I am thinking of using homeplug to extend an existing netwrok.
everything on the network is working fine, there's simply a room where
I can't get access to the wired and wireless network.

If I were to buy two homeplug adapters, one for the currently
inaccessible room, and one to attach to the existing router, would the
homeplugged computer be able to access all the other network devices
and would the other devices be able to access the homeplugged
computer?

I have looked around and all the homepluggy examples show  a
homeplugged network where all devices use vast arrays of homeplugs ;)

Am thinking of getting "Twin Pack 85Mb Homeplug Ethernet Adapter" -
the 85MB fine for what I want at the mo.

Does homeplug "mix and match" okay?

Thanks

Noz

"Nozza"  wrote in message 
news:t0797516e10msmockee8d8ht1dvhsus02j@4ax.com...
>I am thinking of using homeplug to extend an existing netwrok.
> everything on the network is working fine, there's simply a room where
> I can't get access to the wired and wireless network.
>
> If I were to buy two homeplug adapters, one for the currently
> inaccessible room, and one to attach to the existing router, would the
> homeplugged computer be able to access all the other network devices
> and would the other devices be able to access the homeplugged
> computer?
>
> I have looked around and all the homepluggy examples show  a
> homeplugged network where all devices use vast arrays of homeplugs ;)
>
> Am thinking of getting "Twin Pack 85Mb Homeplug Ethernet Adapter" -
> the 85MB fine for what I want at the mo.
>
> Does homeplug "mix and match" okay?

Yes. Homeplug acts as if it was a piece of Ethernet cable, so anything you 
can do over Ethernet you can do over Homeplug. This assumes that the two 
Homeplug devices can communicate - ie that they one the same mains phase 
(almost certainly because houses normally have just one phase supplied) and 
that they are connected to the same fuse box / circuit breaker box. The 
signal will not go through an electricity meter, but then a domestic supply 
almost certainly has only one meter!

I think Homeplug is a standard that spans different manufacturers, but if 
you are buying two, you may as well buy the same make and model to play it 
safe.

In article ,
Mortimer said...

>Yes. Homeplug acts as if it was a piece of Ethernet cable, so anything you 
>can do over Ethernet you can do over Homeplug. This assumes that the two 
>Homeplug devices can communicate - ie that they one the same mains phase 
>(almost certainly because houses normally have just one phase supplied) and 
>that they are connected to the same fuse box / circuit breaker box. The 
>signal will not go through an electricity meter, but then a domestic supply 
>almost certainly has only one meter!
>
>I think Homeplug is a standard that spans different manufacturers, but if 
>you are buying two, you may as well buy the same make and model to play it 
>safe. 

Brill

That's what I assumed - but I wanted clarification :)

Thanks for taking the time to reply

Noz

In article , Nozza says...
> 
> I am thinking of using homeplug to extend an existing netwrok.
> everything on the network is working fine, there's simply a room where
> I can't get access to the wired and wireless network.
> 
Don't.

They are the spawn of Satan and wipe out everything from 1Mhz to 50Mhz 
within a 200 yard radius of your house - basically all HF radio.

If you're close to someone like me who uses amateur radio and you cause 
them interference, expect a knock on the door from Ofcom for committing 
the offence of "Radio Spectrum Abuse".

The first 20 seconds of this video show the absolute fucking racket 
these things make all over HF radio.

Googe BPL PLT interference.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , 
Mortimer says...

> Yes. Homeplug acts as if it was a piece of Ethernet cable, so anything you 
> can do over Ethernet you can do over Homeplug. 

Wrong. Ethernet doesn't wipe out HF radio within a 200 yard radius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XT99wSm4Gw&feature=related

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Nozza says...
> 
> In article ,
> Mortimer said...
> 
> >Yes. Homeplug acts as if it was a piece of Ethernet cable, so anything you 
> >can do over Ethernet you can do over Homeplug. This assumes that the two 
> >Homeplug devices can communicate - ie that they one the same mains phase 
> >(almost certainly because houses normally have just one phase supplied) and 
> >that they are connected to the same fuse box / circuit breaker box. The 
> >signal will not go through an electricity meter, but then a domestic supply 
> >almost certainly has only one meter!
> >
> >I think Homeplug is a standard that spans different manufacturers, but if 
> >you are buying two, you may as well buy the same make and model to play it 
> >safe. 
> 
> Brill
> 
> That's what I assumed - but I wanted clarification :)
> 
Oh fucking great. Another person using these illegal contraptions.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article ,
Conor said...

>Oh fucking great. Another person using these illegal contraptions.

How to make friends and *influence* people 

;)

Noz

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:15:57 +0100, Conor wrote:

>[...]

> Oh fucking great. Another person using these illegal contraptions.

Conor, I'm interested in what way these devices are illegal. Can you 
point me to a source of information in this respect please?

Chris

-- 
Remove prejudice to reply.

"Chris Whelan"  wrote in message 
news:w5bdm.117875$Ib5.59778@newsfe24.ams2...
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:15:57 +0100, Conor wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>> Oh fucking great. Another person using these illegal contraptions.
>
> Conor, I'm interested in what way these devices are illegal. Can you
> point me to a source of information in this respect please?

As a matter of interest, do they interfere with broadcast radio (eg LW/MW 
reception) or is it mainly radio hams and HF reception? What about their 
affect on other mains communication devices like baby intercoms? And do 
those intercoms interfere with HF radio?

In article <w5bdm.117875$Ib5.59778@newsfe24.ams2>, Chris Whelan says...

> Conor, I'm interested in what way these devices are illegal. Can you 
> point me to a source of information in this respect please?
> 
Yes. 

For subsection (5) of section 19 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949

(5A) 

b) it degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts anything which is 
being broadcast or otherwise transmitted?

(i) by means of wireless telegraphy; and

(ii) in accordance with a licence under this Act, regulations under the 
proviso to section 1(1) of this Act or a grant of recognised spectrum 
access under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Communications Act 2003 or 
otherwise lawfully.? 


It does part (ii) by causing massive interference on parts of the 
spectrum used by Amateur Radio and governmental departments for HF 
broadcast. If the BBC World Service was still broadcast within the UK, 
it'd obliterate that too.

The Ofcom engineer that visited me to investigate a complaint I made 
against someone living two streets away said that they were causing 
interference and were committing the offence of "Radio Spectrum Abuse".

Also Ofcom have a page dedicated to it which states that it has to 
comply with EMC regulations which they clearly are not doing. 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/enforcement/plt/
-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , 
Mortimer says...

> As a matter of interest, do they interfere with broadcast radio (eg LW/MW 
> reception) or is it mainly radio hams and HF reception? What about their 
> affect on other mains communication devices like baby intercoms? And do 
> those intercoms interfere with HF radio? 

It is all shortwave communications from approximately 1Mhz through to 
50Mhz. It was reported that it would have affected the original BBC 
World Service frequency in the UK had they still been transmitting. 
Whilst baby intercoms do cause interference, it is specifically 
restricted to the band that they're supposed to be on and extremely 
marginally because they're transmitting over the mains on very low 
power as it isn't essential that the signal being received is 
completely devoid of noise and errors.

The problem is this:

PLT adapters were certified in a lab. It was found that when they were 
put into wide use in home environments that because of the noise on the 
mains, they weren't able to communicate using the transmission power 
they had been using when being certified. In order to resolve the 
problem, they simply upped the transmitter power despite the fact that 
they knew it'd mean more interference caused and would break their CE 
certification.

The reason they interfere up to 50Mhz is that they need 50Mhz of 
bandwidth in order to provide the network speed that they do.

They have been banned in many US states. Its more of a problem there 
because CB and Amateur Radio is far more popular so more people are 
experiencing PLT interference..

Here's some of a list of what on the UK radio spectrum it interferes 
with. Figure on the left is the frequency. Anything over 1000 is 1Mhz 
and above. As you can see nearer the bottom half of the table, it 
starts interfering with quite a lot of very important stuff although it 
has to be remembered that with an effective interference radius of 
about 200ft, its effect will be somewhat limited but if someone lived 
just across the road from a UK Coastguard Station, as they do in 
Bridlington, and had PLT it could cause the Coastguard some serious 
problems.

1026    local (BBC/ILR)
  1035    local (BBC/ILR)
  1053    INR3 Talk Radio UK
  1089    INR3 Talk Radio UK
  1107    ILR + INR3 Talk Radio 
  1116    local (BBC/ILR)
  1125    BBC regional (Wales)
  1143      CFA tests, 11/2000, Wooferton
  1152    ILR
  1161    local (BBC/ILR)
  1170    ILR
  1197    fill-in INR2 Virgin
  1215    INR2 Virgin (once "Virgin 1215")
  1233    fill-in INR2 Virgin
  1242    local (ILR/INR2 Virgin)
  1251    ILR (1)
  1260    local (BBC/ILR/INR2 Virgin)
  1269    RSL Brands Hatch
  1278    ILR + RSL
  1287    RSL
  1296    National BBC World Service
  1305    ILR
  1323    local (BBC/ILR) + ex RSL
  1332    local (BBC/ILR)
  1341    BBC regional (Ulster)
  1350    RSL (Hospital RSL)
  1359    local (BBC/ILR)
  1368    local (BBC/ILR)
  1377    ILR (1)
  1386    RSL
  1404    RSL
  1413    local (BBC/ILR/RSL)
  1431    ILR
  1440       ex The Great 208 - Radio Luxembourg (MW closed 
30.dec.1991) started 1933, LW, moved 1439 2.jul.1951
  1449    BBC local (some BBC R4)
  1458    local BBC/ILR)
  1476    ILR
  1485    local (BBC/BBC R4/ILR)
  1494    RSL Tooting
  1503    local (BBC/RSL)
  1521    local (BBC/ILR)    1520 was Radio Caroline (started 28 Mar 
1964)
  1530    local (BBC/ILR)
  1548    local (BBC/ILR)
  1557    local (BBC/ILR)
  1566    RSL
  1575    RSL
  1584    local (BBC/ILR)
  1602    RSL


 1.6055         MF "Fixed & Mobile" -  Maritime / Land / Aero(OR)

  1.642...Cordless phones (CT0 base), to 1782 (8x 20kHz FM), 
          handsets duplex at 47.456-47.543 MHz (12.5kHz spacing, 6.25 
offsets)
          Channel 7 (1762) may use 47.531 or 47.444
          To be phased out. No new equipment after apr.2005
          Handsets on 1690, 1710, 1730, 1750, 1770 may be unapproved 
USA gear (base 49.86-49.93)

          Amateur Radio 160m "Top Band" (1.81-2.0) shared (SSB used is 
mainly LSB below 10MHz)

          1.6 to 3.8MHz mostly known for maritime use (intership, 
trawler chat etc)
          (3kHz SSB channels 1635-1797 and 2053-2153?)

  2.182   Calling, Distress (Coastguards)

   Tropical bands around 2.4 MHz (120 metres), 3.3 MHz (90 metres) and 
5 MHz (60 metres)
          kHz Bands (as used by the BBC) :

     SSB  (3kHz SSB channels) :
    kHz
   2182        Calling, Distress    
   2046+ 2049  intership
   2053+ 2056  intership
   2241        British intership
   2246        British intership
   2301        British intership
   4000- 4060  shared with Fixed Service chs 1-21
   4146+ 4149  intership  4B & 4C  (4125=4A)
   4357- 4435  shore chs  401- 427 ( -292kHz split:  4065- 4143)    
4417/ 4125 calling
   6224- 6230  intership  6A,6B,6C
   6501- 6522  shore chs  601- 608 ( -301kHz split:  6200- 6221)    
6516/ 6215 calling
   8101- 8191  shared with Fixed Service chs 1-31
   8291        ch  833    GMDSS
   8294+ 8297  intership  8A & 8B
   8364        SAR
   8707- 8716  chs 834-837
   8719- 8812  shore chs  801- 832 ( -524kHz split:  8195- 8288)    
8779/ 8255 calling
  12353-12365  intership
  13077-13197  shore chs 1201-1241 ( -847kHz split: 12230-12350)   
13137/12290 calling
  16528-16546  intership
  17242-17407  shore chs 1601-1656 ( -882kHz split: 16360-16525)   
17302/16420 calling
  18825-18843  intership
  19755-19797  shore chs 1801-1815 ( -975kHz split: 18780-18822)   
19770/18795 calling
  22159-22177  intership
  22696-22852  shore chs 2201-2253 ( -696kHz split: 22000-22156)   
22756/22060 calling
  25100-25118  intership
  26145-26172  shore chs 2501-2510 (-1075kHz split: 25070-25097)   
26172/25097 calling

        12359 Herb VAX498 (nr Toronto) 20:00 - 22:00 UTC



       o  Aeronautical R or ER (En-Route on fixed airways; so mainly 
civil)  (3kHz SSB channels)   more
    kHz
   2851- 3019   NATS: 2872, 2899, 2971, 3016  (Ireland)
   3401- 3497   NATS: 3413 (VolMet), 3476      BT: 3482
   4651- 4696   NATS: 4675
   5481- 5676   NATS: 5505 (VolMet), 5598, 5616, 5649   BT: 5610, 5670 
(Rugby)   Speedwing: 5535 (Cove)
   6526- 6682   NATS: 6622    BT: 6634  +EC!
   8816- 8960   NATS: 8831, 8864, 8879, 8891, 8906, 8957 (VolMet)  BT: 
8960
  10006-10096
  11276-11396   NATS: 11279, 11336  BT: 11306
  13261-13357   NATS: 13264 (VolMet), 13291, 13306
  17901-17967   NATS: 17946
  21925-21997



       o  Aeronautical OR (Off-Route; so mainly military)  (3kHz SSB 
channels)      GHFS
          Watch for "Airfield colour states" every hour at the same 
minutes past the hour.
          Volmet weather info broadcasts are easy to find...
    kHz
   3023 - 3152   3023 SAR (night)   and up to 3230= ?
   3800 - 3950
   4700= -4995=  +CCF
   5450= -5480=       5450 RAF VolMet
   5680          GMDSS SAR (day)
   5684 - 5726   5711
   6685 - 6763   6739
   8965 - 9037   9031  "On-the-hour" and H+30 "Architect"
  11175 -11271   11175 is the "triple 1" calling channel      11253 RAF 
VolMet
  13200 -13257
  15010 -15097
  17970 -18027
  21870=-21924=  Fixed
  23200=-23350=



       o  Sounding - investigating the ionospheric conditions by 
sweeping 2 to 30MHz every
          5 minutes (100kHz per second). A chirp hits 7MHz at about 
2:28 into each 5 minute segment


       o  In the remaining parts of HF, you'd be forgiven for thinking 
anything goes  :o)
          I presume "fixed" on its own means mobile so long as one 
station is fixed!
    kHz
   3155= -3400=  Fixed + Land & Sea Mobile
   4000= -4063=  Fixed + Sea Mobile (4000-4060 USB, ch1-21)
   4438= -4650=  Fixed + all Mobile         +CCF
   5005= -5450=  Fixed + Land & Sea Mobile  +CCF
   5730= -5950=  Fixed + Land & Sea Mobile
   6765= -7000=  Fixed + Land Mobile (6.78 ISM : 6.765-6.795, half of 
13.56)
   7300= -8100=  Fixed + Land Mobile
   8100= -8195=  Fixed + Maritime Mobile (8101-8191 USB, ch1-31)
   9040= -9500=  Fixed
   9900= -9995=  Fixed
  10150=-11175=  Fixed + Land & Sea Mobile
  11400=-11700=  Fixed
  12050=-12230=  Fixed
  13360=-13600=  Fixed + all Mobile  (13.56 ISM : 13.533-13.587)
  13800=-14000=  Fixed + all Mobile + EC!
  14350=-14990=  Fixed + all Mobile
  15600=-16360=  Fixed
  17410=-17550=  Fixed
  18030=-18068=  Fixed
  18168=-18780=  Fixed + Land & Sea Mobile
  18900=-19680=  Fixed  (18.9 to 19.02 broadcasting after 2007)
  19800=-19990=  Fixed
  20010=-21000=  Fixed + all Mobile
  21750=-21870=  Fixed
  22855=-23000=  Fixed
  23000=-23200=  Fixed + all Mobile
  23350=-24890=  Fixed + Land Mobile
  25010=-25070=  Fixed + Land Mobile
  25210=-25550=  Fixed + Land & Sea Mobile
  25550=-25600=  Radio Astronomy






-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:38:30 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> The Ofcom engineer that visited me to investigate a complaint I made 
> against someone living two streets away said that they were causing 
> interference and were committing the offence of "Radio Spectrum Abuse".

That Ofcom technician ("engineer" - ROTFL!) should get retrained.  If your
neighbour was using CE marked/certified/approved equipment that was causing
interference then it is not the neighbour who was committing an offence.

> Also Ofcom have a page dedicated to it which states that it has to 
> comply with EMC regulations which they clearly are not doing. 
>
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/enforcement/plt/

which says:  "The person who places products on the market (usually the
manufacturer or the importer) must ensure that the products comply and
apply the ‘CE’ mark."  An innocent consumer of marked equipment is
committing no offence (where offence means a crime/breach of the law).

You have my sympathy but if there if any offender it is not that neighbour.

Tony

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.24df7206178251739898b7@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article ,
> Mortimer says...
>
>> As a matter of interest, do they interfere with broadcast radio (eg LW/MW
>> reception) or is it mainly radio hams and HF reception? What about their
>> affect on other mains communication devices like baby intercoms? And do
>> those intercoms interfere with HF radio?
>
> It is all shortwave communications from approximately 1Mhz through to
> 50Mhz. It was reported that it would have affected the original BBC
> World Service frequency in the UK had they still been transmitting.
> Whilst baby intercoms do cause interference, it is specifically
> restricted to the band that they're supposed to be on and extremely
> marginally because they're transmitting over the mains on very low
> power as it isn't essential that the signal being received is
> completely devoid of noise and errors.
>
> The problem is this:
>
> PLT adapters were certified in a lab. It was found that when they were
> put into wide use in home environments that because of the noise on the
> mains, they weren't able to communicate using the transmission power
> they had been using when being certified. In order to resolve the
> problem, they simply upped the transmitter power despite the fact that
> they knew it'd mean more interference caused and would break their CE
> certification.
>
> The reason they interfere up to 50Mhz is that they need 50Mhz of
> bandwidth in order to provide the network speed that they do.
>
> They have been banned in many US states. Its more of a problem there
> because CB and Amateur Radio is far more popular so more people are
> experiencing PLT interference..
>
> Here's some of a list of what on the UK radio spectrum it interferes
> with. Figure on the left is the frequency. Anything over 1000 is 1Mhz
> and above. As you can see nearer the bottom half of the table, it
> starts interfering with quite a lot of very important stuff although it
> has to be remembered that with an effective interference radius of
> about 200ft, its effect will be somewhat limited but if someone lived
> just across the road from a UK Coastguard Station, as they do in
> Bridlington, and had PLT it could cause the Coastguard some serious
> problems.

I wonder why they were designed to go down as low as 1 MHz, since this is in 
the MF band and so would affect AM radios. Mind you, probably most people 
use VHF radio these days and will never notice :-)

Is the interference more noticeable for AM than FM broadcasts? How much of 
what you listed is AM rather than FM?

I feel guilty now about installing Homeplug devices for a couple of 
customers who live in old houses with very thick walls and/or metal 
fireplaces which severely limit communication by wifi.

As a test, I drove past a house in my village which I know uses Homeplug, 
and couldn't hear any change in background noise on my car radio tuned to an 
unused AM frequency somewhere around 1100 kHz, but that's not a very 
scientific test!

If the power is higher than in the lab, does that mean that the CE mark is 
actually invalid and they are being sold illegally.

I suppose the best you can say is that they won't interfere with anything 
that is used in the average house (most people will have changed from 
analogue to DECT cordless phones these days), though as you say it's very 
bad luck if you live close to a scientific or shipping establishment or 
anyone interested in amateur radio.

It's a bugger because they are sometimes the only way that you can get 
PC-router communication if wireless won't work and drilling holes in walls 
is forbidden.

As a matter of interest, do Homeplug devices vary the power so as to reduce 
it to the lowest level that will allow communication, or do they work at a 
fixed power?

Is the interference propagated by electromagnetic radiation from the house 
that is using them, or does it get out into the street wiring (past the 
electricity meter which I'd always understood was a vary effective filter) 
and then get radiated by street lights etc?

What about ADSL? Does that cause any interference?

In article , 
"Mortimer" wrote:

> 
> What about ADSL? Does that cause any interference? 

it's very low power and on twisted pairs.  But how about the reverse 
direction - Homeplugs interfering with ADSL2+ (up to 2.2Mhz) and even 
slowing down ADSL2 (<1.1Mhz) by making the higher frequency bins 
unuseable?

-- 
John W
I you really want to mail me, replace the obvious with co.uk twice

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...
> 
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:38:30 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
> > The Ofcom engineer that visited me to investigate a complaint I made 
> > against someone living two streets away said that they were causing 
> > interference and were committing the offence of "Radio Spectrum Abuse".
> 
> That Ofcom technician ("engineer" - ROTFL!) should get retrained.  If your
> neighbour was using CE marked/certified/approved equipment that was causing
> interference then it is not the neighbour who was committing an offence.
> 
Wrong.

> > Also Ofcom have a page dedicated to it which states that it has to 
> > comply with EMC regulations which they clearly are not doing. 
> >
> > http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/enforcement/plt/
> 
> which says:  "The person who places products on the market (usually the
> manufacturer or the importer) must ensure that the products comply and
> apply the ?CE? mark."  An innocent consumer of marked equipment is
> committing no offence (where offence means a crime/breach of the law).
> 
> You have my sympathy but if there if any offender it is not that neighbour.
> 
Wrong. 



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...
> 
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:38:30 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
> > The Ofcom engineer that visited me to investigate a complaint I made 
> > against someone living two streets away said that they were causing 
> > interference and were committing the offence of "Radio Spectrum Abuse".
> 
> That Ofcom technician ("engineer" - ROTFL!) should get retrained.  If your
> neighbour was using CE marked/certified/approved equipment that was causing
> interference then it is not the neighbour who was committing an offence.
> 
Bullshit. If I use a CE certified CB radio and it interferes with the 
neighbours TV, it is ME that gets to carry the can.

It is the responsibility of the person using the device to ensure that 
it does not interfere.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:53:52 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Anthony R. 
> Gold says...
>>
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:38:30 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>>
>>> The Ofcom engineer that visited me to investigate a complaint I made 
>>> against someone living two streets away said that they were causing 
>>> interference and were committing the offence of "Radio Spectrum Abuse".
>>
>> That Ofcom technician ("engineer" - ROTFL!) should get retrained.  If your
>> neighbour was using CE marked/certified/approved equipment that was causing
>> interference then it is not the neighbour who was committing an offence.
>>
> Bullshit. If I use a CE certified CB radio and it interferes with the 
> neighbours TV, it is ME that gets to carry the can.

Irrelevant.  CB transmitters in particular are only permitted to be used
under specific non-interference obligations:

"CB radio equipment shall be operated on a non-interference ... basis ...
and ... not cause harmful interference to other radio services."

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/citizen/

> It is the responsibility of the person using the device to ensure that 
> it does not interfere.

Please cite the particular law and offence committed by a consumer who
operates a CE compliant device that causes radio interference from EMI.

Maybe start here:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

Tony

In message , 
Conor  writes
>> That Ofcom technician ("engineer" - ROTFL!) should get retrained.  If your
>> neighbour was using CE marked/certified/approved equipment that was causing
>> interference then it is not the neighbour who was committing an offence.
>>
>Bullshit. If I use a CE certified CB radio and it interferes with the
>neighbours TV, it is ME that gets to carry the can.
Much as I'm with you on the pollution of the HF bands, unfortunately 
you're wrong. Providing you haven't messed around with your transceiver 
and aren't using it in a non-approved/licensed manner then you're not 
doing anything wrong.

As long as the homeplugs have that CE approval (and it's traceable, not 
forged) then you can wave goodbye to shortwave listening.

>
>It is the responsibility of the person using the device to ensure that
>it does not interfere.
No, it's the responsibility of the person using the device to ensure it 
doesn't operate outside the prescribed limits which cover spurii, 
harmonics etc. As long as your kit meets or betters the required 
specifications for its type approval then it's tough titties if someone 
suffers interference.  Just because someone's cheap shit telly displays 
fuzzy lines or blasts out morse code does not mean it's the radio 
operator's fault. Whilst the nice man from OFCOM might not be 
particularly sympathetic with you if you haven't tried to help your 
neighbours, there's jack all he can do as long as your kit is working 
properly.
>

-- 
Clint Sharp

In article , Anthony R. 
Gold says...

> Please cite the particular law and offence committed by a consumer who
> operates a CE compliant device that causes radio interference from EMI.
> 
I have already.





-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Clint Sharp says...

> Much as I'm with you on the pollution of the HF bands, unfortunately 
> you're wrong. Providing you haven't messed around with your transceiver 
> and aren't using it in a non-approved/licensed manner then you're not 
> doing anything wrong.
> 
Ofcom disagree.

> As long as the homeplugs have that CE approval (and it's traceable, not 
> forged) then you can wave goodbye to shortwave listening.
> 
Thankfully, Ofcom don't share your view.

> >
> >It is the responsibility of the person using the device to ensure that
> >it does not interfere.
> No, it's the responsibility of the person using the device to ensure it 
> doesn't operate outside the prescribed limits which cover spurii, 
> harmonics etc. 

Which it is.

> As long as your kit meets or betters the required 
> specifications for its type approval then it's tough titties if someone 
> suffers interference. 

THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. The kit has had to have its TX raised +
22-26dB ABOVE what it was certified at in order to work. The stuff you 
buy in the shop is NOT the same as the unit that was certified. It is 
NOT operating within the parameters they're required to.

If it were not a problem, why has Ofcom set up a dedicated team for PLT 
interference?


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.24e0b59013c7d3529898c2@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article , Clint Sharp says...
>
> THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. The kit has had to have its TX raised +
> 22-26dB ABOVE what it was certified at in order to work. The stuff you
> buy in the shop is NOT the same as the unit that was certified. It is
> NOT operating within the parameters they're required to.
>
> If it were not a problem, why has Ofcom set up a dedicated team for PLT
> interference?

If the power has been raised way above the level at which the device got its 
CE certification, then surely that makes the CE invalid - so why aren't 
manufacturers being prosecuted for supplying uncertified equipment? I would 
imagine the vast majority of people who buy PLT equipment do not realise the 
interference that can be caused, and even the minority who look for the CE 
mark think "well, it's certified so it must be OK".

In article , 
Mortimer says...

> If the power has been raised way above the level at which the device got its 
> CE certification, then surely that makes the CE invalid - so why aren't 
> manufacturers being prosecuted for supplying uncertified equipment? 

BT has a lot of them and contributes a wad of cash to the government...

> I would 
> imagine the vast majority of people who buy PLT equipment do not realise the 
> interference that can be caused, and even the minority who look for the CE 
> mark think "well, it's certified so it must be OK". 

Indeed. However once been made aware they are doing by an Ofcom field 
engineer, they should stop using them immediately or be charged.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.24e11a845b5071419898c7@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article ,
> Mortimer says...
>
>> If the power has been raised way above the level at which the device got 
>> its
>> CE certification, then surely that makes the CE invalid - so why aren't
>> manufacturers being prosecuted for supplying uncertified equipment?
>
> BT has a lot of them and contributes a wad of cash to the government...
>
>> I would
>> imagine the vast majority of people who buy PLT equipment do not realise 
>> the
>> interference that can be caused, and even the minority who look for the 
>> CE
>> mark think "well, it's certified so it must be OK".
>
> Indeed. However once been made aware they are doing by an Ofcom field
> engineer, they should stop using them immediately or be charged.

And demand their money back from the vendor because the "CE marking" is not 
actually the true.

It's a shame that there isn't an alternative, if Homeplug causes 
interference, in situations where wireless is a non-starter because of very 
thick walls or huge metal fireplaces and where drilling holes through the 
walls to run Cat 5 is not acceptible to the customer.

I might contact my customer in the village and see if there's now an 
alternative way for him to get a network connection, given that I bought the 
Homeplug devices when he needed coverage over a larger area, and he's now 
moved the router to a position where both his remaining PCs might be in 
wireless range.

What's the best way to check for interference - walking round with an AM 
radio tuned to an unused frequency somewhere between 1 MHz and the top of 
the MF band? Finding a radio with HF (short wave) reception might prove more 
difficult!

Can filters be fitted around the mains cable at the point where it comes 
into the house, like the cylindrical filters that you get on some PS2 
keyboard cables and USB cables, to prevent the interference spreading beyond 
the house? Or is the interference propagated by the house wiring, even if 
it's blocked from getting into the mains wiring (overhead or underground) in 
the street?

Newer houses with "cardboard" internal walls that allow wireless are so much 
easier!

In article , 
Mortimer says...

> It's a shame that there isn't an alternative, if Homeplug causes 
> interference, in situations where wireless is a non-starter because of very 
> thick walls or huge metal fireplaces and where drilling holes through the 
> walls to run Cat 5 is not acceptible to the customer.
> 
There is an alternative. It's only one particular chipset that causes 
this and even then, it's only Comtrend who are the main problem. Other 
PLT devices use RF notches to reduce or completely eliminate RFI in 
pre-assigned bands listed in the UK bandplan.

> I might contact my customer in the village and see if there's now an 
> alternative way for him to get a network connection, given that I bought the 
> Homeplug devices when he needed coverage over a larger area, and he's now 
> moved the router to a position where both his remaining PCs might be in 
> wireless range.
> 
> What's the best way to check for interference - walking round with an AM 
> radio tuned to an unused frequency somewhere between 1 MHz and the top of 
> the MF band? Finding a radio with HF (short wave) reception might prove more 
> difficult!
> 
Doesn't even need to be unused. There's a UKQRM video on Youtube that 
shows you how. Watch from 9 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1f0KZZZbws&feature=PlayList&p=
8C62E93DE60B3CBF&index=3


> Can filters be fitted around the mains cable at the point where it comes 
> into the house, like the cylindrical filters that you get on some PS2 
> keyboard cables and USB cables, to prevent the interference spreading beyond 
> the house? Or is the interference propagated by the house wiring, even if 
> it's blocked from getting into the mains wiring (overhead or underground) in 
> the street?
> 
Its propogated by the ring main. Basically, it turns the entire house 
mains wiring into one big antenna. The cables are unshielded so radiate 
the RF signal. 



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.24e13c2c827839bb9898d2@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article ,
> Mortimer says...
>
>> It's a shame that there isn't an alternative, if Homeplug causes
>> interference, in situations where wireless is a non-starter because of 
>> very
>> thick walls or huge metal fireplaces and where drilling holes through the
>> walls to run Cat 5 is not acceptible to the customer.
>>
> There is an alternative. It's only one particular chipset that causes
> this and even then, it's only Comtrend who are the main problem. Other
> PLT devices use RF notches to reduce or completely eliminate RFI in
> pre-assigned bands listed in the UK bandplan.

Ah, sorry, I must have missed the bit earlier in the thread where you said 
that it was only *some* PLT devices that caused interference. I thought it 
was the whole Homeplug technology, irrespective of manufacturer and chipset, 
that was tarred with the same brush. Sorry - my mistake.

So Comtrend is the make to look out for and avoid - thanks. What's the name 
of the chipset to avoid - so I can check other prospective makes to ensiure 
they don;t use that chipset?

If it's only/mainly one chipset and one manufacturer, why have some US 
states banned all PLTs and not just Comtrend ones?

> Doesn't even need to be unused. There's a UKQRM video on Youtube that
> shows you how. Watch from 9 minutes in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1f0KZZZbws&feature=PlayList&p=
> 8C62E93DE60B3CBF&index=3

Yes, that's bad!

>> Can filters be fitted around the mains cable at the point where it comes
>> into the house, like the cylindrical filters that you get on some PS2
>> keyboard cables and USB cables, to prevent the interference spreading 
>> beyond
>> the house? Or is the interference propagated by the house wiring, even if
>> it's blocked from getting into the mains wiring (overhead or underground) 
>> in
>> the street?
>>
> Its propogated by the ring main. Basically, it turns the entire house
> mains wiring into one big antenna. The cables are unshielded so radiate
> the RF signal.

Ah, it's the wiring within the house, so filtering so it doesn't leave the 
house wiring and propagate elsewhere doesn't help one bit!

In article , 
nozza_again_gns@yahoo.co.uk says...
> I am thinking of using homeplug to extend an existing netwrok.
> everything on the network is working fine, there's simply a room where
> I can't get access to the wired and wireless network.
> 
> If I were to buy two homeplug adapters, one for the currently
> inaccessible room, and one to attach to the existing router, would the
> homeplugged computer be able to access all the other network devices
> and would the other devices be able to access the homeplugged
> computer?

Yes to both.

> I have looked around and all the homepluggy examples show  a
> homeplugged network where all devices use vast arrays of homeplugs ;)

You need 2 minimum, so buy a pair to start with. Thereafter you can just 
add another one, or another 2 etc. Doesn't matter how many you have 
really.

> Am thinking of getting "Twin Pack 85Mb Homeplug Ethernet Adapter" -
> the 85MB fine for what I want at the mo.

Same here. I have 4, work well.

> Does homeplug "mix and match" okay?

Don't know, never tried.
-- 
Regards
Jon

In article , 
Mortimer says...

> Ah, sorry, I must have missed the bit earlier in the thread where you said 
> that it was only *some* PLT devices that caused interference. I thought it 
> was the whole Homeplug technology, irrespective of manufacturer and chipset, 
> that was tarred with the same brush. Sorry - my mistake.
> 
> So Comtrend is the make to look out for and avoid - thanks. What's the name 
> of the chipset to avoid - so I can check other prospective makes to ensiure 
> they don;t use that chipset?
> 
They're made by a Spanish company called DS2. Being Spanish, they don't 
give a shit about breaking European law hence the current problems.

> If it's only/mainly one chipset and one manufacturer, why have some US 
> states banned all PLTs and not just Comtrend ones?
> 
The UK is slightly different to the US to some extent. Also in some US 
locations as well as Australia, broadband is fed throughout overhead 
mains cables to peoples homes too hence power line in the true sense of 
the word.


> Ah, it's the wiring within the house, so filtering so it doesn't leave the 
> house wiring and propagate elsewhere doesn't help one bit! 

No. The only way to eliminate it would be to shield the mains wiring in 
the house in the same way co-ax is.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Jon wrote:
> In article , 
> nozza_again_gns@yahoo.co.uk says...
>> I am thinking of using homeplug to extend an existing netwrok.
>> everything on the network is working fine, there's simply a room where
>> I can't get access to the wired and wireless network.
>>
>> If I were to buy two homeplug adapters, one for the currently
>> inaccessible room, and one to attach to the existing router, would the
>> homeplugged computer be able to access all the other network devices
>> and would the other devices be able to access the homeplugged
>> computer?
> 
> Yes to both.
> 
>> I have looked around and all the homepluggy examples show  a
>> homeplugged network where all devices use vast arrays of homeplugs ;)
> 
> You need 2 minimum, so buy a pair to start with. Thereafter you can just 
> add another one, or another 2 etc. Doesn't matter how many you have 
> really.
> 
>> Am thinking of getting "Twin Pack 85Mb Homeplug Ethernet Adapter" -
>> the 85MB fine for what I want at the mo.
> 
> Same here. I have 4, work well.
> 
>> Does homeplug "mix and match" okay?
> 
> Don't know, never tried.

I wouldn't advise "mixing 'n matching" as although they may work I 
wouldn't risk it and I personally would use adapters from the same 
manufacturer - you may get away with plugs with various different speeds 
but of course in nearly all cases the line speed would drop to the speed 
of the lowest adapter.

I too have 4 x 85Mbs and never hada moments problem with them. I think 
Homeplugs are a superb bit of kit and I can even use my laptop in the 
garden through an old garden cable reel. Plus they are far more secure 
than wireless.

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:00:08 +0100
bert  wrote:

> I
> think Homeplugs are a superb bit of kit and I can even use my laptop
> in the garden through an old garden cable reel. Plus they are far
> more secure than wireless.

Why do you think they're more secure?  Both WiFi and Homeplug use
128-bit AES encryption, which is significantly more of a barrier to
exploitation than physical access.  Homeplug can often be heard some
distance from the house, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to
listen in anyway with a directional antenna and an RF amplifier.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 17:37:01 +0100
"Mortimer"  wrote:

> It's a bugger because they are sometimes the only way that you can
> get PC-router communication if wireless won't work and drilling holes
> in walls is forbidden.
> 
I expect wireless could be made to work in some cases where it doesn't
work easily, although I'm not sure how you align a pair of cantennas
when there are walls blocking your line of sight.

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:00:08 +0100
> bert  wrote:
> 
>> I
>> think Homeplugs are a superb bit of kit and I can even use my laptop
>> in the garden through an old garden cable reel. Plus they are far
>> more secure than wireless.
> 
> Why do you think they're more secure?  Both WiFi and Homeplug use
> 128-bit AES encryption, which is significantly more of a barrier to
> exploitation than physical access.  Homeplug can often be heard some
> distance from the house, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to
> listen in anyway with a directional antenna and an RF amplifier.
> 
How many people have directional antenna compared to wifi enabled gadgets?

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:53:55 +0100
bert  wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:00:08 +0100
> > bert  wrote:
> > 
> >> I
> >> think Homeplugs are a superb bit of kit and I can even use my
> >> laptop in the garden through an old garden cable reel. Plus they
> >> are far more secure than wireless.
> > 
> > Why do you think they're more secure?  Both WiFi and Homeplug use
> > 128-bit AES encryption, which is significantly more of a barrier to
> > exploitation than physical access.  Homeplug can often be heard some
> > distance from the house, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to
> > listen in anyway with a directional antenna and an RF amplifier.
> > 
> How many people have directional antenna compared to wifi enabled
> gadgets?

More relevant is how many people go wardriving with a directional
antenna, as they're the sort of people you should be worrying about
when it comes to security.  Maybe Homeplug users are more likely to
think they don't need to change the default encryption key, because
they think the signal won't escape the building.

In MsgID on Sun, 2 Aug 2009
23:05:39 +0100, in uk.comp.home-networking, 'Clint Sharp' wrote:

>As long as the homeplugs have that CE approval (and it's traceable, not 
>forged) then you can wave goodbye to shortwave listening.

You think that's a problem? 

I assume you came across the furore about the data-over-mains-network
system that was being proposed a couple of years back?

We had a seriously lucky escape as that really would have shot the legs
from any proper listening.

I've so far noticed no serious increase in interference from the homeplug
bodge, and that's on the outskirts of a city. That's not to say that a
neighbour's bright idea couldn't cripple my listening overnight but *so
far* I've been lucky.

Heh OT here, but you might recognise my 'pride and joy' - a 60yr old CR100
ex-navy boatanchor. Works surprisingly well. Could do with a bolt-on FM
demod. Given it's sensitive enough to pick up yankee amateurs I assume I'd
notice any serious EM pollution. Goes from about 60khz (yes, 60x10^3) up
to 30 meg.


Dave J.

In message <h5c62l$c9q$1@news.datemas.de>, Dave J.  
writes
>In MsgID on Sun, 2 Aug 2009
>23:05:39 +0100, in uk.comp.home-networking, 'Clint Sharp' wrote:
>
>>As long as the homeplugs have that CE approval (and it's traceable, not
>>forged) then you can wave goodbye to shortwave listening.
>
>You think that's a problem?
Well, only where some muppet has homeplugs installed. I'm fairly 
fortunate so far..

>
>I assume you came across the furore about the data-over-mains-network
>system that was being proposed a couple of years back?
Oh yes, street lights radiating all sorts of mush, lovely.
>
>I've so far noticed no serious increase in interference from the homeplug
>bodge, and that's on the outskirts of a city. That's not to say that a
>neighbour's bright idea couldn't cripple my listening overnight but *so
>far* I've been lucky.
Me too..
>
>Heh OT here, but you might recognise my 'pride and joy' - a 60yr old CR100
>ex-navy boatanchor. Works surprisingly well. Could do with a bolt-on FM
>demod. Given it's sensitive enough to pick up yankee amateurs I assume I'd
>notice any serious EM pollution. Goes from about 60khz (yes, 60x10^3) up
>to 30 meg.
Never been a boat anchor fan I'm afraid but I do occasionally dig out 
the R1000 and string a length of wire across the garden..
>
>
>Dave J.

-- 
Clint Sharp

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:15:57 +0100, Conor  wrote:

>In article , Nozza says...
>> 
>> In article ,
>> Mortimer said...
>> 
>> >Yes. Homeplug acts as if it was a piece of Ethernet cable, so anything you 
>> >can do over Ethernet you can do over Homeplug. This assumes that the two 
>> >Homeplug devices can communicate - ie that they one the same mains phase 
>> >(almost certainly because houses normally have just one phase supplied) and 
>> >that they are connected to the same fuse box / circuit breaker box. The 
>> >signal will not go through an electricity meter, but then a domestic supply 
>> >almost certainly has only one meter!
>> >
>> >I think Homeplug is a standard that spans different manufacturers, but if 
>> >you are buying two, you may as well buy the same make and model to play it 
>> >safe. 
>> 
>> Brill
>> 
>> That's what I assumed - but I wanted clarification :)
>> 
>Oh fucking great. Another person using these illegal contraptions.

You live next door ?
-- 
The End

"DC"  wrote in message 
news:7slj75dl7tkm1ivrfso0r036pqqvhd2e2b@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 23:15:57 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>
>>In article , Nozza says...
>>>
>>> In article ,
>>> Mortimer said...
>>>
>>> >Yes. Homeplug acts as if it was a piece of Ethernet cable, so anything 
>>> >you
>>> >can do over Ethernet you can do over Homeplug. This assumes that the 
>>> >two
>>> >Homeplug devices can communicate - ie that they one the same mains 
>>> >phase
>>> >(almost certainly because houses normally have just one phase supplied) 
>>> >and
>>> >that they are connected to the same fuse box / circuit breaker box. The
>>> >signal will not go through an electricity meter, but then a domestic 
>>> >supply
>>> >almost certainly has only one meter!
>>> >
>>> >I think Homeplug is a standard that spans different manufacturers, but 
>>> >if
>>> >you are buying two, you may as well buy the same make and model to play 
>>> >it
>>> >safe.
>>>
>>> Brill
>>>
>>> That's what I assumed - but I wanted clarification :)
>>>
>>Oh fucking great. Another person using these illegal contraptions.
>
> You live next door ?

How bad is the problem? Conor started off by implying that *all* homeplug 
devices were bad because the power was much greater than used for CE 
certification.

But he then said that it was only devices with one chipset, with brand names 
Comtrend and DS2, which were a problem as others had sufficient RFI 
filtering:

"It's only one particular chipset that causes
this and even then, it's only Comtrend who are the main problem. Other
PLT devices use RF notches to reduce or completely eliminate RFI in
pre-assigned bands listed in the UK bandplan."

Have Ofcom or amateur radio enthusiasts done any tests to see how bad 
non-Comtrend devices are?

I want to know whether to stop recommending them altogether for my customers 
or just to make sure they don't use Comtrend.

In article , DC says...

> You live next door ?

You only have to live within a 500m radius.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , 
Mortimer says...

> Have Ofcom or amateur radio enthusiasts done any tests to see how bad 
> non-Comtrend devices are?
> 
Yes. One of the UKQRM youtube vidoes shows him demonstrating Comtrend 
but also stating he was picking up noise from an Advent one, although 
less intrusive.

> I want to know whether to stop recommending them altogether for my customers 
> or just to make sure they don't use Comtrend. 

I think its a case of "making them aware" of the problem then they 
can't complain if they decide to go with them and Ofcom pay a visit. 
Many people will be able to use them without affecting anyone else due 
to the fact nobody within the signal area uses HF as your former lack 
of awareness of the issue demonstrates.

However, a proof of concept of someone managing to get onto a network 
that uses these things has come to light. The encryption key has been 
cracked and the units can't differentiate from the RF signal produced 
by another unit plugged into the mains or a RF signal picked up from an 
external source by the mains cable.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:53:55 +0100
> bert  wrote:
> 
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:00:08 +0100
>>> bert  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I
>>>> think Homeplugs are a superb bit of kit and I can even use my
>>>> laptop in the garden through an old garden cable reel. Plus they
>>>> are far more secure than wireless.
>>> Why do you think they're more secure?  Both WiFi and Homeplug use
>>> 128-bit AES encryption, which is significantly more of a barrier to
>>> exploitation than physical access.  Homeplug can often be heard some
>>> distance from the house, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to
>>> listen in anyway with a directional antenna and an RF amplifier.
>>>
>> How many people have directional antenna compared to wifi enabled
>> gadgets?
> 
> More relevant is how many people go wardriving with a directional
> antenna, as they're the sort of people you should be worrying about
> when it comes to security.  Maybe Homeplug users are more likely to
> think they don't need to change the default encryption key, because
> they think the signal won't escape the building.
> 

People who don't change default encryption on ANY type of system are not 
being very astute.

I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of 
Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:33:29 +0100
bert  wrote:

> I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of 
> Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?

I don't have anything bookmarked and Google isn't helping.  Conor said
he'd seen something about the proof of concept, which is AFAIK all it
is ATM.

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:33:29 +0100
> bert  wrote:
> 
>> I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of 
>> Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?
> 
> I don't have anything bookmarked and Google isn't helping.  Conor said
> he'd seen something about the proof of concept, which is AFAIK all it
> is ATM.
> 

Thanks for that Rob

In article <TFAem.137632$Ib5.136893@newsfe24.ams2>, bert says...
> 
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:33:29 +0100
> > bert  wrote:
> > 
> >> I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of 
> >> Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?
> > 
> > I don't have anything bookmarked and Google isn't helping.  Conor said
> > he'd seen something about the proof of concept, which is AFAIK all it
> > is ATM.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for that Rob

Yes, it's proof of concept basically due to the transmitter power 
levels required.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:24:12 +0100
Conor  wrote:

> In article <TFAem.137632$Ib5.136893@newsfe24.ams2>, bert says...
> > 
> > Rob Morley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:33:29 +0100
> > > bert  wrote:
> > > 
> > >> I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of 
> > >> Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?
> > > 
> > > I don't have anything bookmarked and Google isn't helping.  Conor
> > > said he'd seen something about the proof of concept, which is
> > > AFAIK all it is ATM.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for that Rob
> 
> Yes, it's proof of concept basically due to the transmitter power 
> levels required.
> 
I forgot you were talking about actually hacking the network - I was
talking about eavesdropping, which should be easier.

In article <20090806164143.66195f75@bluemoon>, Rob Morley says...
> 
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:24:12 +0100
> Conor  wrote:
> 
> > In article <TFAem.137632$Ib5.136893@newsfe24.ams2>, bert says...
> > > 
> > > Rob Morley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:33:29 +0100
> > > > bert  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of 
> > > >> Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?
> > > > 
> > > > I don't have anything bookmarked and Google isn't helping.  Conor
> > > > said he'd seen something about the proof of concept, which is
> > > > AFAIK all it is ATM.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for that Rob
> > 
> > Yes, it's proof of concept basically due to the transmitter power 
> > levels required.
> > 
> I forgot you were talking about actually hacking the network - I was
> talking about eavesdropping, which should be easier.

Ah, yes. Effectively they can be received up to 500m but it depends on 
what frequency you're listening on as they're stronger on some than 
others.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 3 Aug, 22:01, "Mortimer"  wrote:
> "Conor"  wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.24e13c2c827839bb9898d2@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > In article ,
> > Mortimer says...
>
> >> It's a shame that there isn't an alternative, if Homeplug causes
> >> interference, in situations where wireless is a non-starter because of
> >> very
> >> thick walls or huge metal fireplaces and where drilling holes through the
> >> walls to run Cat 5 is not acceptible to the customer.
>
> > There is an alternative. It's only one particular chipset that causes
> > this and even then, it's only Comtrend who are the main problem. Other
> > PLT devices use RF notches to reduce or completely eliminate RFI in
> > pre-assigned bands listed in the UK bandplan.
>
> Ah, sorry, I must have missed the bit earlier in the thread where you said
> that it was only *some* PLT devices that caused interference. I thought it
> was the whole Homeplug technology, irrespective of manufacturer and chipset,
> that was tarred with the same brush. Sorry - my mistake.
>
> So Comtrend is the make to look out for and avoid - thanks. What's the name
> of the chipset to avoid - so I can check other prospective makes to ensiure
> they don;t use that chipset?
>
> If it's only/mainly one chipset and one manufacturer, why have some US
> states banned all PLTs and not just Comtrend ones?
>
> > Doesn't even need to be unused. There's a UKQRM video on Youtube that
> > shows you how. Watch from 9 minutes in:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1f0KZZZbws&feature=PlayList&p=
> > 8C62E93DE60B3CBF&index=3
>
> Yes, that's bad!
>
> >> Can filters be fitted around the mains cable at the point where it comes
> >> into the house, like the cylindrical filters that you get on some PS2
> >> keyboard cables and USB cables, to prevent the interference spreading
> >> beyond
> >> the house? Or is the interference propagated by the house wiring, even if
> >> it's blocked from getting into the mains wiring (overhead or underground)
> >> in
> >> the street?
>
> > Its propogated by the ring main. Basically, it turns the entire house
> > mains wiring into one big antenna. The cables are unshielded so radiate
> > the RF signal.
>
> Ah, it's the wiring within the house, so filtering so it doesn't leave the
> house wiring and propagate elsewhere doesn't help one bit!

Reading this thread makes me think the post I put up a few minutes ago
around Comtrend network adaptors is maybe null and void...*breaks out
his 12mm, 18" brick drillbit*

Ric

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:14:09 +0100, Conor  wrote:

>In article , DC says...
>
>> You live next door ?
>
>You only have to live within a 500m radius.

That's huge !
-- 
The End

In article , DC says...

> >You only have to live within a 500m radius.
> 
> That's huge !

Indeed. Well my complaint has been solved. Thought something had 
happened when the noise disappeared just before the weekend but this 
afternoon, the Ofcom Field Engineer dealing with my complaint phoned me 
to ask if I'd noticed a change. 

It would appear that BT supplied different PLT adapters that DON'T 
interfere with HF so they do have them but are reluctant to issue them 
however are more than happy to punt gear in the full knowledge that its 
operating illegally.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 13 Aug, 18:34, Conor  wrote:
> In article , DC says...
>
> > >You only have to live within a 500m radius.
>
> > That's huge !
>
> Indeed. Well my complaint has been solved. Thought something had
> happened when the noise disappeared just before the weekend but this
> afternoon, the Ofcom Field Engineer dealing with my complaint phoned me
> to ask if I'd noticed a change.
>
> It would appear that BT supplied different PLT adapters that DON'T
> interfere with HF so they do have them but are reluctant to issue them
> however are more than happy to punt gear in the full knowledge that its
> operating illegally.
>
> --
> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
> I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
> looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor, there's a long discussion on Slashdot today regarding exactly
this issue you might be interested in.  The S/N is pretty low, as you
might expect on /., but it might be of interest.
Mine are getting swapped out for physical GigE this weekend.

Ric

In article <42f40658-8e06-40f5-9be4-ad17d743a509
@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Ric Harris says...

> Conor, there's a long discussion on Slashdot today regarding exactly
> this issue you might be interested in.  The S/N is pretty low, as you
> might expect on /., but it might be of interest.
> Mine are getting swapped out for physical GigE this weekend.
> 
Thanks. I'll get round to there in a little bit. Its on my list of 
daily site visits.



-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Aug 6, 12:33 pm, bert  wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:53:55 퍝
> > bert  wrote:
>
> >> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:00:08 퍝
> >>> bert  wrote:
>
> >>>> I
> >>>> think Homeplugs are a superb bit of kit and I can even use my
> >>>> laptop in the garden through an old garden cable reel. Plus they
> >>>> are far more secure than wireless.
> >>> Why do you think they're more secure?  Both WiFi and Homeplug use
> >>> 128-bit AES encryption, which is significantly more of a barrier to
> >>> exploitation than physical access.  Homeplug can often be heard some
> >>> distance from the house, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to
> >>> listen in anyway with a directional antenna and an RF amplifier.
>
> >> How many people have directional antenna compared to wifi enabled
> >> gadgets?
>
> > More relevant is how many people go wardriving with a directional
> > antenna, as they're the sort of people you should be worrying about
> > when it comes to security.  Maybe Homeplug users are more likely to
> > think they don't need to change the default encryption key, because
> > they think the signal won't escape the building.
>
> People who don't change default encryption on ANY type of system are not
> being very astute.
>
> I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of
> Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If homeplugs are anything like comtrends, then the default encryption
key is a very long string, based on the unique device ID.  I'd say the
difference in security between default and custom was very little...

In
MsgID
on Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:05:18 -0700 (PDT), in uk.comp.home-networking, 'Ric
Harris' wrote:

>> I'd be interested to read about it so can you point to cases of
>> Homeplug/Powerline users being hacked in the manner you describe?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>If homeplugs are anything like comtrends, then the default encryption
>key is a very long string, based on the unique device ID.  I'd say the
>difference in security between default and custom was very little...

Although the specific risk of homeplug links being hacked into seems quite
low to me, you should be careful thinking like that.

While the device IDs may look unpredictable there will be a formula that's
used to generate the sequence of IDs. If this formula is reasonably
simple, or even if it's not but it boils down to a nicely predictable
result, and if the position in the sequence isn't often changed (ie
they're just stepping through, one by one) then it may well make
brute-forcing a *lot* easier. AFAIAA homeplugs have no intrinsic defence
against brute force attempts.

Dave J.