|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Interference Complaints:
from
arstechnica.com
on
June 9, 2007
View comments about this article!
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Interference Complaints:
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One a related issue, I wish to express the informed opinions below about a very public report by a radio amateur, K4GVT, who used his HF Part 97 privileges with the specific INTENT of making a technological ASSESSMENT of BPL.
That is to say, he used Part 97 not with the bona fide INTENT of communication, but with the PURPOSE and INTENT of an assessment of a Part 15 device.
Part 97 lists the many objectives of tha amateur radio services and delineates, in detail, the objectives of transmission and the limits of it's use. Using Part 97 transmissions with the PURPOSE of assessment of a Part 15 devices does not fit into the cited forms and purposes of Part 97 transmissions.
I invite you to review Part 97 and cite something I may have missed.
That K4GVT used his HF Part 97 privileges to make a purposeful and intentional assessment of a Part 15 devices is distinctly clear: he documents the effects to the Part 15 device by a methodology of defined and detailed power levels and documents them beyond any interest to a Part 97 transmission. Furthermore, his choice of power levels is not accomplished to be " at the minimum needed" for a resultant contact, but chosen specifically to see how much power is needed to disrupt the Part 15 device. To wit: 'what is the minimum power needed to disrupt the Part 15 device'. He details a feedback on how his power was CHOSEN to TEST THE DISRUPTION of the Part 15 device.
Note that he did not act in the capacity of a follow- thru of an interference complaint--there WAS no such complaint: the objective and intent was to ASSESS a Part 15 device by using Part 97 transmissions.
A reminder that Part 15 devices are REQUIRED to accept any RFI from transmissions of other services. That means that if you are using your HF privileges for LEGAL Part 97 transmissions, then the Part 15 device must accept any interference such LEGAL transmission generates.
However, if transmissions by a radio amateur are made OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE of Part 97, these transmissions are illegal. Indeed, such transmissions DO NOT fall under the requirement stated above for Part 15.
If such illegal transmissions disrupt a Part 15 device they constitute jamming--a serious infraction.
It is important that ALL radio amateurs understand the scope and limits of their privileges under Part 97 and do not use them for purposes outside of that scope. Use of the amateur bands for the PURPOSE and INTENT of technology assessment of Part 15 devices is not within the scope of Part 97.
The Amateur Radio Newsletter makes the following description of this assessment, and lists a web page:
-----------
"More on the BPL ingress experiment by K4GVT including a band by band results chart is on his website. Its in cyberspace at www.k4gvt.com/bpl/bplweakness.html"
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by AH6RH on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Applicable sections of Part 97 for consideration.
97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
c)Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
Because BPL is a incidental radiating Part 15 device, it is also a radio emitting device, even though the primary mode of communications is wired rather than wireless.
Part 15.1(c) prohibits operation of Part 15 devices not in compliance with Part 15 rules.
Part 15.5(b)indicates that the Part 15 device must accept interference from an authorized radio station.
Part 97.3(c)(9) designates a test transmission emission type.
A test transmission under the rules of Part 97 (ie, frequency, power, identified transmission) is not a prohibited transmission under 97.113.
The BPL service is not one of the radio services listed in 97.303 Frequency Sharing Requirements in which the amateur is prohibited from causing (or accepting) interference.
Part 97.305(b) permits brief test transmissions.
An examination of these sections indicates that field testing with the spirit of professionalism in order to obtain field data and determine mutual limits of cooperative operation and interference of established, deployed systems is within permissible operations of Parts 15 and 97.
Its the same type of procedure that is used if your neighbor inquires if your amateur radio station interferes with their TV reception. You are authorized to make brief, identified transmissions under varying conditions to determine if your station is capable of interference, and under what conditions interference exists. A test of potential interference is not the same as jamming, or persistent, intentional interference to disrupt the original purpose of the jammed signal, but a measurement of field conditions during both reception and transmission.
The test conditions that K4GVT indicates on that web page are not that much different than mines when I operate mobile, and his results seem to indicate that BPL system does not operate reliably under surprisingly low RF levels. (I find this observation an item of interest.)
It seems to indicate things were done in a reasonably professional-like manner (making do without expensive, exotic lab equipment beyond the spectrum analyzer used).
Note that on the video, the AM mode was used as the voice test.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's very simple to understand. There are rules, and if he was not operating under the rules, then he was in violation of the rules. Simple logic. .
Here are the rules:
97.111(b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized elsewhere in this part, an amateur station may transmit the following types of one-way communication:
(1) Brief transmissions necessary to make adjustments to the station;
(2) Brief transmissions necessary to establishing two-way communications with other stations;
(3) Telecommand;
(4) Transmissions necessary to providing emergency communications;
(5) Transmissions necessary to assisting persons learning or improving proficiency in the international Morse code;
(7) Transmissions necessar to disseminate information bulletins;
(8) Transmissions of telemetry.
97.113(b) ... nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules;
~~
OK let's go down the list:
97.111(b) and 97.113(b): Is it specifically authorized anywhere in the Part 97 rules that an amateur station may be used to intentionally disrupt a Part 15 device? NO.
97.111(b)(1). Were these one way transmissions being used to make adjustments to his own station? NO
97.111(b)(2) Were these one-way transmissions being used to establish 2-way communication with anyone? NO
97.111(b)(3) Were these telecommand transmission? NO
97.111(b)(4) Were these transmissions for the purpose of emergency communications? NO
97.111(b)(5) Was he assisting anyone learning the Morse code? NO
97.111(b)6) Was he transmitting information bulletins? NO
97.111(b)(7) Was he transmitting telemetry? NO
~~~
There's no grey area here at all. There's nothing to negotiate. There are no loopholes. If Part 97 does not specifically say we can do it, then we can't do it. Period. Someone transmitting one-way communications with the intent of disrupting a Part 15 device is not operating within the rules. Chip is absolutely correct.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the clarification, Ron.
I am of the opinion that K4VGT has made a serious infraction of Part 97 privileges and a formal complaint is in order--for jamming.
I also have very serious concerns that promulgation of, IMO, this highly illegal activity, sets an example that will lead others to execute this, IMO, illegal activity with respect to:
* Jamming BPL;
* Jamming other Part 15 devices;
* Jamming other communication services
I also caution fellow hams that remember that disruption of Part 15 devices in the NORMAL COURSE of LEGAL Part 97 activities--that is those that have the PURPOSE and SOLE INTENT of communications, or one-way transmissions as SPECIFIED in Part 97-- is NOT jamming and that it's just tough luck for the Part 15 device.
This is not a fine distinction, and we should not pretend it is.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by KD2KU on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If someone were to attempt to determine at which power level they could transmit in order NOT to interfere with a BPL service.. what then?
Ask the BPL provider for permission?
How would a BPL provider make the determination themselves? (real world- not lab)
What would they do? Hire a ham and give him permission to interfere?
--------------------
Part 15 (kind of a farce in itself)
How many know that cable modems are required to have a shielded CAT5 cable between the modem and the computer? Check yours and then tell me Part 15 carries any weight when big bucks are concerned. Unshielded cables are cheaper.
----------------------
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If such illegal transmissions disrupt a Part 15 device they constitute jamming--a serious infraction."
Oh boy, here we go again....
Yes, that is pretty serious - much more serious than someone covering tens of megahertz of spectrum with broadband noise 24 hours a day. </cynical>
A Part 15 device must accept interference from things like a lawn mower spark plug, a kitchen mixer, or a kid's walkie-talkie. You really think anyone gives a hoot about a licensed Part 97 station with the intent to "test" the Part 15 device?
There's got to be better things to devote time to than this so-called issue. If you really feel strongly about this, please contact the FCC. Judging by their 2-3 year response times for bpl complaints, they'll probably address this complaint in 10 or 15 years. After that you can attack the serious crime of mattress tag cutting.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> If someone were to attempt to determine at which power level they could transmit in order NOT to interfere with a BPL service.. what then?
Does such a transmission satisfy any of the conditions allowed by Part 97? If not, then you can't do it.
And why would you care, anyway? BPL is a part 15 device and must accept any interference regardless of the level. Whatever power level interferes or does not interfere with BPL is not your concern.
If BPL providers want to make their systems immune to ham interference, that's up to them. If they choose to ignore ham interference and let their customers suffer interrupted service, that's also up to them. It has nothing to do with Part 97 and therefore is not something amatuer transmissions should be used for.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"An examination of these sections indicates that field testing with the spirit of professionalism in order to obtain field data and determine mutual limits of cooperative operation and interference of established, deployed systems is within permissible operations of Parts 15 and 97. "
Good analysis - I would have to agree.
Case closed.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by K0RFD on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What's the matter, Chippie? Did K4GVT suggest that your beloved BPL is a house of cards? And now you want to kill the messenger with accusations of Part 97 violations?
I've read the "very public" report you cited. It involves Manassas, not Briarcliff Manor, which is the subject of this thread. Be that as it may, the report is largely silent as to the type of transmissions made by K4GVT. To accuse K4GVT of violating Part 97 is a bit of a stretch without that information. The only information in the report specific to the transmissions said that K4GVT was transmitting on the E-CARS net during at least one set of measurements.
As far as I know, neither checking into a net (within your license privileges) nor making measurements violates Part 97.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K7HKL on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL, UHF Repeater Operators, DOD, and FCC have recently been conducting tests on both coasts to determine the level of amateur radio UHF repeater signal that will interfere, or not interfere, with PAVEPAWS OTH radar systems (hams are secondary users of that frequency range). By the definitions stated here it would seem that ARRL participation in that effort would also be a violation of PART-97. Are we willing to concede that the ARRL and involved repeater operators are in violation of Part-97?
Arv - K7HKL
_._
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL, UHF Repeater Operators, DOD, and FCC have recently been conducting tests on both coasts to determine the level of amateur radio UHF repeater signal that will interfere, or not interfere, with PAVEPAWS OTH radar systems (hams are secondary users of that frequency range). By the definitions stated here it would seem that ARRL participation in that effort would also be a violation of PART-97. Are we willing to concede that the ARRL and involved repeater operators are in violation of Part-97?
Arv - K7HKL
------------------------------
Efforts to mitigate such effects are an **enforcement** issue brought upon by a complaint.
Exactly what is the complaint that motivated K4VGT to do this? Can you please cite and quote?
K4VGT used Part 97 to find the vulnerability of a Part 15 device. That is not a legal use, IMO. The appropriate case in YOUR example would be if some HAM deliberately jammed PAVEPAWS to find out at what point it could not function.
So don't get cute.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Pardon me for the typo; that's K4GVT in the previous post.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An examination of these sections indicates that field testing with the spirit of professionalism in order to obtain field data and determine mutual limits of cooperative operation and interference of established, deployed systems is within permissible operations of Parts 15 and 97.
---------------------------------
Let's entertain your assertion and let's see if this case of K4GVT meets your criteria.
If you go to QRZ.com and look up George's 'lookup', he has no descrition of himself, nor a picture of him nor his station. Instead, there is only a prominent SIGN that has 'BPL' with a circle and slash-out, indicating 'no to BPL'. Furthermore the sign says:"A FLAWED TECHNOLOGY!"
Please explain how this meets the qualifications of your statement of:"spirit of professionalism in order to obtain field data and determine mutual limits of cooperative operation .."
Would you like additional examples? Please resond to this one first.
Especially on the 'professionalism' and 'cooperation' part.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Furthermore the sign says:"A FLAWED TECHNOLOGY!""
Sounds professional to me.
Case closed.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K7HKL on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought it was "cute". Sacred cows are such inviting targets!
_._
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The appropriate case in YOUR example would be if some HAM deliberately jammed PAVEPAWS to find out at what point it could not function. "
PAVEPAWS doesn't operate under Part 15. BIG difference.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote >>> The ARRL, UHF Repeater Operators, DOD, and FCC have recently been conducting tests on both coasts to determine the level of amateur radio UHF repeater signal that will interfere, or not interfere, with PAVEPAWS OTH radar systems (hams are secondary users of that frequency range). By the definitions stated here it would seem that ARRL participation in that effort would also be a violation of PART-97. Are we willing to concede that the ARRL and involved repeater operators are in violation of Part-97?
No. Read the news articles on the ARRL web site. The ARRL and the repeater owners have not been conducting "tests" involving one-way transmissions. Since the DoD won't release any technical details on the interference they are recieving, there are no meaningful "tests" that can be done by the ARRL or anyone else, anyway.
What they've done is requested that everyone reduce their repeater outputs to 5W, in order to determine if the normal Part 97 authorized amateur activity at 5W causes interference.
That's not at all the same thing as nonauthorized one-way transmissions for the purpose of causing interference.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ron,
I value your opinion on whether it is time to bring this issue before the Commission for clarification and, if deemed appropriate, enforcement.
I see many future times where hams will claim 'legal' use of their station in cases of intentional jamming and this concerns me, as it should everyone.
Appreciate your thoughts.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by K0RFD on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
>K4VGT used Part 97 to find the vulnerability of a
>Part 15 device.
No, K4VGT checked into a net and the Part 15 device died.
That's perfectly OK. Part 15 devices "must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation."
Where would Part 15 be without Chip going to bat for his local battery charger?
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No, K4VGT checked into a net and the Part 15 device died.
That's perfectly OK. Part 15 devices "must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation."
Where would Part 15 be without Chip going to bat for his local battery charger?
----------------------------------------------
K4GVT's analysis is, IMO, even more damning as being illegal if this is the case, which he claims it is. There would be no reason for him to : 1) monitor a Part 15 device as part of a two-way Part 97 exchange; 2) no reason for him to change the power in increments subject to the performance of the Part 15 device. Therefore, his INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE TRANSMISSION was, apparently, to assess the Part 15 device, which itself had no purpose in the Part 97 two-way communication.
Again, please cite the section of Part 97 under which this would constitute a legal transmission.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What's the matter, Chippie? Did K4GVT suggest that your beloved BPL is a house of cards? And now you want to kill the messenger with accusations of Part 97 violations? "
Companies running a system that emits RF in licensed spectrum on what is a huge antenna system, several systems of which have been shown to be in violation of the rules with little to no action from the FCC isn't of concern, but some guy keying up his rig under a bpl is a major crime worthy of a formal complaint. Am I in some kind of parallel universe where everything is backwards today?
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by AH6RH on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Listen closely to the video. The station doing the recording appears to be in a two-way propagation test with W4HJL mobile, measuring and recording the mutual effects with the BPL system. That is not a violation of Part 97.
It would be similar to if two stations were testing amongst themselves, and seeing if there is an adverse effect on a 802.11 Wi-Fi device. Both the Wi-Fi and BPL is intended for the end consumer market, so data gathering in the field by amateurs within the amateur band is appropriate.
My opinion? This test is permissible within Part 97.
I have worked with the FCC office in Honolulu over many years on non-intentional and intentional interference, jamming and impersonation problems (inside and outside the amateur radio service), and while I can't speak for them, I don't think they would have a problem with the test procedure as it appears to have happened. It's very similar to the procedures we use to establish baselines before, during and after incidents - whether a complaint was filed or not. This "violation" is no where close to the real violations I've worked on before.
I would be more concerned if the electric utility attempted to gather the same test data in the amateur radio band, using an non-licensed arrangement, regardless whether it was a one-way or two-way test arrangement.
Beyond what I've noted above, I'm not interested in debating this. It was asked what sections of Part 97 might apply for consideration, then asked for an opinion and that is what I highlighted.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Where would Part 15 be without Chip going to bat for his local battery charger?"
What I want to know is what if someone operates a noisy drill with the intent to disrupt bpl? You know, the drill has worn brushes and puts crap rf on the AC line, and the guy using it isn't actually drilling anything. I think anyone who uses a drill in this manner is committing a felony and should be doing federal soap-on-a-rope time for jamming a communications network.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by NN4RH on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote >>> I value your opinion on whether it is time to bring this issue before the Commission for clarification and, if deemed appropriate, enforcement.
I see many future times where hams will claim 'legal' use of their station in cases of intentional jamming and this concerns me, as it should everyone.
Appreciate your thoughts.
~~~
I actually did write to the FCC - a couple of years ago now - asking the very question you pose: would it be a violation of the regulations to intentionally use amateur radio transmissions to interfere with BPL operation. The FCC never responded.
I posed the same question to ARRL then-president Jim Haynie. I cannot now find exactly what he said, but the gist of it was that it was both illegal and a bad idea, in his opinion.
But basically I don't think it's going to become a widespread problem with ham-vigilantes going around trying to jam BPL systems. Most hams, I have some faith are smarter than that and realize it'd be a silly, pointless thing to do. Most of the ones that are silly enough to talk about doing that are just all talk and wouldn't actually do it. The few who might actually go out and try to sabotage BPL would do it whether or not the FCC said it was wrong.
So, bottom line, making an issue with this now with the FCC is probably a waste of time, in my opinion.
What I would think is appropriate is to ask the ARRL to show some useful leadership for a change, and come out with a strong statement discouraging vigilante tactics and sabotage.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by AH6RH on June 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
Perhaps this explanation may help you better understand the situation.
There is a marked difference between interference, and harmful interference/jamming.
As Dave Sumner, K1ZZ notes (http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2007/05/01/1/), interference in and out of the amateur radio service happens all the time. Much of it in unintentional, for example where two stations on opposite sides of the earth call CQ on HF and interferes/interrupts an existing QSO they may not hear. Moments of interference in and of itself is not a violation. Happens all the time.
If one is performing tests to determine the conditions that interference is likely to appear, one doesn't know the threshold until one encounters and exceeds it. Again, that interference is unintentional, because hypothetically, if one had to use 1 KW and still not produced interference, that test produced "no interference". If you happen to hear a blip at the 1 KW level, but no other interfering signal at lower power levels, that particular 1 KW blip might be considered unintentional interference.
This is in strong contrast to 97.3(23) Harmful interference. Interference which ... seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations.
If we overlook the fact that BPL is wired and not wireless communications (give BPL the benefit of the doubt and treat it for the moment like a wireless service), the key here is "seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts". Spot measurements wouldn't fall into that category of "harmful interference" aka jamming. A persistent, prolonged interference would be considered jamming.
If you hammered away at 1 KW for 24 hours for the purpose of disrupting a radio service, that would change the interference from unintentional to intentional.
The frequency and duration of incidents would play a part in determining if the interference is intentional vs unintentional -- a serious degradation vs a spot incident.
Hence, within the context of the questions posed earlier, no, these series of tests are not harmful interference or jamming.
A second note. Could intentional, extended operations in the amateur band cause jamming and harmful interference for BPL? Yes. Should people (licensed and unlicensed) who repeatedly, intentionally and on a prolonged basis, interfere with radio services be pursued by the FCC for violations? Yes. Was this (brief) test procedure consistent with that long term harmful interference? No. I see this as two separate lines of reasoning with little overlap.
I hope this helps you see the matter more clearly.
Ron, AH6RH
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I do appreciate your comments, but I continue to see it differently.
Essentially the transmissions were made with INTENT and PURPOSE that is not defined within Part 97.
If a transmission is made outside of the prescriptions of Part 97, how can it be legal?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also, I again stress the point (already stated by me): If a radio amateur is OPERATING LEGALLY and that disrupts BPL--well, tough tomatoes for BPL.
But you better be SURE you are operating LEGALLY, or else your transmissions DELIBERATELY AND PURPOSEFULLY disrupt--and you should go to jail for that, IMO.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by AD7EF on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip;
"go to jail" for disrupting -your own- internet download session?
I'm very glad that this is only your -opinion-, and not the way the world works (at least not in the US)
Mark, AD7EF
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K0RFD on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, I'll repeat, because you don't seem to get it.
You have NO INFORMATION on the intent and purpose of the transmissions.
If I'm wrong and you do, give us a link. If you don't, then you're just blowing smoke.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Spot measurements wouldn't fall into that category of "harmful interference" aka jamming."
The bpl industry's own definition of harmful interference was "complete obliteration" of communications. These short tests don't even come close to that.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"and you should go to jail for that, IMO"
Chip, what should the penalty be for a bpl system interfering with a licensed service?
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by AH6RH on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The test was legal. As stated earlier.
Applicable sections of Part 97 for consideration.
97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
c)Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
This was a short communications test in the field, of propagation, and noting the effect on an installed system. They were collecting hands-on field data, to be used for future evaluation. This data and observation is being used advancing skills and to advance the radio art. I for one am finding this information of interest and using this new information (surprising low immunity to adjacent RF). The limited BPL "experiment" in Honolulu was shut down some time ago by the electric utility, so we were unable to perform similar tests.
Testing is an important part of interference remediation. Without hard data from the field and skillful interpretation of that data, it is not possible to identify and understand the nature of interference. Last Saturday, I was asked to look for the source of interference affecting scheduled communications between a ground station and the International Space Station. I had to do that without the operation of the ground station, or the ISS.
Initially, I had gone into the field, and made measurements, and determined that the seeming source was a nearby school building, and reported back as such. During the discussion, the person familiar with the effect the of interference and I talked about our observations and it wasn't adding up. I listened to his audio sample, his observations of antenna bearings, his sense of what the problem was and was not, etc and it was not making any kind of sense with the field data I obtained. I asked for verification as to what mode he was using, and he said SSB circular polarized. I was using FM, which is the standard for voice comm with the ISS, and I was using linear polarization for DFing purposes. That accounts for about a 2 to 3 or more S unit interpretation of the results.
Making other adjustments, I started again, and located three possible sources, and a most likely source. I took other measurements, but I know from prior communications tests (similar in technique to what you see on the video), we had located our likely sources. From these and further tests, I ruled out some of the locations he thought might be the cause (which I ruled out at the onset).
I doubt our tests caused interference to nearby the radio services of interest, even though one of them is the likely source of this problem. I doubt the stray RF caused by Part 15 devices (cash registers, security alarms) caused by equipment in the nearby commercial establishments are the cause, and I doubt those cash registers and security alarms were affected by our transmissions. Even if they were, it was of short duration, they would not have materially noticed the problem.
Although most of my operations regarding interference is as a result of something being brought to my attention by another person, at times, I go out on my own and respond to interference measurements without someone filing a "complaint" with me. If you want to be absolutely technical on what initiated the test, I "complained" to myself, so a stated complaint in and of itself is not necessary.
Many years ago, the local police department was involved in a strike of the police officers. I won't say what was the cause of a dead carrier on the police dispatch frequency, but I did locate and phone in the source. No complainant was needed. The police department did not confirm or deny the interference. They certainly didn't complain to me. For that particular incident, I did not need to transmit on the air to locate the source, as the 100 watt carrier was more than sufficient to do the job.
Those brief test transmissions were a necessary part of interference detection and remediation, and permissible and in scope under Parts 97.1(b) and 97.1(c). That knowledge and skill adds to the pool of skilled operators, technicians and electronics experts listed in 91.(d). And, that's why I included it in the first response to your query.
Whether a particular device picks up interference on a particular transmission on a particular frequency on a particular mode at a particular power level is incidental. Spot interference happens all the time. If you wanted to know if your home transmissions are likely to get into your stereo, or your neighbor's stereo -- do a quick transmit test while you monitor the stereo and see if there is a problem -- perfectly permissible. If the transmission was recurring for the purposes of disrupting the other radio service (like denying your neighbor's kid the enjoyment of their iPod), then it becomes harmful interference and jamming.
There is a mutual respect with key local amateurs and the local FCC enforcement division. They are amazed and grateful at the speed and efficiency of our operations, using surprisingly simple equipment but highly polished techniques based on knowledge, skill and interpretation. We ID the source, and they verify and confirm. Saves both sides time and money. On one incident, the field agent said he was absolutely amazed we were able to get it down to that locale in that short a time. He had the van full of equipment, and he had a heck of time locating the source. After several hours, he was able to verify and confirm. One thing we had that he didn't have was those baseline test transmissions and results. I have been fortunate enough to have been schooled in my early years by some of the finest (perhaps fanatical) hams.
Rest assured, I do not engage in harmful interference and jamming and know the difference between that and a test transmission, which is permissible under Part 97.
Ron Hashiro, AH6RH
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by AH6RH on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me relate what is posted on a sign at a carnival game booth, at a fair which is going on at the other side of town.
"If you don't understand the rules, ask the attendant. If you still don't understand the rules, don't play the game."
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, what should the penalty be for a bpl system interfering with a licensed service?
--------------------------------------
There are no rules that prevent such. READ the language carefully. Understand what HARMFUL means.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The test was legal. As stated earlier.
Applicable sections of Part 97 for consideration.
97.1(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
c)Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
This was a short communications test in the field, of propagation, and noting the effect on an installed system. They were collecting hands-on field data, to be used for future evaluation. This data and observation is being used advancing skills and to advance the radio art. I for one am finding this information of interest and using this new information (surprising low immunity to adjacent RF). The limited BPL "experiment" in Honolulu was shut down some time ago by the electric utility, so we were unable to perform similar tests.
-----------------------------
Thank you AH6RH; two key questions for you:
1)What was advanced in the radio art through such measurements?
2) How did it encourage and improve the amateur radio service?
I'm ready to help you see the issues at any and all levels, so please expand.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"There are no rules that prevent such. READ the language carefully. Understand what HARMFUL means. "
Chip, what should the penalty be for a bpl system HARMFULLY interfering with a licensed service?
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"An examination of these sections indicates that field testing with the spirit of professionalism in order to obtain field data and determine mutual limits of cooperative operation and interference of established, deployed systems is within permissible operations of Parts 15 and 97."
Ham radio is an experimental medium along with being a communications medium. Although he may have been interfering with the BPL signal, argument could be made that he was just seeing what power level he could safely use in order NOT to interfere. Now, if this ham said 'Hey, this is how much power we'll need to disrupt the BPL system, lets go do it' then he would be guilty of jamming. The problem is proving he said that--remember, innocent until proven guilty.
These armchair lawyers make me laugh, especially those that try a case acting as judge and jury. And, as usual, the chief of them all has passed judgement.
All together now, lets LOL.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"1)What was advanced in the radio art through such measurements?
2) How did it encourage and improve the amateur radio service? "
Chip, he answered your question. The burden of proof is on you to prove the act was illegal, you're the one accusing someone of a crime.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Chip, what should the penalty be for a bpl system interfering with a licensed service?
--------------------------------------
There are no rules that prevent such. READ the language carefully. Understand what HARMFUL means.
_____
Oh, really? A part 15 device that interferes with a licensed service must either be adjusted so the interference is eliminated or be SHUT DOWN.
The biggest threat to the amateur service is the attitudes and actions of some of its licensees. ARE YOU LISTENING, CHIP???
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The problem is proving he said that--remember, innocent until proven guilty."
Well, the guy had a "No BPL" sign on his profile and called bpl a "flawed technology", so he's guilty as sin. Let's get the torches and pitch forks and tar and feather this scoundrel! :-) LOL
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OK. lets. But only if we can prove this is experimental and is research into cruel and unusual punishment--after all, we don't want to be accused of polluting the environment with a petrochemical based substance with no good reason! ;-)))
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by K0RFD on June 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS wrote:
> ARE YOU LISTENING, CHIP???
Chip's not listening. He's too busy talking, but he's not saying anything. He still hasn't posted any evidence of the "INTENT and PURPOSE" of the transmissions that so upset him. That's because it's all a figment of his imagination.
Typical Chip thread. No facts, just assertions. Chip's smarter than everybody else. Yada yada yada. The fact that we're arguing with him just makes his little you-know-what hard.
Time to turn on the radio and quit wasting time.
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, what should the penalty be for a bpl system HARMFULLY interfering with a licensed service?
--------------------------------------------
Why is this same question asked again and again? Do you have any evidence for my inconsistency? Why is your ignorance of these matters manifest when said issues are part of the Part 97 licensing question pool?
A: If the FCC has deemed that HI exists, then all steps needed to bring it into compliance are available--and that includes shutdown.
Again, for the few hams who wish to act silly in this matter, the issue is ALWAYS ** HARMFUL ** interference.
For Part 15 on RX, the issue is the LEGAL OPERATION of the service transmissions that produce the interference.
73,
Chip W1YW
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The biggest threat to the amateur service is the attitudes and actions of some of its licensees. ARE YOU LISTENING, CHIP???
-----------------------
Oh yes; and acting on it also!
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Typical Chip thread. No facts, just assertions. Chip's smarter than everybody else. Yada yada yada......Time to turn on the radio and quit wasting time."
This is one FACT that I'll agree with wholeheartedly, Ralph.
__________
""The biggest threat to the amateur service is the attitudes and actions of some of its licensees. ARE YOU LISTENING, CHIP???"
-----------------------
Oh yes; and acting on it also!"
Gee, I'm soooo worried.......NOT!
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Oh yes; and acting on it also!"
On furthur thought, maybe he means he'll stop......Nah, we couldn't be so lucky.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why is this same question asked again and again? Do you have any evidence for my inconsistency? "
I'm just trying to understand your line of thinking. You want to throw a ham in jail for keying up a transmitter under a bpl line. So it must follow that a bpl system generating harmful interference should be worth some serious jail time too, maybe even some time in Guantanamo Bay. But you don't seem to get upset over these bpl systems that have been interfering with our bands for some time. In my opinion the inconsistency in your thinking and actions is huge.
Pursuing this ham is a waste of time. Accusing him of a crime in a public forum is pretty daring, in my opinion. Even if his actions were illegal (which they aren't), there are much better things in ham radio enforcement to pursue than this.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by KB1HTW on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
I can see fining a person for intentional interference - even with malice. But jail time?
Sounds like you'd uphold this guy's conviction also:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070611/ts_nm/usa_molestation_dc;_ylt=ApoQy2OIj68DYqnXmHaJedNZ.3QA
A Georgia prosecutor is trying to reverse a judge's decision to let a 21-year old go for time already served. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having oral sex with at age 17 with a 15-year old. Under Georgia law, if he'd raped her, he would have been charged with a misdemeanor because he was a minor at the time. Prosecutor used a loophole in the oral sex statutes to get him 10 years... That's justice perverted.
And you want jail time for testing interference with BPL? Wouldn't just a fine do - if a lawyer determines that it was illegal?
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So it must follow that a bpl system generating harmful interference should be worth some serious jail time too, maybe even some time in Guantanamo
---------------------------
Jamming is a serious crime in our day and age. I do believe jail time makes sense, yes.
Hams should be a thousand sets of ears to the prevention of such. Not instruct and do.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by N3OX on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Hams should be a thousand sets of ears to the prevention of such"
Hard to hear through all that broadband hash.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Jamming is a serious crime in our day and age. I do believe jail time makes sense, yes."
So operators of a bpl system who interfere with licensed wireless services should do jail time?
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""Jamming is a serious crime in our day and age. I do believe jail time makes sense, yes."
So operators of a bpl system who interfere with licensed wireless services should do jail time?"
More than likely not in Chips view--he would probably say that after all, BPL is a public utility and the companies with the $$$ come first. Hams? Well hams should accept the interference and not do anything about it. After all, the FCC said so.....
|
| |
|
Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL Int
|
|
|
by W1YW on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""Jamming is a serious crime in our day and age. I do believe jail time makes sense, yes."
So operators of a bpl system who interfere with licensed wireless services should do jail time?"
More than likely not in Chips view--he would probably say that after all, BPL is a public utility and the companies with the $$$ come first. Hams? Well hams should accept the interference and not do anything about it. After all, the FCC said so.....
--------------------------------------
If it produces harmful interference then all remedies are on the table, the easiest being the first. Jail time is clearly a last-resort consideration.
Stop acting like an idiot and reducing my level of understanding to that of a paper clip.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by KB1HTW on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW says:
"If it produces harmful interference then all remedies are on the table, the easiest being the first. Jail time is clearly a last-resort consideration."
So Chip, which is it? Jail a person testing to see at what levels BPL systems will go into "high-priority" mode in order to get best-effort packets through a contention based-network? Or jail as a last resort BPL service that interferes with a licensed wireless service?
Stick to one side of the argument. You're just confusing us mere mortals...
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""Jamming is a serious crime in our day and age. I do believe jail time makes sense, yes."
So operators of a bpl system who interfere with licensed wireless services should do jail time?"
-------------
...Heck, why stop at Jail?
Isn't the death penalty even a consideration on the table as it should be for such a heinous crime?
In fact, I think I still have a few large caps hanging around the shack somewhere.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by K1CJS on June 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Stop acting like an idiot and reducing my level of understanding to that of a paper clip."
On that one I have two questions:
How is stating the obvious (in essence what you have already implied) acting like an idiot?
How can I reduce something to a level that it is already way below?
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by W1RFI on June 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Stop acting like an idiot and reducing my level of
> understanding to that of a paper clip.
A bit out of character again, Chip.
This isn't going to get as bad as it did in the rec.radio.amateur.antenna days, is it? I saw a number of posts there that looked way out of control to me.
Ed, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by KD2KU on June 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW:
"Stop acting like an idiot and reducing my level of understanding to that of a paper clip."
I thought that WAS your level of understanding- might make a decent fractal antenna.
Sad to see a once good mind falter.
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Careful, you might get one of his famous letters. See for yourself over at www.opsy-hopsy.com/junk/cohen
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: Ham Radio Group Says FCC Turns Deaf Ear to BPL
|
|
|
by W6EM on June 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
oops. Its http://www.opsyhopsy.com/MiscJunk/index.htm
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
BPL Is 'Spectrum Pollution,' ARRL President Says:
BPL -- Some Humor
HAM Radio Has No Chance Against BPL
FCC Commissioner's Office Clarifies 'Broadband Nirvana' Remarks:
Organizations' Comments Augment Alarm Over BPL:
Other News Articles
Amateur Radio Grants Help Bob Jones Set Up Station:
11-Meter Radio Mast Gets Thumbs Up from Planners:
Attorney: City Plan Violates Law:
Middle School Looks to Start Ham Radio Club:
Mile High Radio Club Connects the Mountain:
|
|
|
