FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interference Potential:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 23, No 41
on
October 15, 2004
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interference Potential:
As expected, the FCC this week adopted revised Part 15 (unlicensed
services) rules to specifically regulate broadband over power line (BPL)
systems. Meeting October 14 in open session, the Commission adopted a
Report and Order in ET Docket 04-37. In comments before voting, three
members of the Commission, including Chairman Michael Powell, specifically
cited the concerns of Amateur Radio operators and expressed either
assurances or hope that the new BPL rules will adequately address
interference to licensed services. Republican FCC Commissioner Kevin
Martin mentioned Amateur Radio's and broadcasters' interference concerns
in a written statement. ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP, said he was
encouraged to see the Commission acknowledge interference to amateurs as a
genuine issue in the proceeding.
"What the League has done in the last year and a half on this issue showed
in the Commission's public meeting today," Haynie said Thursday. He cited
the FCC's approval of three major points that the League had been pushing
for: Certification of BPL equipment instead of verification, a requirement
for a public BPL database--something the BPL industry did not want--and
mechanisms to deal swiftly with interference complaints. Haynie conceded,
however, that the devil is in the details of the R&O, which likely will
not be made public for at least a few weeks.
Anh Wride of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET),
acknowledged that Access BPL devices "pose a somewhat higher potential for
interference to licensed radio services than typical Part 15 devices."
But, Wride continued, "we believe the specific benefits of BPL warrant
acceptance of a small degree of additional risk, and that this
interference potential can be satisfactorily managed."
Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, said he remains concerned about
interference to Amateur Radio users. "I take the concerns of this
community very seriously and believe that the FCC has an obligation to
work hard to monitor, investigate and take quick action, where
appropriate, to resolve harmful interference."
Copps said if interference occurs, "we must have a system in place to
resolve it immediately," and he expressed the hope that the new rules
would include such "rapid turnaround" provisions. Copps, who dissented in
part with the R&O, raised the question of whether utility ratepayers
should have to "subsidize an electric power company's foray into
broadband."
The Commission's other Democrat, Jonathan Adelstein, said the interference
question made the proceeding a challenging one because it had to
accommodate concerns raised by Public Safety licensees, federal government
users and Amateur Radio operators. "These are important services that we
need to protect from harmful interference," Adelstein said.
Adelstein also said that while it's clear that some BPL systems can
co-exist with existing licensees, others "haven't fared so well." He said
those systems shouldn't be deployed commercially until it's assured that
they won't cause harmful interference.
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, a Republican, said the FCC had to "make
some hard compromises" to deal with questions about interference. But she
expressed confidence in "technical solutions."
Chairman Powell called it "a banner day" for communications in the US
because, he said, BPL promises "ubiquitous service to all Americans at
affordable rates." The chairman, a Republican, conceded that BPL will
affect some spectrum users--including "all those wonderful Amateur Radio
operators out there." Powell said the FCC has taken Amateur Radio
interference concerns seriously from the start and has put protections in
place "to allow that service to continue." At the same time, Powell
implied that the FCC must balance the benefits of BPL against the relative
value of other licensed services.
Powell said BPL's potential for the US economy "is too great, too
enormous, too potentially groundbreaking to sit idly by and allow any
claim or any possible speculative fear" keep the Commission from promoting
adoption of BPL technology.
ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, suggested that Powell was overstating the
necessity of yet another broadband pipeline. "It's astonishing to me that
the chairman of the FCC can talk about needing a 'third way' to provide
broadband to consumers when multiple technologies already are available,
including wireless broadband," he said.
The United Power Line Council (UPLC) applauded the FCC's action, saying
the new rules should encourage BPL deployment while protecting licensed
services from harmful interference. "We didn't get everything we wanted,"
said UPLC President and CEO William R. Moroney, who called the R&O "the
result of close cooperation and compromise" with the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to address its
concerns about potential interference.
For more information on BPL, visit the "Broadband Over Power Line (BPL)
and Amateur Radio" page on the ARRL Web site
http://www.arrl.org/bpl.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 23, No. 41
October 15, 2004
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by KB2HSH on October 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am amazed that Powell could say such a long sentence whilst kissing the asses of the lobbyists from the UPLC.
Totally amazing...but then...this administration has its priorities ALL wrong.
Go Kerry!
John HSH
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by N6JSX on October 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We all knew this was going to happen. There is just to much money to be made & taxes to be collected. Both the Republicans & Democrats are looking forward to the increased taxes they will be able to spend. This is a black day for HAM radio. It's about time to consider selling the HF equipment.
It will be interesting, as to JUST how FAST interference complaints get settled/put-off-the-air! I suspect if it is a HAM complaining nothing will be done - as we are not a threat - we have no money or clout to get the Commissioners attention.
It will be intersting to see who Powell goes to work for when his time is up with the FCC - and just how much money he's been able to put away in off shore accounts.
Even the ARRL will loose on this one - as if this interference is significant enough - our new HAM numbers will dwindle even faster and so will ARRL memberships.
I'm going to look into setting my HF equipment up to be a "legal" HF beacon - just to screw with any local BPL going on the lines in my area.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KT0DD on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There needs to be an Amateur Organization, (be it the ARRL or another one,) building a resource pool to help Amateurs immediately file federal lawsuits against the BPL industry, if they show one inkling of non-responsiveness to an amateur complaint.
I'm not selling my equipment yet, as there is hope that wireless and fiber optic will become the internet access of choice, and BPL hopefully will be very limited, and become obsolete as quickly as digital cell phones replaced analog.
But, we need to send a clear message that we will not tolerate being interfered with, or ignored. 73.
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This news is not unexpected given the fact that there are non-technical people running the FCC who seem to want to ignore the basic laws of physics and electronics. I am very concerned about Powell's warning to hams to not impede the progress of BPL...truly unbelievable but truly understandable given his true character.
I am sick and tired of the two Powells' performance during this administration!
WB2AMU
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by K3AN on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's face reality. The opportunity for a new competitor in the broadband market to bring in lots of new revenue and therefore new tax dollars, is going to far outweigh the demands of a group of hobbyists. Don't be surprised when (not if) the FCC decides to abandon the amateur service, and turn us all into freebanders. We'll be able to operate, but we'll have no standing to complain about interference from BPL and other "incidental radiators" in the HF region.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is not a republican politics as usual matter. Commissioners Jonathan S. Adelstein and Michael Copps (both democrats) voted in favor of ET Docket 04-37. Its absolutely correct that BPL is a poor excuse for promoting broadband access. But it is also true that broadband access to the Internet is a middle of the road political agenda item for both parties AND NOTHING MORE.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KF7CG on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is one thing for certain. The FCC dare not turn Amateurs into operators with no standing to complain about interference.
The laws of physics being what they are, how many watts of HF transmit power will it take to totally desense and overload the receiving portion of BPL equipment design for broadband receive characteristics of a less than 100 nano-watt signal?
All interference dicussion and complaint up to now has been one sided. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts BPL: ARRL tells half the story!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting how this is missing from any BPL press release from the ARRL, but was handled at the same proceeding. Take the blinders off!
New Wireless Broadband Frequencies:
The FCC also allocated spectrum to allow Federal operations to be cleared from spectrum that has been allocated for advanced wireless services (AWS). The action is an important step towards the future auction of 90 MHz of spectrum for AWS. The 1.7 GHz band was transferred from the Federal Government to the private sector, but Federal operations at certain locations were to remain in this spectrum indefinitely. The U.S. NTIA, working with the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies, developed a set of proposals to clear this spectrum so that it could be made available, according to Converge Digest. The Commission previously allocated the 1710-1755 MHz (1.7 GHz) and 2110 2155 MHz (2.1 GHz) bands for AWS.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This was certainly to be expected. With all due respect Mr. Powell, you need to quit catering to special interests and do your job. BPL on the HF bands is one of the worst ideas in the sad history of bad ideas. The NTIA knew this and were told “play ball or your funding is getting cut”.
I would sure like to know what Riley Hollingsworth thinks of this. This decision will certainly T off a lot of amateurs including myself. If I get interference from this I will not expect the power company to resolve the interference any more (and I use this term loosely) expediently than they already do with “regular” interference complaints.
One thing is for certain, if or when Puget Sound Energy try to deploy this in my neighborhood I will keep a fire lit under their ass to resolve interference. Amateur radio is NOT a lesser service, we are just as important as any government chunk of spectrum and deserve equal protection.
One thing is for sure, this will move my 10 and 15 meter beacon projects back on the front burner and expedite my purchase of the Commander HF 2500 amplifier I have been saving for.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by N5LB on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This isn't surprising given that it was decided by the Commission on the basis of politics. We have to find ways of living with it and dealing with it until the business model proves itself a failure. It would help for us to evolve also and deal with the technical challenge separate from the political challenge.
My cable connection (Charter) delivers very reliable 3.5Mbps for $39.99 per month. Their help desk after years of evolution is now pretty good. BPL can theoretically compete with DSL, but I suspect BPL will suffer from all sorts of RF interference as reciprocity proves immune to politics. Wait until the next cycle peak for real fun, if BPL and we survive.
Ultimately wireless will win in most places as small towns and suburbs either offer blanketing wireless service for free or for a fee.
And for those who think they can deliberately interfere with BPL operations, be afraid of the Patriot Act, be VERY AFRAID! Its not Riley who will call you on the telephone and ask you to stop in this case. Read the NPRM carefully.
Oh, and don't forget to vote.
Lionel
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by N5LB on October 16, 2004:
"This isn't surprising given that it was decided by the Commission on the basis of politics."
You're half right. The decision was made on the basis of politics, but it wasn't decided by the Commission. It was decided by the President and his Administration. The White House told the Commission to jump, and the Commission asked "How High?"
"BPL can theoretically compete with DSL, but I suspect BPL will suffer from all sorts of RF interference as reciprocity proves immune to politics. Wait until the next cycle peak for real fun, if BPL and we survive."
Entirely correct. When the White House tells the laws of physics to jump, the response is "Shove it!"
"Ultimately wireless will win in most places as small towns and suburbs either offer blanketing wireless service for free or for a fee."
The above statement is a no-brainer. ;-)
"And for those who think they can deliberately interfere with BPL operations, be afraid of the Patriot Act, be VERY AFRAID! Its not Riley who will call you on the telephone and ask you to stop in this case. Read the NPRM carefully."
This is in deed very scary. The only thing the Patriot Act accomplished was to strip us of our freedoms.
How dare we as Americans point the finger at oppressed nations like China and Cuba and criticize their lack of freedom and human rights? Hams in these countries will continue to enjoy the freedom to use their radios to make worldwide contacts, while our government is in essence removing this freedom from us. Our government is also removing our freedom to listen to worldwide shortwave broadcasts. This is a violation of international treaty.
"Oh, and don't forget to vote."
Oh, I won't forget. The way our freedoms are slipping away, this may be my last opportunity to exercise this freedom (voting). This registered Republican is voting for Kerry.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ, hate to burst your
bubble , but the two Democrats
voted for it also.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“The decision was made on the basis of politics, but it wasn't decided by the Commission. It was decided by the President and his Administration. The White House told the Commission to jump, and the Commission asked "How High?" I wonder how Copps and Adelstein would respond to such a request. Time to stop listening to talk radio and go outside for some fresh air and sunshine.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by WA7ACO on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder how effective a small spark transmitter with its RF output connected directly to the electrical wall outlet would be at jamming BPL signals over a limited area? Of course I am not advocating deliberately jamming BPL signals. On the other hand, you can be sure that someone is going to attempt to do something like this in frustration over the governments (FCC's) absolutely stupid going foreward with this ill thought out scheme. A scheme designed for some people to make money at Ham's and other users of the High Frequency spectrum's expense.
At the same time don't be stupid by blathering that voting for John Kerry would be a solution for the problem. Kerry is probably just as, or is maybe more ignorant, than Bush about the technical problems that BPL will cause across the spectrum. In the overall political scheme, BPL is small potatos until its interference problems become more recognized across the nation. Ask your neighbor what they think about the BPL proposal? You will probably get a blank look and be ask "Whats BPL?" You have both democrat and republican appointees at the FCC promoting this horrible scheme.
In the event that BPL becomes established, I can see a brand new opportunity for computer hackers to run amook, because this so called service will be readily available from the wall outlet as I understand it.
Getting angry over this problem will do nothing to resolve the issue. It will take lawsuits and more lawsuits to overcome this ignorant brainstorm. The fact that most of the government and military communications takes place outside the HF and low VHF spectrum now, will eliminate the traditional support we have come to expect against this scheme from those sources. Hurricanes and other natural disasters that take out the electrical power distribution systems in affected areas will also take out the BPL signals themselves.
Then how about all the communications equipment and shilled personnel that have always been readily available during emergencies and power outages. Whoops, it appears that the Radio Amatuer, who hasn't been able to really use his High Frequency equipment since the advent of BPL, and has not bothered to keep it operational, and is much less able to get it on the air quickly, has disappeared somewhere? We need his services now! You can't expect people to maintain equipment they can seldom use, to keep it readily available under these sort of circumstances.
Now I have a question. If the normal power line noise that seems to be everywhere, can interfere with my reception of signals in the high frequency bands from a normal antenna relatively isolated from the power line, then how can the signals in the BPL operations be possibly clearly received when the BPL antenna is the very noisy powerline itself? Yeah, I know, there are some new technologies out there poking their heads above the horizon that supposedly solve the problem.
If the BPL signals are sufficiently strong so as to be able to overcome the power line noise to make it practical from a BPL point of view, then what's to prevent the BPL signals from being radiated from the power line antenna? For us to prevent radiation from an open wire feed line, the conductors are maintained within a few inches, or less. The power line wires are several feet apart seeming to negate the laws of physics regarding the effectivness of open wire feed lines to not radiate their signals.
BPL as an idea who's time has come simply sucks. It is bad physics. It is bad pollitics. Kerry, or Bush, neither is the solution, much less the initial cause of the problem. Voting for either to resolve the BPL problem is like grabbing a fire extinguisher when the trouble is that the bilge pump has plugged up and the boat is sinking, not on fire. Attack the problem directly, not the bystanders.
Russ Hughes
WA7ACO
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by WA7ACO on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder how effective a small spark transmitter with its RF output connected directly to the electrical wall outlet would be at jamming BPL signals over a limited area? Of course I am not advocating deliberately jamming BPL signals. On the other hand, you can be sure that someone is going to attempt to do something like this in frustration over the governments (FCC's) absolutely stupid going foreward with this ill thought out scheme. A scheme designed for some people to make money at Ham's and other users of the High Frequency spectrum's expense.
At the same time don't be stupid by blathering that voting for John Kerry would be a solution for the problem. Kerry is probably just as, or is maybe more ignorant, than Bush about the technical problems that BPL will cause across the spectrum. In the overall political scheme, BPL is small potatos until its interference problems become more recognized across the nation. Ask your neighbor what they think about the BPL proposal? You will probably get a blank look and be ask "Whats BPL?" You have both democrat and republican appointees at the FCC promoting this horrible scheme.
In the event that BPL becomes established, I can see a brand new opportunity for computer hackers to run amook, because this so called service will be readily available from the wall outlet as I understand it.
Getting angry over this problem will do nothing to resolve the issue. It will take lawsuits and more lawsuits to overcome this ignorant brainstorm. The fact that most of the government and military communications takes place outside the HF and low VHF spectrum now, will eliminate the traditional support we have come to expect against this scheme from those sources. Hurricanes and other natural disasters that take out the electrical power distribution systems in affected areas will also take out the BPL signals themselves.
Then how about all the communications equipment and skilled personnel that have always been readily available during emergencies and power outages. Whoops, it appears that the Radio Amatuer, who hasn't been able to really use his High Frequency equipment since the advent of BPL, and has not bothered to keep it operational, and is much less able to get it on the air quickly, has disappeared somewhere? We need his services now! You can't expect people to maintain equipment they can seldom use, to keep it readily available under these sort of circumstances.
Now I have a question. If the normal power line noise that seems to be everywhere, can interfere with my reception of signals in the high frequency bands from a normal antenna relatively isolated from the power line, then how can the signals in the BPL operations be possibly clearly received when the BPL antenna is the very noisy powerline itself? Yeah, I know, there are some new technologies out there poking their heads above the horizon that supposedly solve the problem.
If the BPL signals are sufficiently strong so as to be able to overcome the power line noise to make it practical from a BPL point of view, then what's to prevent the BPL signals from being radiated from the power line antenna? For us to prevent radiation from an open wire feed line, the conductors are maintained within a few inches, or less. The power line wires are several feet apart seeming to negate the laws of physics regarding the effectivness of open wire feed lines to not radiate their signals.
BPL as an idea who's time has come simply sucks. It is bad physics. It is bad pollitics. Kerry, or Bush, neither is the solution, much less the initial cause of the problem. Voting for either to resolve the BPL problem is like grabbing a fire extinguisher when the trouble is that the bilge pump has plugged up and the boat is sinking, not on fire. Attack the problem directly, not the bystanders.
Russ Hughes
WA7ACO
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KF9Z on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Interesting...Clinton appointed Powell. Go figure. Must of been while he was getting a hinkleman (:O
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by AE6IP on October 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
guess i'll put off that 756 until this clears up.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by L1D on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Noticed a lot of people who say that there is no difference between Bush and Kerry on the BPL issue. I disagree, there is a big difference.
Just the other day 3 teachers were thrown out of a Bush stump speech because they had t-shirts on that said "protect our civil liberties". Someone found that "obscene" and they were told to leave. You have to sign a loyality oath to even see our current President at one of his campaign stops. Furthermore, he has been asked twice if he has made any mistakes, both times he didn't answer the question. Do you think this is a person who will listen to the Amateur community beyond paying lip service?
Kerry on the other hand is a person who thinks things through and is willing to change his mind and admit he is wrong.
So I ask, who do you want to see on the FCC commission when Kerry is elected. Lets start seeing if we can get an active amateur radio operator/engineer on the commission. Heck, that person doesn't even have to be be a ham, they just have to support our rights.
I don't know who that person might be, but I bet we as a community can find one and I bet that Kerry is not so beholden to the corporate interests to name that person to the commission if we can get his name in front of him.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by N6JSX on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Reading these posts is interesting. It sure shows the diverse nature of the education of HAMs on this subject. And there inability to look at the glass from different directions. The latest one - I hope hits home with the big money making boys as those high ticket HF radio/amp sales will be impacted - thus profits will go down! (We need all the outside political pressure we can get from those that have the money and clout to be heard by the FCC - heck these big ticket boys got our license class requirements changed to make more money.)
As far as who is in office for this blame - well Kerry fully supports getting more tax money in any fashion. Bush is probubly ignorant of the BPL issues and has only been told a one sided story. (in my opionion & a Vietnam vet) Kerry has way to many negatives, being a lawyer, and the richest person in Congress (he really feels out pain) to change my vote even though I do not like this FCC action nor Bush's policy on allowing illegal immigration.
But here are some items that you may want to ponder:
Intentional interference with BPL - oh, of course not.
But "legal" HAM operations can;
Beacon: §97.203 Beacon station.
(b) A beacon must not concurrently transmit on more than 1 channel in the same amateur service frequency
band, from the same station location.
(c) The transmitter power of a beacon must not exceed 100 W.
(d) A beacon may be "automatically controlled" while it is transmitting on the 28.20-28.30 MHz, (only place allowed on the HF bands to have beacons).
(g) A beacon may transmit one-way communications.
Not sure if 10 meters will affect BPL systems?
but,
§97.111 Authorized transmissions.
b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station
may transmit the following types of one-way communications:
(1) Brief transmissions necessary to make adjustments to the station;
Any one know the definition to "brief"?
(2) Brief transmissions necessary to establishing two-way communications with other stations;
Nothing said about using one of those contest DVR's to call your HAM buddy every minute or so - on an open frequency so long as you are at the control point and ID - right?
(5) Transmissions necessary to assisting persons learning, or improving proficiency in, the international Morse code;
As long as you are at the controls you can send Code all night long and it doesn't have to be a continuous carrier if you want to cool down your HF rig for 30-60 seconds. It could be computer generated code so long as you are at the controls and you ID ever 10 minutes - right?
(6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins;
There is no Part 97 Defintion of what constitutes a "Bulletin"! Reading ARRL, QRZ, or even eHAM news items to HAMdom would possibly be a "bulletin" - nothing says you cannot tape them and play them back - so long as you are at the controls and you ID every 10 minutes - right?
(7) Transmissions of telemetry.
(45) Telemetry. A one-way transmission of measurements at a distance from the measuring instrument.
Interesting defintion not sure how to use this one - except to state you are running ## watts into a ?? antenna at a certian location - would allow anyone who monitors to measure your signal. Other than automatic mode for Beacon's there isn't much diference except for for the data items required to be Telemetry. And of course you need to be at the control point of the station and ID every 10 minutes. So this could be automated/DVR/recorded - right?
Here are the Rules (not sure if they are the absolute latest version) but this is an interpetation that could be made. The key to this is - being at the control point of the transmitter and ID'ing every 10 minutes and using an clear frequency (but wonder if BPL interference will redefine what is a clear frequency - as we cannot willfully cause malicious interfernece?).
It will be interesting how this Rule will be imposed on HAMs by BPL/FCC: §97.101 General standards.
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any "radio
communication" or "signal".
Notice this Rule does not say HAM communications and BPL is a "signal" whether it is defined by the FCC as a "radio communications" (over wire) is yet to be determined.
How will we "know" a BPL transmission is a "signal" is another issue!
I wonder if BPL will get the FCC to impose this little know Part 97 Rule on stations in Beacon or any other above operations: §97.121 Restricted operation.
(a) If the operation of an amateur station causes general interference to the reception of transmissions from stations operating in the domestic broadcast service when receivers of good engineering design,
including adequate selectivity characteristics, are used to receive such transmissions, and this fact is
made known to the amateur station licensee, the amateur station shall not be operated during the hours
from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., local time, and on Sunday for the additional period from 10:30 a.m. until 1
p.m., local time, upon the frequency or frequencies used when the interference is created.
(b) In general, such steps as may be necessary to minimize interference to stations operating in "other
services" may be required after investigation by the FCC.
BPL is not "domestic broadcast" but it could be FCC defined as "other services".
So our Rules can be held against us and possibly be used "for" us - it will take the test of time and lawyers. But the authorized one-way transmissions - interests me if BPL comes to my no-where's-ville Ohio county neighborhood.
As it stands today BPL won and we lost (and the USA lost a valuable immediate emergency communicaitons source) - how bad we lost will only be known in time.
Kuby, N6JSX /8
past-L.A. OO Coordinator
past-WI. OO Coordinator
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My take and I'm not a lawyer and
don't play one on ATV.
A Part 15 device, which is what BPL
is, must not interfere with a licensed
service and must ACCEPT interference
from a licensed service.
That being said, I would certainly advocate
that hams conduct themselves within
the proscriptions of Part 97.
I think that BPL won't have much of a
future due to the economic forces of the
market place. In my case, Bellsouth has
REDUCED the cost for Fast Access DSL (sic)
by $7.00 per month effective this month.
Our Progress Energy has decided not to
pursue BPL, so it wasn't anything to do with
BPL competition.
My thought is that when the electricity is
off, a common occurence around my place, even
when there are no storms, BPL will be off
just as the TWC broad band service is off
when the power is off. That is why I went
with ADSL. As an OES, that provides back
up comms for the State EOC, I often use
EMail or FAX to send stuff to them. My
ADSL has never been off (well once, see below),
even when one of the
boxes got run over and put both my phones off
hook for a day. ADSL never missed a beat.
Even the Bellsouth crafts people have no explanation
as to why the ADSL did not fail. By all rights
it shoulda quit, as the cables were cut.
The repairman told me though all the phones
were out, NO ADSL customer lost service.
In Fact, I reported the outage to Bellsouth
via EMail.
The ONLY outage of ADSL that I've had was human
error when someone unpluuged the cable from
the heater coil at the slick. I called the
outside plant foreman and he had it replugged
in within an hour on a "dummy order" and
later transferred it to the real order when it came
in.
This is an example of why if you're involved in
ARES*/RACES you must make friends with the telco
people and they make sure that you don't loose
service for very long. Even when the power is
off, they have a generator at my slick before the
batteries die.
73 de Ronnie
OBS/OES NC ARES*/RACES Area 7
* ARES is a registered Service
Mark of the American Radio Relay
League, Inc and is used with permission.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by K5UJ on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The ARRL, (or someone) should file suit in a federal court to get this reversed. It seems to me that there are grounds for this as the commissioners are so blatantly biased. There is ample proof of this. Therefore the entire proceeding was tainted. Unfortunately it has come to this as the FCC which was once tolerably competent is not now. If every U.S. ham gave $10 to fund a legal proceeding there would be millions of dollars to spend on fees. Of course that won't happen which is a shame. In any event, the cozy relationship the ARRL has had with the FCC is not working well in this case. I had a feeling two years ago that this whole thing would wind up in court and I think the time has come. I have never been a fan of special interest groups getting their way by going to court but I am beginning to see why they do it.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's my two cents worth on this event.
1. The commission members, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, voted unanimously to adopt the R&O. No commissioner made much of a peep about dissenting.
2. As has been pointed out above, the commission also approved some actions that will make Fiber To The Home easier, as well as some changes to make WiMax viable. I think those new actions will kill BPL by surpassing it in cost-effectiveness.
3. There has been enough said about the interference potential of BPL that some power companies will steer clear of it, just because they don't need the hassle.
4. Nobody has seen the Draft R&O yet, but I suspect it will weed out some of the technically-worst BPL designs, because the standards are tougher.
5. The FCC is still going to have to be final arbiter on BPL interference cases, and I suspect they are not going to like an increased workload.
6. I am proud of the work that ARRL did in this proceeding, both the solid technical work and the excellent legal moves.
7. All that said, I am still really disappointed with the FCC, in its show of a complete lack of technical competence in this proceeding. It must be embarrassing for the one or two real engineers remaining at FCC to have to watch this show, which has been much more offensive than Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.
73Tom
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Now I have a question. If the normal power line
> noise that seems to be everywhere, can interfere
> with my reception of signals in the high frequency
> bands from a normal antenna relatively isolated from
> the power line, then how can the signals in the BPL
> operations be possibly clearly received when the BPL
> antenna is the very noisy powerline itself? Yeah, I
> know, there are some new technologies out there
> poking their heads above the horizon that supposedly
> solve the problem.
> If the BPL signals are sufficiently strong so as to
> be able to overcome the power line noise to make it
> practical from a BPL point of view, then what's to
> prevent the BPL signals from being radiated from the
> power line antenna? For us to prevent radiation from
> an open wire feed line, the conductors are
> maintained within a few inches, or less. The power
> line wires are several feet apart seeming to negate
> the laws of physics regarding the effectivness of
> open wire feed lines to not radiate their signals.
To function at all, BPL MUST operate at a higher level that the noise in its communications channel. If we are to believe their claims that the total bandwidth (admittedly shared between users) will be 200 Mb/s, if they are going to function in a 20 MHz bandwidth, then they will need a 30 dB S/N ratio no matter how perfectly their system encodes and decodes their signals. In practice, they will need more than 30 dB -- probably much more. Even the slow BPL that is available right now seems to be operating at 30-40 dB over the present noise levels.
The bottom line in this analysis is economics. The more power they can run, the farther they can go down the power line before they have to repeat the signal somehow.
The premise that NTIA offered, parroting the "engineering" of the BPL folks is that for BPL to work, they have to clean up all of the noises that are on the line right now, so overall, there will be less noise. It is an untenable premise to say that anyone will be better off if they clean up some of the noise and put even more on the line.
I am still waiting to see the fully deployed BPL trial that does not cause harmful interference to amateur radio. Even if they manage that, BPL will be operating at the FCC limits on somebody's spectrum.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> As it stands today BPL won and we lost (and the USA
> lost a valuable immediate emergency communicaitons
> source) - how bad we lost will only be known in
> time.
BPL didn't "win" at all -- they were legal under the old rules, with FAR fewer restrictions than they have now.
The Commission very strongly addressed interference in this rulemaking, and their words should send a chilling message to this industry. The FCC believes that it has solved the interference problem, but it also has said that it is up to the industry to carry out what the FCC worked hard to put together.
There is no doubt in my mind that there will be interference, and what we have learned in the BPL trials will serve well to help address it. S9 noise is easy -- it is interference on its face, but so is interference that raises a ham's noise floor by 15 dB. That 15 dB will have to be measured, but that can be done easily with a receiver, a step attenuator and either an audio voltmeter or a sound card. Tomorrow, I will post a URL for some Windoze software I completed over this weekend that will let hams make such measurements easily.
The FCC made a promise to us on Thursday -- it said clearly that it wanted to protect amateur radio. It backed up those words with an end to the honor system that had applied to BPL emissions levels, and will now require review of the test results that the industry obtains through the certification process. It mandated a public database of BPL locations and contact information and it indicated that it is working on step-by-step procedures to resolve interference quickly. And it said "quickly" -- a first when we look at conventional power-line noise that has dragged on for years.
So the work will continue. I am sure that ARRL's legal folks will look carefully at what reconsideration ARRL should ask for. Once that runs its course, if there is grounds for further legal steps, I have confidence that the League will recognize them and take the right steps. But in the meantime, interference must be addressed, and it must be addressed in the way the FCC said it should. We will all get a close look at that over the coming weeks and interference cases will be put on the table.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KD5IR on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
........Personally , I think we should foldup our Tinfoil hats , and give the process a chance to evolve and SEE if the FCC is going to , in fact , protect the sanctity of Amateur Radio and our band allocations . It, may very well be , the case , that the economics of interference avoidence and capitol outlays with a Medicore acceptance rate will deter BPL from ever becoming a National cash cow as other technologies evolve and simply overwhelm BPL and it will just "fade away" . I vote to let the ARRL monitor the coming events and see if they can hold the FCC's feet to the regulatory fire . kd5ir , sanford kuteman
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by WJ2L on October 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another case of Money Talking when reasearch into the
interference issue was really needed prior to deployment. I really think this spells the end of Ham Radio in urban areas of the USA. Guess we have to move or adjust. Perhaps a few catastrophic events
might again show the importance of Hams. But people will forget those episodes as quickly as they are resolved. This is sad. Bet the Manual on dealing with hams complaining about interference has 2 items.
1)Hang up the phone and 2) Notify the FCC of the
complaint to commence with some kind of harrassment
charge which if we persist will result in the loss of your license. Put up and shut up.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I vote to let the ARRL monitor the coming events and
> see if they can hold the FCC's feet to the
> regulatory fire . kd5ir , sanford kuteman
Even if one side or the other (or both) file petitions for reconsideration, in the meantime, the rules against harmful interference form the only basis on which we can expect relief from interference of any sort. It will be important to properly identify BPL interference as such, although any harmful interference is actionable under the rules. But because BPL will have specific step-by-step procedures in the rules, properly identifying BPL will strengthen the amateur's ability to seek redress.
Interference reports will have to be initiated locally, so the local hams will play as strong and important a role as the ARRL HQ staff, if not a greater role.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5IR writes:
"I vote to let the ARRL monitor the coming events and see if they can hold the FCC's feet to the
regulatory fire"
Now there's a fantasy!
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KF7CG on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One important thing I saw missing in the early comments on the Report and Order is a requirement for an enhanced interference disclosure by the BPL providers. They should have to collect a signed "interference disclosure" whenever they sign up a new customer. This could be similar to the many disclosures that come with buying houses, appliance, and other services. It would clearly state that licensed radio services were not responsible for any interference they caused to BPL during the lawful operation of their equipment, and that if interference to licensed operators from BPL equipment could not be eliminated that the BPL service would be shutdown until such time as the interference could be eliminated.
I can see new HOA restrictions now about licensed operations that interfere with the neighborhood BPL. All operations by any property owner or their guests that cause interference to the neighborhood are strictly forbidden and violation of this rule will result in HOA fines. New CC&Rs will appear that enjoin a property owner from becoming a licensed Amateur. I don't know if these rules will stick, but I have seen cases of people not being allowed to leave their company car in the driveway. I have also seen attacks on people operating consulting firms from their homes even though all business activities were carried on either by internet or away from the home.
I am afraid of "uneducated backlash" if BPL ever becomes widely established in an area.
David Caruthers
KF7CG
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, the first part makes sense.
I'm sure the equipment will have
the stickers about Part 15, also.
As to the second, the restrictions
are contracts volunterily entered into.
I personally would never consider such
a contract. However, if I was so foolish
as to do so, and I was attcked, I would meet
force with force. The remedy for a
contract dispute is civil court or
arbitration depending on the wording.
Attacking a party to the contract to
enforce compliance, even if allowed in the
contract, would be against public
policy and be void.
I'm not a lawyer and do NOT play one
on ATV, so don't consider this legal
advie.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KF7CG on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CC&R restrictions are voluntarily entered into at the time of contract signing. HOA restrictions are additional rules for living in an HOA governed community and are put in place by majority vote of the HOA. You agree to be bound by the rules of the HOA when you sign the purchase contract for a piece of HOA governed property.
I wasn't necessarily talking about physical attacks just legal ones. In some areas of the country the HOA owns the water and sewer utilities and one must join the association and agree to be bound by all its rules to get water and sewer service. Thus what would be an otherwise unencumbered piece of property becomes hostage to the decisions of a HOA.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA4MJF writes:
"Attacking a party to the contract to
enforce compliance, even if allowed in the
contract, would be against public
policy and be void"
Time for a reality check.
The "public policy' defense to the enforcabillity of a contract is very rarely effective. The clause in question must approach illegality (i.e. a crime) to be avoided on public policy grounds. If your HOA passes a rule prohibiting anything interfering wih the BPL system (and you interfere with the system) YOU ARE SCREWED....just as if you had an antenna that violated the HOA rules.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Unless, of course, you are an ARRL member....then he rules don't apply to you!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, it is quite effective.
The only deed restrictions on
my property prevent swine and
colored folks, other than servants,
living on the property. It is
public policy that colored folks can
live here and is therefore unenforceable.
I don't know whether a ham counts as
swine :-)
Also, the poster later stated, if you had
read it, that he misspoke when he said
"attacked", he meant challenged
through appropriate channels.
Attacking someone, even if the contract
calls for settling disputes on
the field of honor, is against public
policy and in fact in most cases
criminal.
I see no relation to this and the League.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by N7UQA on October 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If your HOA passes a rule prohibiting anything interfering with the BPL system (and you interfere with the system) YOU ARE SCREWED....just as if you had an antenna that violated the HOA rules.
W9WHE"
I'm calling B.S. on this, the HOA has NO authority to govern the RF spectrum or it's licensed/unlicensed users, only the FCC does. It's called federal preemption. If the HOA came to me and said "Quit transmitting! You are screwing up my p0rn downloads!" I would thusly tell them to take a hike and if they didn't like it, TOUGH. Call the FCC.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by N9AVY on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Guess we can just tear up Part 97 now ....
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Guess we can just tear up Part 97 now .... "
That's what I thought was going to happen when the first NOI was published and the words of the FCC Chairman indicated that he would not permit anything to get in the way of full BPL deployment.
What has transpired is that the Commission was made fully aware of the real nature of this boon doggle. They change course somewhat and enacted regulations to mitigate the problem. The problem with this is that we never be able to get to the FCC for resolution of the interference issue and then we may face them setting an inteference limit that we find unacceptable.
The real problem is that these systems may spread, but not for Broadband Internet access, but rather for grid control. Manassas Va indicated that this was their goal and they lost their initial partner over this issue. The industry sees a whole range of IP applications that will enable them to market user data that will be of interest to marketing professionals and their own planners. The Internet is just a way to get the rate payers to foot the bill for this otherwise bad technology.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by N6JSX on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, you still believe in the Easter bunny too. You still haven’t comprehended what all the lobbying efforts by the ARRL got - a favorable "mention" that BPL will not interfere with our HF bands. The FCC fed us rhetoric as a political move to pacify HAMdom. Nothing concrete in the BPL Rules states NO interference shall be allowed on the Amateur bands.
We must register a complaint - it will then wiggle through the FCC beurocracy to eventually be dismissed "for some type of cause".
The ARRL got as much as they were going to get - BPL is here - and hear to stay making money/taxes. You really think the ARRL HQ Supermen will come to our defense and beat this ugly BPL off the bands - you're smoking something. The ONLY reason that the ARRL may stay on their anti-BPL movement is their personal salaries are at stake due to the life of HAM radio is now in jeopardy.
It is ALL about dollar$ and $ense! Not Logic or right!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Nothing concrete in the BPL Rules states NO
> interference shall be allowed on the Amateur bands.
Except the part of the rules that say that unlicensed devices are not allowed to cause harmful interference.
> We must register a complaint - it will then wiggle
> through the FCC beurocracy to eventually be
> dismissed "for some type of cause".
The FCC said that they are writing procedures to streamline BPL interference reporting and resolution. No other unlicensed device has the kind of restrictions that the FCC has placed on BPL, so let me ask you what you think the BPL industry's lobbying got them out of this deal? They are the ones that got cheerleading from the FCC and some pretty serious restrictions to match.
> The ARRL got as much as they were going to get - BPL
> is here - and hear to stay making money/taxes.
BPL was here three years ago when the first systems came out. It was legal under the old rules and it is more restricted now.
> You really think the ARRL HQ Supermen will come to
> our defense and beat this ugly BPL off the bands -
> you're smoking something.
Supermen? What an odd thing to call me! I certainly am no superman, just a guy working his butt off to try to get something done. Why would you want to try to undermine that?
> The ONLY reason that the ARRL may stay on their anti-> BPL movement is their personal salaries are at stake
> due to the life of HAM radio is now in jeopardy.
And your post helps ham radio how?
Then wouldn't you think that would be some pretty powerful incentive for ARRL staff to try to do some good? Would you like to help out by becoming a member again?
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KD5DFM on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Both the Republicans & Democrats
oh please , Commissioner Powell republican son of colon Powell republican , who was put there by bush republican ,just in case you haven't got it yet , big business support republicans with there money for a reason . Just what type of F.C.C. experience did Powell have before taking over the job . I bet his talent was big pockets ;-)
I'm voting for Kerry at least he fought in a war . BTW 90 percent of democrats have served in the military , only 30 percent of republicans have . I'll vote for the real military man anytime during war and id rather have Kerry in a fire fight than duuuuuuuuuuubya bush the fly boy of Alabama while real men died any day .
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KD5DFM on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>This is not a republican politics as usual matter
Republican commissioner , republican father and was put in position by republican president , are you sure pal , money money money makes the world go round . what was Powell's experience with communication before becoming commissioner . don't they hire within and not who you know .
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KD5DFM on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> how many watts of HF transmit power will it take to >totally desense and overload the receiving portion of >BPL equipment design for broadband receive >characteristics of a less than 100 nano-watt signal?
as Powell has stated and sung by Jim reeves , "you'll have to go" ;-) your rights to operate over mega bucks utility company's . can you say Enron or Halaburton or there friend Cheney
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KD5DFM on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>With all due respect Mr. Powell, you need to quit >catering to special interests and do your job
and for god sakes tell your father and his boss bush and cheney to do the same . We wont let BPL be another ENRON
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KD5DFM on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> but the two Democrats
and only two , two for tea and tea for two , lets not forget the good manic Democrat from Ga. can you say bol weevil , why is it Big Business supports republicans , can you tell me ... get it right and you'll have two brains cells more than i thought you did . Did i say Powell was republican or his father was secretary of state or that Bush is brighter than you .
if you only had a brain dah dot tah dot ta dah ....
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by AB5XZ on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Chairman Powell was appointed to the FCC by William Jefferson Clinton, who was at the time President of the United States.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by WA3LGG on October 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
if the local utility bpl system destroys your receiver's ability to receive, file a small claims court lawsuit to collect damages for the cost of your equipment....no lawyer is needed for small claims court....this tip is for ham ops, swl'ers, rc'ers and cb'ers who have a bpl interference problem that can't be fixed....you may win, or you may not, but being the electric co. pain in the ass might be fun....besides, the sob's charge too much for their electric service....
|
| |
|
FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Interfe
|
|
|
by N3NL on October 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
We should start to set up BPL interference
committees staffed by volunteer engineers and
experts. These committees would offer help in BPL
interference cases. They would be like the TVI
committees that operated in the 1950s when TVI was
a huge problem.
Personally, I am very disappointed by the FCC's
decision on BPL. Now we must go out and defend
ourselves from BPL interference. This applies to
short-wave listeners as well as hams.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by AE1X on October 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm with you Nick. We need to defend our turf in a responsible manner, by doing it properly maybe we can score some points with the appropriate people.
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by N6JSX on October 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No Ed, I do not want to be an ARRL member again. I was for quit a while and I worked my butt off trying to clean up the air ways in LA and later WI as the OO Coordinator. The ARRL HQ left us hanging and uses the OO program as a PR tool not giving a darn nor understanding the issues of 2m FM (the most used HAM band in the nation). The ARRL in their ignorance stripped away our field ability to even talk to the local FCC - as you guys pre-judge the PR merrits and then go for the splash or let us contend with the jammer with NO support!
The ARRL wants to be big brother to everyone about every thing and fails miserably at the OO program. I've publicly been called down and a liar by K1ZZ in his ingorant glory never investigating his own staff - first! No until I see a postive change in the mentality and personnel of HQ I'll put my time, effort, and resources towards something - anything, that will truly make a difference and benifit HAMdom. I've already informed my local EMA/Homeland Security if they would ever want to draft me as the EC they would have to pay for thte ARRL emembership as I will not. [Another farse of the ARRL - other than being a VE you must be a member to be in any significant position within the local county HAM emergency community. (I suspect it is one of the methods they use to keep their memebership numbers.)]
There are reasons why only ~20% of the HAMs in the USA are members!
Dale Kubichek, N6JSX /8
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> We should start to set up BPL interference
> committees staffed by volunteer engineers and
> experts. These committees would offer help in BPL
> interference cases. They would be like the TVI
> committees that operated in the 1950s when TVI was
> a huge problem.
>
> Personally, I am very disappointed by the FCC's
> decision on BPL. Now we must go out and defend
> ourselves from BPL interference. This applies to
> short-wave listeners as well as hams.
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/guidance_for_field_trials.doc
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/complaints.html
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/measurements.html
There are teams formed across the country right now. If you put one together in your area, have their general and technical leaders contact me and I will put them onto the bpl-local@arrl.org reflector. That list allows representatives from BPL teams across the country to communicate with each other.
73,
Ed, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KF7CG on October 21, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Craig,
It has taken me a while to get back to the list. Working the polls at early voting.
The problem with the HOAs and operating prohibitions is that they do not have to "regulate" interference causing activities. They just have to use the force of contract law to enforce their prohibitions, like the ones that prohibit running an internet business or consulting business out of your home.
For the "privilege" of living in the community all property owners signed a contract obligating them to abide by the rules of the HOA and to perform or refrain from performs such acts as may be specified in the rules of the HOA as amended from time to time.
For the normal FCC pre-emptions to apply the FCC would have to make a specific ruling that the pre-emption did apply. Something that they have been unwilling to do on the subject of Amateur antennas. The FCC even hides behind the "contract law" premise when asked to provide help on antennas, so why should they step-up and take on BPL problems when they were a cheerleader for BPL?
David
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Adopts New BPL Rules, Acknowledges its Int
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on October 23, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote from KD5DFM, “Republican commissioner , republican father and was put in position by republican president , are you sure pal , money money money makes the world go round .” When you consider that Kerry is being subsidized by George Soros and company with the millions he made from international money speculation which caused mayhem in the English financial markets your populist comments sag. I'll retire to bedlum.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
After The Dust Settles What's Left?
Texas BPL Initiative Dead; Antenna Bill Exempts Amateur Radio:
IARU Eyes Global Coordination of Amateur Radio's BPL/EMC Response:
Public BPL Database Access Restrictions Removed:
ARRL Files Federal Court of Appeals Reply Brief over BPL:
Other News Articles
New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:
Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:
Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):
Cuba Facilitates Equipment to Amateur Radio Operators:
ARNewsline # 1684 -- Nov. 20 2009:
|
