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:

************
TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General

Sec. 15.5 General conditions of operation.

(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators
shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right
to continued use of any given frequency by virtue
of prior registration or certification of equipment, or,
for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior
notification of use pursuant to Sec. 90.63(g) of this chapter.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or
unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM)
equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.

*************

We are federally licensed stations. If their "Part 15"
"incidental radiators" interfere with our stations,
the law REQUIRES the power companies to cease
their operations until the interferance is fixed.

Why can't we take this angle to clobber these guys?

73 DE Dave Stinson AB5S

"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:

************
TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General

Sec. 15.5 General conditions of operation.

(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators
shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right
to continued use of any given frequency by virtue
of prior registration or certification of equipment, or,
for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior
notification of use pursuant to Sec. 90.63(g) of this chapter.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or
unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM)
equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.

*************

We are federally licensed stations. If their "Part 15"
"incidental radiators" interfere with our stations,
the law REQUIRES the power companies to cease
their operations until the interferance is fixed.

Why can't we take this angle to clobber these guys?

73 DE Dave Stinson AB5S



They are counting on the fact that most of us HF spectrum users are so
fragmented, and at each others throat, that we could NEVER get up a real
legal action. And they are probably right.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , David Stinson
writes:

We are federally licensed stations. If their "Part 15"
"incidental radiators" interfere with our stations,
the law REQUIRES the power companies to cease
their operations until the interferance is fixed.

Why can't we take this angle to clobber these guys?

That's exactly what the NPRM says will happen. Take a look and read it
carefully - it's full of verbiage that says the BPL guys must "remediate".

Of course that's great in theory, but the practice is something else again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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