FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor Changes to BPL Rules:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 31
on
August 4, 2006
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor Changes to BPL Rules:
An FCC that's still optimistic and enthusiastic about BPL met August 3 to
consider and unanimously adopt a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) in
response to several petitions for reconsideration of its BPL rules -
including one from ARRL. But one commissioner stressed that the FCC has an
obligation to protect Amateur Radio operators from BPL interference and to
respond promptly to interference complaints. ARRL President Joel Harrison,
W5ZN, and General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, were on hand for this week's
meeting, during which the FCC suggested it was attempting to strike a
balance between interference to licensed services and the BPL industry's
needs.
"This rule making proceeding was initiated to provide regulatory certainty
that will encourage investments in BPL, particularly so that consumers can
reap the benefits," the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) told
the commissioners. "Equally important, the Commission sought to ensure that
licensed radio services are protected against harmful interference." The OET
said the Commission also wanted to provide guidance so compliance
measurements "are made in a consistent manner with repeatable results."
The FCC adopted its current BPL rules - under a new Subpart G of its Part 15
rules governing unlicensed devices - in October 2004.
Commenting after the OET's presentation of the MO&O, Commissioner Michael J.
Copps reiterated that the FCC must also ensure that BPL providers protect
existing spectrum users from interference.
"This applies with special force to Amateur Radio operators whose skills and
dedication once again proved so valuable in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina," Copps remarked. "Amateur radio serves the public interest in so
many ways that we must be always mindful of its needs."
Copps said he believes the FCC's MO&O "strikes an acceptable balance," but
added that the Commission "must be available and positioned to respond to
interference complaints with alacrity. Amateur operators shouldn't have to
wait for months to get complaints resolved - they deserve better."
The FCC denied a BPL industry request to extend the effective date to meet
equipment certification requirements, but it did create a limited exception,
the OET's Anh Wride said. BPL systems now will have another year to continue
installing or replacing equipment "that otherwise meets the Part 15 rules"
in their present coverage areas. "This relief is a reasonable accommodation
that will limit the proliferation of non-compliant equipment," Wride said.
In addition, the Commission rebuffed the BPL industry's request to drop the
30-day advance notification requirement for the public BPL database. Wride
said the advance notification provision ensures that licensed users are
aware of new BPL deployments in advance of their startup..
The Order also turned down requests by the ARRL and individual Amateur Radio
operators to exclude the use of the HF ham bands for BPL operations. The
Commission also denied petitions from the ARRL and others to prohibit BPL
deployment "pending the adoption of a definition for 'harmful interference,'
the completion of all ongoing studies of BPL and the initiation of further
studies of BPL interference characteristics," Wride said.
The FCC further denied requests to keep BPL signals off overhead
medium-voltage power lines and to impose more stringent technical
restrictions and measurement requirements on BPL operations.
Wride said the OET believes the requirements the FCC adopted in 2004
regarding emission levels and notching "are adequate to fully protect
amateur operations." She said going along with ARRL's request to reconsider,
rescind and re-study the BPL rules in further proceedings could leave radio
amateurs with less protection than they now have.
The FCC did grant a request from the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) to expand BPL exclusion zones in the
vicinity of certain radio astronomy systems.
"We continue to believe that the interference concerns associated with the
operation of these systems are adequately addressed through the adoption of
Access BPL rules in Part 15, particularly as a new generation of BPL
equipment that complies with our rules becomes available," Wride concluded.
The FCC released a public notice to report its August 3 BPL-related actions
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A1.pdf. The
MO&O it adopted is not expected to become available to the public for a few
weeks.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 25, No. 31
August 4, 2006
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by K0RFD on August 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sounds like the BPL industry was 2-for-a-bunch and the ARRL was 0-for-a-jillion.
Money talks. The best way to kill BPL is for other technologies to kill it for us.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on August 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The US should look at Grand Haven, Michigan as a role model. The entire city is hot with a great WiFi system installed by AZULSTAR. Just try to sell BPL there when you can get WiFi for 20 bucks a month and access it anywhere in the city without wires.
Muskegon, Michigan is next on the list to be entirely WiFi and it is from one of AZULSTAR's competitors.
Smaller towns in Michigan are now putting up WiFi antennas on existing towers and giving high speed wireless access to many rural areas that only have dial-up. In fact, the trend seems to be for the smaller towns to heat up before the larger ones do. Most of the hotels also have free wireless access so if you are visiting and are close to a hotel you can go online from your car.
WiFi is so much better than BPL I am very confused as to why it even exists. Who in the heck wants to drag an extension cord around just to get Internet access, especially if you went to all the trouble of buying a portable battery powered laptop?
I think BPL is so close to being still born that as soon as the WiFi engineers are cut loose BPL will become the Edsel of the Internet access business.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on August 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The larger myth of BPL has been that somehow the Internet Packets could ride that AC line infrastructure at least as readily as power does.
Anyone with an amateur radio license knows better than this, but most layman, politicians, and investors don't.
So now the path *appears* to have been cleared by the FCC for the power companies to load up their lines with the least efficient method known to man of getting binary data transferred since the smoke signal.
Anyone here think the power companies want to scrub their lines and keep them clean just so they can load them up with loss leader single line repeaters every 100 yards?
Once the gear is on the line, it's there to stay regardless of whether the other more efficent ISP's come along and undercut the utilities customer base. What's left on the transmission lines is this new overhead that's just much more costly than maintaining power only lines.
Another interesting aspect of this is the standards issue. There are no standards for interoperability and there are a growing number of in-home devices that are sold to hook up data to your home wiring. If BPL comes to your neighborhood is everyone just supposed to throw those devices away whether they want to go with the BPL themselves or not? If you live in an apartment and your neighbor gets BPL, I'd expect the signal to be on everyone in the building's wires.
The ironic thing is, if BPL is causing interference, at least you have the power company to complain to. In addition, they would probably act as a decent scare crow to keep all kinds of assorted in-home devices off the wiring in a duplex or apartment.
You can still get HF interference from these in-home devices that your neigbors are using (including a Sharper Image Ionic Breeze that my neighbor bought last year) and good luck convincing your neighbors that anything they bought isn't good for them because it's getting in your radio.
With the help of the League we'll hold our own against all of these interference sources, BPL is only the most easily identifiable threat at this moment - there are others that are harder to see but just as imposing.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
People in the US need broadband internet options, and BPL is a great idea, as long as it meets its Part 15 obligations.
To date, in over 4 years of deployment and trials, only
*** 0.003% ***
of US radio amateurs have complained about harmful interference from BPL. And these are alleged, as opposed to confirmed and bona fide.
In other words, this is a non-issue.
It may be fun to bitch about, and revel in our non-impact, but it's really not a concern to Part 97 licensees.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is a scam....if anyone is interested, please check out the very detailed info at :
http://www.dallas.net/~jvpoll/bpl/index.html
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>To date, in over 4 years of deployment and trials, only *** 0.003% *** of US radio amateurs have complained about harmful interference from BPL. And these are alleged, as opposed to confirmed and bona fide.
And how did the statistician drown in a river that was on average two feet deep? To date, BPL has coverage in a minute number of ZIP codes in the US. (I haven't run the numbers lately, but I think it's like 0.01%). So it would follow that a very low percentage of amateurs have experienced interference given its very limited geographical coverage. A much more useful statistic for basing an opinion would be the percentage of amateurs that have BPL operating in the vicinity of their homes who have had interference.
If BPL coverage ever does get to a significant amount, it will be a big problem, especially when bandwidth-hungry higher speed chipsets are put into use and manafacturers don't notch ham spectrum. While it's believable that Internet access BPL won't ever get off the ground due to intense competition from DSL, cable, and ulitmately fiber, BPL for grid management functions may continue on full steam ahead as the objectives and funding for this is totally different.
Despite some systems which are complaint-free, there are several systems with active complaints. I'm not sure what your criteria is for "confirmed and bona fide" compliants. There are videos and audio on the Internet of the interference you can research; it's gone beyond the allegation stage. BPL is not a problem for the ham community at large because it's not in their backyards today.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>http://www.dallas.net/~jvpoll/bpl/index.html
This was a scam, but it has nothing to do with BPL systems in use today. Stewart's system was some kind of magnetic field system that was theoretically possible, but no one had a practical way to implement it with current science. BPL systems today don't resemble Stewart's system; they use RF coupled to the power line.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello K3NG--
It's been 4 years, and the explosion of harmful interference just hasn't happened. There is nothing that leads anyone to believe that said HI will ever exist in a pathological way.
Let's grant that there may be rare occasions where BPL might, in the future, cause HI to a Part 97 transmission. In this case the BURDEN is upon the Part 15 folks, and that burden can become very expensive.
If you REALLY want to affect BPL, then stay out of the way and either let it obey Part 15, or get mega-fines for not meeting it--and getting shut down.
This bluster hasn't been supported by facts. So why worry?
Please tell me why this is wrong, and why BPL--uniquely--requires a new and extreme response by Part 97 licensees in the past and at present.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>It's been 4 years, and the explosion of harmful interference just hasn't happened. There is nothing that leads anyone to believe that said HI will ever exist in a pathological way.
Yes it has been four years, but you're looking at this only from the perspective its limited coverage and of its current primary driver -- Internet access. Grid management is a whole new ballgame. They can fund it from electricity revenue and it doesn't have to be a business that stands on its own like Internet access. I'm 95% sure DSL and cable, and BPL's own limitations (bandwidth and equipment costs) will kill it in the Internet access arena. These assumptions don't hold up when grid management is the primary driver. Whether utiltities adopt it or stay with lower-bandwidth PLC type systems remains to be seen. BPL vendors are busy drumming up what I consider artificial interest in BPL based grid management.
>Let's grant that there may be rare occasions where BPL might, in the future, cause HI to a Part 97 transmission. In this case the BURDEN is upon the Part 15 folks, and that burden can become very expensive.
You're preaching to the choir on this one, however the agency that makes it a burden has failed to do so, until only recently in Manassas. If you read the FCC filings, the BPL camp wants to set the bar for harmful interference at total obliteration of communications and set their own timeframe, convenient to them and their customers for resolving it. To date, the FCC has essentially let the BPL companies set the HI bar and resolution timeline. Not fun if you're the interference victim. It's naive to quote Part 15 chapter and verse and consider it our protection. The abiguity around what exactly is harmful interference is still in the rules. Admittedly, this may be to our benefit, but the BPL companies have succesfully played this to their advantage.
>If you REALLY want to affect BPL, then stay out of the way and either let it obey Part 15, or get mega-fines for not meeting it--and getting shut down.
Arguably, Manassas reached mega-fine level months ago. How can it obey Part 15 when no one is there to measure it and we should stay out of its way?
>This bluster hasn't been supported by facts. So why worry?
It's much like Y2K. Y2K was a very big problem, depending on what industry you were in and what your role was. Everything turned out OK, and naysayers often joke that Y2K was much ado about nothing, however there was a lot of man-hours burnt making it that way. 99% of the ham population could care less about BPL. Through the efforts of the 1% and market forces, Internet access BPL will probably go away. But again, the tide could turn quickly if grid management BPL takes off.
I'm not worried HOAs and deed restrictions/covenants, but people are screaming about them with regards to ham radio. HOAs don't affect me. I don't know anyone affected by them. But much like BPL, it's a problem to ham radio and for some it's the bane of their ham radio operation. I don't follow the issues closely, but I can respect those who are working to resolve the issues with HOAs.
>Please tell me why this is wrong, and why BPL--uniquely--requires a new and extreme response by Part 97 licensees in the past and at present.
BPL is the first network that provides a service under rules intended for unintentional narrowband emissions, and it's politically connected as it provides both Internet access and suposedly will solve our power grid woes. It's the industry's goal to have this operating on every power line in the country, 7x24. They need to use more frequencies to provide higher bandwidths. In essence, this is a frequency spectrum grab unlike any other. People get upset over UPS taking two megahertz from a band most people never use (220 Mhz), but BPL is essentially getting de facto licensed status on 1 - 50 Mhz through FCC inaction and inappropriate regulations.
I think we need to acknowledge succesful systems and vendors whenever possible (like Cincinatti, TXU in TX/Current and Motorola) as the ARRL has, but we need to be vocal when a system is exceeding emissions limits and/or emitting significant RF in ham bands. If we let it go and let them run roughshod whereever they go, it will be too late to do anything. The FCC has shown they can hardly keep up with a handful of trial systems. How can we or they do anything when several hundred markets have this operating?
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FINALLY!
K3NG is a reasonably informed person on the issues!
Nice job OM!
I'll let you in on a little secret. If you want to 'kill' BPL, then leave it alone. Let it come up on line. Then let the class action suits and FCC fines accumulate--IF there IS harmful interference.
Believe me, we need to assume that the lawyers at the BPL end have already envisioned the above in their 'risk mitigation'.
But the worst thing you want to do is get people sympathetic to BPL because the hams have acted like activist kooks. And that is exactly what is happening.
Yes; IMO many important people see hams now as 'activist kooks'.
Just a thought. I personally see BPL at HF and ARS co-existing, much as TV BCB and ARS in the 50's and early 60's.
The present approach is not sustainable.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I'll let you in on a little secret. If you want to 'kill' BPL, then leave it alone. Let it come up on line. Then let the class action suits and FCC fines accumulate--IF there IS harmful interference.
I've often thought that might have been a better approach because ironically the lack of operating systems has somewhat hurt our cause. Give them more rope to hang themselves. There currently isn't a sufficient number of systems to prove out the large deployment issues we've been talking about for years. One advantage to the current approach however is evident when you look at the listings in the BPL database. Many notch the ham bands right off the bat. This wouldn't have happened if we remained quiet through the initial FCC NOI and NPRM.
>But the worst thing you want to do is get people sympathetic to BPL because the hams have acted like activist kooks. And that is exactly what is happening.
It depends what people you are talking about. I've seen some become more sympathetic, however some quasi-technical people or those familiar with broadband and the issues surrounding it often dismiss BPL once they get all the facts. I don't see a problem with being an activist, it's all in the communication. You can't talk to Joe Public about S units and "QRM on 80". We have to articulate our points well with the target audience in mind.
>Yes; IMO many important people see hams now as 'activist kooks'.
Some may, however this too shall pass. I see a bigger problem with our image overall. This is another eHam article and flameathon for another day :-)
>Just a thought. I personally see BPL at HF and ARS co-existing, much as TV BCB and ARS in the 50's and early 60's.
It's a nice thought, but I don't see such harmony happening unless the FCC mandates 40 dB notches on all ham bands. It's hard to have a good relationship when there isn't agreement on the most basic things like what is harmful interference and the BPL interests act like we're just incumbent users in spectrum allocated to them.
>The present approach is not sustainable.
Yes and no. I've seen the ARRL change its approach from "all BPL systems interfere" to "there are some good systems and some bad ones". It wasn't that the ARRL was wrong in the beginning, but that some vendors excelled at addressing the issues while others continued to not address the interference issue. Unfortunately the FCC hasn't realized this and adjusted regulations accordingly, so we're still left with a couple lemon vendors that are probably going to be the thorns in our side for some time to come.
I have been somewhat upset at the "shut it down now" approach that has been used at times. We should continue the pressure on non-compliant systems and those who want to play games with bad measurement reports. Let the FCC make the call to pull the plug after they get fed up. I do, however, see mobile tests as fair game.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3NG--
Thank you kindly for your comments. I don't agree with them all (and I see we do agree on many) but this is exactly the type of informed, articulate exchange that this subject needs. In other cases you provided points I wish to think over and get more info.
PLEASE keep it up. I was beginning to get weighted down by the defamation and ignorance.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I was beginning to get weighted down by the defamation and ignorance.
I don't think my views are that much different from the majority of those who you probably label as "activists". There are some loose cannons out there, but for the most part the amateur community has stuck to the facts. Much more than some of the BPL advocacy groups have.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
..and the fact is that BPL has had no measurable impact upon the amateur radio service.
Do you dispute this?
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>..and the fact is that BPL has had no measurable impact upon the amateur radio service.
>Do you dispute this?
No, but if you're basing your position on BPL based on this alone you're missing my point and probably that of others you have debated with.
Do you dispute that a network deployed across the nation that emits broadband RF noise across 1 - 50 Mhz at or 20 dB below Part 15 emissions limits 7x24 (with the only recourse for licensees being the current complaint and resolution process) would be devasting to HF amateur radio operation?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
That should have read "devastating". <lack of spellchecker rant suppressed> :-)
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M Reply
by K3NG on August 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>..and the fact is that BPL has had no measurable impact upon the amateur radio service.
>Do you dispute this?
"No..."
--------------------------------------------------
There ya go. Another sane ham agrees on the reality.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by N1IR on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Do you dispute that a network deployed across the nation that emits broadband RF noise across 1 - 50 Mhz at or 20 dB below Part 15 emissions limits 7x24 (with the only recourse for licensees being the current complaint and resolution process) would be devasting to HF amateur radio operation?"
--------------------------------------------------
Yes.
First, what you describe is not realizable as a network. Second, propagation follows various power laws regarding distance, depending upon the proximity and path, so the fact that hams are located at various distances from the supposed network means that it would be impossible to produce such devastation.
If an atomic blast goes off in Iowa (God Forbid) the blast wave would not be devastating in Boston.
Basic physics renders your characterization as impossible.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>First, what you describe is not realizable as a network
Yes, it's very realizable. Did you know anything about the grid management applications of BPL, or do you just choose to ignore this?
>so the fact that hams are located at various distances from the supposed network means that it would be impossible to produce such devastation.
So I guess you're saying since hams are at various distances from powerlines, only some will have interference and therefore, no devastation of ham radio? I'm guessing the average ham lives in a suburban or rural location on a one acre lot. That puts the majority of us within 200-250' of a powerline. Or does your model assume all hams have 300 acre estates?
>Basic physics renders your characterization as impossible.
No, it doesn't. Do the basic math for a modest amateur station with a dipole at 30' height, perhaps 100' from the powerline, and the BPL line operating at the 30 uV/m at 30 meters limit.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Do you dispute that a network deployed across the nation that emits broadband RF noise across 1 - 50 Mhz at or 20 dB below Part 15 emissions limits 7x24 (with the only recourse for licensees being the current complaint and resolution process) would be devasting to HF amateur radio operation?"
>Yes.
And another ham ignores reality.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's amazing to me that we still have the same nonsense being raised as if its August 2004...
The reality is that BPL has had no impact on ham radio, and that's the fact.
I am sorry that some still want to project the same threat, but it just hasn't materialized.
Brandishing the same scare tactics moving towards the future is bound to alienate us further from the telecom and wireless community, and, IMO, give them further basis for question 'what hams do and why they need all those frequencies'.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>It's amazing to me that we still have the same nonsense being raised as if its August 2004...
It's amazing to me that you still haven't even acknowledged the grid management applications aspects of BPL which will radically change where and how it is deployed. Probably because it blows a big hole in your "BPL hasn't done anything yet, so it will never do anything" theory. Even worse, you dispute the physics that show a powerline operating at Part 15 emissions limits will cause strong interference to a typical amateur station.
You complain about "fuzzy" logic and wrong conclusions, yet you're not being objective.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The score:
BPL industry: Bizillion and 1.
ARRL: Zero, zilch, zip, nada, bupkis.
Now tell me, aren't you glad you keep sending all the money to Newington?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" I've seen the ARRL change its approach from "all BPL systems interfere" to "there are some good systems and some bad ones".
Actually, arrl started out with the position that BPL is a "flawed technology" that "won't work". Then, it was BPL will essentially end ham radio as we know it. Now that BPL has been shown to work and cause minimal interference, arrl's position is that there is some "begnin" BPL.
Where arrl stands depends on where the money comes from. arrl can no longer get money from the "sky is falling" approach, so its time for a new story.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Now tell me, aren't you glad you keep sending all the money to Newington?
And if and when BPL is deployed all over, you ARRL haters will be complaining the League didn't do enough. The fact is the ARRL has won several issues with BPL and the FCC. This would include lifting the bpl database restrictions, notching technology requirements, the triggering of the NTIA study, revision of Part 15 measurement requirements, and arguably the most information on BPL technology and locations. (Even some BPL industry people noted the ARRL has the best information on BPL market penetration). They pushed for notching in Homeplug products long before Internet access BPL came on the scene.
Gotta love the ARRL haters. It's always easier to complain than research the facts.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excuse me;
I just re-joined the ARRL.
I don't hate the ARRL.
But I won't hesitate to point out when my educated opinion tells me it's wrong.
The educational section of the ARRL, for example, does a fine job.
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Actually, arrl started out with the position that BPL is a "flawed technology" that "won't work". Then, it was BPL will essentially end ham radio as we know it.
>Now that BPL has been shown to work and cause minimal interference, arrl's position is that there is some "begnin" BPL.
But you're ignoring the fact that in the past four years, much has changed. Two vendors have made advances. Note these advances are essentially staying out of amateur spectrum or limiting its use on non-overhead lines.
I guess the League should have spent all that money you complain about on crystal balls back in 2003 so they could have predicted what we have now with a couple good vendors and the several mediocre ones :-)
Whether BPL "works" depends on how you define the word. BPL does pass data and it works in the most basic sense. However, BPL does have scalability issues. It's unlikely it can keep up with cable modem bandwidth and certainly not fiber. It is arguably flawed technology. Broadband over BPL is akin to delivering water via a hose full of holes. BPL also has ingress interference problems. The economics of it in rural areas (in a pure Internet access model) don't work.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And if and when BPL is deployed all over, you ARRL haters will be complaining the League didn't do enough".
Actually, we will be saying what we have said all along, namely, that ONLY economics can kill BPL. Not arrl and certainly not silly "damand" letters.
What would all of you arrl supporters do if arrl sued and FCC responded by making the Amateur Service EXEMPT from part 15 protections?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I grant you this:
arrl position does change with the times.
FIRST arrl voted FOR insentive licensing, so that a pool of recently disenfranchised hams would buy arrl guides to study and get their priveleges back.
THEN, arrl voted AGAINST insentive licensing, so a pool of untrained operators would buy arrl publications to learn about HF.
arrl position does change all right!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Whether BPL "works" depends on how you define the word".
Uh huh. Sure. Depends upon what the definition of the word "is" is.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>FIRST arrl voted FOR insentive licensing,
Geez. Incentive licensing was an issue from more than 40 years ago. :-)
This is what embarrasses ham radio. We're still complaining about stuff from decades ago that doesn't matter.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Uh huh. Sure. Depends upon what the definition of the word "is" is.
OK, Bill. :-)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Actually, we will be saying what we have said all along, namely, that ONLY economics can kill BPL.
That argument applies to Internet access BPL. If power grid management becomes the driver for BPL builds, the economics are totally different and an order of magnitude better. Care to address this fact? No one else here has.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps economics will kill BPL. Who knows?
But I wager that ill- will from this BPL affair is setting ham radio, as we know it, on that path.
'Amateur radio'--HF and multiband--will morph to something that's 'amateur wireless' with far more restricted HF use in power, mode and frequencies. Radios will be cognitive and use digital modes almost exclusively.
SSB will be like AM today...rare; tied into the older and less active hams, and quaint.
That's ham radio in a generation or less. And forces from the outside will force US to adapt and change, all because we picked a fight with BPL--that never needed to be picked. That's my educated opinion.
Not that any large 'non profit' is preparing you for all of this...
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Goody!
I'll address it for you.
People in this great country need options for the internet. If BPL can do it, then hey--why not?
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>People in this great country need options for the internet. If BPL can do it, then hey--why not?
And therefore BPL could be successful, and the argument that BPL isn't a threat because it won't be successful in developing widespread coverage is wrong. Thanks.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh yes; we agree. That's hardly the reason BPL won't be a threat.
BPL will likely have some superior penetration in rural communities and in apartment complexes, quite a diversity!
No, BPL is NOT a threat and hasn't been. And there is no reason, based upon the Part 15 regs and past experience that it could EVER be a threat to ham radio.
The FCC has it covered and has acted wisely and fairly to date.
So, RELAX and ENJOY life!
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by K3NG on August 10, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Oh yes; we agree. That's hardly the reason BPL won't be a threat.
OK, what's your new argument du jour? Or is this the same broken physics argument?
>BPL will likely have some superior penetration in rural communities and in apartment complexes, quite a diversity!
If you're talking BPL for Internet access, you're way out in left field.
|
| |
|
FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts Minor
|
|
|
by W1YW on August 11, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why, yes; I am 'talking' BPL for internet access.
And I must confess that I am centered and focused. And a player:-)
"Put me in coach
I'm ready to play today..
Look at me gotta be
Centerfield"
--The IMMORTAL John Fogerty
73,
Chip W1YW
(ex N1IR)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Denies Reconsideration Petitions, Adopts M
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The score:
BPL industry: Bizillion and 1.
ARRL: Zero, zilch, zip, nada, bupkis.
Now tell me, aren't you glad you keep sending all that money to Newington? After all, it does pay to send arrl exec directors and others on overseas junkets!
|
| |
|
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:
|
