BPL Database Complaints?
Bernie Skoch (K5XS)
on
March 6, 2006
View comments about this article!
Per a recent ARRL news release, the ARRL has demanded that the FCC order the United Telecom Council (UTC) to "cease its arbitrary limits" on access to the public BPL Interference Resolution Web site Web site. UTC administers the site, which FCC Part 15 rules require to be "publicly available." In a complaint filed February 23 with the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, the FCC Enforcement Bureau and UTC, the League charged UTC with "arbitrarily and unlawfully" preventing radio amateurs, the ARRL and other Amateur Radio groups from utilizing the BPL database.
I recently tried to access the database (
http://www.bpldatabase.org) to see if there were any BPL deployments in my area (Zip code 72727), at my parents’ home (72076—from which I operate), near a vacation home (20712), and near our repeater remote link site (near Zips 72701, 72702, 72703).
After five searches (done by Zip code), I was locked out with a prompt that said “Your search limit has been exceeded, though you may try again later. If you feel you have reached this message in error, please email admin@utc.org with a description of the problem.”
To me, this isn’t a “publicly available” database, and I have to wonder why UTC is trying to keep people from searching wherever they’d like.
You may or may not care, but if you do, and if you’d like to comment to those who have some say in how the BPL database is made available to the public, the following individuals may benefit from hearing from you.
Julius Knapp, Acting Chief, OET, FCC
Julius.Knapp@fcc.gov
Bruce Romano, Deputy Chief, OET
Bruce.Romano@fcc.gov
Joseph Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau, FCC
Joseph.Casey@fcc.gov
William R. Moroney, President, UTC
bill.moroney@utc.org
73,
Bernie Skoch
K5XS
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K4IA on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL needs to stop whining to the FCC (where they get nowhere) and take this matter to the courts.
Let the bureaucrats explain to a Federal Judge why they won't do their job. Marbury vs. Madison comes to mind.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree. I do not understand why the ARRL hasn't filed suit yet. The FCC has basically told us to "go fly a kite" on the BPL issue and the best we can do is stamp our feet and pout?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by W4VR on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How much clout does the ARRL have with the FCC....NONE!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
3 words come to mind when considering the ARRL & its' BPL "defense":
Inept
Impotent
Feckless
Instead of seeking a Federal injunction, they instead jumped in bed with a BPL equipment vendor named Motorola. However, they would "NEVER back any industry" like wireless, which are natural allies for radio operators! Meanwhile, Motorola BPL uses Canopy for 'last mile' connections, which pollutes 900MHz & 2.4GHz with proprietary noise that doesn't conform to 802.11 connectivity standards.
Way to go ARRL, those earplugs are working really well!!!
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Funny thing about the league. They seem to have little to no influence with the FCC, yet theres diehard supporters who post on this website who would belly crawl through a minefield to kiss Sumners backside. Keep sending them your hard earned money, they really go to bat for you. I love these articles that say the ARRL demands this or that....what a riot! It took me 10 minutes to stop laughing just so I could type this. BPL is here like it or not. The big money interests backing this make the league look like a sunday school class. All we can hope for is BPL to fail of its own technical weaknesses vs. the existing and more efficient technologies. The leagues chances of making any significant progress towards stopping or eliminating BPL are about the same as winning your state lotto....slim to none.
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is an interesting situation. We have an organization attempting to limit information to a group of people that specialize in delivering information. I suspect the UPC wants to control how this information is presented. It would be very easy to download the entire database, by having a computer type in every zip code in the US. They would then loose control of how the information is presented. Remember, we are specialists. This shouldn't be a big problem to resolve.
Dave WA0ZZG
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K4IA on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I should add to my earlier comment:
Even die-hard ARRL supporters must acknowledge their "complain and demand" approach has been ineffectual (for those of you in Rio Linda, that means "it hasn't worked").
I would bet that if the ARRL filed suits to shut down BPL offenders and open the database:
1. The suits would be successful
2. The League's esteem would skyrocket
3. There would be a flood of donations because even the die-hard ARRL bashers would realize that ARRL can accomplish something good
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My reply to all ARRL bashers is:
There is NO OTHER organization representing Amateur Radio that is doing anything AT ALL!
I, personally, do not want to see the ARRL involved in expensive and time consuming litigation. I believe what they are doing is in my best interests.
If you do not believe that is true, then you are welcome to start your own organization. In other words, put up or shut up!
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is My first response:
============
Dear Mr. Zabawa:
This responds to your email inquiry concerning the Access BPL database.
The access BPL database is designed to assist with the resolution of
harmful interference to local licensed radio users that may be caused by
BPL. That is effectively accomplished by allowing licensed radio users
to enter the zip code of the area in which they operate. If the zip code
does not match an area in which there is a BPL system, it is unlikely
interference would be caused by BPL, but UTC does offer to assist users
that still believe that they are experiencing BPL interference. If the
zip code does match an area where there is a BPL system, the database
will show the contact information for the BPL operator and other
required information under the FCC rules, so that the licensed radio
users may report the interference to the local BPL operator. In most
cases, licensed radio users should be able to determine if there are any
BPL systems in their area by searching the zip code in which their
facilities operate. However, licensed radio users may search the
immediate surrounding zip codes, as well. As such, the access BPL
database is easy for the public to use and effective to determine
whether there is a local BPL system.
The database fully complies with the FCC's requirements and the
underlying purpose of the rule, while protecting the database itself
against denial of service attacks and preserving to a very limited
extent the legitimate interest of BPL operators in the commercially
sensitive nature of their deployment plans and operations. As such, it
does not openly list all the zip codes in which there is a BPL system or
a planned deployment, and there are reasonable limits to the number of
zip codes that a licensed radio user may search over the course of a
given time.
In any event, UTC will work with licensed radio users on a case by case
basis to address actual cases of harmful interference that are suspected
to be caused by BPL. As such, if the database indicates that there is
not a BPL system in your area, and you still believe that you are
experiencing harmful interference that is caused by BPL, please contact
UTC. Similarly, if your access to the database is limited in such a way
that it prevents you from determining whether there is a BPL system or
planned deployment in your local area, please contact UTC.
Brett Kilbourne
United Power Line Council
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
(202)833-6807
|
| |
|
BPL Deployment Map
|
|
|
by K5XS on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I found this map interesting. I have no way of knowing its currency or accuracy.
It is from the United Powerline Council.
http://www.uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/7966/conman/BPL+Map+12_12.pdf
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I, personally, do not want to see the ARRL involved in expensive and time consuming litigation."
Then you, like your ARRL, have nary a clue how the game is played, let alone how to win. In your mind, not doing what proper legal procedures call for, is going to somehow get matters magically resolved?
The ARRL deserves supporters like you & vice-versa...
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by N4QX on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK then, CJ. File a suit yourself and see how quickly it gets dismissed. There is still an open administrative proceeding on this matter. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is an absolute prerequisite to a challenge against administrative rulemaking. The fact that the proceeding is moving forward at a snails' pace does not change this rule.
And in order to win once a court case is ripe, one has to build a hell of a record while the administrative proceeding is ongoing. New issues can't be opened once the case transfers to the courts. If nobody demands a publicly accessible database now, there is absolutely no chance a court will order one later.
There are three rules to challenging an administrative decision:
1) Build a record.
2) Pray for luck.
3) What are you reading these rules for? You have a record to build and luck to pray for.
Think you've got a record built? Fine. Put up and sue. You will forgive me for not holding my breath.
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by AA8X on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem is the FCC fails to enforce the laws and rules they create. The FCC looks the other way as power companies break the law and pollute our airwaves. The FCC is just one more governmental body out for big business and absolutely refuses to enforce their own rules. If they have no regard for the rules, why should we?
Bob, AA8X
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by URBANGORILLA on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL, an ardent ARRL supporter let it be known to all that "There is NO OTHER organization representing Amateur Radio that is doing anything AT ALL!
I, personally, do not want to see the ARRL involved in expensive and time consuming litigation. I believe what they are doing is in my best interests.
If you do not believe that is true, then you are welcome to start your own organization. In other words, put up or shut up!"
Dennis, I don't believe that what you say is true. I'm going to start my own organization to wage "Gorilla Warfare" on the enemies of Amateur Radio. Send me your money. I will do what is in your best interests and I will go to bat for you. Heck, I'll even do my best to get you HF privileges. All you have to do is pass a morse code test.
73,
UG
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well Dennis, if you dont wish to see your precious league involved in expensive litigation, how do you propose they accomplish anything besides spitting in the wind? Where is the money collected for the so called defense fund going if its not to litigate the BPL interests in court? As K4RAF pointed out, the league deserves supporters like you. Totally blinded by ARRL propaganda and lies. Just because they are the only voice as you put it, does that mean they really have YOUR best interests in mind rather than their own?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think Dennis KG4RUL is right on the right track and I for one applaud his efforts.
It seems apparent that there is the unanswered question of why this purely non functional BPL database was created.
What appears to be reality is far from the idea that this "public database" is "public" but rather it is completely unavailable for it's intended function.
This database is quite obviously really nothing but a half *** attempt to meet an FCC mandate. It's a non functional, window dressing ploy to satisfy FCC requirements - which clearly it does not.
The BPL industry continues to dance around interference issues, continues to violate FCC mandates and it repeatedly continues to operate it's transmitter equipment outside the scope of the law.
These are the activities of wild west train robbers operating under the guise of a colorful marketing logo while wearing a suit.
The response Dennis received is nothing short of "unacceptable" and clearly shows the sheer incompetence and lack of technical skill the BPL industry continues to demonstrate today.
Simply put, If these individuals cannot adequately operate according to the law; cannot maintain an internet database and cannot effectively resolve interference issues; then what makes you think they can competently represent the complex issues surrounding an entire BPL industry?
Perhaps when they learn to install their public database server function properly, they would be in a better position to handle the idea of providing BPL services to local communities.
The answer as it stands today according to the vague response KG4RUL received seems to clearly convey that they cannot.
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The database fully complies with the FCC's requirements and the underlying purpose of the rule,"
...Complete and utter hogwash.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I, personally, do not want to see the ARRL involved in expensive and time consuming litigation."
I beg to differ. That's EXACTLY what I want them to do with my dues. I'll gladly give up my QST to see the ARRL sue the FCC and UPLC.
At first the ARRL had a valid approach...work within the framework of FCC rulemaking. I personally think we are beyond that at this stage. And for the ARRL to complain constantly...point after point...ad nauseum is just a waste of time. It seems more fluff than substance. Another good PR article to put on the ARRL website, in other words.
So I would put this to the ARRL leadership: if you are not willing to go to the next level in pursuing BPL interference, then why should I continue to support you, since you won't go to the mat for us?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" "I, personally, do not want to see the ARRL involved in expensive and time consuming litigation."
I beg to differ. That's EXACTLY what I want them to do with my dues. I'll gladly give up my QST to see the ARRL sue the FCC and UPLC. "
=======
The ONLY group that will prosper in a protracted round of lawsuits are attorneys. The ARRL does not have the virtually unlimited warchest that the BPL proponents can muster.
And, while they are bleeding the ARRL dry, they will build out their systems. If Amateur Radio somehow came out on top, it would only be a pyrrhic victory.
Yes, I stand by my comments.
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by NB3O on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How much does the ARRL spend on litigation? See page 2, line 32 of the tax returns located at http://www.kr4uq.org/html/arrl_tax_returns.html
Large PDF's zipped up, virus free.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Brett Kilbourne,
United Power Line Council says:
"As such, it does not openly list all the zip codes in which there is a BPL system."
----------------------------------
- FCC Report & Order 04-245 -
"84. We therefore are adopting rules that will require the BPL industry to establish within 180 days
from publication of this item in the Federal Register a centralized publicly accessible Access BPL
notification database.175"
"85. With regard to the information to be included in the database, we are adopting rules that require
the Access BPL operator to provide the BPL industry designated database manager with the following
information 30 days prior to initiation of any operation or service:
1) the name of the Access BPL provider;
2) the frequencies of the Access BPL operation;
*** 3) the postal zip codes served by the specific Access BPL operation; ***
4) the manufacturer and type of Access BPL equipment being deployed (i.e., FCC ID);
5) point of contact information (both telephone and e-mail address) for interference inquiries and resolution; and
6) the proposed/or actual date of Access BPL operation.176"
...So, is the intended message here supposed to be that BPL corporate criminals who break the law somehow have more authority over FCC order 04-275, than the FCC itself ?
Who's running this outrageous horse and pony show anyways? ..BPL or the FCC ?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And, while they are bleeding the ARRL dry, they will build out their systems."
And what are they doing right now? Building out their systems!! The ARRL isn't stopping them (or slowing them down, thanks to the FCC). The only reason that BPL systems are folding is because of economic factors, not regulatory ones.
"If Amateur Radio somehow came out on top, it would only be a pyrrhic victory."
True, but it would at least be a victory. What do we have now? Nothing. No enforcement. Not even an indication that the FCC is paying attention.
In fact, your whole train of logic is leaving me sort of perplexed. Complaining isn't getting us anywhere. And suing (using your reasoning) would bleed the ARRL dry and thus allow the BPL companies to expand (something they are already doing anyway). And (using your reasoning again) even if we did win, it would be a "pyrrhic victory."
So basically what you are saying is that we can't afford to fight the good fight, and even if we did (and won), it wouldn't be a victory worth having...so let's just not do anything of substance. I do not believe that for an instant.
For me personally, BPL is the one reason I have remained a member. Ed Hare's work truly has been excellent. But their inability to bring about an effective cause of action on this issue is causing me to reexamine my membership. For me, it's literally the straw that will break the camel's back.
IMHO, they have come out with so many proposals that run against my sensibilities, it's hard to make the argument that they represent me any longer, or that I am a representative member.
|
| |
|
Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on March 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The ONLY group that will prosper in a protracted round of lawsuits are attorneys. The ARRL does not have the virtually unlimited warchest that the BPL proponents can muster."
Warchest? $13.3 million in receipts for FY2003. Prosper? $5 million in salaries. K1ZZ $137,500 FY2003, Mary Hobart $124,000 FY2003. 2 others @$125,000 each. These people couldn't 'make it' on $80,000 a year? Each one has a $8,000 expense account. They spent just $83,000 on "lobbying" FY2003. Such unbridled activism!
Chris Imlay isn't making a good $$$ writing FCC letters with demand after demand? His practice got $104,000 in FY2003.
Please realize that your beloved ARRL pilfered unknown amounts of ca$h to "fight BPL", then said "We aren't REALLY against BPL" which has now morphed into the ARRL climbing in bed with Motorola BPL. Really a tough stance, kinda, sorta, well almost...
"And, while they are bleeding the ARRL dry, they will build out their systems. If Amateur Radio somehow came out on top, it would only be a pyrrhic victory."
Hahaha, when Harebag claimed that the ARRL had got that "tougher language" into the Part 15 rules by their "dogged stance", I knew some would mistake that symbolism over substance for actual ENFORCEMENT. The BPL co's can & will continue to build out their systems, since those "dogged defenders of amateur radio" continue to make fools of themselves demanding attention from the FCC & no injunction requests filed. While the ARRL lack focus on the true end game, their 'defense' charade keeps replaying, demand, demand, demand... The FCC yawns, again & again & again... BPL co's have nothing to fear legally from the feckless ARRL unless the 'pyrrhic' tin foil hat patrol changes course, quickly.
If you doubt the sense of urgency, consider the guys in Manassass who have endured BPL for over a year. I bet they are quite sick of waiting for "exhausted administrative blah-blah"
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by K0BG on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can get around the problem by dumping the cookie from the site. It's a pain to say the least. If you use a Mac, you can use Apple Scripting to make it automated, but it's still a mess.
I won't even go to the political implications, as I'd need anger management afterwards!
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by W0FEN on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We have many Amateurs Radio operators scattered about the US. If each one entered his own Zip Code and maybe surrounding Zips and immediately emailed the results to ARRL then we would have the complete map. Not one charging Rhino but an army of ants will take down the giant.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K9FV on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I downloaded the pdf map showing BPL deployment across the USA and find there is a trial BPL in Culman, AL - heck, I could drive there. Does anyone know if BPL is really active in Culman? I'd sure like to know and drive there myself and see for myself what interferrence there is.
Understand, I'd think BPL would be a GREAT thing IF it would not cause problems - AND it's my understanding that ARRL agrees "some" BPL systems are ok because they do NOT cause problems - is this true?
73 de Ken H>
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HEADS UP
Do not send E-Mails to Joseph Casey. See reply to my E-Mail below. No sense in aggravating the wrong people.
Dennis KG4RUL
===================
Mr. Zabawa,
This is in response to your email (below) about the BPL Interference Resolution Website.
This Division, Spectrum Enforcement Division, has responsibility for handling interference complaints concerning BPL, but we are not responsible for the rules concerning the BPL Interference Resolution Website. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your email to the FCC's Office of Engineering technology, which is the correct office for handling this matter.
Joseph Casey
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
cc: Bruce Romano, OET
|
| |
|
Wrong Person
|
|
|
by K5XS on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the clarification, Dennis. You're right, we need to get the message to the right guys.
73,
Bernie K5XS
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K4IA on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about this?
Go on the website. Search your surrounding zip codes. When the system bounces you, fire off an email complaining. It will give you the address but here it is: admin@utc.org. Send a copy to the FCC addresses up above and to ARRL.
Perfectly legitimate intended use of the site. After a couple of thousand email protests . . .who knows?
I still think this needs to be in Federal Court.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by N4QX on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ken,
Information on the Cullman trial may be found here:
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#AL_Cullman
73 de Brennan N4QX
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by N4QX on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you doubt the sense of urgency, consider the guys in Manassass who have endured BPL for over a year. I bet they are quite sick of waiting for 'exhausted administrative blah-blah'"
Hey, no doubt it's sickening. Welcome to the world of administrative law.
I'll take it that my decision not to hold my breath was a wise one.
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
The perfect solution to the problem is to go back to the year of MDCCLXXVII and form that perfect union.
...................ANNUIT COEPTIS......................
.......................................................
W6TH....NEW HAMPSHIRE, LIVE FREE OR DIE.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by K2WH on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Stop all the whining. BPL will die due to its own backwards technology. Why worry, be happy.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'll take it that my decision not to hold my breath was a wise one."
What I wouldn't hold my breath for is the ARRL to demand their way through this challenge to even a single victory. Exactly what victories have the ARRL "won" since this whole thing started?
Lawyers don't fear engineers, they don't understand them. They simply fear other lawyers, who could knock (potentially) their ego in the dirt. If you doubt FCC law is any different, you need to study other FCC procedings & the specific handling of other forms of interference. One carrier who got the entire public service sector to be rebanded, NATIONWIDE. That was AFTER the carrier themselves was causing the very interference using Motorola T/A'd equipment. They were not afraid to seek injunctions, even when they were the ones who should have been the targets!
The point is we are coming up on 18 months post-decision. What has turned in 'our favor' thus far ??? Name 1, please...
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why worry, be happy.
K2WH
*********
Yes, with all due respect I agree that BPL is a victim of their own financial circumstances. However the point is that they are still violating the law and the FCC seems to be doing nothing about that fact.
...Do we just go away and ignore this?
What happens when the next FCC report and order is issued to protect amateur radio frequencies?
The FCC needs to actually be enforcing what they have enacted into law.
...You see, this is how hams are starting to look in the eyes of every corporate entity in America that has an interest in the usage of our frequencies regardless if it is done directly or indirectly.
We are sending the clear message that they can just push their corporate agenda's ahead with no regard for our bands because nothing will actually be done to protect our frequencies anyways.
Pretty soon we won't be taken seriously and corporate America will just do whatever they want.
I am getting the message that the FCC doesn't enforce it's own rules or written legislation with respect to protecting Amateur radio.
Simply put, BPL needs a big fine slapped on them or they will continue to take the view that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want.
That's how it looks to me. How does it look to you?
As always, I will respect your views regardless if you agree or disagree with my insight.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
All you hams do is to shoot your mouth off.
You tell those that represent you, senators and such, they do nothing for you and then you keep re-electing them for another two years or more.
You as hams have the right to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is it you get what you ask for or what you do not ask for?
W6TH.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by K9FV on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4QX - thanks for the link to Culman info - it seems the hams there can not find any interference from BPL? I guess it's one of those "clean" systems.
Tnxs again N4QX - hpe to work you on CW sometime,
73 de Ken H.
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by G3RZP on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At the ITU Task Group 1/8 meeting in Boston the other year, there was a video presentation by some senior political appointee to, if I recall, whichever US government department handles trade. I do remember the bullet point that a 'prime achievement of the Bush administration has been the liberalisation of spectrum, allowing BPL and UWB'.
So the FCC has every reason to drag its feet so that it pleases its political masters. That means, as I see it, that ARRL has to go a long weary way until it has a chance of getting a winning law suit. More to the point would be for US hams to lobby those congress members who are up for re-eelction this year.
And I'd be quite happy to see some of my ARRL membership money spent ona a law suit -when the time is right.
|
| |
|
BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by NN3W on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You people just don't get it.
N4QX is 100% correct. The ARRL cannot take the FCC to court until the FCC fully adjudicates the proceedings as outlined in the FCC's rules and regulations. That is the law and it has been that way for many, many decades.
As to lobbying expenses, its clear that you people have no clue how much it costs to lobby here in Washington, D.C. I work for one of the largest firms here in Washington and we lobby virtually every administrative agency, legislative branch and office in the Executive branch on a daily basis. Washington lobbyists are very expensive and are paid based upon their prior expierience, their contacts, and their track records.
For a medium sized client in Washington, D.C., law firms and lobbying shops can run up $250,000 in fees EVERY MONTH. When things are really hot, double that number.
If you think that the League should fire up the lobbying war chest to likes that the UPLC has (McDermott Will & Emery - a decent lobbying firm), then you better whip out that pocket book baby because the $287,000 spent by the League on lobbying and Chris Imlay's law firm for an entire year is chicken feed around here.
Sorry, but that is just the reality.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by W6TH on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
WOW!
What happened to our Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States of America.
WE MUST: Encourage people everywhere to better understand and appreciate the principles of government that are set forth in America's founding documents.
................. .................
W6TH.. Signed this date of February 8, 2006.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Defense, Fight or Charade?
|
|
|
by K3NG on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You can get around the problem by dumping the cookie from the site. It's a pain to say the least. If you use a Mac, you can use Apple Scripting to make it automated, but it's still a mess"
No, it's IP address based. They limit you to five queries and it resets the counter in about two or three hours.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K3NG on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Do not send E-Mails to Joseph Casey. See reply to my E-Mail below. No sense in aggravating the wrong people."
This illustrates the preferential treatment BPL has been getting for 18 months at the FCC. Instead of rule violation and interference complaints going to Enforcement, the Office of Engineering and Technology gets them, where they sit endlessly with little or no action.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K3NG on March 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The database fully complies with the FCC's requirements and the
underlying purpose of the rule, while protecting the database itself
against denial of service attacks and preserving to a very limited
extent the legitimate interest of BPL operators in the commercially
sensitive nature of their deployment plans and operations. As such, it
does not openly list all the zip codes in which there is a BPL system or
a planned deployment, and there are reasonable limits to the number of
zip codes that a licensed radio user may search over the course of a
given time."
The whole BPL database could be listed in an html table on one page with about 30 lines. It's more work for their server to manage the database and keep track of query counts - they're creating their own denial of service attack.
On protecting the commercially sensitive interests of their members, there's nothing in Part 15 to support that protection. Their members seem to write press releases for each and every system they deploy, so there's not much confidentiality and secrecy to begin with.
Smoke and mirrors...
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I downloaded the pdf map showing BPL deployment
> across the USA and find there is a trial BPL in
> Culman, AL - heck, I could drive there.
That map is a bit out of date. I know some of the systems have shut down and other new ones are not there.
For more up-to-date information on BPL in US cities, see:
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html
> Does anyone know if BPL is really active in Culman?
> I'd sure like to know and drive there myself and see
> for myself what interferrence there is.
It is active. The system there uses equipment by IBEC. They use the same model as Current Technologies in Cincinatti -- 32-48 MHz on overhead power lines and HomePlug modems on the 240-volt wiring.
HomePlug is an industry specification that uses 4-21 MHz, with the Amateur bands notched. Because they are on premise wiring only, the geographical scope of interference is less than it is with overhead wiring. The modems are also quiet except when in actual use.
To date, ARRL has no interference reports involving HomePlug modems. See:
http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/rfi/HomePlug/HomePlug_ARRL.pdf.
This includes the IBEC systems. From all indications, they do not have major interference problems with Amateur Radio.
> Understand, I'd think BPL would be a GREAT thing IF
> it would not cause problems - AND it's my
> understanding that ARRL agrees "some" BPL systems
> are ok because they do NOT cause problems - is this
> true?
That statement can apply to Amateur Radio. The only way other spectrum users can address their spectrum is to speak for themselves and do the necessary engineering and testing to address their interests.
Motorola avoids overhead lines altogether and uses Canopy wireless as its backbone. Current and IBEC use the model described above.
Other companies have been less successful. They have done "notching" to not use the Amateur bands, but have too often not done it correctly, and continued interference, albeit at only an S9 level to mobile stations, has continued.
There may be light at the end of that tunnel. The 200 Mb/s DS2 technology used by many of these manufacturers is capable of about 40 dB of notch depth across entire Amateur bands, if small guard bands are included in the notch. It is clear that some of the DS2-based BPL manufacturers are not using the chips to their full EMC advantage, but the 40 dB is a clear step forward in state of the art. ARRL has seen this work well for in-premise applications.
ARRL is in regular communication with DS2, HomePlug, many of the BPL manufacturers and with industry commmittees working on BPL standards. We expect that this open dialogue will let us get a closer look at DS2 deployment in a larger system and see how that 40 dB can play out in a real installation. The jury is still out on how it will work in access BPL and utility applications BPL deployment.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
How well do the DS2 based units handle ingress interference? It seems the units that cause the worst problems for amateurs are also the most susceptible to ingress interference by amateur transmissions. So if these units really are less of a problem for amatuers, hopefully that works both ways.
Mike
WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on March 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> How well do the DS2 based units handle ingress
> interference?
We can hope. The ingress testing done on DS2 systems has, to date, all been done on G1 systems. In those cases, when I was in a system that was using the 6-meter band, when I keyed up with 2 watts, it took it down. When the operator moved it off of 6 meters, it improved to about 50 watts needed to bring it to a stop.
We haven't yet tested a G2 system. DS2 says that it has improved the immunity of their chipsets, however. ARRL has been offering to utilities and BPL manufacturers to help with ingress testing. So far, the heads bob up and down, but none have asked me to put 500 watts into a vehicle and bring it to a site to test.
I can understand the reluctance of BPL manufacturers, but you would think that utilities would be jumping on that one.
I do know that most utilities have hams on staff, so they may be doing testing quietly and either using that as part of their purchase decisions or giving feedback to the manufacturers.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K4IA on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Two lawyers have opined here that Court action is premature because there is an "open proceeding" and the Courts won't act until it is concluded. I understand the concept.
All I see is a spectrum polluter operating outside the constraints of our law and international treaties by transmitting unlicensed signals.
What exactly is the "open proceeding" to which you refer?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by N4QX on March 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What exactly is the 'open proceeding' to which you refer?"
FCC OET Docket 04-37, which has several petitions for reconsideration and one petition for further rulemaking pending.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on March 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On March 7th the FCC has started investigating some BPL complaints.
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/09/100/?nc=1
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by K4IA on March 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After plowing through 1084 comments and 85 pages of the "Report and Order" I find this:
"141. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 15 of the Commission�s Rules ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix B, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. " That and the denial of several motions to reconsider, extend time etc. lead me to believe we have a final order.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Database Complaints?
|
|
|
by N4QX on March 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After a R&O, there is a time period for filing petitions for reconsideration. Several parties, including ARRL, have submitted these petitions. None of these petitions have been dismissed or acted upon. And after they are, there's another procedure for review by the full Commission.
Administrative remedies have not been exhausted. They're not even close to being exhausted. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is an absolute prerequisite to a court action challenging an agency's conduct.
Does it stink? You bet. Welcome to the world of administrative law.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent 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:
|
