House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL President Says:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 24, No 23
on
June 10, 2005
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL President Says:
ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, says House Resolution 230 (HRes 230)
represents "a fair request" to the FCC and deserves the support of the US
House of Representatives. Sponsored by Rep Mike Ross, WD5DVR, of Arkansas,
HRes 230 calls on the FCC to comprehensively evaluate BPL's interference
potential incorporating "extensive public review and comment," then to
"reconsider and review" its new BPL rules in the light of that public input.
Renewing his call for League members to contact their congressional
representatives to sign on as cosponors of the non-binding measure, Haynie
said Ross's resolution only asks the FCC to do what it should have done in
the first place regarding BPL.
"What this basically asks the FCC to do is to take another look at their
methodology and how they arrived at the conclusions they did," Haynie said.
The FCC adopted rules to govern so-called Access BPL last October 14 in ET
Docket 04-37. "I think that's a fair request and something that we should do
as amateurs to make sure this is done right and without a lot of haste."
Haynie says Motorola's announcement of its Powerline LV system suggests the
FCC rules can provide much greater protection to radicommunication services
without preventing properly engineered BPL systems from going forward.
Ross, who is one of two amateur licensees in the US Congress (the other is
Rep Greg Walden, W7EQI, of Oregon), introduced HRes 230 on April 21. He told
Broadband Over Power Line World (BPLW) recently that he's concerned about
potential interference that BPL deployment could generate. (The interview is
on the BPLW Web site
http://www.etopiamedia.net/bplw/pages/bplw33-5551212.html.)
"Based on my own knowledge of the unique nature of the high-frequency radio
spectrum, I was concerned about the evidence submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission that I believe demonstrates the need to postpone
any rules regarding BPL deployment," Ross said. He explained that passage of
HRes 230 would put the House on record as "supporting a more careful study
by the FCC of the radio interference issue, especially as it relates to
public safety communication, and reconsideration of the adequacy of the
rules in light of this study."
While HRes 230 does not specifically address the BPL concerns of the Amateur
Radio community, Ross said those concerns were what led him to look more
closely at BPL's implications for the public safety community. He noted that
the federal interagency emergency SHARES (SHAred RESources) network uses HF,
and many states and localities still use the 30-50 MHz "low-VHF" band for
public safety communications--spectrum that some BPL pilot projects also
have occupied.
Ross said BPL interference on HF would be proportional to the extent of the
technology's deployment using medium-voltage power lines. "Broadband energy
cannot be put on these lines without causing interference to radio receivers
using the same frequencies," he explained to BPLW's Marc Strassman. He also
said the existing emission limits are "much too high" and never were
intended to apply to systems like BPL. Existing BPL systems should be made
to conform to future limits, he added.
He said BPL's potential to disrupt aviation operations is so great that the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
successfully argued to prohibit Access BPL via medium-voltage power lines on
frequencies used by commercial aeronautical communications.
Ross also wants the Commission to address "without further delay" the
"substantial number" of BPL interference complaints now pending at the FCC.
And while he'd like to see his colleagues eventually approve HRes 230, he
hopes the FCC will "take the interference issue to heart, whether or not the
resolution is adopted."
He further expressed the hope that BPL companies will "realize it's in their
interest to treat the interference issue as a technical and engineering
challenge, not as a political issue."
Speaking at Dayton Hamvention in May, Haynie urged individual amateurs to
begin participating in the political process. "We've got to ratchet up our
presence," he told a forum audience. Haynie said that while ARRL can serve
as the unified voice of the national association for Amateur Radio,
individual licensees are voters, and lawmakers are quite aware that there
are radio amateurs in their districts.
Regarding HRes 230 specifically, Haynie said this week that the task at hand
is to encourage other House members to sign on as cosponsors of the
resolution as the first step toward House adoption. And that's where League
members come in, he said.
"I really encourage you to contact your congressional representative,"
Haynie said. "It's listed in the front of almost every phone book who your
congressman is. If not, you can go to the United States House of
Representatives Web site
http://www.house.gov/ and find out by typing in
your ZIP code. I really encourage you to do this because it's important to
the future of Amateur Radio."
The full text of HRes 230
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/filings/hres230/HRes230.pdf and a
sample letter
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/filings/hres230/HRes230-SampleLtr.doc
are available on the ARRL Web site. Haynie called on members to express
their support for the resolution in their own words.
To expedite delivery, send all correspondence bound for Members of
Congress--preferably as an attachment--to
hres230@arrl.org or fax it to
703-684-7594. The ARRL will bundle correspondence addressed to each Member
of Congress for hand delivery.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 24, No. 23
June 10, 2005
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Presid
|
|
|
by W4YBP on June 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Getting a politician involved won't go anywhere. A fairly retarded request is more like it.
While the ARRL cannot lobby politicians directly, they manage to hoodwink some dumbocrap into sponsoring a pointless bill that tell other politicians to reconsider an already dead mode? then feel good about it?
ARRL are a bunch of clueless morons looking for a clue. 85% of hams can't be wrong about not joining the bafoonery
|
| |
|
RE: House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Pr
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> While the ARRL cannot lobby politicians directly,
> they manage to hoodwink some dumbocrap into
> sponsoring a pointless bill that tell other
> politicians to reconsider an already dead mode?
I don't see BPL as "dead" by a long shot, although it is starting to look as if the momentum may be slowing a bit.
It is active in about 15 cities in the US right now. While some utilities have dropped it in some cities, in at least some of those cases, they are still interested in BPL because they want to use it for SCADA type purposes within the utility, and make a few dollars back by leasing their lines or getting broadband customers.
One BPL company, at a recent stockholder meeting, outlined the increasing number of Requests for Proposal that they are getting from utility companies. Other BPL trials and deployments are in the works. Last week, I received two inquiries from utility companies, looking to learn more about ARRL's concerns about BPL interference.
Although progress is being made, with companies like Motorola designing a system with amateur radio in mind from the getgo, other companies are still not effectively "notching" amateur radio, or are using amateur radio spectrum at S9 "legal" levels. When you see a couple of ham bands wiped out for a mile along a road where a handful of BPL units are deployed, you may not feel it to be so dead -- especially if that road ends up being the one in front of your QTH.
The IEEE is working on three separate BPL standards, and two other major industry committees are studying BPL. There are about a dozen BPL manufacturers and about half that may organizations also working on industry specifications, and promoting BPL through industry gatherings and events. Attendance of 500-2000 people interested enough to spend up to $1000 or so so see all the BPL sales pitches is typical.
These are the reasons I disagree with your conclusion that BPL is a "dead mode." Can you tell us why you think it is?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Pr
|
|
|
by N4QX on June 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> they manage to hoodwink some dumbocrap
I presume the "dumocrap" designation is a pejorative reference to Rep. Ross's political affiliation.
You do realize Rep. Ross is a fellow ham, don't you? Do you make it a piont to address fellow hams in unflattering terms, or suggest they aren't real hams if they don't subscribe to a particular political affiliation?
You would probably be angered if a ham from the other side of the political spectrum used a similar term to describe Rep. Walden. And your anger would be well placed. Our service is aided by having licensees on the hill.
|
| |
|
RE: House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Pr
|
|
|
by N3EVL on June 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w4ybp said "Getting a politician involved won't go anywhere. A fairly retarded request is more like it.
While the ARRL cannot lobby politicians directly, they manage to hoodwink some dumbocrap into sponsoring a pointless bill that tell other politicians to reconsider an already dead mode? then feel good about it?
ARRL are a bunch of clueless morons looking for a clue. 85% of hams can't be wrong about not joining the bafoonery "
Sir,
on the contrary, there is every indication that involvement of politicians is exactly what is needed - look how such involvement has benefited the proponents of BPL.
With their limited resources (compared with those of the BPL industry) the ARRL is wise to use what political clout is available. Perhaps you would prefer they do nothing as you are so certain of impending failure in this effort?
While I do not give tacit approval to everything the ARRL does and is in the process of doing with respect to BPL and other activites, I do generally commend them for their efforts to date to help rid us of this not-yet-dead menace. Your excessively harsh criticism is without merit and (I suspect) is mostly driven by an 'ARRL can do nothing right' agenda that is apparrently fashionable on these internet forums. My own "buffoonery" detector is both sensitive and broad-banded and points elswhere than the ARRL.
|
| |
|
Politicians Never Solve Problems, not even hams
|
|
|
by K4RAF on June 16, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jimmy the Jammer (ex-KA2YBP) has got it right for once.
The whining & crying over BPL is further proof that some just can't get over "da'feet" even if the boogyman is a myth.
Wireless deployment is exploding. SBC & Verizon are leaders in ever expanding broadband networks. WISPs, WiFi(802.11B/G) & WiMax(802.16) shows ever increasing deployment. BPL is quickly looking like the internet's betamax.
For my own radio amusement, I regularly use a laptop to survey 802.11 wireless networks while traveling. Every trip I make shows more access points than the trip before. I logged over 1000 along I-95 between Baltimore & Richmond VA in May. That number has bumped to over 1300 a month later. The shame is they improved upon our AX.25 using all the same terminology(SSID, Beacon, etc), but these run far greater speeds, between 11-54mbps. There was just an annoucement of new 108mbps equipment. What the heck is 9600 baud anymore?
While guys like Ed make their living off the fear factor of BPL, others are making a living solving the problem with actual working broadband solutions. Wireless should be a natural advocacy for hams but it seems it is not. There is no advocacy, except for more whining, now involving a lone politician.
Relying on a politician to solve your problems is your second mistake. Not trying to solve the problem that confronts you is the first.
k4raf@yahoo.com
|
| |
|
RE: Politicians Never Solve Problems, not even ham
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 19, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> While guys like Ed make their living off the fear
> factor of BPL,
The part that is amazing is that you probably really do believe some of the things that fly off your fingertips.
Let's look at this with an eye not colored by your obvious anti-ARRL agenda. Do you really see only disjointed bits and pieces of things, or is the above the view you want to present from your pulpit here?
ARRL and my job have been around for a lot longer than BPL, so how does your interpretation of my work look before BPL came along? Over the past couple of years, BPL has indeed taken the lion's share of my time, but in between all that, I continue to run the ARRL Lab, overseeing ARRL's Product Review testing, EMC programs and the ARRL Technical Information Service (http://www.arrl.org/tis). Last year, the League handled about 10,000 technical inquiries from members.
Over the 15 years I have been at ARRL HQ, my "living" has been made doing a wide range of work.
o Product Review testing
o Reviewing ARRL advertisements
o Technical Information Service
o Authoring articles
o Authoring the ARRL book on RF exposure
o Authoring and maintaining ARRL Handbook chapters
o Editing ARRL's RFI Book, authoring several chapters
o Writing and maintaining dozens of ARRL's technical web pages
o Helping with technical studies and FCC contact wrt the RF exposure regulations (http://www.arrl.org/rfsafety)
o Serve as ARRL staff liasion to the ARRL EMC Committee; RF Safety Committee; Technology Task Force; High Speed Multimedia Working Group; Software Defined Radio Working Group; Digital Voice Working group
o Serve as ARRL represntative on the ANSI accredited C63 committe (EMC); the ACES SCC-28 committee (RF safety); the IEEE BPL working group; the IEEE Standards Development Committee (SDCom) On those committees, I serve as chair of C63 SC/5 (Immunity) and as the chair of C63 and SDCom's BPL working groups. (Gosh, might those people be making a living off of BPL fears, too?)
o Examples of other work: http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/homeplug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf, and similar work preparing technical papers and liasion with the Home Phone Networking Alliance and the various VDSL commmittees.
That's just a snapshot, and by no means a complete list. Of, of course, people could believe you when you tell them that I make my living off of people's fears about BPL...
And those fears are far from unfounded. Although ARRL has made some progress with companies like Motorola, and is engaging in ongoing discussions with other companies, the reality is that BPL is here; it is slowly proliferating and, although I think in the long run, it will collapse of its own technical deficiencies, in the meantime, we are seeing some serious problems with intial deployments.
If you were to do more than pontificate from your keyboard and take a close look at BPL systems in person -- and I have seen a dozen of them firsthand, you would not be so cavalier about it. Perhaps then you would also stop trying to destroy the work of those that are trying to do something about it. Maybe some of the hams that have dealt with BPL locally can help by posting some of their experiences for you.
> others are making a living solving the problem with
> actual working broadband solutions.
Good for them, but if you are saying that ARRL should promote any broadband technology, I disagree. ARRL should not be in the business of marketing broadband technologies of any sort. I think that the League has gone the appropriate distance in that area on its web page entitled "Alternatives to BPL." http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/alternatives.html.
An ARRL Working Group has been pretty active at getting hams more involved in high-speed digital operation, including 802.11. See http://www.arrl.org/hsmm.
Now, you have been pretty obsessed with how I make my living, RAF, even though my work is made possible only because 160,000 people chipped in. Can you refresh our memory on how you make yours? Do you care to help, or will you continue to try to undermine anything that ARRL tries to get done?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Pr
|
|
|
by K4GVT on June 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey W4YPB, it's embarrassing to acknowledge people like you part of the HAM community!
|
| |
|
RE: House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Pr
|
|
|
by K8WV on June 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's easy to dismiss BPL as an issue, if you don't think you will be affected. Many won't. For example, I seriously doubt that BPL will be a problem in relatively sparcely settled areas. The cost of the infrastructure would be too high for what may turn out to be a technology with a quite limited life span. At least I hope it's a limited life span.
But even if BPL only lasts 10-15 years as a commercial product, that's pretty much a generation of hams. Take out a generation of hams in heavily populated areas and that's very heavy economic damage to a hobby that's commercially marginal to begin with.
I know and respect W1RFI. I've talked with the leadership of my state Chamber of Commerce, with many of my state legislators, and with a US Senator and several representatives. BPL is for real. The problems it causes are for real. Support for it does not start with the FCC. It starts at the White House.
If you're not affected, or think you won't be, great! But even if you don't hear BPL RFI yourself, the ham you're trying to talk to might. That makes it your problem, too.
I'm thankful the League is involved, and that people like Ed Hare (W1RFI) care enough to work for them.
Dan, K8WV
http://www.ringerlaw.com
|
| |
|
RE: House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Pr
|
|
|
by AB3AX on June 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<While the ARRL cannot lobby politicians directly, they manage to hoodwink some dumbocrap into sponsoring a pointless bill that tell other politicians to reconsider an already dead mode? then feel good about it?
ARRL are a bunch of clueless morons looking for a clue. 85% of hams can't be wrong about not joining the bafoonery>>
Where do you get the 85% figure from? Thankfully you are not likely to be speaking on bahalf of the sensible majority of Hams for the foreseeable future.
Nobody has worked and is working harder on the BPL issue than Ed Bare at the ARRL. I would hardly call him a clueless moron. As a paid-up member myself, I personally resent your inference. If Ed has a fault it is probably his naiveté - as illustrated here by his attempts to talk logic and common sense to someone like yourself, who obviously has limited understanding of either concept.
The ARRL have stuck to their guns despite the moronic criticism they have received from certain quarters such as your own - and have succeeded in slowing the BPL gallop down to a crawl - and all the while much more technically sophisticated alternatives are gaining ground in the market place. The only thing that is going to kill off BPL is BPL - once its technical inadequacies are fully exposed to the public glare.
So what would you have done differently? How would you have fought the battle? You could have tried raising funds to combat the PR blitz - but those guys have been spending literally millions of dollars. You could have gone out with semtex and detonators and blown up a few distribution poles - hardly likely to go down too well in the present climate! You could have prayed to your God - but as a Republican he probably has his own substantial investment in BPL? You could have voted for a President who had not jumped into bed with the BPL industry but you voted for Bush.
Sorry, but I can't think of anything else - can you?
73 - Gordon AB3AX
|
| |
|
House Resolution 230 'A Fair Request,' ARRL Presid
|
|
|
by K0RGR on June 22, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was watching Charlie Rose on PBS the other night. I'm trying to get my money's worth out of PBS before Congress cuts off their Federal contribution. He had a guest who was talking about the development of broadband networks in Japan.
In Japan, the government opened up competition between the telephone companies and independent providers to provide high speed Internet service. As a result, 40 of the 42 million Japanese households today can get 26 Megabit wideband service for under $20 a month.
In this country, the Clinton administration tried to do the same thing, but it was tied up in the courts, and eventually, the phone companies won after the Bush administration came into office. So, we don't have this open competition as the Japanese did. Instead, we have this BPL monstrosity.
Meanwhile, many states are passing legislation making it illegal for local governments to offer their own wideband services via Wi-Fi or Wi-Max.
So, yes, it is very appropriate that politicians be involved. This is a poltical animal, and it will take a political solution to cage it for many of us.
|
| |
|
RE: Politicians Never Solve Problems, not even ham
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"While guys like Ed make their living off the fear factor of BPL, others are making a living solving the problem with actual working broadband solutions".
I agree.
ARRL has way overblown BPL fears with one hand, while begging for "spectrum defense" money with the other. NOW, it appears as though ARRL may be getting close to cozying up to one type of BPL....what gives? Has a BPL manufacturer promised to advertise in QST? Whoose side is ARRL on, anyway?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
