Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to Congress:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 03
on
January 19, 2007
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to Congress:
US Rep Mike Ross, WD5DVR (D-AR), has introduced a bill in the 110th Congress
calling on the FCC to study the interference potential of broadband over
power line (BPL) technology and report its findings back to Congress. One of
two radio amateurs in the House, Ross submitted the "Emergency Amateur Radio
Interference Protection Act of 2007" (HR 462) on January 12. The bill's
official text became available this week. ARRL President Joel Harrison,
W5ZN, says the League shares Ross's concern about interference to emergency
communication networks.
"We wholly support his effort to ensure that public safety remains a
priority over flawed political agendas regarding communication technology,"
Harrison commented.
The bill calls for the FCC to conduct "a comprehensive BPL service study
leading to improved rules to prevent interference." If the measure is
adopted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, the FCC
would have to undertake a study of BPL's interference potential within 90
days of enactment and report to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In 2005, Ross introduced a non-binding House resolution, HRes 230, in the
109th Congress that would have had the FCC conduct "a full and complete
analysis" of radio interference from BPL with an eye toward revising the FCC
rules that govern BPL to minimize the potential of harmful interference. It
was unsuccessful.
Last year, the US House passed a telecommunications bill containing language
that Ross proposed requiring the FCC to study the interference potential of
BPL systems. The study requirement did not make its way into the final
version of the bill, however.
HR 462 would require the Commission to address several technical facets,
including variations in BPL emission field strength with distance from power
lines and a technical justification for using a particular distance
extrapolation factor when making measurements.
The FCC also would have to investigate the degree of notching necessary "to
protect the reliability of mobile radio communications," and provide a
technical justification for permitted BPL radiated emission levels relative
to ambient noise levels. Finally, the study would have to outline options
for new or improved BPL rules aimed at preventing harmful interference to
public safety and other radio communication systems.
Ross's bill zeroes in on some of the same issues the ARRL cited last October
when it asked the US Court of Appeals -- DC Circuit to review certain
aspects of the Part 15 BPL rules. The ARRL specifically has taken issue with
§15.611(c)(1)(iii), which sets a lower standard of protection for licensed
mobile stations in any radio service, including public safety, that may
receive BPL interference.
The League's lawsuit also faults the FCC's decision not to adjust the 40 dB
per decade "extrapolation factor" applied to BPL emission measurements taken
at distances from power lines other than those specified in Part 15. The
ARRL contends that BPL measurements made according to existing BPL rules
underestimate actual field strengths and that an extrapolation factor closer
to 20 dB per decade would be more appropriate.
The League's Petition for Review asserts that the BPL rules "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 Association of Maximum Service Television and the National Association
of Broadcasters are supporting the ARRL lawsuit as interveners.
HR 462 has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
text of the bill is available on the Library of Congress' Thomas Web site
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.462:.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 26, No. 03
January 19, 2007
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to Congr
|
|
|
by W6AH on January 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It sure is good to see that Amateur Radio has a friend in Representative Ross on Capital Hill. Legislation that is not acted upon in the year it is introduced dies on the vine. It then becomes incumbant on the author to reintroduce the legislation in the next session if the initiative is to continue. Congressman Ross was able to get the legislation attached as a rider to another bill last year which then was struck from the bill in the eleventh hour. Though it may seem frustrating progress has been made. The only way to get action out of government is with a steady persistant drum beat of pressure. This is how the big lobbies work it is different for Amateur Radio. With the reintroduction of HR 462 it would be hoped that all who support it would drop a brief note to their representative urging their support in the House including signing on as a cosponsor.
73s
W6AH
|
| |
|
Lawsuit Is Best Bet, But Bill Is Also Worth Trying
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on January 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I certainly join W6AH in supporting H.R. 462, the bill on BPL which Representative Mike Ross (D-AR) has just introduced.
********
I don't know whether Congress will be fully open to legislative action while ARRL's court case is still pending. Some legislators may prefer to "wait and see" whether the courts make this problem go away for them.
Still, backing the bill is worth a try -- as a SUPPLEMENT to ARRL's lawsuit against the FCC.
********
Overall, it is my GUESS that ARRL's lawsuit is more likely to yield favorable results, at least in the immediate future, than the new legislation.
ARRL should have a fairly good case for the courthouse IF it gets its ducks into the right row and IF it gets enough contributions (from hams like us) for the Special Fund that finances the lawsuit. [Re that second point: If you think lobbying Congress is expensive, try Big Time Litigation!]
Anyway, as a lawyer (some of the time), I know that judges are generally reluctant to rule on TECHNOLOGICAL issues (due to concern that they lack enough technological expertise). I also know, however, that judges are typically much more eager to rule on PROCEDURAL issues (which they usually know a lot more about, or at least think they do).
This tendency should help ARRL because the FCC (or at least its Commissioners) took so many procedural "shortcuts" in preparing the BPL implementation rule. IF the judges choose to do so, they can cite enough purely PROCEDURAL mistakes to justify sending the BPL implementation rule back to the FCC and telling the Commissioners to re-do their homework. The judges won't have to rule on TECHNOLOGICAL issues at all -- unless they want to do so.
********
To recap:
**** ARRL's lawsuit, IMO, is the single best bet for sending the BPL final rule back to the FCC. ****
**** Pressing for the Ross bill could be a good "backup". ****
********
PLEASE, however, don't overlook HOA antenna reform in all the excitement!
BPL can shut down some hams in some places, some or even most of the time ... but only the TOTAL bans on ANY kind of outdoor ham antennas, by Homeowners' Associations and/or landlords, have a 100% "kill rate".
********
For some additional commentary, you might also want to check out my posting in the EHAM discussion thread for
"Bill Puts BPL In Harm's Way".
That posting is entitled:
"BPL Is Rationality-Resistant ... SatComm Is Shaky"
73,
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
(804) 433-7268
URL: www.hamsforaction.net
|
| |
|
Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to Congr
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on January 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As usual, some folks don't have their priorities straight.
BPL interference to mobile HF operation and the woes of HOA's are WAY down on the priority list.
We have far more important issues to deal with. Here's a couple that are on my list; you may want to add them to yours:
> Interference from Part 15 Class B consumer equipment, such as Plasma televisions is becoming a huge issue and far more prevalent than BPL. This one has snuck right under the ARRL's radar and is so significant it is affecting the ability of FIXED stations to operate at all.
> The future of ham radio as a public service. Justifying our use of spectrum by providing weather reports from condominiums, working in shelters for the Red Cross and sending Amateur Email are not going to advance our cause, now or in the future.
> Restore the sense of pride in amateur radio in terms of demonstrated technical abilities. There are still many smart technically competent hams among us, but the current examination process in the U.S. isn't conducive to increasing our technical abilities and advancing the art.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to C
|
|
|
by AE6RO on January 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BPL is a Part 15 issue, amigo.
To make it work will need lots of money and lots of grid "improvements" but I guarantee one thing: even if you aren't a ham you won't like it. Ha, ha, ha. 73, AE6RO John
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to C
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on January 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm quite aware that BPL is a Part 15 issue.
BPL is nothing in comparison to the onslaught of Plasma TV interference, which is affecting fixed HF stations, not just a handle of mobiles intentionally parked under power lines.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to C
|
|
|
by AE6RO on January 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once the BPL is on the power lines, it goes everywhere, including into homes. Not just mobiles. I even heard a BPL test last year from San Diego area. It made it all the way up to Long Beach, well over 100 miles. The test had been announced on a 6 meter reflector so I listened when they said it would be on and there it was.
The "smartgrid" idea means the BPL goes into every home. Why we need smart refrigerators instead of HF radio I'll never know.
There a lively discussion on the 600 Meter Group reflector on TV QRM. Seems the horizontal oscillator's harmonics can travel quite a distance on 600 meters. I haven't listened in yet but intend to. 73, AE6RO John
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to C
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on January 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The HOA issue is critical to Ham radio's survival.
What good are new hams if they quickly become disenchanted because they can't put up an antenna and give up? With fewer and fewer people able to put up an effective HF antenna, just where do you think the hobby is going?
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to C
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on January 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The HOA issue is critical to Ham radio's survival.
What good are new hams if they quickly become disenchanted because they can't put up an antenna and give up? With fewer and fewer people able to put up an effective HF antenna, just where do you think the hobby is going?
>>> Hams do a lot of squabbling about things, but when it comes to HOA's, we are a minority group. These developments were not created with ham radio operators in mind.
Most properties covered by CC&R's have very small lot sizes. The typical ham's rats nest of wire antennas and aluminum is naturally not an eye-pleaser for most neighbors. If you're really being honest, it would be ridiculous to try to accommodate typical amateur antennas versus the goal of the HOA and its residents: protection against degradation of property values.
Hams For Action is suggesting that hams paint their antennas and maintain their appearance every 3 years.
What ham is going to be able to make good on this nonsense?
What are they going to use to support wire antennas? Hams hanging out of trees and lashing ropes to them isn't going to go over well, considering that many people buy into these developments for the landscape which adds to the aesthetics of the property. Aluminum and RG-8 aren't in this category.
What about hams that rent an apartment in a high rise building? Should hams be allowed to install antennas on the roof and run the feedlines down the side into a window? Probably not unless you own the building or have a special relationship with the owner.
There are lots of communities without restrictions. Personally, my family comes first before ham radio. For hams that have the means to have their cake and eat it to, instead of buying into a development that's run by an HOA with CC&R's, move to a property that has minimal or no restrictions.
It's common sense....
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
Priorities: Antennas #1, BPL #2 ... SPA O?
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on January 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re ARRL's priorities:
I thank those of you who believe HOA Antenna Reform should be assigned a higher priority, overall, than restraining BPL.
I agree with you that HOA antenna bans, with their "100% kill rate", are a bigger problem than BPL. Still, BPL is a major problem, too -- especially if Ed Hare is right about "the negative synergy" of aggregating thousands of BPL units together.
I don't see why ARRL can't tackle both problems.
I don't know from plasma television, but I'm certainly willing to hear the case against it. I'm sure I'm not the only EHAM "regular" who is willing to listen to those who are concerned.
****
Speaking only for myself, here is how I would like to see ARRL rank the top public policy priorities:
CONGRESS AND/OR THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND/OR VOTER-INITIATED REFERENDA (IN STATES WHICH ALLOW THEM)
1. 10 on a 10-point scale: HOA Antenna Reform Legislation, preferably through Congress (to assure national uniformity)
("If I Were King", I would: (A) Re-write the Israel/Ross bill to bring it closer to HFA's July 2006 Petition For Rulemaking to the FCC ... and (B) "Target" more selectively the efforts to recruit co-sponsors, prioritizing those potential co-sponsors who serve on the key Communications SubCommittees of the House and Senate)
2. 3 on a 10-point scale: Legislation To Restrain BPL
(I would assign more points to the Ross bill if there weren't a lawsuit pending at the same time ... I doubt most Congressional legislators will consider investing time and energy into this bill while there's a chance the courts will address the issue for them)
??. O on a 10-point scale: The Spectrum Protection Act
(I would either re-write the bill, to make it more "politically marketable", or forget about the bill completely. I suspect the Spectrum Protection Act, as currently written, is just draining lobbying energy away from efforts that are certainly more critical and probably more "winnable".)
FCC AND THE COURTS
(1 -- Tie) 8 on an 8-point scale: Urging The FCC To Open A Docket For The July 2006 HAMS FOR ACTION Petition For Rulemaking (On HOA Antenna Reform)
(Please note that a formal ARRL request for the FCC to open a Docket on HFA's Petition, thereby soliciting public comments on the proposal, would NOT require ARRL to endorse every detail of the Petition itself -- but only the public CONSIDERATION of the Petition ... Please note as well: I assign this possible action to influence the FCC 8 points out of 10, rather than 10 points out of 10, only because I believe hams have a better chance on this issue with legislators than with the current Commission ... Overall, more effort on HOA Antenna Reform should go into Congress, and/or the State Legislatures, or even into voter-initiated referenda (in States which allow them), because THOSE efforts are more likely to pay off -- PROVIDED hams can link this issue to emergency communications, and therefore to personal safety, in the minds of enough voters)
(1 -- Tie) 8 on a 10-point scale: Winning The Court Case Against BPL
(As I said above, I doubt that Congress will want to step into this controversy until and unless the courts have spoken first ... I also suspect the ARRL's lawsuit is "winnable" on PROCEDURAL grounds, because the FCC clearly "rushed to judgement" on BPL and did not consider anywhere near all of the evidence)
****
Like others who are reading these words, I am waiting to hear the results of the ARRL Board's "review of overall public policy objectives" at last week's Winter Board Meeting.
Hopefully, the ARRL Board agreed with HFA's request to rank HOA Antenna Reform and BPL as "comparable in importance", with the Spectrum Protection Act as a distant third (if it's still on the list at all).
Personally, as you can see, I would rank HOA Antenna Reform as a clear No. 1 -- with BPL a close second. However, the overall Membership of HAMS FOR ACTION "only" asked for parity with BPL.
Parity with BPL would still be a big step up for HOA Antenna Reform, which seems to have been lagging behind the Spectrum Protection Act.
I hope we hear the news soon.
I also hope all of you who rank HOA Antenna Reform #1 (or at least rank it equal in importance to BPL) took the time and energy to contact your Regional Director and Vice-Director before the Board Meeting.
****
Finally ...
About HFA's proposal for painting outdoor ham antennas to please HOAs:
Please see my discussion of this matter in the "Reasonable Accommodation" section of my January 14 article entitled "HFA Spotlights ARRL Board Meeting". It's here on EHAM.
****
Anyway ...
Have A Good Week!
73,
de Don KI4PMG
|
| |
|
Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to Congr
|
|
|
by W1YW on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At face value, 730,000+ licensed 'hams' sure sounds like a constituency one needs to pay attention to. But, with pertinence to this topic--that is, the 'impact' of Access BPL on Part 97 'ham' radio-- consider the following:
* A vast majority of licensed hams are believed to be inactive;
* The clear majority of US ham 'contacts' occurs at VHF, with some UHF, with a minority at HF/MF. (Access BPL is at HF/MF) Indeed, even when the 'No Code Techs'--the majority of licensees-- invoke their new HF privileges, only a sliver are at HF on phone, not far from the CB band frequencies (ironically they have LOTS of CW privileges...but if you don't know code in the first place, what is the likelihood of using it?)
* The ARRL has been either unable or unwilling to demonstrate that anything but a very, very few of its members support the suit against the FCC, IMO a strong indicator of just how little play and support the Access BPL issue has with Part 97 licencees;
* Hams do indeed provide backup emergency communications, but there has never been a fact-based EXAMPLE where Access BPL ever impeded EC with hams. Nor reason to believe it would. To wit: if you HAVE Access BPL, and can call 911 over VOIP, then why do you need some ham to assist?
* The number of outstanding actionable Access BPL complaints from fixed Part 97 stations--and keep in mind that there are quite an extensive base of BPL operations now-- appears to be zero, although there are two filings, to my knowledge. Know better? Tell us!
It is important for us all to ask why a very few Part 97 licencees continue to flog Access BPL. What's driving it? What COMMERCIAL INTERESTS are driving it--in the specious name of 'licensee rights (UGH!)' and 'spectrum pollution'?
As a CLASS of licensees, Part 97 may be the largest pool. But if you think ALL hams are stupid enough to be manipulated into a fight that has NOT DEMONSTRATED to have an impact on them, well, think again.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Bill Seeks BPL Interference Study, Report to C
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on January 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a waste of valuable time, effort and influence.
The effort would have been MUCH better spent pushing CC&R reforms. Asking FCC to "restudy" BPL will not change the outcome. The whole idea is silly.
arrl is, for some reason, fixated on BPL, a technology, by arrl's OWN description is "flawed" and "won't work". Meanwhile, new hans quickly become discouraged and leave the hobby because they can't put up an effective antenna.
The priorities are just backwards.
|
| |
|
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:
|
