eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Resolution, ARRL Says:

from The ARRL Letter, Vol 24, No 50
Website: http://www.arrl.org/ on December 23, 2005
View comments about this article!

Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Resolution, ARRL Says:

In a strongly worded letter to the FCC, the League has once again asked the Commission to shut down the Manassas, Virginia, BPL system because it's still causing harmful interference to Amateur Radio and otherwise does not comply with FCC Part 15 rules. The December 19 letter from ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, was in response to a November 30 letter from Spectrum Enforcement Division Chief Joseph Casey, who suggested further cooperation between the complaining radio amateurs and the city-owned BPL system. Imlay said more meetings and discussions about ongoing interference are no longer productive while "this hopelessly flawed BPL system" is allowed to continue operating.

"These meetings have not produced any solution to the interference problem but have, instead, created the illusion that the problem is being addressed," Imlay wrote. Ham radio complaints of interference from the BPL system date back to early 2004. "This system should have been taken off the air long ago, pending reconfiguration or re-engineering of it," he added, "and the only operating that it should be doing is for purposes of interference testing."

Communication Technologies (COMTek) operates the BPL system over the municipally owned electric power grid using Main.net equipment on frequencies between 4 MHz and 30 MHz. The League said the FCC has not discharged its "most fundamental obligation" to prevent or resolve interference issues involving the Manassas system, which, the League charged, only remains operating "because the Commission, for political reasons, has consistently refused to enforce its rules with respect to BPL."

The League told Casey that the only solution at this point is to order the Manassas BPL system--an unlicensed RF emitter permitted to operate only on a non-interference basis--to cease operation except to test for interference.

The Part 15 BPL rules the FCC adopted in October 2004 require a BPL operator informed of harmful interference to "investigate the reported interference and resolve confirmed harmful interference . . . within a reasonable period," Imlay pointed out. "No reasoned examination of this case could produce a finding that this rule has been complied with in Manassas," he added.

Imlay says that at a December 13 meeting, COMTek and the City of Manassas "openly acknowledged the interference to amateur stations" but claimed that until a month or so earlier, they had been unable to "notch" amateur allocations because they didn't yet have the equipment to do so. "By the admission of COMTek, the capability of reducing interference in this system does not exist," Imlay noted.

Previous meetings between the complaining radio amateurs and the BPL operator "produced no measurable results," Imlay contended, referring to the response of Donald Blasdell, W4HJL, to Casey on December 9. At one point in the system, interference was reported at S9 plus 40 dB on typical ham gear. "That level precludes virtually all Amateur Radio communications," he asserted.

Imlay took the opportunity to again point out that the Manassas BPL system is out of compliance with §15.615(a) because its operator failed to provide full information to the public BPL database by the November 19 deadline.

"ARRL again requests that the BPL facility at Manassas, Virginia, be instructed to shut down immediately," the League's letter concluded, "and that it not resume operation unless the entire facility is shown to be in full compliance with Commission rules regarding radiated emissions; with the non-interference requirement of Section 15.5 of the Commission's rules; and not in any case until thirty days subsequent to full compliance with Section 15.615(a) of the rules."

Field tests conducted by Manassas radio amateurs established that the city's BPL system "was an interference generator at distances of hundreds of feet from the modems on overhead power lines," the ARRL told the FCC October 13. "It was also, incidentally, determined that the system was susceptible to interference from nearby radio transmitters operating between 4 and 20 MHz," the League added.

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 24, No. 50 December 23, 2005

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Resolu  
by KZ1X on December 23, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I am going to make a point to drive through Manassas every time I'm in northern Va., and call CQ DX endlessly using my big HF whips and borrowed SGC amp.

It wouldn't take many of us doing this, over and over, to have the problem fixed.

Interference is a two-way street.
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by N7UQA on December 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Cannot say I didn't see this coming. The FCC will continue to ignore the interference issues with BPL till they are taken to court and forced to enforce their rules. The ARRL can file as much as it wants, it's time to go to court. It's been more than a year and the FCC hasn't even acknowledged that there is a problem, this is totally inexcusable. This is all political, if it was regular power line interference the FCC would intervene, the power company would comply, life would be good.

Craig - N7UQA
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by K4RAF on December 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The real illusion is that when the ARRL demands, the FCC jumps.

BPL was allowed over a year ago & the ARRL has yet to shut down a single BPL system "on demand" or on technical merits.

Can you connect the dots?
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by WA4MJF on December 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I think it is time for Chris to
stop pussy footin' around and
go to either the Eastern Virginia
Circuit or the DC Circuit and get
a writ of mandamus (one of our
barristers can tell us which).
I think that a Deputy US Marshal
serving the FCC Commish will be
the only way to get them to act.

The League needs to start a special
court fund to start getting into the
Federal Court system and quit writing
letters. Maybe a court order will
get their tails in gear.

Happy Holidaze!

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by K4RAF on December 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"The League needs to start a special court fund..."

Yea, like all the funds they fleeced for the 'BPL Fund' are spent? They spent more on the Haynie Washington promo than they did on the entire 'defense' against BPL. Neither effort is effective, as shown by the result.

Money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from the clueless nuts who fell out of the tree & bumped their heads into thinking the ARRL has any clout left whatsoever.

The ARRL demands, the FCC yawns...
 
Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Resolu  
by NC9K on December 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Legally it will do no good to file for a writ against the FCC to get it to act. The FCC will plead immunity and ultimately get the case dismissed. What is needed is an "ex rel" style relator federal case on behalf of the US gov. and US citizens et al. filed jointly by the impacted hams and possibly the ARRL against the the offending BPL operator. The filing should be for immediate and ultimately permanent injuntive relief from the illegal "nuisance" interference from the BPL operation to licensed radio services. If the FCC does get involved it would have to show its true colors on the federal court record over the BPL issue.
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by W9WHE-II on December 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"In a strongly worded letter to the FCC....."

Oh, my.
I bet that has FCC quaking in its boots! FCC probably held a special meeting to discuss the latest demand by the impotent ARRL.

ARRL has made such demands before. However, FCC has consistently ignored them, just like FCC will do with this "strongly worded letter". Since FCC TOTALLY IGNORES ARRL, it is time ARRL either "put up or shut up". ARRL has many hams thinking that it can win in court. I'm not so sure. But the time has come to find out.

I call upon ARRL to file suit. Let's see if ARRL really can do what so many of you ardent ARRL supporters think it can. My hunch is that ARRL will loose and as a result, many ARRL members will see ARRL for what it really is, a divisive, impotent, elitest boys club. But who knows, I might be wrong. Either way, let's find out. This just might be ARRL's last stand.

Come on ARRL, stop threatening FCC and file suit!

W9WHE
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by WA4MJF on December 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Well, conflicting opinions from the
barristers. Which is right, can the
League get a writ and a Federal Judge
force the Commission to enforce its rules
or are as the other
said, can they claim immunity?

Perhaps get an injunction against the
City of Manassas? Whilst waiting for
a civil suit to proceed, since the League
can show "harm"?

If all y'all were Chris Imlay what would you
do? Probably the most billable hours :-)

I remember many moons ago the US Attorney
for the Eastern District of NC told me that
he could try folks for some violations of
FCC regulations (this involved external
RF amplifiers that I would find in between
a CB radio and the antenna, a prima facia
violation of Part 95. I would seize them
and send them to Elizabeth City with the
info and most were disposed of with
pleas before US Magistratre w/o trial),
would Part 15 regulations
come under this? Coud the hams affected
go to the US Magistrate and swear out a
warrant? This would enable them to get
their day in court without the FCC having
to do anything.

Happy Holidaze!

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by KG6AMW on December 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Good cross of section of responses ranging from thoughtful to loony. It’s interesting that those with the most ARRL baggage offer up only criticisms or recommend that the ARRL goes cowboy on the issue. Fortunately the ARRL has good management and their response will always be measured and professional.
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by K4RAF on December 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"If all y'all were Chris Imlay what would you do? Probably the most billable hours :-) "

I'd put on KG6AMW's rosey glasses and...

Considering the pattern shown by the ARRL in the past, employment (for their friends) is far more important than deployment (of their 'enemies'), or lack thereof in the case of BPL.

I agree 1000% with W9WHE, the time has come for the ARRL to show us ALL how wrong we are about the faulty logic behind the whole "defense charade". Softball demand letters are a waste of effort in a game of hardball. You have to wonder if they want to win 'the war' toggling from antagonistic to demanding?

Imlay is just sinking his straw deeper in the ARRL drink to keep drawing $$$$ The representation they are getting is inept unless that is what Sumner authorized & nothing more. Again, a question of will, due process & most of all: RESULTS...

I doubt they can collect the 'manly spherical entities' to put on this effective proposed defense, because it came from said "freeloaders"....

So much for fratenity & brotherhood...
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by K4RAF on December 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"If all y'all were Chris Imlay what would you do? Probably the most billable hours :-) "

I'd put on KG6AMW's rosey glasses and...

Considering the pattern shown by the ARRL in the past, employment (for their friends) is far more important than deployment (of their 'enemies'), or lack thereof in the case of BPL.

I agree 1000% with W9WHE, the time has come for the ARRL to show us ALL how wrong we are about the faulty logic behind the whole "defense charade". Softball demand letters are a waste of effort in a game of hardball. You have to wonder if they want to win 'the war' toggling from antagonistic to demanding?

Imlay is just sinking his straw deeper in the ARRL drink to keep drawing $$$$ The representation they are getting is inept unless that is what Sumner authorized & nothing more. Again, a question of will, due process & most of all: RESULTS...

I doubt they can collect the 'manly spherical entities' to put on this effective proposed defense, because it came from said "freeloaders"....

So much for fratenity & brotherhood...
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by W9WHE-II on December 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
There is an old saying:

"If what you are doing isn't working, try something different"

That saying has a corrolary:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

ARRL demanded that FCC shut down numerious BPL systems due to alleged violation of FCC rules. FCC consistently ignores ARRL. Presumably, there is a ham somewhere that is suffering unreasonable interferance. As soon as the ham exausts all administrative remiedies with FCC, that ham has an action which is "ripe" for litigation. (Ripe is a legal term for a properly justicable case).

Now I'm an outsider (an ordinary ham - not a super-elete member of the Newington Boys Club) but it appears to me that IF BPL is as harmful as ARRL claims and there is a ham that filed a complaint that FCC has failed/refused to resolve, and the ham still suffers unreasonable interferance, the action is ripe for litigation.

If this is true, WHY NOT LITIGATE?

If ARRL is right why not kill off BPL now, before it spreads further? Seems to me that the more a cancer grows, the harder it is to eradicate.

I have a hunch. ARRL has over-estimated its position and now recognizes the weakness of its case, and is looking for a way to back out without loosing face. Could I be wrong? Sure. But if the case is ripe, WHY NOT LITIGATE and kill off BPL before it spreads further? Why allow BPL systems to spread?

If a BPL suit is not yet ripe, perhapse ARRL will enlighten us ordinary hams. Nahhhhhhh. Like that would ever happen!

W9WHE
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by KO6UJ on January 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Attention: ARRL

"The FCC will continue to ignore the interference issues with BPL till they are taken to court"

ARRL, get off your collective behinds and ligitate!

The more you procrastinate, the more money you waste, and the more momentum BPL gains.

ARRL, what are you? Afraid? Stop being Mr. Nice guy.

MOVE IT! NOW!!
 
RE: Response to BPL Complaints an 'Illusion' of Re  
by W9WHE-II on January 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
IF ARRL can win in court, WHY let BPL spread?

IF ARRL can stop BPL, why not stop it now?

IF you think ARRL is responsive to you, ask them these two questions and see if you get a responsive answer.

FAT CHANCE!

W9WHE
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
What is FCC Docket 03-104 Asking?
ARRL Asks FCC to Shut Down New York BPL Field Trial:
ARRL, FCC Continue BPL Interference Resolution Database Debate:
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority, Court Filing Says:
Do We Need a Kick in the Pants?


Other News Articles
Children Hail Others from Faraway Lands:
Father-Son Amateur Radio Buffs Ready to Help in an Emergency:
Power Grids In Peril from Geomagnetic Storms:
Kids Get to Ham It Up a Bit:
W1AW Winter Operating Schedule: