
> Home WiFi and Linksys Velop. Both work extremely well. They don’t drop
> packets, let alone stall the LAN.

Yes.

He stated above that the problem was the use of unreliable devices that
network over the electric mains, but when I offered an alternative to
doing this, he came up with an irrelevant reply. Let's see if he
listens any better to this alternative!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Brian Gaff wrote:

> The problem is its all going to be regretted one day, and as per usual
> nobody will have seen it coming. If you want mains to carry rf, a totally
> different cabling installation is needed.

I don't have any powerline myself, and when asked for recommendations
from friends, I always reccommend ethernet or wifi above powerline, but
sometimes those options aren't workable or acceptable.

I doubt there'll be any mass regret, yes you may lose a hobby, and it's
a bit callous to say but only your fellow amateur radio enthusiasts will
care.

On 26/05/2021 11:20, David Woolley wrote:
> On 26/05/2021 08:26, Robin wrote:
>> I thought another issue was that the adaptors were covered by the EU
>> Directive which meant Ofcom couldn't block the sale of kit which was
>> certified for sale in the EU.  (And in passing I thought it is widely
>> sold and used in the EU.
>
> That comes over as rather anti-EU, but I suspect that it is the EU that
> was pushing for legislation, and the UK probably wanted to let business
> continue unregulated.
>
It was not meant to be anti-EU. I was simply trying to summarise the
position Ofcom was in.

As for your suspicion, I had no idea the Labour government was such a
fan of deregulation. (The EMC Directive in question was finalised in
2004 and made only minor changes to the substance of what went before.)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <43206a63-95e4-f823-a725-0ce8e8b69831@outlook.com>, Robin
<rbw@outlook.com> writes
>On 26/05/2021 11:20, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 26/05/2021 08:26, Robin wrote:
>>> I thought another issue was that the adaptors were covered by the EU
>>>Directive which meant Ofcom couldn't block the sale of kit which was
>>>certified for sale in the EU.  (And in passing I thought it is widely
>>>sold and used in the EU.
>> That comes over as rather anti-EU, but I suspect that it is the EU
>>that was pushing for legislation, and the UK probably wanted to let
>>business continue unregulated.
>>
>It was not meant to be anti-EU. I was simply trying to summarise the
>position Ofcom was in.
>
>As for your suspicion, I had no idea the Labour government was such a
>fan of deregulation. (The EMC Directive in question was finalised in
>2004 and made only minor changes to the substance of what went before.)
>
The shortwave and amateur radio community were appalled when the
'homeplug' PLT devices first appeared on the market. The early versions
used a continuous HF RF spectrum, and had no notches for the amateur
bands. If I remember things even half-correctly, OFCOM initially
declined to do much about them, the reason being that (again IIRC) as
they had been officially approved by an EU test house, and apparently
had sneaked under the radar - but as such the action they could take was
rather limited. Eventually notches were introduced for most of the HF
amateur bands - but (yet another IIRC) the manufacturers wanted to
substantially increase the transmit levels, thus making the notches
less-effective.

As others have said, there actually ARE specs for this equipment, but
almost certainly they cannot be operationally realistically tested for
many typical domestic situations. Whereas the distribution of ADSL and
VDSL over well-balanced phone lines is remarkably (but still far from
totally) free of causing serious interference, this is often not the
case for home PLT.
--
Ian

On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:56:44 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><MrSpook_67380@vx1vrwts1e4y4_1f.tv> wrote:
>> The router isn't the issue, its a particular piece of software I have to
>> use for work which throws up its hands in horror and dumps the connection
>when
>> the LAN is stalled for more than about 20 secs.
>>
>>
>
>Get some proper mesh network devices. I have experience of both BT Whole
>Home WiFi and Linksys Velop. Both work extremely well. They don’t drop
>packets, let alone stall the LAN.

Thanks, I'll look into those. Mine are TP-Link who I thought were a good
make. Apparently not.