BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 07
on
February 16, 2007
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
A bill in the US House of Representatives calling on the FCC to study the
interference potential of broadband over power line (BPL) technology and
report its findings back to Congress has gained two cosponsors, its sponsor,
US Rep Mike Ross, WD5DVR (D-AR), reports. They are US Rep Steve Israel
(D-NY) and US Rep Ron Paul (R-TX). One of two radio amateurs in the House,
Ross submitted the "Emergency Amateur Radio Interference Protection Act of
2007" (HR 462)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.462: on
January 12. Last year, the US House passed a telecommunications bill, HR
5252, containing language that Ross proposed requiring the FCC to study the
interference potential of BPL systems. The legislation never made it out of
Congress, however. In a letter to his House colleagues inviting additional
cosponsors, Ross emphasized that his primary goal is to minimize BPL's
interference potential.
"In the 110th Congress, I have reintroduced this legislation and narrowed
the scope of the study significantly so as to not hinder any broadband
Internet deployment that does not cause proven interference," Ross wrote.
"The study called for by this bill will not slow, nor frustrate, the
deployment of competitive broadband delivery mechanisms. It will not inhibit
the deployment of Broadband over Power Line (BPL) systems anywhere in the
US. The purpose of the study is to ascertain what additional rules should be
adopted by the FCC governing BPL systems in order to reduce the interference
potential to a reasonably low level."
Ross said that as a radio amateur, he believes it's imperative that BPL's
interference potential be thoroughly examined and comprehensively evaluated.
"Power lines are not designed to prevent radiation of RF energy; therefore
BPL represents a significant potential interference source for all public
safety radio services using this frequency range, including Amateur Radio
operators," he told his colleagues.
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.
HR 462 has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. If
Ross's 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.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 26, No. 07
February 16, 2007
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"In the 110th Congress, I have reintroduced this legislation and narrowed the scope of the study significantly so as to not hinder any broadband Internet deployment that does not cause proven interference," Ross wrote. "The study called for by this bill will not slow, nor frustrate, the deployment of competitive broadband delivery mechanisms. It will not inhibit the deployment of Broadband over Power Line (BPL) systems anywhere in the US. The purpose of the study is to ascertain what additional rules should be adopted by the FCC governing BPL systems in order to reduce the interference potential to a reasonably low level."
Congress often proposes legislative studies. There is no valid reason why they should not approve this one, since the purpose is clear. It takes a large, well known organization to turn the attention of Congress to an important matter and that organization is the ARRL.
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a very good reason: it is a waste of money.
Why doesn't the ARRL donate the funds and have Congress oversee the execution?
Why make the PUBLIC INTEREST pay for a SPECIAL INTEREST study?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW makes a simple assertion, "It is a waste of money." How does he know this to be a fact?
Why should the ARRL offer to donate funds for a Congressional study? What other organization has ever done offered funds for a Congressional study?
W1YW begs the question, "What makes him think that such a study is a special interest study and not a public interest study?"
What motivates W1YW to be protective of the BPL lobby?
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by N0XMZ on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why make the PUBLIC INTEREST pay for a SPECIAL INTEREST study?"
Because the radio spectrum is a public resource. It's the same reason why the gov't studies air & water pollution.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by QSYING on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<Why make the PUBLIC INTEREST pay for a SPECIAL INTEREST study?>>
Like the United Powerline Council (UPLC) is a public interest group?
All these efforts revolve around special interest groups, pro and con, and money. That is the way legislation works.
Do we think lobbyists are doing this for their health?
FCC is charged with protecting and promoting the public interest, not the interests of powerline councils or power companies. Is it doing that?
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"FCC is charged with protecting and promoting the public interest, not the interests of powerline councils or power companies. Is it doing that? '
Yes, they are. They are promoting the public "thurst" for broadband access.
What no one in amateur radio is willing to be honest about or come to terms with is this: the Bush administration and Congress set goals for expanding broadband access as well as creating a more competitive playing field - further promoting the public interest by reducing access costs.
In comparison, amateur HF MOBILE operation is in a minority class in terms of public interest priorities.
By now, it should be apparent that the FCC can't justify tightening Part 15 rules any further to accommodate Amateur HF mobile operation over and above what BPL operators have done so far.
All the discussions I've seen on this forum have indicated that interference to FIXED amateur stations is under control, but mobile operation remains affected. If that's still true, don't be so surprised when this type of legislation drops at the gate. I'm not "for" this situation, just dealing with reality.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by QSYING on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<Yes, they are. They are promoting the public "thurst" for broadband access>>
When FCC made a new rule, §15.611(c)(1)(iii), did it exceed either its charter, violate the law or both or neither?
If it didn't, fine. If it did, that is unacceptable.
The ends do not justify the means, no matter what the Bush (or any other administration) wants, in terms of broadband access.
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Have fun fighting "Dubya" and Big $$$ lobbyists in the telcom industry. The ARRL sure isn't .......and it's all over a few instances where HF mobile operation was affected when parked directly near a power line.
Talk about shoveling "you know what" against the tide.......and for what?
....... WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by N9XCR on February 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Other countries have fiber dropped to each and every neighborhood, offering 100Mbit internet access to the residents. They also pay a hell of a lot less than we do.
The government should be trying to find ways to offer FASTER access that's affordable to everyone. BPL sure as hell doesn't fit the bill.
Chris
N9XCR
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why should anyone care what amateurs think of BPL?
It has nothing to do with Part 97.
Can someone kindly give me the checklist of technologies I am SUPPOSED to hate as a ham?
The only list I HAVE is the one of NEW TECHNOLOGIES that hams can develop....
But there doesn't seem to be much in way of ham sound bites on that.
Welcome to ham radio in 2007.
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What motivates W1YW to be protective of the BPL lobby?--AI2IA
----------------------------------------------
What motivates AI2IA to make false statements?
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW, if you can't answer my questions, be bigger than you seem and just admit it. It's okay. No one expects you of all people to know everything.
You write: "What motivates AI2IA to make false statements?" What statements of mine do you allege are false? I think that you are lost for honest words here. What do you say?
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Everything is going along very well with the ARRL and with the Congress on the BPL issue so far. This is all very pleasing. As for those who are doing their best to come up with reasons to oppose it while standing on the sidelines, it is not going so very well for them. It is just the same old tune, and of course they are not really convincing anyone of anything, and they are not advance the cause of amateur radio one iota. They just make some noise and nothing more. There is no action there. Meanwhile, in Congress .... "BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors." Great!
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What motivates W1YW to be protective of the BPL lobby?--AI2IA
----------------------
This statement is false. It implicates me with a group whose members I couldn't even identify in a line up, let alone protect. I have no contact with them.
So: I ask again. Once more, with feeling...
** What motivates AI2IA to make false statements? **
Opinion: could it possibly be that his view of ham radio is so constrained, that he is incapable of tolerating opinions that do not agree with his, and has to attack me because I disagree?
Opinion: Is it because my concern is with the PUBLIC INTEREST rather than a SPECIAL INTEREST?
I think the public needs to understand that some 'hams' may not necessarily place the PUBLIC interest above a SPECIAL interest. That's OK if you have a hobby of model trains or stamp collecting. But ham radio REQUIRES A FEDERALLY ISSUED license, and the PUBLIC INTEREST is defined as a ham's responsibility when he or she accepts the PRIVILEGE of said license.
And thus the rub.
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As any sane person cand read, your posts clearly show that you are attempting to support the BPL lobby on this Congressional Study Bill, W1YW. This is no false staement. Look at your own posts.
I ask a third time: W1YW makes a simple assertion, "It is a waste of money." How does he know this to be a fact?
Why should the ARRL offer to donate funds for a Congressional study? What other organization has ever offered funds for a Congressional study?
If you can't answer those questions, then you can't defend your position which supports BPL. Now this thread is all about progress being made for a Congressional BPL Study bill. Try to keep your focus on that subject and defend your opposition on it - that is the object of this discussion. You are not the object of the discussion. Write toward the issue.
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As any sane person cand read, your posts clearly show that you are attempting to support the BPL lobby on this Congressional Study Bill, W1YW. This is no false staement. Look at your own posts...--AI2IA
=----------------------------------------------
I categorically deny that I am attemtping to support the BPL lobby on this Coingressional Bill. There is nothing I have posted that would lead anyone to that conclusion of fact.
I am very sane, and I can read.
Therefore your statement--NOT POSED AS OPINION-- has **3** concatenated falsehoods embedded within it, a statement whose INTENT is to misrepresent my position and to pose injury to my reputation.
I do want to stress that I OPPOSE the small ham radio 'lobby' whose SPECIAL INTEREST is requesting that the PUBLIC SPEND MONEY on a USELESS study that has no value. This Bill will NOT pass because it will NOT JUSTIFY the support of the PUBLIC INTEREST.
The rules from the FCC, and its EXTANT PROTOCOL for measurement and assessment of harmful RFI works; is in place; and requires no especial expenditures from the American people.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everything is going along very well with the ARRL and with the Congress on the BPL issue so far.--AI2IA
--------------------------------------------
I agree. IMO the ARRL/NAAR has had no impact and won't on this issue. No money from the hard working American PUBLIC INTEREST will get spent on this turkey of a bill.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill - good for ham radio!
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Although this is an old thread and the good news in it is now quite stale, it is still necessary that I make this point clear:
I prefer to always address the issue not the person of any poster. Likewise, I prefer that posters address the issue and not direct a reponse toward my person on an eHam.net thread. This keeps the focus on the issue and prevents diversion.
The BPL Study Bill has what? It has "gained." It has gained sponsors. In the public interest, the ARRL and other groups representing a large segment of those concerned about radio communications are moving the issue of BPL before the attention of Congress. This is a step in the right direction and a model of civic duty. To this I say, "Bravo!" Now I await the future action on the matter.
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with AI2IA that it is important for Congressional staff to dig out info on hams and BPL.
What they will find will fully convince them, IMO, that no further effort is needed and that this bill caters to SPECIAL INTEREST rather than the PUBLIC interest.
Furthermore, there is NO reason to believe that such a bill has more than a teeny tiny fraction of the Part 97 licensee base behind it.
This bill will go the same way as the Spectrum Protection Act...
D-E-A-D.
|
| |
|
Hams and the Public gain.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on February 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amateur radio is a public interest group. It provides on a voluntary basis a noncommercial radio service for the purpose not of profit or personal gain, but for the promotion of international good will. It addition, it serves the general public in times of disaster by providing emergency radio service free of all charge, and its members who may enter from all walks of life without discrimination contribute to the advancement of radio science. The benefits to the operators of increasing technical knowledge and skills are returned to the pubic in the form of service. What is good for amateur radio is good for the general public.
There is every reason to believe that the vast majority of amateur license holders support this bill, since what it advocates is not a condemnation of BPL, but a study both of BPL and the role of the FCC in fostering BPL advancement. Nothing but good could come out of such a study, and the majority of hams understand this.
No one can say with certainty at this point in time what will be the fate of this bill. However, the announcement that the bill has gained supporters in Congress is good news and both hams and the general public can take encouragement from this.
Why would any positive-thinking ham want to write “D-E-A-D”? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by KD2KU on February 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW on February 19, 2007
What they will find will fully convince them, IMO, that no further effort is needed and that this bill caters to SPECIAL INTEREST rather than the PUBLIC interest.
-----------------------------------------------------
“Ross said that as a radio amateur, he believes it's imperative that BPL's interference potential be thoroughly examined and comprehensively evaluated. "Power lines are not designed to prevent radiation of RF energy; therefore BPL represents a significant potential interference source for all public safety radio services using this frequency range, including Amateur Radio operators," he told his colleagues
Note “ALL PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SERVICES”....... including Amateur Radio operators.
That IS in the Public Interest.
Except for a few- members of Congress know very little about technical issues. Therefore when he added that he was a radio amateur he was at least speaking from some experience in communications. The rest of Congress knows zip- and many are easily influenced by lobbyists pushing BPL.
Plain and simple- BPL is idiotic and in the end it will die as it should. There is enough RF pollution as it is thanks to the fact that enforcement of Part 15 is a total farce.
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The request is on behalf of a SPECIAL INTEREST.
The ARRL has not made the case that the extant FCC **process** is flawed, but has asserted it to be so. The fact that the case has been rejected by the FCC--which is an impartial government agency which balances the needs of many services-- strongly confirms the lack of validity of the case.
The FCC is neither corrupt, incompetent, nor on the take. It has the reputation as being an outstanding agency within the government.
I am sure I am not alone in being fed up with a small bunch of hams doing whatever is possible--I call this the 'Nim Chimpsky Syndrome' in order to get what it wants.
Find out first if there is a case--there isn't--and demonstrate a majority support of the Part 97 licensees--no one even asked.
The failure of these two issues is why this Bill will not pass.
Just as the Spectrum Protection Act tubed..
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is an unspoken issue here that I have brought up before, and it makes the activist hams clam up. Now is the time to resurrect it, as it is cogent to this Bill.
Hams are obligated under Part 97 to "use the MINIMUM amount of power for the desired communication".
They are ALSO obligated to abide by "NEAR-FIELD limits" which control the minimum distance of exposure to people from Part 97 transmissions.
To be honest, and expressing an informed opinion, I would say that MOST HF Part 97 operators have been in violation of these two rules at one time or another; the latter based on ignorance; the former based on 'don't care'. It's as if we use FREE BAND behavior when it comes to power.
Basically HF operators COMMONLY, IMO, use too much power--illegally.
How does this apply to BPL? Well, Most activists have poised the BPL issue as one relating to SPECTRUM POLLUTION and LICENSEE RIGHTS, making BPL the offendor. However, Part 15 is quite stringent and well-defined in limiting BPL. There are all kinds of incentives--including exposure from class action lawsuits--for Access BPL to operate within Part 15. So this whole argument by these activist hams is rather silly, IMO.
However, the potential for HAMS TO SHUT DOWN A BPL NETWORK(S) from their Part 97 transmissions is far more problematic. THIS is where the real problem exists, IMO. Many hams are, IMO, likely to transmit at high powers under the assumption that they have a right to do so (they don't have such a 'right'), and some will do so with the indirect or direct INTENT to shut down the network(s). This is called jamming. And in this day and age jamming is up there with the highest of RF offenses.
So what?
Well, remember that YOU ARE obligated: 1) NOT TO jam; 2)USE MINIMUM power; and 3) KEEP people out of the NEAR-FIELD. It will become INCUMBENT UPON the ham IMO, to demonstrate in each and every case that these rules were abided by in all transmissions. That's what Part 97 requires. It has been in stone for ages.
IOW, I believe that when problems arise to an Access BPL network, the hams operations will be reviewed; curtailed; or stopped. The exposure to lawsuit **to** a ham in this case, by the Access BPL network folks, will, IMO, be very high.
Basically the ham(s) will be shut down in such a situation.
I have to say I am not sympathetic to my fellow hams who disobey these three rules. It is more than easy to use lower powers; keep antennas away from people; and transmit to communicate.
So I say they should throw the book at you.
Now it is time for us to look at Part 97 and understand what it REALLY means.
Now is the time for hams to understand what is REALLY driving these unsupported (by the Part 97 license base) requests.
Now is the time for us to understand our roll in the PUBLIC INTEREST.
You don't have the freedom to operate any which way you want. The fact that lower powers will be the norm is not a BPL issue, but BPL is bringing it to a head. The fact that you, as a licensed operator, will have to be less casual in documenting your operation is coming to a head: we will be returning to 1960's style documentation (written and detailed logs and measurements).
BPL isn't the problem--we are the problem. Any way you see it(if not BPL then something else) the laissez-aire, QRO culture is going to have to be controlled.
Ham radio is not CB. It's time for us to be a "pooled group those skilled in the radio art".
Are YOU ready?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by K4RAF on February 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"W1YW makes a simple assertion, "It is a waste of money." How does he know this to be a fact?"
Simple, because we paid once for the NTIA to study it, ad-nauseum, & their study took the CON-side of BPL. It too, was ignored... Can we do-over a do-over?
Can I opt-out of paying for this DumboCrap sponsored legislation? It is absurd & so are the claims that BPL is causing global warming?
Hams are doing more "warming" than anything burning...
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by QSYING on February 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unprotected Part 15 radiators:
Irrespective of rules for RF safety and rules for the use of minimum power needed for desired communications (all of which need to be understood and adhered to) note that Part 15 radiators are not subject to any RFI protection whatever from authorized stations. Here are some pertinent portions of Part 15:
47CFR15.5(b)
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or
unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM)
equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
47CFR15.17(a)
(a) Parties responsible for equipment compliance are advised to
consider the proximity and the high power of non-Government licensed
radio stations, such as broadcast, amateur, land mobile, and non-
geostationary mobile satellite feeder link earth stations, and of U.S.
Government radio stations, which could include high-powered radar
systems, when choosing operating frequencies during the design of their
equipment so as to reduce the susceptibility for receiving harmful
interference. Information on non-Government use of the spectrum can be
obtained by consulting the Table of Frequency Allocations in Sec. 2.106
of this chapter.
47CFR15.115(b)
(b) The operating parameters of a power line carrier system
(particularly the frequency) shall be selected to achieve the highest
practical degree of compatibility with authorized or licensed users of
the radio spectrum. The signals from this operation shall be contained
within the frequency band 9 kHz to 490 kHz. A power line carrier system
shall operate on an unprotected, non-interference basis in accordance
with Sec. 15.5 of this part. If harmful interference occurs, the
electric power utility shall discontinue use or adjust its power line
carrier operation, as required, to remedy the interference. Particular
attention should be paid to the possibility of interference to Loran C
operations at 100 kHz.
73,
Bob-KC9JUB
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on February 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What is the point of "re-studying" BPL?
Do you really think that FCC will suddenly say...golly-gee whizz, arrl was right, we were wrong, BPL is the end of wireless communications as we know it?
What a TOTAL waste of time and effort.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by K4RAF on February 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"BPL is the end of wireless communications as we know it?"
No, not at all. Please notice the near total lack of fixed station interference. Is it any wonder why the ARRL continues to use mobile operations as their platform for complaints? Do vertical antennas reject or promote electrical interference? Where does it say in Part 97 that mobile stations are to be protected from interference? No mobile has EVER experienced interference before the BPL boogyman made it onto paper? Hmmm, stacking the deck a bit?
Actually, many of us see it as the new beginning for wireless. While the ARRL fiddles, some of us are building the next phase of wireless. Out here in the "hinterlands" of the South, no major carrier is doing a damn thing for us in order to get broadband. After 9 years on dialup, I resorted to building "the last mile" myself. I am proud to say that I know what wireless broadband takes to build.
I suggest some of you ARRL sycophants use the web to educate yourselves about wireless broadband. Visit DailyWireless.org on a daily basis. Maybe then some of you might get a clue about using the wireless "smarts" you have to move forward toward the goal of universal broadband & stop looking back over FCC decisions you are not going to overturn. Politician$ will only waste OUR money plowing over the same old ground...
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
PS: Click on my callsign on top of this post & see what it takes people, a little guts & a dream...
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF is giving you a good example of what Part 97 means when it says:'pool of those skilled in the radio art'.
Listen to him on this.
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by QSYING on February 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What makes some of you think that people are uninformed, because they don't always agree with a given point-of-view?
Some of us have worked on voice and data, both wireline and wireless, for decades. Some have operated in technical areas, in finance, in regulatory, in the field, and on staff. Still do.
We listened to the power companies say they would become CLECs and offer telephone service, using some variation of carrier-current. Few of them even got off the ground, because it was just a lousy business proposition. It is doubtful that BPL will ever bring much to the table in terms of helping customers get ubiquitous broadband access, especially customers in sparsely populated areas. Let's try to remember that power companies are not benevolent organizations, operating in the public interest.
Just because some of you say the same things over and over again, does not make them fact.
I get tired of the pedantic lectures about Part 97, and speculation about what will happen to Amateur Radio in the future. Some of us know Part 97 as well or better than most. Some of us think Amateur Radio will be just fine.
I don't need to kiss any entity's butt to keep my license. I don't apologize and worry about what will happen to Amateur Radio if ARRL chooses to pursue an issue. If I don't agree with ARRL, I will tell it so. If I feel strongly enough about it, I will quit. What I won't do, is whine about it here.
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bob--
I will be happy to drop the lectures on Part 97 when you and our brethren take the time to understand it.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"47CFR15.115(b)
(b) The operating parameters of a power line carrier system
(particularly the frequency) shall be selected to achieve the highest
practical degree of compatibility with authorized or licensed users of
the radio spectrum. The signals from this operation shall be contained
within the frequency band 9 kHz to 490 kHz."
---------------
Bob--
Here is an excellent example where you quote a rule that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Hence my opined concern.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by QSYING on February 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip:
You are certainly entitled to your opinions.
The Part 15 quotations were in response to your comments about Amateurs interfering with Part 15 radiators. I totally agree that any intentional and illegal jamming is unacceptable, and should carry strong sanctions.
Issues such as minimum power necessary can be far less quantifiable for reasons that are obvious, such as propagation.
Part 15 radiators enjoy no protection from legal Amateur Radio operations. Part 15 devices operate on an unprotected basis.
The specific Part 15 reference that you claim has no bearing is an incomplete excerpt of what I posted. The very next statement, that you did not incorporate, states:
"A power line carrier system shall operate on an unprotected, non-interference basis in accordance with Sec. 15.5 of this part."
Kindly spare me the comments about my understanding of Part 97.
This will conclude our discussion.
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by W1YW on February 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Bob,
We've all seen the 'not protected' Part 15 stuff before, and at least you and I seem to understand it. My points refer to Part 97, not Part 15.
If an amateur operates illegally, either through INTENTIONAL transmission without a desire to communicate via Part 97 (i.e. jamming);power in excess of that needed for the Part 97 communication; and /or transmission to people in the near-field in excess of allowed values, then the issue becomes potential DAMAGES caused by such illegal use of Part 97 devices and operators.
A Part 15 device is 'accept all harmful interference' in the case where a Part 97 transmission is legal. If it is NOT legal (Part 97 transmission) then it falls outside of such requirements and the exposure to damages exists at that time. IMO. Yours may differ.
That was the issue I raised, again, as opinion.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: BPL Study Bill Gains Cosponsors:
|
|
|
by KF9Z on February 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I actually agree with Chip! The world must be coming to an end! Well said, Chip. For all the blather that you spew occasionally a cogent thought makes its way from the brain, through the BS converter (that takes reasonable thought and turns it into...well...Chip speak) to your keyboard! Congratulations! I would donate money to the ARRL for the sole purpose of funding the study...provided the ARRL was not actually administering the study. I for one, think BPL has the potential for serious problem not just for ham radio operators but public service bands and aircraft long-range communications. I have family in the Air Force and for one they are still using over the horizon radar on the low-bands. That would be TRASHED by local BPL signals and is rendered almost useless in certain areas are a result of broad-band hash that can raise the noise-floor over a large area by more than 6dB! That is a LARGE increase by any account.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
When Your Legislator Ignores You...
Element 2 Study Guide:
FCC Continues Enforcement Drive
PLC... An Emerging Threat to Ham Radio:
Mysterious RFI Resolved
Other News Articles
ARISS Contact on Amateur Television and YouTube:
Two Canadian Stations on 500kHz:
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
|
