BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to Spectrum Protection Act:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 14
on
April 3, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to Spectrum Protection Act:
ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, says the specter of interference to Amateur Radio bands from
Broadband over Power Line (BPL) systems--if and when they are widely deployed--serves as a
reminder of the importance of the Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2003. While the
legislation would not grant added protection from BPL beyond what present and proposed FCC
regulations would provide, Haynie said the challenge of BPL underscores the value of Amateur
Radio's spectrum allocations and the degree to which amateur access deserves protection.
Identical House and Senate versions of the measure, an ARRL initiative, are on their third try
in Congress. The cosponsor count on the House bill, HR 713, this week rose to 94--more than
double the number six months ago. The Senate version, S 537, has eight cosponsors.
"With BPL on the horizon, it becomes even more important that we all get behind these bills and
get them enacted," Haynie said this week. He reiterated his call for more League members to
take the effort to write, call or e-mail their representatives and senators to explain the
bills' importance and encourage them to consider cosponsoring the measures. "They cover all of
our spectrum, not just a little," he added.
The Spectrum Protection Act bills would require the FCC to provide "equivalent replacement
spectrum" to Amateur Radio if the Commission were to reallocate primary amateur frequencies,
reduce any secondary amateur allocations, or make additional allocations within such bands that
would substantially reduce their utility to amateurs.
The two bills do not directly address BPL interference. FCC rules already provide regulatory
mechanisms in Part 15 and in proposed amendments to Part 15 that are specifically aimed at BPL
"interference mitigation."
Among the latest House cosponsors to sign aboard HR 713 are Representatives John Conyers
(D-MI), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Susan Davis (R-CA), Charlie Norwood (R-GA), Norm Dicks (D-WA),
Gene Taylor (D-MS), Tim Holden (D-PA), Danny Davis (D-IL), Gene Green (D-TX) and Jeff Miller
(R-FL).
Haynie says letters from constituents are a crucial factor in getting the spectrum bills
through Congress. "We can't get them into law without membership support," he said.
He urged members to contact their senators and representatives through their Washington or
district offices. A sample letter on ARRL's The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2003
Web page
http://www.arrl.org/govrelations/arspa.html cites Amateur Radio's role in public
service activities, but Haynie invites members to personalize their own correspondence as they
see fit.
The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2003 Web page also contains information on how to
identify and contact individual members of Congress as well as links to the Thomas Web site
http://thomas.loc.gov/. Among other things, the Thomas Web site includes links to the bills'
text and a list of cosponsors. Those writing their lawmakers on behalf of the Spectrum
Protection Act are asked to copy their correspondence to the League via e-mail
specbill03@arrl.org.
Florida Republican Michael Bilirakis filed HR 713 in February 2003, and it has been referred to
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Introduced by Idaho Republican Michael
Crapo, S 537 has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 14
April 2, 2004
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to Selfi
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So let me get this straight: We need to protect "our spectrum" from infringement, even if we are not using it? That only makes sense to selfish idiots & there seems to be no shortage of them in this hobby! Anyone who believes the government will "protect us" from anything other than foreign invasion also believes in Santa, the Tooth Fairy & pigs that fly!
Has anyone else thought of offering some of "our spectrum" for wireless alternatives to BPL? No! Too late now, the obstructionist approach has made that all but impossible now.
802.11's license free use of 2.4GHz is a wide success & no thanks to ham radio, except for high powered interference from selfish hams who seek to monopolize channels using poor engineering practice.
There is a need, to protect us from ourselves!
Bill
|
|   |
|
RE: BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to S
|
|
|
by KE6I on April 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Has anyone else thought of offering some of "our
>spectrum" for wireless alternatives to BPL? No! Too late
>now, the obstructionist approach has made that all but
>impossible now.
Offer them spectrum and with our luck they'll just take it and give nothing in return.
|
|   |
|
RE: BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to S
|
|
|
by KA0MR on April 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have never understood the contention that the hams have spectrum they don't use. Just because you yourself don't hear it or you yourself have not the equipment to investigate it doesn't mean it is unused. It used somewhere at sometime.
I have equipment from 1.8 MHz through 24GHz and I don't use it 24/7 but at times I use it so at some point in times all of our spectrum gets used by someone sometime. Why do we propagate the notion we have excess spectrum and it should be offered to someone else.
Bob
|
|   |
|
RE: BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to S
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why do we propagate the notion we have excess spectrum and it should be offered to someone else."
Because a band loading on say 3Ghz of 1 or 10 every 24 hours, in a country of 300,000,000 is not a notion, it is a real joke! That is why 3.xGHz is the next broadband delivery choice coming along.
Try moving over, let the broadband guys have at it on "a band" & then there is no real attraction to BPL vs wireless. It could have been tried, if we weren't so selfish & greedy about it. Just an attitude doesn't justify anything.
It is called "Common Good" or "Mutual Benefit".
It can eclipse the wants of a dozen dorks on 24GHz spread over 1,000's of miles...
Bill
|
|   |
|
RE: BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to S
|
|
|
by N6KEK on April 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ok NE1Z I volunteer 1.8 Mhz through 30MHz for BPL will you agree to that??
|
|   |
|
RE: BPL Specter Lends Additional Significance to S
|
|
|
by NE1Z on April 7, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am sure you would N6KEK, since that is a boot call!
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
ARRL Aims to Dampen California Utility Commissioner's Enthusiasm for BPL:
New Restrictions on BPL in Australia:
Experimental License, BPL Court Challenge on Executive Committee Agenda:
Flawed BPL Is No Broadband Panacea:
ARRL Cites 'Additional Authorities' to Address BPL Reconsideration:
Other News Articles
ARNewsline # 1685 -- November 27 2009:
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:
|