ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Ambient Corp BPL Installation:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 01
on
January 6, 2006
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Ambient Corp BPL Installation:
In the wake of continued FCC inaction in response to several previous
complaints, on January 5 the ARRL filed a renewal of the complaint against
the Ambient Corporation's Broadband over Power Line system in Briarcliff
Manor, New York. The BPL system is operated by Ambient, on power lines owned
and operated by Consolidated Edison, under an experimental FCC
authorization.
The latest communication points out that the FCC, without adjudicating
ARRL's repeated complaints about interference throughout the amateur 20
meter band, renewed Ambient's experimental license for an additional term,
from August 1, 2005 to August 1, 2007. "The Briarcliff Manor BPL system
currently (still) causes harmful interference to Amateur Radio
communications and it is not compliant with applicable FCC part 15
regulations," according to the ARRL complaint. "Neither," it continues, "is
it compliant with the terms of the experimental authorization granted by the
Commission, most recently on August 1, 2005."
It continues: "ARRL reiterates its request, now more than a year old, that
the BPL facility.be instructed to shut down immediately; and that it not
resume operation unless the facility is shown to be in full compliance with
Commission rules regarding radiated emissions and with the non-interference
requirement.of the Commission's Rules and the terms of the experimental
authorization. Finally, information about it must be listed in the BPL
publicly accessible database."
Appended to the January 5 complaint letter was a 25 page engineering report
entitled "Additional Testing of BPL System in Briarcliff Manor, NY." ARRL
Laboratory Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI, wrote the report after conducting further
tests at the site December 5, 2005. The report points out that he had
conducted similar tests twice before during 2005, and three times during
2004. In this earlier testing, Hare found significant violations of FCC
rules regarding Part 15 emissions limits.
The January 5 ARRL complaint, entitled "Continued Request for Immediate
Cessation of Operation," was signed by ARRL Counsel Christopher D. Imlay,
W3KD, and was sent to the FCC's Joseph Casey, Bruce Franca and James Burtle.
Casey is Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, while Franca serves as Acting
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Burtle is Chief,
Experimental Licensing Division. A copy was also sent to the counsel for
Ambient Corporation.
For more about BPL, see the BPL pages on the ARRLWeb
http//www.arrl.org/bpl.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 25, No. 01
January 6, 2006
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Ambient
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just another bullet point in the failed BPL 'strategy', the crybaby plea letter. Will they write 100 before they figure out it is not working (either)?
While I may not be a lawyer, I know any lawyer worth his fees would have a better strategy than simply continue to write letters against Federal inaction. Where is the class-action lawsuit? Where is any suit action?
15 months since the FCC decision & things have not only remained the same, they have gotten worse. The FCC has punched the teeth out of the little paper tiger but also gave him a concussion.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Amb
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree. The main ARRL strategy, which appears to be based entirely on technical arguments, is not working. I had a feeling from the very beginning it would not work.
If the Government of the US does not want to enforce something, it will not be enforced. I've seen this time and time again. For example in the 1970's TV manufacturers were victims of dumping by Japanese TV manufacturers. US manufacturers filed a lawsuit and won, but the US Government didn't want them to collect. So they didn't. This wasn't just Republicans, it was the Democrats also.
If the US Government doesn't want to enforce laws or judgements that protect large domestic industries, they sure aren't going to listen to a few hundred thousand hams.
The ARRL has had some success because there is a system now that uses 30-50MHz. While it will ruin low band commercial frequencies, it won't bother Hams.
I hope we are not in trouble with BPL, but I worry that we are.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Amb
|
|
|
by W8JI on January 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree. The main ARRL strategy, which appears to be based entirely on technical arguments, is not working. I had a feeling from the very beginning it would not work.
If the Government of the US does not want to enforce something, it will not be enforced. I've seen this time and time again. For example in the 1970's TV manufacturers were victims of dumping by Japanese TV manufacturers. US manufacturers filed a lawsuit and won, but the US Government didn't want them to collect. So they didn't. This wasn't just Republicans, it was the Democrats also.
If the US Government doesn't want to enforce laws or judgements that protect large domestic industries, they sure aren't going to listen to a few hundred thousand hams.
The ARRL has had some success because there is a system now that uses 30-50MHz. While it will ruin low band commercial frequencies, it won't bother Hams.
I hope we are not in trouble with BPL, but I worry that we are.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Amb
|
|
|
by K5UJ on January 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
the real start of the problem (yes, this is hindsight) was the licensing system that produced 600,000 American hams with a majority apathetic about HF. Here is my estimate of the dirty little secret about the ham population breakdown: I think 5/6th of the licenses out there belong to hams who are:
1. Silent keys
2. Inactive
3. Do not use HF for one reason or another (anything from EME to hams who just use an HT to operate on a repeater) and don't care what happens to HF.
Most of the remaining some odd 100,000 U.S. hams are on the fence--their operating is so restricted due to HOAs (QRP with a flagpole antenna let's say) they don't really enjoy ham radio that much anyway and only operate a few times a year when they don't have anything better to do. Therefore, if HF gets trashed they'll just take up pottery or something and forget about it.
I hate to say it but I think the no. of hams who grew up with ham radio, and operate HF a lot and consider it a big part of their lives is relatively small, maybe 40,000. how else to explain that there were only 2000 comments filed with FCC during the NPRM comment period?
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if 600,000 hams had filed comments, and each had given ARRL fifty bucks to fight this, things would be substantially different now. Of course my estimates are just hunches and I may be way low. I certainly hope so.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Amb
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on January 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The statement, “the real start of the problem (yes, this is hindsight) was the licensing system that produced 600,000 American hams with a majority apathetic about HF”. I disagree, it doesn’t matter if there was 60,000 or 6 million hams, those attracted to HF would be here if HF held their interest. The more likely answer involves just less people interested in ham radio given the abundance of alternatives - that require less thought and are more plug and play friendly. As for the ARRL, they’ve done very well given their resources. Some have recommend in previous postings that the ARRL goes cowboy and starts a lawsuit against the FCC to force regulatory action. My experience tells me once you get into a court of law you lose control of the issue and if we lose, then what? This is a technical matter and I suspect the courts either won't understand the technical nuances or will take a position that involves favoring the greater good for society despite the facts. Fortunately the ARRL has good management and their response will always be measured and professional.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Amb
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on January 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, a technical problem maybe, legaly
speaking, but if the BPL providers
don't follow the regulations and
the FCC is taking no action to force
them to comply, which
is what the League is contending, then
the court is the place to settle it.
Either they are follwing the BPL regs
or they're not.
That is what is supposed to keep us civil,
going to court to correct wrongs, rather
than taking action on one's own.
I think the court is the place to settle
it peacefully.
I hope that makes sense to you.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Renews Interference Complaint Against Amb
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My experience tells me once you get into a court of law you lose control of the issue and if we lose, then what?"
We have clearly lost control of the issue from day 1. The ARRL continues to write demand letters to a commission consisting mainly of lawyers. The ARRL makes shallow claims of victory for getting language changed but what good is language changes when it is not enforced?
Clue #1: Not a single case of enforcement by the FCC on ANY BPL deployment under new or old Part 15 language
Writing technical letters to lawyers continues to waste everyone's time. Imlay is slopping at the trough like everyone else in Screwington. The only way to regain 'control' of the issue is by getting the FCC's attention. We do that by going through due process, as lawyers understand other lawyers, not engineers.
The ARRL is not representing amateur radio against BPL. If it were, it would already be in court, some 15 months after the FCC BPL decision. Where are they? In Imlay's word processor!
|
| |
|
"PowerLine Blooms" @CES Show
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is not good, time is wasting:
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006195.html
|
| |
|
RE: "PowerLine Blooms" @CES Show
|
|
|
by N4QX on January 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ER, CJ, the HomePlug Alliance is among the organizations that have worked with the ARRL lab to make their installations amateur friendly. In fact, their technology is in use at W1AW. If their technology supplants the Ambients of the world, that's a good thing.
I would also point out that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for bringing a suit against an administrative agency, and that letters of the type described above are critical to establish the high burden of proving such exhaustion.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL SITS ON HANDS
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on January 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4QX writes:
"I would also point out that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for bringing a suit against an administrative agency...."
As a general proposition, this is correct. However, IF an agency REFUSES to adjudicate matters before it AND lacks a reasonable explanation, then one can argue constructive or effective exaustion and proceed. If, as ARRL says, FCC has unjustifyably refused to adjudicate ARRL complaints, then why not proceed? or has ARRL climbed up on this soapbox, only to discover that it is as impotent on this issue as it is on most others?
Does the danger of BPL prolifereation (although ARRL says BPL is "flawed" and "won't work" anyway) outweigh the risks of waiting? You tell me.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL SITS ON HANDS
|
|
|
by N4QX on January 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Point taken on the effective exhaustion doctrine, Jonathan. I tend to think that the pendency of multiple petitions for reconsideration in the BPL proceeding, even for more than a year now, would weigh heavily against effective exhaustion. It's not uncommon for these to be dealt with at a snail's pace.
The argument for effective exhaustion could be plausibly made, but I think even you and I would agree that there's a wide gap between plausible and winning.
|
| |
|
RE: "PowerLine Blooms" @CES Show
|
|
|
by K4RAF on January 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ongoing joke is this 'Hareline defense', attempting to define a 'defense' as allowing the opposing team to practice scoring. Defense is prevention, not tryouts.
The ARRL loudly said it stood against BPL. Now 15 months after the decision, they are playing it all ways against the middle, by allowing these manufacturers to 'try out' their garbage on W1AW's clothesline, while filing demand letters?
De*fense:
1) act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
2) means or method of defending or protecting.
3) To attempt to stop (the opposition) from scoring.
4) To play defense against (an opponent); guard.
5) Self defense
It is time to take a stand against BPL by filing suit, not holding Science Class, lead by Ed Hare. This is totally ignorant of a coherant strategy, much like the ARRL stated policy against promoting wireless (as a concept, not vendors) as an alternative to BPL, although it would be a natural with any radio organization worth its' self respect. Yet we are watching the ARRL actually pick & choose the theoretically "good BPL" vendors on a Motel 6 test bed, while we all know that in the field that things are quite different because of infrastructure variations. After claiming the funds were to be "used against BPL", isn't it contradictory to actually be for BPL afterall? Truth or funds by deception? This gives a whole new meaning to "take the money & run".
It is time to take a stand to lever the FCC to enforce the Part 15 rules against BPL, not spend the night in their BPL comp room!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL SITS ON HANDS
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on January 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4QX writes:
"The argument for effective exhaustion could be plausibly made, but I think even you and I would agree that there's a wide gap between plausible and winning"
But if BPL is HALF as dangerious as ARRL has led us to believe, what is the worst that could happen by filing now? A judge might rule the action "premature" and say "come back" when it is"? On the other hand, consider the potential upside. If ARRL prevails (doubtful, but not impossible) they might prevent the spread of BPL and dampen the corporate enthusiasm for further BPL development. And that would be a good thing.
My concern, in waiting, is the potential that FCC might make the Amatuer service a Part 15 service. In other words, Amateur licensees must accept all harmful interference, including BPL. If they do that BEFORE suit, FCC could arguably get away with it. But FCC did it AFTER suit, it might be far more difficult to pull off. See my concern?
So I ask, does the potential upside outweight the potential down side? Especially since it appears to me that BPL DOES WORK (contrary to ARRL propiganda) and appears to be proliferating. The more systems there are, the more of a vested interests corporations will have in defending their investments.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:
Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
|
