| 
				  
 
			
			In article   , "Dee D. Flint"writes:
 
 "David Stinson"  wrote in message
 .  ..
 Forgive me if this has been mentioned before-
 I haven't read this group for years.
 Concerning fighting BPL, which the power industry
 is ramming at us using Part 15, why can't
 we use Part 15 to clobber *them?*
 
 The FCC has a history of listening when you quote
 their own laws to them.  Here is a good one:
 
 It has been mentioned many times before.  The fear is that commercial
 interests will be able to convince the FCC to change the rules so that hams
 have no defense against BPL.
 
 Do you have FCC NPRMs on your "killfile," too, Dee?   :-)
 
 If you look carefully at NPRM 04-29, you will find that they are NOT
 going to change the levels of incidental radiation to above today's
 standards.  The Commission isn't giving in to any Access BPL
 company's request to increase the incidental radiation.
 
 The FCC is NOT sanctioning Access BPL nor is it "licensing" it.
 They can't get involved directly with an Access BPL unless a
 system's service area crosses a state boundary.  All the FCC can
 really do is regulate INCIDENTAL RF radiation from any system.
 
 Part 15, Title 47 C.F.R. is involved with INCIDENTAL RF radiation.
 
 Are you or is anyone displeased with the levels of incidental
 RF radiation now in the Regulations (and has been the same for
 years)?  If so, what have you DONE other than scare up the
 village that some bogeything appeared?
 
 The NPRM 04-29 changes are mainly with a definition of the
 service and some of the test methods to insure that incidental RF
 radiation stays within regulations...regulations that aren't going to
 be raised.  READ the NPRM and all its footnotes before jumping
 off into some rant.
 
 Do you or anyone else have a bitch, gripe, or other complaint about
 the existing incidental RF radiation limits?  If so, DO something
 about it.  COMMUNICATE with the FCC...or with your elected
 congresscritter who could, if you don't write in crayon, forward it to
 the FCC which is obliged by law to make it part of the pulic record.
 
 Or, you or anyone else can stay on newsgroups and foment more
 and more hysteria about falling skies like so many headless
 Chicken Littles.
 
 Do you or anyone else want to make a case about "monitoring the
 interference" from an Access BPL system now under test?  If so,
 get some amateurs who Know How To Measure, use some radio
 receivers that have been calibrated with a traceable source, using
 good (professional) standards and practices, describing all of it
 along with the monitoring record.  A tape or WAV file full of noise
 all by itself isn't going to cut it as the "evidence."  [I can generate
 one of those using a SWLBC portable and standing next to a power
 substation and it won't be worth technical squat]  Know what you
 are doing technically.  FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology
 can talk technical.  Few hams can.
 
 Or, you can sit back and play morseperson on your radios and let
 the ARRL do all the work.  But, think about it.  The A in ARRL
 stands for Amateur.  ARRL has only one legal firm representing
 them in DC.  There are over a half dozen Access BPL companies
 and more in the wings, PROs who want some potential profit, all
 with their own legal firm representatives.  Legal-wise, the ARRL is
 outnumbered.  Quit trying to act the spoiled child "deserving of
 the attention" because you are hams and essentially hobbyists.
 
 By the way, if you or anyone else wants to assert you are
 untouchable becasue of that license, try reviewing Parts
 97.101 (d), 97.121, and 97.303 (a).  Or contact the Enforcement
 Bureau at the FCC.
 
 But, if you insist that the sky is falling even when it isn't, continue
 the hysteria build-up and make yourselves and the "amateur
 community" look like dummies.
 
 LHA / WMD
 
 |