FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 27
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
on
July 6, 2007
View comments about this article!
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
On Monday, July 2, the FCC filed its reply brief with the US Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The FCC attempted to rebut
the ARRL's challenge to the FCC's Broadband over Power Line (BPL) rules
enacted in late 2004 and affirmed by the agency in 2006. According to
ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, "The FCC's brief does not
accurately describe ARRL's arguments concerning harmful interference."
Given what is in essence a 100 percent probability of interference from
BPL systems to fixed and mobile HF facilities at significant distances
from power lines, Imlay said Section 301 of the Communications Act does
not allow unlicensed BPL systems to operate in the HF bands. "Basically,
Section 301 says you can not operate a radio frequency emitting device
without a license. The legislative purpose of Section 301 is clearly to
avoid interference. FCC's Part 15 rules have assumed that certain very
low power devices and systems can operate without predictable
interference, thus allowing them to operate without a license,
notwithstanding Section 301. But with BPL, the FCC has ignored
conclusive record evidence which shows that there will be, and in fact
our experience conclusively demonstrates, that BPL causes severe
interference to licensed services," Imlay said.
The FCC claims that it has the authority to permit unlicensed BPL under
Section 302 of the Act; this section allows the FCC to regulate the
interference potential of RF devices. What Section 302 does not do,
Imlay said, is to create a loophole in, or modify, or invalidate Section
301.
"It is the ARRL's position," Imlay said, "that the FCC can regulate and
authorize BPL with certain safeguards, consistent with the terms of
Section 301; however, the FCC simply cannot honestly maintain the
position that BPL has an inherently low interference potential. It has a
high interference potential, and the rules they have enacted to date are
woefully inadequate and insufficient to address it." The ARRL has long
maintained that BPL, when not adequately "notched," causes harmful
interference to Amateur Radio operations. In its brief, the FCC claims
BPL does not cause significant interference and the Courts must defer to
the FCC's expertise to decide this issue.
ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said, "The FCC
misrepresents the ARRL's position as being that the FCC has no authority
to allow unlicensed devices that pose any risk whatsoever of causing
interference to licensed services. That's not our position at all. Our
position is that the FCC possessed clear evidence, at the time it made
its BPL decisions, that the limits it was adopting would allow the
deployment of BPL systems with a near-100 percent probability of causing
harmful interference to radio receivers hundreds of feet from the power
lines. Yet, despite this evidence it characterized the likelihood of
harmful interference as 'low.'"
The brief goes on to say that, in the FCC's view, mobile stations and
fixed stations are protected against harmful interference from BPL. But
with respect to mobile stations complaining of interference, the FCC
requires only that BPL operators reduce the radiated emission levels to
20 dB below the Part 15 maximum levels for radiated emissions. This, in
the HF bands, still permits BPL noise at levels that preclude
communications entirely. It offers mobile stations no protection
whatsoever, Imlay stated.
Sumner explained, "The FCC claims that it continues to protect mobile
stations from harmful interference, but it does so simply by defining
whatever interference a mobile station might encounter from a notched
BPL system as not harmful! None of the steps to limit the interference
potential of BPL systems that the FCC took in this rulemaking proceeding
reduce the likelihood of interference to the amateur service, and to
this day the FCC has declined to enforce its rules even when protracted
violations and interference have been documented."
The FCC's brief also attempted to justify its presumption that a BPL
radiated interfering signal decays at a rate of 40 dB per decade of
distance. "A 'decade of distance' is a factor of 10," Imlay explained.
"For example, if a victim receiver moves from 3-30 feet from the power
lines (10 times farther away), that is one decade of distance. For each
decade of distance, the FCC believes that there is a 40 dB signal decay.
In the HF bands, however, the evidence in the record shows that the
signal decay is closer to 20 dB than 40 dB per decade of distance from
the power lines. The FCC's brief claimed that there was conflicting
evidence on the subject, but ARRL's view is that the FCC merely avoided
consideration of the overwhelming evidence favoring the more
conservative decay factor."
Imlay said the ARRL has asked the Court to order the FCC to "rethink the
rules governing BPL and for the first time to take into account the
evidence on the record concerning harmful interference to Amateur
Radio." ARRL's reply brief is due for filing with the Court July 28,
2007. There is no date set yet for oral argument before the three-judge
panel in Washington, DC.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 26, No. 27
July 06, 2007
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, round 1 has gone pretty much as expected. The ARRL has said the FCC isn't protecting licensed services as it should and the FCC has said it has the right to decide what harmful interference is and how much interference is harmful to those services, and how it responds to the complaints.
I just hope the battle goes on and somehow the powers that be in both the government and the private sector finally realize what a white elephant this 'technology' really is.
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The FCC claims that it has the authority to permit unlicensed BPL under Section 302 of the Act; this section allows the FCC to regulate the interference potential of RF devices. What Section 302 does not do, Imlay said, is to create a loophole in, or modify, or invalidate Section 301."
"It is the ARRL's position," Imlay said, "that the FCC can regulate and authorize BPL with certain safeguards, consistent with the terms of Section 301; however, the FCC simply cannot honestly maintain the position that BPL has an inherently low interference potential. It has a high interference potential, and the rules they have enacted to date are woefully inadequate and insufficient to address it." The ARRL has long maintained that BPL, when not adequately "notched," causes harmful interference to Amateur Radio operations. In its brief, the FCC claims BPL does not cause significant interference and the Courts must defer to the FCC's expertise to decide this issue." from the ARRL article.
Now expect a long thread of ARRL bashing "hams" to respond with their "expert" opinions. For those of us who support the ARRL's efforts to make the FCC live up to its own regulations, the continued action by the ARRL is a welcome sign of it's historical concern for the protection of amateur radio. So, rage on, ARRL bashers, eHam.net has become a refuge for you disorganized looney birds. The rest of us can see through all your drama.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by KI6CDF on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have to say that I almost had a heart attack when I realized that two hams responded rationally and reasonably to the ARRL BPL brief article. Is this really eHam, or, have I entered the Twilight Zone?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by K0RFD on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Give it time.
I give it about two more posts before Chip erroneously tells someone else they're full of sh*t.
|
| |
|
Kooks to respond to ARRL's BPL Brief very soon.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh they will be here. Just give them some time. After that just sit back and enjoy reading all the egotistical nonsense, all the self-serving pomp, all the nutty twists and turns of isolated and warped minds seeking justification and an audience. Imagine what it would be like if they could sit still long enough to form a panel to decide the issue! Now that would be the sort of thing you just might see on the Twilight Zone!
|
| |
|
RE: Kooks to respond to ARRL's BPL Brief very soon
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, you can be sure that the Part 15 Rooter's Club will show up soon with some stupid illogic as usual.
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just for the heck of it, I thought it may be useful for us to review Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934.
It may be just me but I don't see the FCC taking advantage of any loopholes and don't understand what protection is afforded the ARRL and Amateur Radio by Section 301 against interference from BPL:
TITLE III—PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO
PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. [47 U.S.C. 301] LICENSE FOR RADIO COMMUNICATION OR TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY
Communications Act of 1934
It is the purpose of this Act, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license. No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio (a) from one place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States or in the District of Columbia to another place in the same State, Territory, possession, or District; or (b) from any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or from the District of Columbia to any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States; or © from any place in any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, to any place in any foreign country or to any vessel; or (d) within any State when the effects of such use extend beyond the borders of said State, or when interference is caused by such use or operation with the transmission of such energy, communications, or signals from within said State to any place beyond its borders, or from any place beyond its borders to any place within said State, or with the transmission or reception of such energy, communications, or signals from and/or to places beyond the borders of said State; or (e) upon any vessel or aircraft of the United States (except as provided in section 303(t)); or (f) upon any other mobile stations within the jurisdiction of the United States, *** except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.
>>> Notice the last sentence: "except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act." This last sentence, along with Section 302a probably make the ARRL's argument a tough one to win:
SEC. 302. [47 U.S.C. 302] DEVICES WHICH INTERFERE WITH RADIO RECEPTION.
(a) The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations (1) governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications;
>>> These words are key: "consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity".........
In our case, and IMO, this could very well be interpreted to mean "what's more important, protection of amateur mobile operation or providing billions of dollars worth of broadband service to citizens in rural areas or where other services don't have coverage.
...... WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Kooks to respond to ARRL's BPL Brief very soon
|
|
|
by KX8N on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"For those of us who support the ARRL's efforts to make the FCC live up to its own regulations, the continued action by the ARRL is a welcome sign of it's historical concern for the protection of amateur radio. "
I'm ok with the ARRL doing what they can, but I don't think it's going to do any good in the long run. The FCC has the final say, and if the FCC wants BPL to end up as a means for broadband, that's what will happen, regardless of who likes it.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE tells us that the FCC can do whateve it wants.
Sorry, RNE, but here's where the rubber meets the road:
"301. .....No person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio .........except under and in accordance with this Act and with a LICENSE (emphasis added) in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.
So, I read that to mean you can't operate without a license. Plain and simple.
Does BPL, a Part 15 emitter, have a license? (only one site that I'm aware of, and its experimental. Generally, no)
302's cite merely empowers the FCC to promulgate rules and regulations. It does not, in any way, reduce the stature of what 301 requires: A license.
So, those who are granted a license have the right, those that aren't granted one don't. Clear enough?
Part 15 is supposed to place unlicensed radiators in an inferior posture with respect to licensed radiators. However, the FCC bent Part 15 illogically and without substantiating technical data. This should be an easy win for the ARRL and its amicus curiae crowd.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>"what's more important, protection of amateur mobile operation or providing billions of dollars worth of broadband service to citizens in rural areas or where other services don't have coverage.<<<
What? Do you realize what you just said? Provide broadband service to rural areas? That is not what BPL now has in mind although that is the one point the BPL equipment providers used to get their foot in the door.
Now they have admitted that BPL can NOT work in rural areas while costing less--it will cost MORE. More for the extra equipment to make it go "the last mile." BPL is now for the urban areas--to give competition to the cable and phone companies, the claim now is that is where it will cost less--dollar wise at least. The unheard of cost is the cost of the pollution of the radio bands.
BPL in the XHF bands does not interfere to the degree it does when the HF bands are used--but it is still a flawed technology, a technology that should NOT even be attempted. It should be BANNED.
Instead of fighting Uncle Sam and his minions--the companies which have their pocketbook filled by the BPL adoption, we should be pushing the ARRL to get the fight moved to the ITU at the next meeting. Quite a few countries of the rest of the world know BPL is a sham, and would be very happy to have the ITU outlaw it to its member nations. Then the US would have to go along with it or become a pariah by ignoring the treaty to promote BPL.
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by WW3QB on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC brief is at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274854A1.pdf for those who want to read it. I don't see where the ARRL brief is.
This is the part that cought my eye (page 30) where the FCC basicaly says that mobile operation is bad anyway and if it is so bad the mobile station can move. This may be the ARRL's best chance to win.
The Commission acknowledged that there might be circumstances where mobile
operations would be marginally affected by Access BPL emissions, even at the reduced
signal level. However, it pointed out that for the relatively weak amateur radio signals
that might be affected by Access BPL emissions at the reduced level, mobile reception is
generally intermittent and unreliable in any event. This is so because both the received
signal and the ambient noise levels vary as the amateur operator’s vehicle moves. In other
words, Access BPL signals reduced by the notching requirement would not appreciably
worsen the already poor reception of weak signals in the mobile context. Reconsid.
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 9320 ¶32 (JA __ ). Noting that mobile users can avoid a source of
harmful interference by moving and "that, in most instances, mobile users in motion do
not remain in a location where they might be receiving interference" Id. at 9319 ¶32 (JA
__ )), the Commission reasonably concluded that whatever interference the reduced level
of Access BPL signals might create would not constitute "harmful interference" in the
mobile context within the meaning of the Part 15 rules.27
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC is staffed with lawyers and politicians who are fully willing and able to parse words, then sell our Nation's shared resources to the highest bidder, or even hand them over to stay in the good graces of the executive branch.
This issue goes so far beyond amateur radio.
It's within the Leagues rights to sue, and as the lawyers say, "If you don't know what your rights are, you have none."
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by KB1NO on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC is clearly off base and they deserve to lose this fight.
Time for a donation to the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund.
73,
John
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[quote]The FCC brief is at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274854A1.pdf for those who want to read it. I don't see where the ARRL brief is. [/quote]
Thanks. It is always better to read the actual document, than to rely on highly spun characterizations of it by opponents.
By the way, anyone know where the ARRL brief can be downloaded in full? Or is it being kept secret from the amateur community for some reason?
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC is clearly off base and they deserve to lose this fight.
Time for a donation to the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund.
73,
John
-------------------------
What assurance do you have that the monies will be spent on "spectrum defense"?
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE has rationally and clearly laid out the authority and correctness of the FCC on this matter.
Given the clarity of the authority, and the fact that ARRL does NOT represent the amateur radio service on this subject, I see little benefit in even discussing this non-issue.
The ARRL position appears esepcially feeble, IMO.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the ARRL article: Imlay says "Basically, Section 301 says you can not operate a radio frequency emitting device without a license."
Oh Oh. He caught them. Now they're in big trouble. Every single Part 15 device in the USA is illegal! Everyone better get ready to turn in your computers, plasma TVs, battery chargers, electric blankets, wireless mouses, and anything else that is a radiofrequency emitting device..
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
More Bravo Sierra from the Part 15 manufacturer duo.....
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with the last..... The witless wonder and the nameless nitwit have made their pronouncements. We now have to hang our heads in shame and admit to their wisdom.....NOT! Why don't you two just join the Washington witless wonders staff? Dp something destructive there--although they don't need the help.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip >> The ARRL position appears esepcially feeble, IMO.
Well, since apparently the full text of the ARRL brief is not publically available, all we have to go on is what the ARRL says in its news items, and what the FCC says in its reply brief. On that basis, yes, I'd agree, the ARRL position seems kind of feeble.
I gather that the ARRL position is:
* All Part 15 emitters are illegal
* The probability of BPL interference is 100%
* All interference no matter how miniscule is "harmful"
* The FCC has no authority to define what "harmful" means
* The FCC is incompetent
* The FCC is hiding something
Perhaps, if we had access to the entire full text of the ARRL brief, maybe it wouldn't seem so nutty.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WW3QB said:"This is the part that cought my eye (page 30) where the FCC basicaly says that mobile operation is bad anyway and if it is so bad the mobile station can move. This may be the ARRL's best chance to win."
Yes, and using exactly that statement of a mobile needing move to mitigate the problem when applied to low band VHF public safety users could cost lives.
Oh, but they run much more power than do amateurs. Bravo Sierra. And, have much greater signal strengths throughout their coverage areas. Again, Bravo Sierra.
Whether APCO is or is not an Amicus Curiae in this matter, it does not remove the eminent example of why mobile stations should not be required to move to be able to communicate.
Of course, with RFID widgets it would be different.
Less bandwidth required. Just an amateur band or two would be all that's needed.
The Dynamic Duo again show their strong bias. Why don't you two give up? Go over to Manassass and rev them up. You're wasting your time here.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As to the FCC's requirement that BPL providers notify public safety licensees in advance. So, they write them a letter and say what? "e're going to be polluting your frequencies starting next month and just thought we'd let you know ahead of time."
And, as to the requirement for ABPL providers to "coordinate" with public safety users, well, what does that mean? The volunteer fire department needs to conduct field strength surveys to determine where BPL is abnoxiously ruined reception? When needed, out in the boon docks, surely some locations would be missed. And, who pays for all this effort? No statements from the FCC about covering the cost of "coordination."
Sure, the Missouri, Tennessee and California Highway Patrol agencies probably have enough money to afford the cost of determining where BPL will make radio use marginal, I suppose. Even so, why should they and the taxpayers of their respective states have to pay to "coordinate" (whatever that means) with some dumb a**ed ABPL provider.
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"* The FCC is incompetent
* The FCC is hiding something"
Yes and yes. Corporatist welfare first, that of the People, second.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by N9XCR on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Perhaps, if we had access to the entire full text of the ARRL brief, maybe it wouldn't seem so nutty."
I'm sure we'll see the entire brief after July 28 when it's due to be filed with the courts. I hope so anyways. :) I'm looking forward to the outcome. FCC Regulations are no different than any most laws. They can be interpreted to favor either side. It will be up to the judges to decide how they SHOULD be interpreted.
I find it rather funny that the utility companies are spending so much money on BPL when there are other perfectly viable options. They have plenty of tall towers throughout their distribution system. They could utilize those towers to deploy a wireless internet service throughout their service areas. They could use dual- or triple-radio wireless routers (http://adiengineering.com) to carry their network backbone on one band and their service areas on another band. I guess that would make too much sense, though.
Chip (and other ARRL bashers):
I want to pose a question to you. I'm sorry if it appears I'm trying to cut you down; that is NOT my intention. How do you guys feel when other amateurs violate Part 97 rules? I always thought that Part 15 was cut-and-dry. Harmful interference is harmful interference. The FCC keeps saying that mobile stations can just move, which is true, but what about base stations? They can't simply move. BPL, to me, seems to clearly violate Part 15. Again, how do you guys feel when other amateurs violate Part 97 rules? Maybe you don't care. I don't know and that's why I ask.
Chris
N9XCR
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris: Yes, what you suggest would be fine if they're really desirous of yet another corridor. Speaking of corridor, an outfit called Corridor Systems in Northern CA was using a WiMax like concept atop utility distribution poles.
No, Chris, the real reason that many support it is to dupe some contractor into installing the stuff so that the electric utitility can have a cheap conduit to each home to read kWh metering, customer voltage, and even turn on and turn off power remotely. That's the reason.
Did they think that people would believe that they don't already have perfectly good high voltage remote control and operation systems? Apparently some did.
I worked for Pacific Gas and Electric for many years. Most all have what they call SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition systems on their high voltage lines. Better systems on transmission, substation and generation facilities. Mainly fiber optic, but microwave and telco leases are still common. Secure, self-healing technologies.
BPL is a remote meter reading sham for the most part for them. Oh, outfits like the Southern Company outright lied that BPL would be a new control means for better service reliability, etc. I now live on one of their systems. They widely employ UHF radio for switches and remote control. And, the systems are battery-backed so, unlike BPL, they will function just when they need them the most: When the power's out. Try that with BPL going down a faulted, open or downed overhead line. Pure garbage.
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by KD7TCS on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9XCR said "I find it rather funny that the utility companies are spending so much money on BPL when there are other perfectly viable options."
Bingo!
Like say use that 1 billion dollars of taxpayers money they were given to drag fiber to the elusive "last mile" of all of our homes. Not just roll out fiber to the most lucrative markets as they now claim is their right...sure it is, on their own dime that is. But that's not the case here.
The U.S. is far, far behind in both broadband deployment and bandwidth. It's a sad state of affairs when kids in India can get large amounts of synchronous access, while less wealthy neighborhoods in say New York City are still on dialup.
And what are we doing in the midst of all this? Arguing about a dated and poor solution to the problem, outlawing community initiatives to create their own wireless networks, and even considering technology that has a high probability of interfering with emergency (police/fire)and community service comms.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[quote]I'm sure we'll see the entire brief after July 28 when it's due to be filed with the courts[/quote]
The initial brief was already filed on May 24. The FCC's filing that is the subject of this thread is a response to the initial ARRL brief. And the ARRL gets to respond to the FCC's response by July 28.
And in the meantime, anyone who is on the FCC's side (such as the BPL companies) gets to file their own briefs by July 17.
It is that initial brief of the ARRL that was filed on May 24 that I'd like to see but can't find online anywhere, and the ARRL has not linked to it in their news releases.
Interesting, though, that if you have a subscription to "BPL Today", you can download the ARRL brief. How come the pro-BPL people get to see it, but the ARRL is hiding it from hams?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by KD2KU on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH:
“Interesting, though, that if you have a subscription to "BPL Today", you can download the ARRL brief.”
------------------------------------------------------
The cost of BPL Today is just $497 for one full year (50 issues) of exclusive BPL insight news and analysis.
Jump for joy! What a bargain!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess Ron, NN4RH is telling us all he's invested $497 for a subscription, or, his company has. Interesting. Penny stocks, yet it costs real money for a magazine subscription. I guess there's not enough ad income to pass out free subscriptions as is the case with several power industry publications.
I'd be willing to bet that there's some rather heavy language in the ARRL Brief. In fact, didn't Joel Harrison say something about the Commission lacking competence publicly? Perhaps the League wishes to spare us hearing more of the same.
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
[quote] I guess Ron, NN4RH is telling us all he's invested $497 for a subscription, or, his company has.[/quote]
No, Lee. When I was searching for the ARRL brief online, I came across a web page with an index of downloads one could get by subscribing to "BPL Today". I didn't actually subscribe - you must try to remember that I am "disinterested" in BPL . . . . PER SE. <g>
|
| |
|
RE: FCC 's Dirty Underwear
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ah, yes, but you could have taken them up on their free 30 day trial.. <g>
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip (and other ARRL bashers):
I want to pose a question to you. I'm sorry if it appears I'm trying to cut you down; that is NOT my intention. How do you guys feel when other amateurs violate Part 97 rules? I always thought that Part 15 was cut-and-dry. Harmful interference is harmful interference. The FCC keeps saying that mobile stations can just move, which is true, but what about base stations? They can't simply move. BPL, to me, seems to clearly violate Part 15. Again, how do you guys feel when other amateurs violate Part 97 rules? Maybe you don't care. I don't know and that's why I ask.
Chris
N9XCR
================================
I sm not an ARRL BASHER.
I am an ARRL MEMBER.
|
| |
|
AI2IA Responds to the ARRL non sequitur:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Being an ARRL member and being an ARRL basher are not mutually excluding states. It is indeed possible to be both as we can see on eHam.net.
Why, it is just as possible as being a self-hating ham. We see these pathological types on eHam.net also.
Ham radio is fun, yet there are plenty of gloom and doom hams on eHam.net.
Ham radio is a positive and uplifting pastime. Yet some hams on eHam.net are chronic naysayers.
Ham radio promotes world-wide good will. Of course we also have mean-spirited hams who like to jam or use vularity on the air.
Yes, Dorothy, some ARRL members have bad experiences caused by some other members within the ARRL. This is life, but abuse does not rule out good use.
So, simply being a member of the ARRL does not make one pro-ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA Responds to the ARRL non sequitur:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And Ray, just who are you? The great Oz?
Heck, some of us at times dislike what the ARRL does. As members, we have a right to express that dislike. That's the American way, you know?
Of course, some of us have brown noses when it comes to Newington. I sure don't.
While I overwhelmingly approve of the ARRL legal challenge to the faulty FCC rulemaking, I don't agree with them with respect to Regulation by Bandwidth or promotion of widebandwidth digibots to send IP content on HF.
Even when we loyal members disagree, we shouldn't support mass exodus. No, we should support change. Meaningful change. Especially with respect to procedural matters. Asking the membership what it wants, not telling it what its going to get for its own good.
73,
Lee
W6EM/4
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA Responds to the ARRL non sequitur:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> ... I don't agree with them with respect to Regulation by Bandwidth or promotion of widebandwidth digibots to send IP content on HF.
>> Even when we loyal members disagree, we shouldn't support mass exodus. No, we should support change. Meaningful change. Especially with respect to procedural matters. Asking the membership what it wants, not telling it what its going to get for its own good. <<
There's very few things that Lee and I agree upon.
Umm. Actually, I think he just mentioned all of them in one post!
I almost let my membership expire last fall, because I was getting kind of disgusted with the strange regulatory agenda, the frequently sophomoric interactions with the FCC, and the lack of real representation of the members.
But upon further thought I decided to renew the ARRL membership - BECAUSE I DISAGREE with them.
Think it through - if you agree with the ARRL on everything there'd not be much point to being a member!
Unless you wanted to subscribe to QST. But I don't read QST anyway so why bother (I read QEX, but you don't have to be a member to subscribe to that).
If you quit, you lose your *opportunity* to have a voice. On paper at least, Division Directors are supposed to communicate with members and honestly represent them. Members get to vote for Directors (assuming they're not unopposed, as mine has been for the past decade), and non-members cannot run for Director.
Yes, I am critical and skeptical of the ARRL where it comes to much of their regulatory agenda. I think the lawsuit against the FCC is an unnecessary waste of resources and I question possible hidden motives for it. I think the ARRL needs to take a more mature and professional approach to its dealings with the FCC. I think the legislative activities are naive and impractical. And I am suspicious that membership communication & representation is deteriorating at the same time that fundraising efforts and contributions "released from restriction" are growing.
I have a right to be critical and skeptical of certain things because I'm a member. I think the organization is on the wrong track, but I think it can be saved.
Other things such as education/training, technical services, awards programs, VEC activity, legal support services, publications, etc... the ARRL still does quit well.
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA Responds to the ARRL non sequitur:
|
|
|
by N9XCR on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Think it through - if you agree with the ARRL on everything there'd not be much point to being a member!"
Sure there would. Your membership fees support the ARRL. I agree with the rest of your message, particularly about having a voice.
How would you approach the FCC regarding BPL if you were in charge of the ARRL? Do you agree or disagree that BPL is a real problem and needs to be dealt with?
Chris
N9XCR
|
| |
|
Who am I?
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you want to see who I am, simply put my call sign in the little box under Call Search and click on "GO!"
You will see who I am. - Ray, AI2IA
On the other hand,
"Meet W6EM!
Real Name:
W. Lee McVey
Photo:
No photo available.
Email address:
Email address not available.
Previous calls:
WA6VKJ"
So, by the way, who are you?
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA Responds to the ARRL non sequitur:
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the FCC’s reply brief with the US Court of Appeals:
The NTIA study helped confirm the localized nature of potential harmful interference and determined that emissions from the widespread deployment of Access BPL devices on electric power lines would not increase interference risks to users of other licensed services using the same spectrum. NTIA later submitted formal comments accompanied by a Technical Appendix. See NTIA Comments (JA __ ). NTIA focused on the need for rules that address both harmful interference concerns and BPL operational requirements. It urged the Commission to adopt rules that would enable BPL proponents (1) to develop and implement design features and operating practices for addressing harmful interference concerns and ......
***>>>> once again, this is where reality sets in:
(2) to obtain new equipment authorizations so as “to contribute significantly toward fulfillment of the President’s vision for universal affordable broadband Internet access.”
The Commission recognized that while some radio stations, *** such as amateur radio licensees, ** may operate “at distances sufficiently close to power lines as to make harmful interference a possibility,” *** its conclusion was that “those situations can be addressed through interference avoidance techniques by the Access BPL provider” as set forth in the order. The Commission stated that “the rules we are specifying here facilitate such solutions.”
"With respect to mobile operations (such as amateur radios in cars), the Commission concluded that reducing the emitted power of the Access BPL operation causing harmful interference by a specified amount (referred to as “notching”) would be “generally assume[d to be] sufficient to resolve any harmful interference that might occur to mobile operations.” Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 21294 66 (JA __ ). The Commission based this conclusion on “the low signal levels allowed under the Part 15 emission limits ***** and the fact that a mobile transceiver can readily be repositioned to provide some separation from the Access BPL operation.” Id.16 These steps satisfy the longstanding requirement of Part 15 of the Commission’s rules that unlicensed operations under that section may not cause harmful interference to licensed operations. See 47 C.F.R. § 15.5."
>>> I didn't say I was a proponent of Access BPL, but given the thirst for broadband in this country, I am viewing this argument as a realist. I have always stated on this forum that we must do a better job of utilizing the spectrum we have been granted to avoid the "use it or lose it" scenario. Unfortunately this scenario isn’t exactly in the beginning stages as we have lost spectrum before - maybe 220 Mhz comes to mind. Given the public’s thirst for broadband access and the Bush administration’s desire for a “win” in a time when their approval ratings are hovering in the mid-20’s, the probability of losing HF spectrum is, IMO very real. As you all can see, the FCC is following the President’s goal to make broadband available to ALL Americans. The classic way to lower costs is to increase competition between providers. If accomplishing this goal results in teeing-off a few thousand ham radio operators, well so be it. Given what we’ve seen from this administration to date, would this come as any big surprise??
As amateurs we have to deal with 3 issues: 1) We have been somewhat complacent in regard to utilizing the spectrum we occupy, 2) Significant competition for available spectrum has been on the increase for years, and 3) Technological advances are in some cases lessening the need for our services.
Given these realities, utilizing Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to rescue 40 meter mobile operation from BPL.
We are also bound by the U.S. Code (USC) of which the Communications Act is directly linked:
From U.S.C. TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I > 157
(a) It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or party (other than the Commission) who opposes a new technology or service proposed to be permitted under this chapter shall have the burden to demonstrate that such proposal is inconsistent with the public interest.
(b) The Commission shall determine whether any new technology or service proposed in a petition or application is in the public interest within one year after such petition or application is filed. If the Commission initiates its own proceeding for a new technology or service, such proceeding shall be completed within 12 months after it is initiated.
>>> W6EM, this is where your comments deserve a response. First, I have never said the FCC can operate within impunity and side-step federal law and have never indicated they should be allowed to. Quoting from the FCC’s brief:
"In any event, ARRL’s claim is meritless. Section 301 provides that “[n]o person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio … except under and in accordance with this chapter and with a license….” Section 302(a)(1) authorizes regulations “governing the interference potential of devices which in their operations are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation [or] conduction … in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications ….” BPL systems certainly come under section 302 because they are devices capable of causing harmful interference by “radiation [or] conduction.” The Commission therefore clearly had authority under that provision to issue regulations “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity” to govern them. That public interest standard gave the Commission broad latitude in determining how far to go
to avoid such interference."
I would suspect that the ARRL will have a long protracted fight ahead, essentially to argue the "degree of gray" - and what amounts to a proposed amendment to the Act. As a non-profit organization, how long will the ARRL be able to hold out and will the decision to keep up this fight be in its best interests – and of course, amateur radio?
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA Responds to the ARRL non sequitur:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> "Think it through - if you agree with the ARRL on everything there'd not be much point to being a member!"
Ugh. Well, it seemed to make sense earlier when I first wrote it but I see now I badly mangled the point I was trying to make. I think what I was trying to say was that, if all you are is a magazine subscriber and otherwise have blind faith in the ARRL, then you're not being a "member" of anything; i.e. not participating as a "member" should.
>> Sure there would. Your membership fees support the ARRL.
No, not really. Annual membership dues barely covers the cost of the QST subscription. Life members actually eventually become a liability if they aren't already. The real support comes from advertising revenue, contributions, and publication sales (tho the profit margin is pretty thin).
|
| |
|
RE: Who am I?
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA asks:"So, by the way, who are you?"
Me. Simply, me. That's who I am.
I wasn't the one giving Dorothy a lecture as you attempted to. (The reason for my query as to your position being the Wizard of Oz) Or, flailing away at anyone who takes issue with our ARRL.
Just one small voice here, Ray. And, if you check things out on forums, I'm not usually first to post. And, although critical of ARRL at times, I don't sound like a broken record going yah ARRL, yah ARRL, yah ARRL as some are inclined to do around here.
There are some of us, anyway, that find some things we like and some things we don't like with League activities.
As NN4RH, Ron said earlier, there isn't usually too much upon which we find consensus, but, frankly, ARRL's lack of openness is one of those.
Why is it that ARRL couldn't share its Brief that was filed with the DC Court of Appeal? Simple question. Maybe you know, Ray. Don't we, as dues paying members, deserve to see what they said verbatim? You bet we do.
Anyway, now you know who I am, Ray. I'm me.
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My messages get to you, eh? Thank you, W6EM, for showing the effectiveness of my posts.
As it says in my bio sketch, " Ray realizes that we need to support the
repeaters that we use. He also believes strongly that the ARRL is good for
amateur radio, and he has set aside time to pitch in as a Volunteer Examiner
and Elmer."
You can try to depict me as anything your puny mind desires. I stand by my record. You can't elevate yourself or your opinions by trying to attack me as a person. Be greater than you seem.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, Ray. Since I'm an ARRL VE and an elmer too, guess my small mind has company.....
|
| |
|
THE ARRL IS GOOD FOR HAM RADIO.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It looks like W6EM has to be taken by the hand and led through the difficult passage. The words in my bio sketch relevant to your personal criticism of me are these: "He also believes strongly that the ARRL is good for amateur radio...."
Yes, as the record shows, many hams including those who are not members of the ARRL recognize what is obvious by the record of performance - that the ARRL is good for amateur radio. As often as I see words to the contrary posted on eHam.net, expect that I will post a reminder of the proud record of the ARRL.
Folks like you have no other place place to go with your style of criticism and brainless opposition than eHam.net. If you have some reasonable criticism of the ARRL, then by all means voice it here on eHam.net, but explain to me how you further whatever cause you think you have by attempting to denigrate me.
Get used to seeing my posts on here, because if you look, you will see them again and again and again. THE ARRL IS GOOD FOR HAM RADIO.
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"ARRL's reply brief is due for filing with the Court July 28, 2007. There is no date set yet for oral argument before the three-judge panel in Washington, DC."
An observation: The fools who rant and rave, nit pick and criticise, second guess, and play jail cell lawyer will follow the actions of the ARRL on the BPL issue all the way to the final outcome. In so doing, they will leave behind the trash of their protestations. No one can say with certainty what the final outcome will be at this point in time. We can say this, however, that the ARRL is proceeding to act on behalf of the amateur radio service with integrity and dedication to protecting our ability to operate without harmful interference. Both the motive and the method of the ARRL to check this menace are above reproach. Yes, all the little gadflies on eHam.net can use this forum to buzz about, but they cannot detract one iota from the soundness of the ARRL's action.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> You can't elevate yourself or your opinions by trying to attack me as a person. <<
Reality check: The only personal attacks in this thread, have been launched by YOU, Ray.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1NO >> The FCC is clearly off base and they deserve to lose this fight.
Since you're so definitive, I assume you've downloaded and read the FCC brief. So, can you quote or cite any specific passage or section of the FCC's brief that you believe is 'clearly off base'? What specifically are the flaws in the FCC position?
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Reality check: The only personal attacks in this thread, have been launched by YOU, Ray." - so in jumps Ronald Holtz, NN4RH
Oh, really, Ronald? How nice of you to inform everyone. Evidently no one could see this until you enlightened all of us. The only personal attacks, as you call them, in this thread have been launched by AI2IA, Ray Mullin.
"And Ray, just who are you? The great Oz?" - W6EM
The defect with you, Ronald, and your buddy Lee, is that you are too weak to advance your opinions based on merit. You feel compelled to denigrate your opponent. I am very pleased that my posts disturb you, but find it distasteful that you have to hog the thead with your petty jabs. Events move on, and soon you will have to watch for other opportunities to ply your pettiness. The ARRL is doing a great service for amateur radio in calling the FCC to task for their tolerance of harmful interference by the BPL people. Ony mean-spirited and warped hams refuse to see this. Just look at all the low motives attributed to the ARRL in this regard and note the source. It explains it all. See you in other threads. You are so far down in this one that you have little audience left for you cheap shots.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> The defect with you, Ronald, and your buddy Lee, is that you are too weak to advance your opinions based on merit. <<
Lee and I have been adversaries on various topics for several years. Quite intense at times. We manage to do it without calling each other names such as "puny mind", which you called Lee earlier. Lee is certainly not a "puny mind". Far from it. He can think for himself quite clearly and is a formidable debater (though, of course, quite wrong most of the time <g>) Well, enough from me. Lee can defend himself if he wants to.
If you can ever calm down enough, I'd encourage you to go back and objectively read your own posts. You come across as obsessed with an irrational fear of anyone who dares to disagree with the ARRL to any iota - i.e what you refer to as "ARRL bashers", "mean-spirited and warped hams", "disorganized looney birds", and other such terms you use over and over and over and over and over so much that it has no impact at all. Nobody respects those kinds of rantings.
You might be much more effective in your fanatical defense of the ARRL, if you'd actually engage in debate over the actual issues, rather than constantly lashing out on a personal basis or chanting mantras.
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THE ARRL IS GOOD FOR HAM RADIO
-----------------------------------
Overall, that is true, of course. But we now have an ARRL dominated by a minority opinion of membership, doing over the top things in activism and adversarial actions.
Unbelievable.
73,
Chip W1YW
ARRL member
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Better be careful, Chip. Ray might get all worked up again and call you "mean spirited" or a "puny mind" or something.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
By the way, what ever happend to the other players in this - wasnt there several broadcast organizations "supporting" the ARRL lawsuit? Why haven't we heard anything more about that?
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ron, if you and I have puny minds then we're REALLY in trouble..
Yeh, the so-called 'rights of licensees' crew...
Doncha hate it when others use, IMO, hams as a guinea pig and surrogate?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
Many thanks to the ARRL.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Amusing phenomena:
Here they are down in the bowels of this thread where normal folks care little about their posts, and W6EM, NN4RH, and W1YW come together to console each other. It is amusing, truly amusing. This mutual aid society may have the effect of helping these misguided hams to believe what they post, but it is a trivial waste in comparison to the sensible actions of the ARRL in regard to BPL harmful interference. Among what they do not see are the many compliments that I receive for my posts on behalf of the ARRL position, compliments that are most appropriately directed to the hard working staff at the ARRL.
So while those stumbling in their own darkness preach to themselves, the ARRL continues to defend amateur radio against the specific threat of BPL interference in the best possible way.
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Excuse me...more ham lies. I never consoled W6EM on anything. In my last post (to him) I told him to get someone else to check up on him, and get a dog for company.
|
| |
|
RE: NO MORE $$ FOR SPECTRUM DEFENSE
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"time for a donation to the Spectrum Defense Fund".
My friend, before forking over your hard-earned cash, you might just ask someone at arrl what happened to the $600,000 that was earmarked for spectrum defense. Ask them what they did with the money after it was reclassified.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA's intollerance
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA writes:
"The fools who rant and rave, nit pick and criticise, second guess, and play jail cell lawyer will follow the actions of the ARRL on the BPL issue all the way to the final outcome".
Anybody that disagrees with Ray's opinions is OBVIOUSLY a "fool". First, we were "idiots"... now we are fools. Such monumental intollerance has no place in ham radio.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
AI2IA's intollerance = Clueless
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a girly "man"... Do you not read, understand & at least try to ponder?
Look at recent developments toward releasing additional licensed spectrum, to entrepreneurial interests, in the quest for wireless broadband expansion. Total is 50MHz band which is laid out in 2x25MHz channels @25W...
BPL is a non-issue, always was & is even further pushed to obscurity now... I have come to respect Ed W1RFI for his personal efforts but the ARRL did not know how to approach the "issues" officially or logically. They ultimately resorted to beg, borrow or steal unknowing people's money in "defense" of vaporware aka BPL. They are repeating the same with Spectrum "Defense" & anyone unjaded knows it is clearly unethical to reassign funds, intended for a specific purpose, to a general fund. Further compicated by the funds not even minimally being unaccounted for, to the donating "members"...
Broadband
_________
Simple fact: Telco/fiber, Cable & wireless are the only 3 practical solutions to bridging "The Last Mile" divide.. Even satellite can't cut it for "pipe rates" of data vs. $cost/gbit
__________
Trade in those bar-google glasses & pom-poms for a clue Ray, justa 1 !!! Garnishh with ice cold FACTS !!!
Who am I? I am http://www.eham.net/user/profile/K4RAF
[OUT]
|
| |
|
ARRL Brief is Online
|
|
|
by WW3QB on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is now a link to the ARRL brief on the ARRL news page. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/07/06/104/?nc=1
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is the quoted motivation for the brief and court case--from the ARRL itself:
"ARRL now asks the Court to set aside the FCC’s orders and upset the Commission’s efforts to increase competition and promote consumer access to broadband services."
Did you READ that kiddies? The objective isn't to assure that PART 97's MISSION remains INTACT...the objective is to:
*************************
UPSET THE (FCC's) EFFORTS TO INCREASE COMPETITION AND PROMOTE CONSUMER ACCESS TO BROADBAND SERVICES!
*************************
IOW, the purpose of this suit is to not support Part 97, but, AS STATED IN THE ABOVE, to
**UPSET EFFORTS to promote broadband services and competition!**
Is THAT what the ARRL is for?
Think about this.
And think some more.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by KC9JUB on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip:
Your quotation is not from the ARRL at all. It is from the FCC. Specifically, it is from the FCC reply brief, which is its response to the ARRL brief. (Counterstatement of case.)
"...Dissatisfied with the FCC’s protections against harmful interference, petitioner ARRL now asks the Court to set aside the FCC’s orders and upset the Commission’s efforts to increase competition
and promote consumer access to broadband services...."
Are you merely in error here, or are you asserting that ARRL made this comment? It most assuredly did not. Here is the link to the government site that has the quotation from the FCC:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-274854A1.pdf
As is often the case, eHam.net is a fountain of disinformation, misinformation, and errant nonsense.
I do agree that thinking is a good thing.
73,
Bob - KC9JUB
|
| |
|
Proof of effectiveness.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you K4RAF for your enlightening post. If anyone had any doubts as to your character and integrity, they are now resolved.
Know that your frustration is my encouragement.
Who are you? Who cares.
It is wisdom to be ignorant of those that are unworthy to be known.
I am content that my posts evoke comments from the reasonable and in cases such as yours, the unreasonable, too!
|
| |
|
RE: Proof of effectiveness.
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the latest ARRL letter dated 7/9/07:
"Basically, Section 301 says you can not operate a radio frequency emitting device without a license."
"The legislative purpose of Section 301 is clearly to avoid interference. FCC's Part 15 rules have assumed that certain very low power devices and systems can operate without predictable interference, thus allowing them to operate without a license, notwithstanding Section 301.
But with BPL, the FCC has ignored conclusive record evidence which shows that there will be, and in fact our experience conclusively demonstrates, that BPL causes severe interference to licensed services," Imlay said.
>>> This statement by the ARRL can also be rebutted.
--- 1) Section 301 states at the very end "except under and in accordance with this Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.'
"The word "Act" refers to the ENTIRE Communications Act of 1934, not just Section 301. The way the Communications Act reads, Section 302 is also part of the "Act" and provides the FCC with considerable latitude in deciding what constitutes interference.
--- 2) BPL may indeed cause interference to licensed services - but not the ones that have a direct impact on vital services, i.e. aeronautical, public safety and the military. There are exclusion zones set up around military installations and airports and most public safety communications is not on HF.
So why is the FCC using their latitude under Section 302 of the Act and why are they not releasing the measurement data the ARRL has requested?? Back we come to the President's goal, conveyed by the NTIA and being executed by the FCC:
"NTIA focused on the need for rules that address both harmful interference concerns and BPL operational requirements. It urged the Commission to adopt rules that would enable BPL proponents (1) to develop and implement design features and operating practices for addressing harmful interference concerns and to obtain new equipment authorizations so as “to contribute significantly toward fulfillment of the President’s vision for universal affordable broadband Internet access.”
In terms of the spectrum allocations we occupy, it would seem we are in some ways deemed "expendable" - an unfortunate sign of the times.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC9JUB has falsely stated that I misquoted the below statements. In fact, I did not; the source is the ARRL ("...from the ARRL ITSELF".) That is where I got the brief of the ** FCC'S RESPONSE**. Nowhere did I state nor imply that these were statements the ARRL made as quotes.
It is clear to anyone who looks at the title and content of this topic that we are referring to--AND QUOTING FROM-- the FCC respondents. Only someone who would wish to mislead others, IMO, would claim that I falsely have ascribed the quote as being FROM the ARRL.
I repeat my accurate and relevant comments below--IN TOTO--with REMINDER to KC9JUB that these are the FCC QUOTES.
----------------------------------------
Here is the quoted motivation for the brief and court case--from the ARRL itself:
"ARRL now asks the Court to set aside the FCC’s orders and upset the Commission’s efforts to increase competition and promote consumer access to broadband services."
Did you READ that kiddies? The objective isn't to assure that PART 97's MISSION remains INTACT...the objective is to:
*************************
UPSET THE (FCC's) EFFORTS TO INCREASE COMPETITION AND PROMOTE CONSUMER ACCESS TO BROADBAND SERVICES!
*************************
IOW, the purpose of this suit is to not support Part 97, but, AS STATED IN THE ABOVE, to
**UPSET EFFORTS to promote broadband services and competition!**
Is THAT what the ARRL is for?
Think about this.
And think some more.
73,
Chip W1YW
------------------------
Thinking is good. Accusation is bad.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
"Takes away the context and all yez gitta fight about is da words"---Americana 'Hills' Philospher Pikesworth Greeley
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by K1DA on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chippy, from where I sit, your recent misquotes are
intentional and malicious. I know your type, there exists a whole tribe of you. BTW I hear you don't have the ----s to wear a callsign badge to Hossstraders.
|
| |
|
RE: Proof of effectiveness.
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Know your uneducated idiocy is a constant source of endless entertainment...
|
| |
|
RE: AI2IA Responds to the ARRL non sequitur:
|
|
|
by W6EM on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ray, AI2IA said: "Yes, Dorothy, some ARRL members have bad experiences caused by some other members within the ARRL. This is life, but abuse does not rule out good use."
Just what did you have in mind, Ray? What sort of bad experiences? What about Toto? The tinman? The scarecrow? The lion?
Three cheers for the antenna, inductor and ground symbols. But, whatever happened to the capacitor across the inductor? It would have been much better to have an anti-resonant network in the middle!!
|
| |
|
FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief:
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chippy, from where I sit, your recent misquotes are
intentional and malicious. I know your type, there exists a whole tribe of you. BTW I hear you don't have the ----s to wear a callsign badge to Hossstraders
---------------------------------
They are indeed intentional: It is my intent to reveal that the US government has ascertained that the objective of the ARRl court case is to upset and derail the goal of making broadband access accessible to the people of the United States.
I did not misquote. If there was an interpreted ambiguation in attribution, my INTENT was further articulated by the distinct and direct statement of the attribution--which, again, is from the US Government.
When I see phrases like "I know your type" amd "tribe", as a rational Jewish person, I am forced to conclude that your statements are meant as an ethnic slight of anti-Semiticism. If that is not your intent, I trust you will explain here what the following sentence means:
"I know your type, there exists a whole tribe of you."
Also, at every bona fide ham event I have ever gone to, I wear a callsign badge. I don't know what "Hossstraders" is, or was, but if it was an event FOR HAMS, I wore a callsign badge.
Also, I don't understand you allusion to
- - - - -S , whatever that is.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
| |
|
