ARRL to FCC: Shut Down 'Grossly Non-Compliant' Ambient BPL Pilot Project:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 22
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
on
June 1, 2007
View comments about this article!
ARRL to FCC: Shut Down 'Grossly Non-Compliant' Ambient BPL Pilot Project:
The ARRL has again demanded that the FCC shut down Ambient Corporation's
broadband over power line (BPL) pilot project in Briarcliff Manor, New York.
On May 21 the FCC called on the BPL equipment maker and system operator to
demonstrate it's complying with all terms of the Part 5 Experimental license
http://www.arrl.org/news/bandthreat/BriarcliffManorResponse20070521.pdf
authorizing the system, or face possible enforcement action. In a May 31
letter to FCC Spectrum Enforcement Division Chief Kathryn S. Berthot, ARRL
General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, contended that it's "long past time that
the Commission enforce its own rules," and again objected to the
Commission's "inexplicable inaction" in the face of evidence the system is
noncompliant. Imlay pointed out that the FCC's May 21 letter made no mention
of Condition #1 of Ambient's Part 5 Experimental license.
"That condition requires that if any interference occurs, the holder of the
authorization will be subject to immediate shutdown," Imlay wrote.
"Interference has repeatedly occurred, and it has been witnessed and
verified by a member of the Commission's Enforcement Bureau staff. Yet no
action has been taken whatsoever to terminate this experimental
authorization over a period of more than two and one-half years. This is
inexcusable."
Ambient operates the Briarcliff Manor BPL pilot program under Experimental
license WD2XEQ. ARRL testing as recent as late May indicated the system is
operating outside of the parameters of its FCC authorization.
The League called the FCC's most recent push to get the company to comply
with the terms of its Experimental license "too little, too late and an
abdication of the Commission's responsibility to protect its licensees from
interference from unlicensed RF devices."
"The Commission's obsessive compulsion to avoid any bad news about BPL has
clearly driven its multi-year inaction," the League continued. "Had this
been any other experimental authorization dealing with any technology other
than BPL, the experimental authorization would have been terminated long
ago."
The League's complaints regarding interference to Amateur Radio
communication from the Briarcliff Manor system date back to October 2003 and
included supportive technical reports and test results.
As it stands, the League maintained, the FCC should have shut down Ambient's
BPL system a long time ago. The ARRL further objected to Ambient's "repeated
misrepresentations in its six-month reports claiming that its Briarcliff
Manor BPL system meets FCC emission limits."
New measurements done May 24 by ARRL Laboratory Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI,
conclusively establish that the Ambient BPL system, in Hare's words,
"continues to operate well above the Part 15 emission limits that are
stipulated as a condition of its Experimental license." Hare said his latest
excursion marked the third time his emissions testing in Briarcliff Manor
showed the system to be operating significantly above Part 15 emissions
limits.
"The spectral masks in this system intended to protect some radio services
from interference work poorly enough in this generation-1 equipment, but
when the system is operated at excessive levels, strong interference is an
inevitable outcome," he commented. "By operating this system above the Part
15 emissions limits, Ambient is making it impossible for any electric
utility to use results from this experiment to reach any conclusions about
the technical and commercial viability of BPL."
The ARRL further argued that the Ambient BPL system should not be permitted
to continue operating under the radar with an Experimental license instead
of under the FCC's Part 15 BPL rules, adopted in 2004. The Briarcliff Manor
system does not even appear in the FCC's BPL database, the League noted.
"Causing Ambient to operate in accordance with the BPL rules rather than
allowing it to hide behind its experimental authorization would at least be
consistent with the Commission's regulatory plan for BPL, however inadequate
that plan is in terms of interference avoidance," Imlay's letter concluded.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 26, No. 22
June 1, 2007
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Time for the ARRL bashers to step forward!
|
|
|
by AI2IA on June 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Imlay pointed out that the FCC's May 21 letter made no mention of Condition #1 of Ambient's Part 5 Experimental license.
"That condition requires that if any interference occurs, the holder of the authorization will be subject to immediate shutdown," Imlay wrote. "Interference has repeatedly occurred, and it has been witnessed and verified by a member of the Commission's Enforcement Bureau staff. Yet no action has been taken whatsoever to terminate this experimental authorization over a period of more than two and one-half years. This is inexcusable."
Will some "scholarly" ARRL basher please point out the unreasonableness of this position?
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[quote] please point out the unreasonableness of this position? [/quote]
Perfectly Reasonable.
But Perfectly IMPOTENT.
As far as I can tell, ARRL has sent letters to the FCC demanding shutdown of the Briarcliff Manor BPL on the following dates:
October 8, 2004
December 17, 2004
January 6, 2005
March 17, 2005
January 5, 2006
March 29, 2006
So that is at least six "demands" for shutdown over two and a half years, with no result. Then curiously not another one in over a year. Perhaps they finally realized that the stream of "demand" letters being IGNORED by the FCC was embarassing the ARRL and damaging its credibilty with the amateur community, so they stopped demanding.
That is, until the FCC for their own reasons question Ambient recently. Now all of a sudden Briarcliff Manor is in the ARRL news headlines again, followed by a new "demand" letter on May 31. See, this way, if the FCC decides for its own reasons to shut down Ambient, or if Ambient decides on its own accord not to continue it's experiments, then ARRL can point to it's last letter and claim victory.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by N9XCR on June 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It wasn't necessarily impotent. There is now a record that the FCC was at least made aware of violations and they chose not to take action. It would be kind of difficult to claim ignorance in such this situation.
They may never have to answer for it, but at least the ducks are in a row. The ARRL acted accordingly.
Chris
N9XCR
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> then ARRL can point to it's last letter and claim victory.
The recent FCC letter was very specific that it was being sent because of the ARRL complaints about emissions-limit violations. Do you believe that ARRL had nothing to do with that? What "reasons of its own" would the FCC have to want to shut down a BPL system?
When the FCC letter was sent, I was in Manassas, VA, getting ready to complete a presentation about BPL at the National Spectrum Managers Association gathering, then head home. I had all of the necessary test equipment with me, so I added a day to my trip, and confirmed that the earlier measurements made still represented the status of the system there. They did; the system was still measured as operating well above the FCC emissions limits in the area near the substation and at many of the couplers that I stopped to measure.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> The recent FCC letter was very specific that it was being sent because of the ARRL complaints about emissions-limit violations. Do you believe that ARRL had nothing to do with that? <<
What I believe is the fact that the FCC ignored at least six "demands" for immediate shutdown from the ARRL over a two and a half years period. I believe that the FCC will do whatever they want, whenever they want, and that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that ARRL has little or no influence in that. If the FCC really cared at all what the ARRL wanted, they would have acted two and a half years ago after the first complaint or two. Or at least in response to the third or fourth or fifth or sixth "demand" for immediate shutdown.
Even now, the FCC is not saying they're shut down Ambient. They're asking for, basically, correction of an omission in their semiannual progress report - a clerical issue. The FCC says, according to ARRL's own news item, that Ambient gets to determine for themselves whether any noncompliance exists, and even if so, only has to "submit plans" in response to that possible noncompliance, and then submit a "follow-up report" at some later date.
That sure does not sound to me like an "immediate shutdown" in response to six ARRL "demands" over two and a half years. So in other words, once again the FCC is blowing off the ARRL. Including your measurements.
The ARRL letter on the 31st came AFTER the FCC direction to Ambient, not before, by the way. Don't try to rewrite history. Not everyone's going to fall for it.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>They're asking for, basically, correction of an omission in their semiannual progress report - a clerical issue.
Read the previous article on the FCC letter:
"Berthot gave Ambient 20 days from the date of this month's letter to submit the results of any measurements it conducted before its most recent progress report to demonstrate compliance with §15.109. "Any measurements made in the areas addressed in the ARRL complaint should be highlighted," the she continued. "If any area included in the ARRL complaint was not previously subject to measurements, measurements must now to be taken in that area to test for compliance with §15.109." "
This is much more than a clerical issue and the direct quote from the FCC letter shows that this was a result of previous ARRL measurements. Regardless of arguments over whether the FCC cares or claims of failure due to the lack of a shutdown, this is undeniably a result of ARRL work.
>That sure does not sound to me like an "immediate shutdown" in response to six ARRL "demands" over two and a half years. So in other words, once again the FCC is blowing off the ARRL. Including your measurements.
>The ARRL letter on the 31st came AFTER the FCC direction to Ambient, not before, by the way. Don't try to rewrite history. Not everyone's going to fall for it.
I don't see where ARRL or Ed is saying that the FCC action was due to the most recent letter, and in fact Ed gives the time line of what happened above. You're creating a revision of history that ARRL never crafted and then attacking it. Also, you're implying that a only a shutdown is a victory for ARRL, which isn't necessarily true. At the end of the day ARRL wants compliance with the rules, as should the FCC.
If you're going to take the ARRL to task for something, at least base it on real facts and not manufactured ones....not everyone is going to fall for it.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not making this up. It is a matter of public record. Look up the letters on the ARRL site:
October 8, 2004 " ARRL requests that this station be shut
down immediately.."
December 17, 2004: "ARRL demands that this BPL site be shut down immediately..."
January 7, 2005: "... the Office of Engineering and Technology needs to, in this most egregious case, finally do its job and shut this station down..."
March 17, 2005: "ARRL again restates its insistence that the Commission enforce its rules and shut this non-compliant system down without further delay. "
January 6, 2006: "... the Commission should require that the BPL system immediately cease..."
March 29, 2006: "It has to shut this system down right now.."
(13 month gap in ARRL "demands")
May 23, 2007: FCC asks Ambient to fill in some gaps it's progress report, make "plans", and says it will require a "follow up report" at some unspecified future date. But does NOT threaten to shut them down.
May 31, 2007: " ... ARRL again requests that the Commission immediately advise Ambient that it must cease operation of the Briarcliff Manor, NY BPL system, ..."
There is clearly huge disconnect between the ARRL demands and the FCC's actions.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC has what it needs to show the Court (that) it is supposedly judiciously performing its job as a regulator. That's all the Briarcliff letter was for anyway. Of course, no letter to Manassass, of more illustrious fame.
For the ARRL to spend bucks trying to 'hurry-up' a slow donkey that won't move is a waste of resources.
Its quite interesting to watch the bifurcated, perhaps almost 'dual personality' behavior of the ARRL with respect to the FCC. One minute, they're lauding their Enforcement Bureau bud for cracking down on license/callsign thieves (except one of their own), yet castigating the Commission over and over with 'thou shalt act' demandments.
Yes, I'm a member.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"One minute, they're lauding their Enforcement Bureau bud for cracking down on license/callsign thieves (except one of their own), yet castigating the Commission over and over with 'thou shalt act' demandments."
I'll agree the "demandments" are getting a little old. They should probably be worded more like requests with less fire and brimstone. And the FCC's inaction is merely more fodder for a legal action than anything to lament about. But realize that the ARRL needs to give credit to the FCC when it's due and also realize that the bureau that handles Part 97 violations is totally different from the one overseeing bpl. They should praise the FCC when they do the right thing and castigate them when they're not. There's no conflict in that.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'm not making this up. It is a matter of public record. Look up the letters on the ARRL site: "
You're not making up the disconnect between ARRL demands and FCC actions, but the "May 31st ARRL letter triggered the FCC action" revisionist-history statement and the implication that the FCC request is merely a clerical issue not resulting from ARRL measurements is wrong.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> "May 31st ARRL letter triggered the FCC action"
?? Where did that come from? I made no such statement. I stated just the opposite: The fact is that the FCC letter triggered the latest ARRL demand, not vice-versa. It is not that difficult a point to understand. Just look at the dates.
As for the FCC request being primarily clerical point, again it's a matter of public record. Just to read the ARRL's own news item about it. It's plainly stated that Ambient failed to provide certain information in it's progress report, asks them to fill in that information. All Ambient has to do is file a report, a "plan", and a "follow up report".
The whole thing is crafted to give Ambient every possible "out". The possible "enforcement action" referred to is specifically stated with respect to whether or not Ambient answers the FCC letter, NOT whether or not there's any interference or excess emissions. I don't understand how anyone could read that and come away feeling good about it or that it in any conceivable way represents a success for the ARRL.
I do understand that the ARRL needs to spin it a certain way.
|
| |
|
RE: Time for reality check
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> "May 31st ARRL letter triggered the FCC action"
"?? Where did that come from? I made no such statement. I stated just the opposite: The fact is that the FCC letter triggered the latest ARRL demand, not vice-versa. It is not that difficult a point to understand. Just look at the dates."
Yes, I know that. My point is you're making an insinuation by telling Ed/ARRL to not try to "rewrite history".
"As for the FCC request being primarily clerical point, again it's a matter of public record. Just to read the ARRL's own news item about it. It's plainly stated that Ambient failed to provide certain information in it's progress report, asks them to fill in that information. All Ambient has to do is file a report, a "plan", and a "follow up report". "
You're omitting the part about them having to take measurements in areas that are involved in the ARRL complaint if they haven't already. That's beyond clerical.
"The whole thing is crafted to give Ambient every possible "out". The possible "enforcement action" referred to is specifically stated with respect to whether or not Ambient answers the FCC letter, NOT whether or not there's any interference or excess emissions. I don't understand how anyone could read that and come away feeling good about it or that it in any conceivable way represents a success for the ARRL."
It's certainly better than what the FCC has done previously. I wouldn't call it "mission accomplished" by any means, but it's a positive event. Forward progress usually makes people feel good, unless they want to see something fail.
As far as enforcement action, it's common that the FCC would ask for measurements or comments from a defendant/licensee. I'm sure you'd want the same process if someone filed a complaint against you. It's unfortunate it took the FCC some two and a half years to do it, but if they're doing the right thing, right now, it's progress. If there's no resolution, it's just another item for legal action by ARRL if it comes to that. I doubt anyone sees this as some outstanding success, though some will try to represent the ARRL position as that or call their efforts a failure as a full shutdown hasn't occurred.
"I do understand that the ARRL needs to spin it a certain way."
As do you :-)
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on June 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL GRANDSTANDING at it finest!
FIRST, FCC orders Ambient to demonstrate that it complies....THEN, LATER, arrl jumps on board, demanding that FCC do what FCC has ALREADY done.
SHAMELESS, UNABASHED grandstanding.
Is THIS A CASE OF arrl trying to make it look as though arrl actions made FCC take some action?
YOU DECIDE.
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA call us idiots and blockheads
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on June 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA writes:
"Will some "scholarly" ARRL basher please point out the unreasonableness of this position?"
We can't.
As AI2IA has made it clear in other threads, we are just a bunch of "idiots" and "blockheads". NOBODY is as smart as AI2IA. Certainly not anybody that disagrees with him, anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 4, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"FIRST, FCC orders Ambient to demonstrate that it complies....THEN, LATER, arrl jumps on board, demanding that FCC do what FCC has ALREADY done."
ARRL demanded that the FCC shutdown the trial. When did the FCC shutdown the trial?
"Is THIS A CASE OF arrl trying to make it look as though arrl actions made FCC take some action? "
No, I think it's a case of you ARRL-bashing without any facts (again). The ARRL letter came out after the FCC letter, that's no secret. The FCC request to Ambient addressed a previous ARRL complaint, so it was obviously due to an ARRL action. What's so hard to understand about that?
"SHAMELESS, UNABASHED grandstanding."
Shameless, unabashed bashing is what I would call your posts. W9WHE, has your fervor for bashing and ARRL hatred now gotten so bad that you have to invent your own facts?
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on June 5, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
arrl has been "demanding" that FCC shut down various BPL systems for years. FCC has consistently ignored arrl's "demands". NOW, after ignoring arrl for years, FCC decides to take some action. So what does arrl do? it sends another impotent "demand letter" AFTER it knows that FCC has ALREADY taken action.
GRANDSTANDING MOVE....PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> plain and simple...
Most things in life are far from "plain and simple," Jonathan. Perhaps you could look at things in a more complex fashion and have more complete answers. :-)
The reality here is not plain and simple at all. Despite your plain and simple view that FCC has "acted" in this case, I don't believe that their sending the letter to Ambient is complete enough to be considered as having "acted," nor can (or did) ARRL claim any credit for it, another "plain and simple" misrepresentation in your simple conclusion.
I read ARRL's article again, and I see neither the proclamation of victory your plain and simple view portrays, nor do I see the grandstanding that you are claiming that represents the real reason behind ARRL's letter.
What I do see is an opportunity to get the FCC to continue that it started anew here, and a letter from ARRL that appears to be intended to get FCC to finally actually take the action you think that it already took, and do what it should have done a long time ago with respect to this system. The letter is also clearly establing a record of the FCC's actions and inactions to date.
Because you think that this means that ARRL thinks that the FCC has finally acted, and the Leauge is trying to take the credit for that, let me clear that up for you: The FCC has not acted, beyond its demand that Ambient make the measurements that its license require, specificially in those areas where ARRL's complaints were directed. ARRL is not claiming credit for that, but is demanding that the FCC to more, and take action with respect to repeated violations of the emissions and non-interference rules there.
How anyone can think that ARRL's letter is claiming credit for the FCC action in this case is beyond me, but most "plain and simple" viewpoints tend to be, well... rather plain and simple, and too overly simplified to be of much use.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on June 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1RFI writes:
"Most things in life are far from "plain and simple," Jonathan".
Well, Ed, some things REALLY ARE "plain and simple".
No matter how much your employer might wish to make it appear that arrl played a role in FCC's "Official Action", the fact is that FCC has been IGNORING your employer's MULTIPLE "demands" for years. That is "plain and simple".
"Despite your plain and simple view that FCC has "acted" in this case, I don't believe that their sending the letter to Ambient is complete enough to be considered as having "acted,"....."
Ed, when the FCC (empowered by an Act of Congress) demands that a manufacturer of an RF emitting device provide information to demonstrate compliance with FCC rules/regs, THAT IS AN OFFICIAL ACT, by an OFFICIAL BRANCH of the OFFICIAL Federal government.
"....I see neither the proclamation of victory your plain and simple view portrays, nor do I see the grandstanding that you are claiming that represents the real reason behind ARRL's letter"
Well, Ed, let's be candid here....shall we?
YOU are a long term arrl employee. YOUR earned income comes from arrl, YOUR employer. Most of us do not expect that YOU are going to see things the way NON-EMPLOYEES do. Nor do we expect that you will bite the hand that feeds you.
"ARRL is not claiming credit for that....."
You could have fooled the many posters on this subject. We will be quite surprised if, in the not so distant future, some over-paid arrl person won't be taking credit for influncing FCC. And we all know how LITTLE meaningful influence YOUR arrl has with FCC:
http://www.eham.net/survey/720
And the timing of this latest "demand" was likely no accident.
Ed, your argument against "plain and simple" solutions is classic arrl speak.
Remember when arrl withdrew its petition for regulation by bandwith? arrl essentially explained that its proposal was so brilliant & so sophisticated, that the proposal was "misunderstood" by ordinary hams leading to massive opposition. Remember when Bill Clinton tried to make the definition of the word "IS" complicated? Just because someone tries to make "simple" things "complicated" does not make it so.
Most hams are not nearly as stupid as some of the anointed in Newington might think. That's why more then 70% of licensed hams decline to join YOUR arrl!
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Well, Ed, some things REALLY ARE "plain and simple".
No matter how much your employer might wish to make it appear that arrl played a role in FCC's "Official Action", the fact is that FCC has been IGNORING your employer's MULTIPLE "demands" for years. That is "plain and simple". "
Despite the FCC letter specifically mentioning the ARRL complaint, he still claims that ARRL wishes they had a role in the FCC action. And even though the FCC implemented several of the ARRL's various requests in petitions in part 15, the FCC supposedly has been ignoring ARRL for years. When does this exercise in faulty logic end?
"Plain and simple", indeed.... plain and simple WRONG thinking. The fact is you can't argue with people like this. Even in the face of evidence, they create their own "facts" to support their hate for ARRL. They think if they just keep repeating the same untrue garbage again and again, people will start to believe it. It's not just limited to this issue. Supposedly ARRL has been trying to eliminate CW, despite running code practice daily and supporting a 5 wpm Extra test. ARRL is accused of being focused on making money, yet they're a non-profit that gives away several free services and tons of technical information and support for ham radio.
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on June 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Somebody should take a look at the sallaries of arrl management THEN try to argue that they are "non-profit".
|
| |
|
RE: arrl GRANDSTANDING
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Somebody should take a look at the sallaries of arrl management THEN try to argue that they are "non-profit"."
Go look for yourself, because you're obviously making a shoot-from-the-hip statement with no knowledge of what you're talking about. The salaries of ARRL management and some of the top employees are in publicly filed documents on the web...because THEY ARE A NON-PROFIT. (I'm not going to tell you where to find it - you can get off your duff and search for it yourself if you're so interested in the truth (which I doubt).) Once you see the salaries of senior management, compare them to the salaries of a CEO or COO of a typical for profit company and THEN try to argue they are in it for the money.
I'll be waiting for you to come back and post your findings....
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BPL Complaint Dismissals:
Revised Question Pools Now Available
ARRL BoD Holds Productive Session July 21, 22
What is the Future of the ARRL?
FCC Continues Enforcement Drive
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):
|
