Keith wrote in news:106acqfbbo6k117
@corp.supernews.com:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:37:31 GMT,
Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:11:05 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

IOW, if I know my neighbor has BPL access, does my continued use of my
HF amateur privileges when I know that tests show that the only HF
signal that did not knock a BPL signal out was at the QRP level
constitute that willful interference?

I say no, but the other side has an interesting interpretation.

Maybe Phil could weigh in on this one too?

This attorney says that if you are operating within the FCC Rule
requirements then any interception by a system which is not intended
to receive those signals - be it an audio device or a BPL system -
is the problem of the affected system operator and not of the
transmitter operator or licensee.

That isn't the point Phil, these emails and newsgroup posts could
be presented to the FCC and Congress to prove that all the interference
to BPL is intentional by ham radio operators and that the government
should stop the hams from destroying the Internet or whatever
argument the deep pockets of the BPL industry want to use
to stop complaints by ham radio operators.



All I advocate is that we excercise our privileges. As Phil points out, the
law is on our side. For the record, I only have a 600W linear and it
doesn't even work!

From a serious angle (and you can start a new thread if you really want to
play ostrich and bury your head in the sand!) we do in fact need to
demonstrate what 1500 W at close proximity will do to BPL. If in fact it
does wipe it out (which wouldn't be surprising, but which we don't really
know for sure) then Mr Powell really does need to find that out, and sooner
rather than later. It can't do us the least bit of good for the FCC to
discover that only after BPL has been rolled out nationwide. Intervening to
bring those circumstances about before that is not intentional
interference, at least not from a legal point of view. The right word for
it is testing.