JARL Administration Officers Again Affirm PLC Support:
Kenji Rikitake (JJ1BDX)
on
August 26, 2006
View comments about this article!
* JARL administration officers again affirmed their PLC support on
the Radiowave Regulation Council of Japanese Telecom Ministry
Reported by Kenji Rikitake, JJ1BDX
August 26, 2006
(Unlimited distribution permitted among the amateur radio communities.)
JARL administration affirmed their PLC support in the opinion document
they explained on the Radiowave Regulation Council of Japanese Telecom
Ministry, on August 23, 2006.
The Radiowave Regulation Council of MIC (Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communication, aka the Telecom Ministry) of Japan held the meeting on
August 23, 2006, to gather public opinions in Japan among those are for
and against the PLC (Power-Line Communication) using spectrum of 2 to
30MHz.
The meeting is private and the minutes have not yet been publicized by
the MIC. The following includes an unofficial meeting brief report of
Mr. Toshikazu Kusano, JA1ELY, as of August 24, 2006.
Five participants explained their opinion statements. Mr. Kusano
explained his opinion against the PLC, with a set of extracted copies
from the petition statements sent by 2000 JARL members who are against
the PLC. He also claimed JARL administration's opinion was on the
contrary standpoint of many of the members.
The second participant was from Nikkei Radio, a commercial shortwave
radio station in Japan, who claimed the position against the PLC with
their own documents.
The third participant was from PLC-J (PLC Promoter's Alliance in Japan)_
and the position explained was for the PLC.
The fourth participant was from JARL administration with two delegates
of Mr. Kaieda, the full-time Director of JARL, and Mr. Mori, Director of
JARL Technology Laboratory. Their position explained was for the PLC.
The Fifth participant was Dr. Katsuhiro Kitagawa from Osaka University,
claimed the position against the PLC with an academic report from Kyoto
University [1], and other documents which showed the scientific fallacy
of IEC CISPR 22, which is the evaluation basis of MIC on the PLC's
electromagnetic environmental implication.
[1] Ishihara, M., Umehara, D., and Morihiro Y.: Measurement of radiated
emissions on indoor power line communications, Technical Report of
IEICE, EMCJ2005-145, pp.43-48, March 2006 (in Japanese).
Note/Errata: in the previous report on August 23, 2006, the author
erroneously cited Dr. Kitagawa's position on this issue from an
unconfirmed source. Dr. Kitagawa claimed to the author that his position
on this issue did not represent his involvement to the PLC issue as an
amateur radio licensee, and that he had never claimed an opinion such as
reported in the previous report.
The author requests those who received the previous report titled "JARL
administration said "YES" to PLC (Power-Line Communication); many JARL
members protest against the announcement without the member consensus"
to replace the document with this report ASAP. The author is solely
responsible for the mistake.
The author regrets the mistake on the previous report, and shows his
apologies on the erroneous citation and the inconvenience which might be
caused on Dr. Kitagawa and others.
[End of report]
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Domo arigato - I can see clearly now...
|
|
|
by AA6E on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What is going on at JARL? This article is unhelpful.
|
|   |
|
RE: Domo arigato - I can see clearly now...
|
|
|
by DD3EO on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suggest reading the first Article as well:
http://www.eham.net/articles/14654
In that, you will find, that the decision to support PLC(BPL) was made by the three persons mentioned alone, without consulting the JARL members.
Legal consequences will follow.
I can only suspect Corruption inside the JARL-Administration, as anyone, who has a little bit of technical knowledge, knows, that PLC is the end to shortwave communication. We surely can expect that knowledge from a licensed ham, can we? Plus, PLC and its effects is a constant topic for years in any ham radio related media. They cannot claim, they didn't know.
That's my 0.02 Euro Cent about that.
DD3EO
|
|   |
|
Time will resolve the issue of BPL everywhere.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on August 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In each country the BPL issue will be confronted in different ways. It is encouraging to see our Japanese counterparts giving considerable attention to BPL. In addition, the nice part is the principle that you cannot fake it with technology. While harmful interference will result during attempts at implementation, this BPL thing is going to work, or it will not. The third possibility is that before it gets very far along, it may fall by the wayside because of newer or newly modified and superior techniques. One thing for sure, if the supporters invest heavily in it and push it, and if it continues to be a source of substantial QRM, they will lose all of their investments, and their reputations will be considerably harmed because of all the warnings previously given. May the best side win!
|
|   |
|
RE: Time will resolve the issue of BPL everywhere.
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on August 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"....the decision to support PLC(BPL) was made by the three persons mentioned alone, without consulting the JARL members".
If true, then JARL is taking a page right out of the arrl playbook!
|
|   |
|
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:
|