BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority, Court Filing Says:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 25, No 41
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
on
October 13, 2006
View comments about this article!
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority, League Court Filing Says:
The ARRL this week notified the US District Court of Appeals -- DC Circuit
that it's appealing certain aspects of the FCC's Part 15 rules governing
broadband over power line (BPL) systems. The ARRL Executive Committee
ratified plans to go forward with the Petition for Review when it met
October 7. The League is asking the court to review the FCC's October 2004
Report and Order (R&O) establishing Part 15 rules to govern BPL systems as
well as its August 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) that dealt with
various petitions for reconsideration of the 2004 R&O, including one from
the ARRL.
"ARRL seeks review of the orders on the ground that they exceed the
Commission's jurisdiction and authority; are contrary to the Communications
Act of 1934; and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and
otherwise not in accordance with law," the League said in its petition.
"ARRL requests that this court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin and set aside
the orders."
A court filing that details the League's specific objections regarding the
two orders is pending. Although the petition will argue a number of points,
two specific aspects of the FCC's BPL orders precipitated the League's
appeal. One is a new rule, only revealed after the FCC made the MO&O public,
that limits the extent to which an unlicensed, unintentional radiator must
protect a licensed mobile station.
The new rule, §15.611(c)(1)(iii), provides that BPL operators only have to
reduce emission levels below established FCC permissible limits by 20 dB
below 30 MHz and by 10 dB above 30 MHz -- even if that's not enough to
resolve harmful interference complaints. The FCC called these levels
"modestly above the noise level."
ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, contends the rule change in the MO&O regarding
mobile stations contravenes the International Radio Regulations and the
Communications Act of 1934. "The FCC has, in effect, tried to redefine
harmful interference," he said. "It can't do that. The Commission doesn't
have the authority to do that, and we're going to demonstrate that to the
Court of Appeals."
ARRL Laboratory Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI, has said the levels applicable to
mobiles would be some 25 dB higher than the median values for man-made noise
in residential areas and up to 40 dB higher than the minimum values hams use
for reliable communication.
The Commission also declined to adjust the 40 dB per decade "extrapolation
factor" applied to measurements performed at distances from power lines
other than those specified in Part 15. Sumner says this is an important
technical point because the existing Part 15 rule underestimates actual
field strength.
In their petitions for reconsideration, the ARRL and others demonstrated
that the 40 dB per decade extrapolation factor was wrong and that a figure
closer to 20 dB per decade was appropriate. Sumner called the Commission's
stand on the 40 dB per decade rule "clearly, demonstrably and inarguably
wrong."
Sumner said the League decided to go forward with its appeal only after
considering the effect on licensed spectrum users of letting the BPL rules
stand. He addressed a number of ARRL's concerns with the FCC's BPL rules in
his "It Seems to Us . . ." editorial in October QST.
The firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP of Washington, DC, is
handling the ARRL's Petition for Review in conjunction with ARRL General
Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 25, No. 41
October 13, 2006
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority
|
|
|
by AI2IA on October 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL is making its case on the basis of some very specific criticisms. As only one example:
The new rule, §15.611(c)(1)(iii), provides that BPL operators only have to reduce emission levels below established FCC permissible limits by 20 dB below 30 MHz and by 10 dB above 30 MHz -- even if that's not enough to resolve harmful interference complaints. The FCC called these levels "modestly above the noise level."
The ARRL is performing a service on behalf of all amateur radio operators by taking these BPL special privileges to the Court for relief. As this plays out the ARRL critics will be forced to acknowledge the primacy of the ARRL in standing up for amateur radio.
|
| |
|
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority
|
|
|
by W1YW on October 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FCC decisions are not made with wreckless abandon, but with great care by those trained in the law and guided by the those knowledgeable in the radio art. In other words, these Part 15 decisions were rendered to make them fair and legal--and as 'goof proof' as possible.
I do not find these summary arguments either compelling or meritricious. The mobile operations argument is especially specious--some degree of interference is accepted and expected in mobile operation. It would be incumbent upon the ARRL to demonstrate that such interference is unique compared to others AND renders the Part 97 mission impossible.
The main result of this effort, IMO, will be an astronomical attorney bill born by ARRL members and their non-ham related donors-- who are apparently fighting this Part 15 decision, in part, through the proxy of non-commercial amateur radio interests.
Personally, as a licensed radio amateur and ARRL member, I find it distasteful to be used in this way. It does not have my blessing, nor was any mechanism invoked by the ARRL to invite my feedback. Assume I am a typical member in this regard. In other words: does it truly express the majority wishes of the membership, let alone the Part 97 licensed community?
This court effort does not have the demonstrated support of the majority of Part 97 licensed radio amateurs, at least that has not been demonstrated and publicly promulgated.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ARRL seeks review of the orders on the ground that they exceed the Commission's jurisdiction and authority; are contrary to the Communications Act of 1934; and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law," the League said in its petition. "ARRL requests that this court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin and set aside the orders."
Is this legalese for "incompetent"?
The Part 97 revision is the carrot but ultimately amateur radio is going to get beaten with the stick if the ARRL keeps antagonizing the FCC in this manner.
|
| |
|
BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Authority
|
|
|
by AI2IA on October 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It looks like the gas bags and the gloom and doom hams are going to have a nervous time waiting to see how our legal system handles the ARRLs intercession on behalf of all radio amateurs.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by DD3EO on October 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF wrote:
> Is this legalese for "incompetent"?
No, it is legalese for bending the law and jumping in bed with BPL-operators.
Regards
DD3EO
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by WQ8U on October 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In his comment, W1YW - Chip, demonstrates what is wrong with our legal system. The basic issue is BPL interferes with ham radio and it is against the law! By splitting hairs in a typical lawyer-like way, Chip makes it appear that the average victim ham is wrong and the BPL operators are right - we should expect interference when operating mobile - right Chip? Give me a break!
I am an ARRL member and glad they are fighting this menace to our bands - it is a shame everyone doesn't recognize the threat and the ARRL's leadership.
73
Mac
WQ8U
Hillsborough, NC
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by WQ8U on October 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Skip, W1YW said:
"Personally, as a licensed radio amateur and ARRL member, I find it distasteful to be used in this way. It does not have my blessing, nor was any mechanism invoked by the ARRL to invite my feedback."
Skip,
Since when in America did you have to be invited to provide feedback on anything? Isn't that what you are doing here? Are you unable to send an e-mail or letter to the ARRL expressing your opinions? I see letters to The Editor and Op-Eds in QST all the time. Are you so special that they need to "invite" your feedback?
73
Mac
WQ8U
Hillsborough, NC
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WQ8U, Mac Says:
"Skip,
Since when in America did you have to be invited to provide feedback on anything? Isn't that what you are doing here? Are you unable to send an e-mail or letter to the ARRL expressing your opinions? I see letters to The Editor and Op-Eds in QST all the time. Are you so special that they need to "invite" your feedback?
73
Mac
WQ8U
Hillsborough, NC"
Mac: BTW, its Chip, not Skip. Actually, I use Chipster, when addressing Dr. Nathan Cohen, ex-N1IR, now W1YW.
Sadly, there are many who choose to just come here to toot their horns (with air or gas, as the case may be) instead of doing what you and many of us do. Express our opinions where they stand a better chance of being counted.
In my opinion, efforts to post here are more like attempts to sway opinions, not just express opinions. They should be taken lightly.
I've made dozens of comments to the FCC and filed some Petitions myself. Its not that difficult. Especially with the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System.
Its quite entertaining to see this same anti-ARRL, pro-BPL 'chorus' (aka W1YW, NN4RH and W9WHE-II) sing in light of the effort being put forth by ARRL to preserve HF and lowband VHF for many licensed users.
As an author of a Petition for Reconsideration in the matter, I am considering authoring what is called an Amicus Curiae, or "Friend of the Court" brief as my Petition addressed effects on licensed public safety users of lowband VHF spectrum.
Reclaimer:
I offer the above at the risk of being profiled as one of AI2IA's "gasbags", but, hopefully, one not too full of hot air or combustible natural gas.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Its quite entertaining to see this same anti-ARRL, pro-BPL 'chorus' (aka ... NN4RH ...) ....
Lee, I wish you wouldn't resort to falsehoods and innuendo so often. It's annoying, besides making you look childish. I thought you were better than that. Maybe I was wrong.
I am not "pro-BPL". Never have been. I'm totally disinterested in BPL per se. You are welcome to review everything I've ever posted anywhere concerning BPL, and what you will consistently find is:
(a) In my opinion there is no evidence that BPL is a major threat to ham radio,
(b) that I have stated many times that as far as I can tell there is no hard evidence of any unresolved BPL interference to fixed home stations, and that I have also many times invited people to produce such evidence if it exists but nobody ever does,
(c) my opinion that the FCC regulations already cover any amateur interference concerns that may reasonably arise,
(d) that people who deliberately seek out noisy locations and deliberately position themselves in order to experience high levels of interference, are not the victims of harmful interference,
(e) that the ARRL is wasting time and resources chasing a handful of frivolous cases, for their own reasons that really have nothing to do with mitigating actual interference,
(f) that in any case, the ARRL is totally impotent with the FCC concerning BPL, despite all their "nudging" etc..
Anti-ARRL? You're partly right. I am a member of ARRL but I've had increasingly difficult time thinking of reasons to stay a member. My membership renewal form has been sitting in my in-box for several weeks now, pending me making up my mind whether to send it back with a check, or shredded.
ARRL still does a good job with many of the things it traditionally did in member service, publications, education, and public service etc ...
But in recent years we've seen them increasingly doing things that, in fact, are prohibited by the ARRL's own Articles of Association, Article 12, such as "carrying on of propaganda", "attempting to influence legislation", and "engage in any activities or exercise any powers that are not in furtherance of the purposes of our corporation."
And I have the same qualms about the ARRL's behavior as a lot of other people do vis-a-vis controversial rules change petitions without member input, attempting to manipulate the rules to benefit a small cliche within ARRL, trying to artifically pump up their membership numbers, increasing reliance on federal grants, their increasingly being in the pocket of ICOM, their accepting BPL equimpent from Motorola in exchange for pushing the FCC to ban other BPL systems, and so on.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH, Ron Said:
"Lee, I wish you wouldn't resort to falsehoods and innuendo so often. It's annoying, besides making you look childish. I thought you were better than that. Maybe I was wrong."
Falsehoods and innuendo? Those are reserved for incumbent politicians.
"I am not "pro-BPL". Never have been. I'm totally disinterested in BPL per se. You are welcome to review everything I've ever posted anywhere concerning BPL, and what you will consistently find is:............"
Well, if you aren't "pro-BPL", I surely missed something. Sort of like robbing a bank and telling everyone who saw you do it that you didn't. Choosing to ignore evidence is your choice. Choosing to consider very valid examples of overwhelming interference to mobile stations is your choice. So, who, besides you, the Chipster, a blatantly "bought-off" FCC and the BPL industry itself choose to ignore such findings? One can draw a reasonable conclusion that those who take such a stance are, in fact, "pro-BPL."
Perhaps I mischaracterized my moniker. Then, how's this: "Pro diminishment of Part 15?" Is that a closer fit?
Disinterest. Sure. If one were truly disinterested, one would keep silent and say nothing. On the other hand, one can have an interest in something in more than one way. Technical, perhaps. Or, financial.
Anyway, I don't always agree with ARRL. I didn't, in fact, over their support of the Current BPL system as it avoids HF, but impacts lowband VHF. I called them on it and they basicly copped out.
Did I agree with them on Regulation by Bandwidth. No. Vehemently no.
But, all in all, they do a great deal of good for AR. I will remain a member.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"....ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, contends the rule change "The FCC has, in effect, tried to redefine harmful interference," he said. "It can't do that. The Commission doesn't have the authority to do that, and we're going to demonstrate that to the Court of Appeals"
Silly me.
I thought the US Congress gave FCC the authority to regulate such matters under the Communications Act of 1934. I had no idea that the US Congress gave David Sumner & arrl that power!
I sure hope arrl has better arguments then that.
But, before making a decision, I would like to know WHY arrl thinks that FCC cannot define and regulate harmful interference, under the power the US Congress granted FCC in 1934. Is it just because David Sumner and arrl said so? or is there some other reason?
Come on Dave, enlighten us. Share some of that limitless arrl wisdom. Tell us all why FCC does not have that power?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The definition of "harmful interference" as it applies to Part 15 is given in 47CFR15.3
"(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter."
But nowhere in the regulations is there any measure of what "seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts" means.
I think the FCC simply was forced to draw a line on the meaning of that, in response to the "nudging" etc...
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In effect, this may be a case of "Be careful what you ask for - you might get it!"
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL INSULTS FCC WITH "INCOMPETENT"
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its ONE thing to challenge FCC in court. Its quite ANOTHER to lob PERSONAL insults at FCC, whom, by the way, HOLD SWAY OVER OUR LICENSES AND SPECTRUM PRIVILEGES.
You arrl members need to get CONTROL over arrl management. Tell them to stop ANTAGONIZING FCC with PERSONAL INSULTS.
Hopefully, FCC will recognize arrl for what it really is, A MINORITY GROUP THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT ANYTHING NEAR A MAJORITY OF HAMS.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH said...
The definition of "harmful interference" as it applies to Part 15 is given in 47CFR15.3
"(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter."
But nowhere in the regulations is there any measure of what "seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts" means.
I think the FCC simply was forced to draw a line on the meaning of that, in response to the "nudging" etc...
So with this reasoning, the power company could use this same method in regards to power line interference. Say that I'm getting power line interference that covers the entire HF band, and ranges from S-4 to S-9. I complain to the power company, they send one of their 'RFI experts' out to measure the level of interference. The 'RFI' guy states that the power line interference really isn't that bad; and that it's 10dB below some arbitrary figure the FCC allows them to define 'harmful interference'.
Harmful interference to me is ANY man made noise greater than 1dB above the natural noise floor. I find it quite odd that in the latest FCC ruling, they did not allow spread spectrum below 222 MHz. The reason given was they were concerned about raising the noise floor; but apparently have no qualms about raising the noise floor of HF by 10's of dB from BPL devices. While I still applaud the FCC for their latest ruling, I am still concerned about the apparent double standard applied to BPL devices.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7UQA writes:
"So with this reasoning, the power company could use this same method in regards to power line interference"
No Craig, the POWER COMPANY cannot.
The Power company was NOT given the power to make and define rules governing interference. On the other hand, FCC WAS GIVEN that power by the US Congress under the Communications Act of 1934.
N7UQA also writes:
"Harmful interference to me is ANY man made noise greater than 1dB above the natural noise floor."
Well, Craig, the US Congress gave FCC the power to make such definitions, NOT you, NOT me, nor any other ham. Its FCC that gets to make that call, not us. keep that in mind.
Hams need to understand.
The Federal Courts will give considerable deference to Federal Regulatory bodies, like FCC, when they have been empowered by an Act of Congress. This is not a "more likely then not" standard.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH writes:
"....this may be a case of "Be careful what you ask for - you might get it!"
Exactly.
Antagonizing people at FCC that HAVE THE POWER to exempt us from part 15 protections with name-calling is just plain foolish.
I wish you arrl members would get your directors under control.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Jonathan, since the power company has been coming out here and fixed the twelve (12) some and counting power line hardware issues; my noise floor has gone from 25 – 37dB to 1 – 3db above the natural noise floor (when raining, the power line noise is >1dB above the noise floor). I regularly work weak signal on two (2) meters, a 2 – 3dB increase in the noise floor can make or break my contacts.
I can say it could be feasible for the power company to petition the FCC to define what constitutes harmful interference in power distribution systems. Just like they have apparently done with BPL. They could argue that BPL leakage is many dB above run of the mill power line noise so why do we have to resolve the issue. There is no doubt in my mind that the commissioners have a difficult job. I'm just saying they don't always make the best decisions.
As an example, I am attaching (as an example mind you) correspondence that shows the FCC and be challenged and won.
'I thought you might be interested in the attached court case, which I believe is fairly typical of the federal court system's attitude toward the FCC; i.e., the courts have learned the hard way that the FCC's claim to be experts in regulating communications is totally false, and that the Commission really doesn't know what it is doing. In Bechtel, the court overruled the Commission's long-standing policy of granting a preference in issuing broadcast licenses to applicants who claimed to have "integrated ownership"; i.e., claiming that the owners actually managed the station. It was proved that, in order to have a better chance of getting a license, everybody was lying in their applications by claiming to have integrated ownership; but either they never had it at all, or they sold the station soon after receiving the license. The FCC could not come up with even one case where a licensee who claimed to have "integrated ownership" still had it one year after the license
issued! The case involves a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, but it is a gold mine of information about the FCC's various legal screw-ups and a great starting point for legal research. When you read the case, you realize that the judge has a pretty poor attitude toward the Commission.'
The pdf is here..
http://wetnet.net/~n7uqa/mc_bechtel_v_fcc.pdf
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Craig: "arguing" is NOT the same as "prevailing".
Just because somebody "argues" some goofy theory, does not mean it will succeed. We see that here on E ham all the time. Some hams will "argue" some really strained points....but so what??
The real issue is what will "prevail".
A while back a ham "argued" that the 14 Amendment Due Process clause of the US constitution could be invoked if FCC decided to exempt us from Part 15 protections. The "argument" was a total joke and would never fly...but he "argued" it anyway.
See my point?
Just like you argued that a 1db artificial elevation of the noise level was excessive. Argue till you are blue in the face, but no Judge is going to agree with you.
Appearantly, arrl is going to try to convince a Federal judge that FCC does not have the power that the US Congress gave it under the Communications Act of 1934. Just because arrl can "argue" some point with a straight face, does NOT mean arrl will prevail. Law is not about "arguing". Its about prevailing.
If what you want is "arguments", go to the kook-only liberal websites. There, you will see "arguments" of zero merit pass and repeated as "fact" all day long. But so what? Its meaningless.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> So with this reasoning, the power company could use this same method in regards to power line interference.
No. WHE-II already covered this. The FCC gets to decide what constitutes harmful interference, not the power company.
>> Harmful interference to me is ANY man made noise greater than 1dB above the natural noise floor.
And that is why the FCC doesn't let hams define what constitutes harmful interference, either. It's the same problem but at the other extreme.
The FCC as a regulatory body has the duty to find the balance somewhere between the extremes, guided by being consistent with the "public interest".
That's why it doesn't help when you have the President of the ARRL accusing the FCC of being grossly incompetent, and other name-calling that they did to the previous FCC Chairman. All that does is marginalize amateur radio and ensure that the FCC will tend to tip the balance away from us. It is possible and preferable to present cogent argument to the FCC if you disagree with them, not ad-hominem attack.
In the present ruling, they were drawn into to making a judgement call specifically and narrowly in the case of mobile amateur operations with the new 20dB below part 15 limits rule. As far as they are concerned, they believe that is the appropriate balance and is in the public interest. Read the actual text of the ruling to see what their reasoning is.
If the ARRL wants to appeal this, they are free to do so. However, what will be gained by doing so? Suppose they lose, which is the most likely outcome, then all they've done is further marginilize ham radio as well as blown off thousands of dollars on attorney costs. But, suppose they win, and the FCC is forced to rescind the rule requiring BPL to be notched at least 20 dB BELOW Part 15 limits and it goes back to NO required notching. Seems to me, that is going the WRONG DIRECTION! If the ARRL wins, we end up with MORE noise, not less!
As far as the 40 dB versus 20 db extrapolation factor, that is a technical issue, not a legal one. The ARRL has made it's case for the 20dB factor at least twice and lost both times. I don't see how doing the same exact thing again in front of a judge is going to change anything. Rather, if they keep losing their argument for the 20dB factor than either the argument is not technically sound, or else merely not presented convincingly enough.Again, read the FCC's ruling to see what their rationale is. Basically, they are saying that they didn't believe the ARRL's argument. Instead of whining about it and suing, they should tighten up the argument, back it up with more credible scientific and engineering evidence, and file a petition with the FCC to have that rule changed.
There is a famous quote, variously attributed to Ben Franklin or Albert Einstein, that goes "INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS".
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH is truly disinterested. Disinterested people waste their time writing theses on things they care nothing about. Sure.
And, our Paramedic Lawyer W9WHE-II, who still needs a spell checker for his briefs, (the filed type, of course) says that arguments don't influence judges in a court of law. I thought that was the heart of a 3 unit core course in law school theatrics. How to argue effectively without being cited for contempt.
Ron again chooses to ignore the test results of others, including the British equivalent to the FCC and also Aeronautical Radio, Inc., that show the FCC assumptions with respect to allowable BPL noise levels to be inadequate. Its not just the ARRL's data, Ron.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> NN4RH is truly disinterested. Disinterested people waste their time writing theses on things they care nothing about. Sure.
As I've said before, and which you have distorted to serve your own purposes, I am disinterested in BPL per se. I honestly do not care whether BPL is installed or not in any particular location, including my own neighborhood. I am, however, interested in the relationship between amateur radio and the FCC, and that includes how the ARRL is interacting with the FCC over the BPL issue.
>> Ron again chooses to ignore the test results ..
What matters is what the FCC thinks, not what I think. And what the FCC thinks is clearly stated in their August Memorandum Opinion and Order and the earlier Report and Order.
FCC has clearly stated, repeatedly, that they are willing to revisit the extrapolation factor issue if new information becomes available that provides a convincing argument for changing the rule. So it's exactly what I said in the earlier post - present new information that makes a convincing argument - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insane.
I am the only one who actually read the FCC MO&O?
Here's what it says(EMPHASIS ADDED):
"26. Decision. The extrapolation factor used for measurements of BPL emissions is an important consideration in determining compliance with the emission limits in the rules. In the Report and Order the Commission noted that the NTIA's LATEST COMPUTER MODELING SHOWS THAT THE VARIATION OF FIELD STRENGTH WITH DISTANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING PART 15 DISTANCE EXTRAPOLATION when used with the slant rnage distance to the power line as we proposed in Appendix C of the Notice. The Commission also noted that although the ARRL and ARINC recommended the use of a 20dB per decade extrapolation factor, rather than the existing 40db per decade .... based on theoretical modeling, many parties, including AEC and Current, presented EXPERIMENTAL DATA SHOWING SUPPORT FOR A 40 dB PER DECADE DECAY RATE .... Finally, the Commission decided to use the existing Part 15 distance extrapolation factors in the rules for BPL DUE TO THE LACK OF CONCLUSIVE EXPERIMENTAL DATA pending large scale Access BPL deployments. THE COMMISSION ALSO STATED THAT IF NEW INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE THAT ALTERNATIVE EMISSION LIMIT/DISTANCE STANDARDS OR EXTRAPOLATION FACTORS WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE, IT WOULD REVISIT THIS ISSUE at another time. NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED that would provide a convincing argument for modifying this requirement at this time. Accordingly we are retaining the existing extrapolation factor in the rules for the reasons set forth in the Report and Order.".
That's the FCC's statement. Not mine.
If you want to change from the 40dB factor to the 20dB factor, they need to see convincing experimental evidence to support the change.
Otherwise, experimental data trumps theoretical modeling, which is as it should be.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm no fan of BPL.
But if BPL were the HF crushing, ham radio ending, mass QRM generator arrl said it was, then with so many systems operating in so many places, WHY don't we have large numbers of complaints by large numbers fixed stations?
The only explanation I can come up with is that BPL is NOT the HF crushing, ham radio ending mass HF QRM generator arrl said it was. If BPL were all arrl said it was, we would have hundreds of hams filing complaints. But we don't. WHY?
Could it be that arrl over-hyped the threat to fill its coffers with CASH? I don't know. But Lee, since you are not just an internet lawyer, not just an engineer, but a super-genius, how about you esplain it to us.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH, Ron said:
" I honestly do not care whether BPL is installed or not in any particular location, including my own neighborhood."
I see. Either an inactive ham or a 2M and above ham. I completely understand your disinterest now. Perhaps you should ask some folks who use HF (or try to) down the road in Manassass, next time you're up that way.
" I am, however, interested in the relationship between amateur radio and the FCC, and that includes how the ARRL is interacting with the FCC over the BPL issue."
So, amateur radio and the FCC should be "kissie-kissie?" And, we hams should be humble, gracious, apologetic wimps and not challenge it, in court if necessary, to ensure that it promulgates regulations properly? Apparently you fear retaliation. By intimating a lessened ‘relationship,' do you think that worry will chill a challenge as prescribed by regulation and law? Plenty of regulated businesses have challenged the FCC in the DC Court of Appeal.
"What matters is what the FCC thinks, not what I think. And what the FCC thinks is clearly stated in their August Memorandum Opinion and Order and the earlier Report and Order."
What matters is that they think in accordance with US and international law and treaty agreements. Sometimes, what Executive Branch agencies promulgate as regulations don't comply with underlying law. As in this case.
"FCC has clearly stated, repeatedly, that they are willing to revisit the extrapolation factor issue if new information becomes available that provides a convincing argument for changing the rule."
That's a classic ‘cop-out' to ignore valid and proper data that has already been presented and improperly dismissed. The process permits a challenge to their decision and that process is now being employed. Yes, it will be costly. But, as your cigar-by-the-fire buddy points out, there will no doubt be other interested parties that may share some of the costs of litigation.
"Otherwise, experimental data trumps theoretical modeling, which is as it should be."
Been there, done that. We'll see how the DC Court of Appeals views the data and arguments in favor of the data.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-II, Jonathan said:
"The only explanation I can come up with is that BPL is NOT the HF crushing, ham radio ending mass HF QRM generator arrl said it was. If BPL were all arrl said it was, we would have hundreds of hams filing complaints. But we don't. WHY?"
Still a series of trials, Jonathan. Although many have complained. Go read the ARRL's BPL stats. You don't have to be a member to use that database. :-) The FCC chose to sit on most of them and do nothing.
"Could it be that arrl over-hyped the threat to fill its coffers with CASH? I don't know."
I'm sure the ARRL would like more cash in its coffers. They could raise executive salaries, deferred compensation, fatten QST, etc. They could use the extra bucks to more effectively lobby Congress. Oh, not quite Abrahmoff-style.
Speaking of Abrahmoff, I see "four-down" and a fifth getting ready to resign just ahead of the elections.
If it keeps going, the House majority could shift even before the end of the term. In spite of what "fair and balanced" Rupert Murdoch can do to squash it.
Have a good day, Jonathan. BTW, what's top-end on a Ford ambulance body? 85? Had one pass me the other evening Code 3 on the Interstate and that's about what he was doing. Kinda slow when someone's life's on the line.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH, Ron said:
" I honestly do not care whether BPL is installed or not in any particular location, including my own neighborhood."
W9WHE-II, Jonathan said:
"The only explanation I can come up with is that BPL is NOT the HF crushing, ham radio ending mass HF QRM generator arrl said it was. If BPL were all arrl said it was, we would have hundreds of hams filing complaints. But we don't. WHY?"
Now guys, I'm sure if BPL was deployed in your area, I'm sure we would see and about face on these statements. I've seen the data the NTIA and the ARRL have provided, I know how to read it and know how to operate RFI / test and measurement equipment needed to measure these emissions. I'm sure the frequency segments and huge exclusion zones the NTIA got had everything to do with the data collected. The FCC commissioners are human, they can and do make mistakes; however some of those mistakes are political in nature. 'Market forces' is never a good tool to use to decide technical and treaty obligations.
As I have stated before, BPL is a dead end. It will NEVER deliver the bandwidth users are going to demand. It will NEVER reliably deliver VoIP, video or any other high bandwidth service. All BPL is ever going to do is help speed up the deployment of wireless Internet services, xDSL and cable.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6EM writes:
"Although many have complained. The FCC chose to sit on most of them and do nothing"
IF what you say is true......then how many are there? Why do we not hear about them? My guess is that there are not many, but since NOBODY ever hears about more then 2-3, I doubt there are more. SURELY, if there were much more we would hear about them.
And speaking of Harry Reid & land deals....
(Just kidding. I leave that stuff to you lefties)
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7UQA writes:
"I've seen the data the NTIA and the ARRL have provided".
Data smata.
If BPL is so bad, how come we don't have hundreds of complaints?
Hummmmmmmmm? Esplain that to me!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE wrote:
N7UQA writes:
"I've seen the data the NTIA and the ARRL have provided".
Data smata.
If BPL is so bad, how come we don't have hundreds of complaints?
Hummmmmmmmm? Esplain that to me!
Come on Jonathan, you know the answer as well as I do. I sure wish you would quit asking rhetorical questions. And no, it's not your 'BPL doesn't interfere' answer you always give.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> As I have stated before, BPL is a dead end. It will NEVER deliver the bandwidth users are going to demand. It will NEVER reliably deliver VoIP, video or any other high bandwidth service.
If BPL isn't viable, then you have nothing to be afraid of.
>> All BPL is ever going to do is help speed up the deployment of wireless Internet services, xDSL and cable.
So BPL is a good thing, in your view?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by AE6RO on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why don't we stuff BPL down a very deep hole and see if we can detonate it. Even if we can't, we can still sell it on Ebay.
If it turns out to be a legitimate test we can convene the United Nations and sanction it. If not, we can lie about it. AE6RO
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-II says:
"And speaking of Harry Reid & land deals....
(Just kidding. I leave that stuff to you lefties)"
Supposedly a small omission on some forms. Taken care of, the last I heard. Although he might be in trouble for being from the Mustang Ranch state or having watched a casino show or two.
Now, how about Illinois Fat Cat Hastert's land deal. Remember how he bought some undeveloped land and arranged to have a freeway routed next to it? As I remember he made a cool million on that pork deal. Soooo-eeeeee.
I'm not a leftie, Jonathan. How many times do I have to remind you?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> As I have stated before, BPL is a dead end. It will NEVER deliver the bandwidth users are going to demand. It will NEVER reliably deliver VoIP, video or any other high bandwidth service.
If BPL isn't viable, then you have nothing to be afraid of.
>> All BPL is ever going to do is help speed up the deployment of wireless Internet services, xDSL and cable.
So BPL is a good thing, in your view?
No Ron, you are taking what I said out of context. Here is a list of my pet peeves on BPL
1. Was an idea originally pitched to then commissioner Michale Powell by William Stewart. Stewart. Stewart claimed his company 'Media Fusion' could maintain a 'exobit' (billion gigabit) TCP/IP network over power wires, promising a trillion dollar busyness. Michale, knowing nothing about electronics and couldn't tell you how his cell phone worked, bought it hook line and sinker.
2.After several promises, and NEVER demonstrating his technology; Media Fusion went out of busyness, and William Stewart was later convicted on fraud and money laundering charges.
3.Hell bent on making this idea work, the FCC changed part 15 to allow ODFM RF signals to be purposely coupled onto what are essentially loop antennas in the HF band.
4.When warned about the likelihood radio interference by their OWN frequency governing body, the NTIA, they were instructed to accommodate it, shut up and play ball.
5.The constant 'don't confuse us with all this technical mumbo-jumbo, were going to make this work' we'll let the market decide attitude; contrary to all the evidence and failed or banned deployments in other countries.
6.That BPL is HF spread spectrum delivered over the worst delivery medium possible.
7.That 'interference mitigation' won't work nor will it ever work. If you don't believe me, just ask the hams in Manassas VA. Ask them how their 'interference mitigation' proceedings are going.
Instead of the FCC wasting time on the BPL money pit. They ought to be keeping a blow torch lit under the telco's asses on their failed 6+ year promise to have 80+% of the US wired with synchronous 45+ M/bit fiber by now.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by NN4RH on October 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> If you don't believe me, just ask the hams in Manassas VA. Ask them how their 'interference mitigation' proceedings are going.
Already done that - I know several who live in Manassas - one lives a few blocks away from one of the more infamous sites - and have in fact been to Manassas many times myself, since I live nearby.
That's how I know that BPL is NOT the utter devastation that so many seem to think it is.
But, you'll see sooner or later when Lee checks in again, that Lee thinks I'm a liar when it comes to Manassas, and I'm not going to have that argument again.
So don't believe me if you choose not to. But you might want to think about why, with over 300 licensed hams living in Manassass, we never hear about any unresolved cases of BPL interference to HOME stations there?
Aren't there any? If not, then that's great that BPL isn't devastating Manassass hams, wouldn't you agree?
If there are, then why are they being kept secret?
Any why haven't we even heard any more about the one or two mobile complaints since the last time they checked the area where the notching was put into place? Were those cases resolved now? If they're resolved then why keep it a secret?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By all means Ron, please share some info with me, all I have to go by is what has been currently documented. Were you able to observe noise floor levels first hand? If he's with in several blocks he should be receiving some noise. Is he satisfied with the noise level? Is he happy with what ever 'interference mitigation' he's received? What about others, these people are free to e-mail me with any information they have acquired. If BPL is anything like I was experiencing with my power line interference issues, I would certainly NOT be happy.
The power line interference I was receiving was quite broad. It covered all of HF and had very strong components on two meters. If you would like to hear it, download it from the link listed below. This was just one of some twelve noise sources that have been found to date.
http://wetnet.net/~n7uqa/audio_files/power_line_interference/28400kHz_8_13_6_1200pm_S6.mp3
Craig – N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE asked: "If BPL is so bad, how come we don't have hundreds of complaints?".
N7UQA responded: "Come on Jonathan, you know the answer as well as I do. I sure wish you would quit asking rhetorical questions. And no, it's not your 'BPL doesn't interfere' answer you always give".
Craig, I'm not as smart as you are.
I DO NOT know the answer. Would you Please explain it? If BPL is the HF crushing, ham radio ending technology that all of the arrl hype suggests, FCC should be drowning in hundreds of ham complaints. And from what I can tell, they are not drowning. WHY? Please use your superior intellect to explain it to me and the rest of hams that do not understand. Inquiring minds want to know!
Thank you.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As NN4RH points out:
"...you might want to think about why, with over 300 licensed hams living in Manassass, we never hear about any unresolved cases of BPL interference to HOME stations there".
Indeed.
How can BPL be the HF crushing, ham radio ending technology arrl hype suggests and there not be HUNDREDS of unresolved home QTH complaints in Manassas?? I don't get it.
Craig, I'm sorry, but I'm just not smart enough to figure this out. Please help me out here.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE asked: "If BPL is so bad, how come we don't have hundreds of complaints?".
N7UQA responded: "Come on Jonathan, you know the answer as well as I do. I sure wish you would quit asking rhetorical questions. And no, it's not your 'BPL doesn't interfere' answer you always give".
Craig, I'm not as smart as you are.
I DO NOT know the answer. Would you Please explain it? If BPL is the HF crushing, ham radio ending technology that all of the arrl hype suggests, FCC should be drowning in hundreds of ham complaints. And from what I can tell, they are not drowning. WHY? Please use your superior intellect to explain it to me and the rest of hams that do not understand. Inquiring minds want to know!
Now Jonathan, I would say the reason why all 300 some amateurs in Manassas haven't complained is obvious. Most probably don't live near enough to the BPL deployment, or don't use HF. This would be like me saying 'if power line interference is so wide spread, why haven't the 700,000+ hams in the US complained about it'. If every ham in Manassas were to file complaints, most would be thrown out as frivolous. Only the hams who have been experiencing BPL or power line interference have been complaining,
Since my post yesterday, I have not received any e-mails form BPL affected hams. I did however check to see how many have listened to my power line interference mp3.
wetnet:/var/log # cat access_log | grep power_line* - c
118 <------- number of downloads so far. So I know people are still actively reading this thread.
I would still like to see some BPL data other than what the NTIA, ARRL and others have made available. Or perhaps the hams in Cottonwood Arizona have some data to share now that the BPL deployment in their area has been discontinued.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass Jonathan, I just want something else than yours, Chip's and Ron's opinion that BPL isn't causing as much problems as the affected hams claim.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Craig, thanks for responding.
Its allways a joy to discuss an issue with someone that disagrees, but does not launch into vitriolic personal attacks about my deceased mother!
I don't claim to be an expert. Just a ham with 30 years under my belt. Some radios with nice specs are dreadful and some radios with mediocre specs do quite well. So, for me, the acid test is RERALITY AND REAL WORLD OPERATION.
Not all 300 Manassas hams are active on HF. Good point. Let's assume 60% percent are active, or 180 hams. Of the 180 active hams, assume 1/3 are active on HF, for about 60 active HF hams. Assume they are randomly located and not all clustered in one subdivision, far from all BPL.
With about 60 active HF hams, how many QTH complaints have been filed and how many remain unresolved? Two? Three? By my math, isn't that 3-5%?
I'm no fan of BPL. But based upon THE REAL WORLD, it seems that BPL is not the HF crushing, ham radio ending technology arrl's hype suggested that it would be.
tell me where I went wrong.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Orders Exceed FCC's Jurisdiction and Autho
|
|
|
by W6EM on October 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9WHE-II, Jonathan said:
"Not all 300 Manassas hams are active on HF. Good point. Let's assume 60% percent are active, or 180 hams."
Let's get a little closer. 326 in the FCC ULS database. 124 (by virtue of 1X2, 2X1, 2X2, or 1X3 calls) have HF privileges. I know, I'm not counting Tech pluses or missing the few generals through extras that didn't trade in calls. The vast majority are KE through KI calls and to me, that's mostly no code Tech territory.
Let's assume 10 percent are really active HF'ers and don't have antenna restrictions and such. And, all of those 10 percent live within the BPL test area.
About 12. Now, how many complaints have actually been received by the Enforcement Bureau and logged in? Including those that were sent to the Office of Engineering and Technology and stuffed in a drawer.
All that we've heard about are those that have been publicized by the ARRL. I've not seen any Manassass correspondence other than the letters written by the FCC as of late and posted by ARRL. The FCC's probably sitting on at least a dozen or more from Manassas hams.
If, that is, the BPL system is indeed city/serivce area-wide and all the hams live within the city power system's service area, which may or may not be true. My post office city, for example, is 8 miles away and even in a different county. But, this is Alabama, not Virginia.
"I'm no fan of BPL. But based upon THE REAL WORLD, it seems that BPL is not the HF crushing, ham radio ending technology arrl's hype suggested that it would be."
Oh, I beg to differ, Jonathan. If you had something else on the air besides your VHF/UHF Motorola APCO25 compliant mobile radio, perhaps you might be able to hear the mess.
"tell me where I went wrong."
Just did. And, I'm not Craig. You know that.
Just an Amicus Unum.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Kenwood Sky Command
Edwin Petzolt K1LNC Winner of 1999 ARRL Internatio
eHAM covers Dayton 2000
The 2003 ARRL Handbook
ARRL President Urges Orderly Amateur Radio Response to Katrina:
Other News Articles
Kids Get to Ham It Up a Bit:
W1AW Winter Operating Schedule:
ACMA Publishes Revisions to the Radiofrequency Spectrum Plan:
Son Charged in K4QE's Death has First Court Appearance:
Charles Camillo, W9ISV (SK):
|
