Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#122
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 27 Mar 2004 08:05:03 GMT, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Yep, back when the agency was run by technically knowledgeable people who would have laughed BPL right out the door. Those days left with Jimmy Carter's administration. Y'know, you're right. Until Carter got in, the Chairman was Dick Wiley, an extremely knowledgeable comm lawyer who could understand things technical without any problem and knew what the Commission was supposed to do. Very impressive. Carter replaced him with Charlie Ferris, Tip O'Neill's bag-carrier, in a patently political payback. Ferris brought in the economists and the consumer-ists for top management and policy-setting positions and the slippery slope started. In the Reagan-Bush_I years that followed Carter, there were a succession of lightweight Chairmen epitomized by "Madman Mark" Fowler, a comm lawyer who couldn't get a significant law partnership after he was replaced by Reed Hundt - the guy who took the field apart because he didn't understand what enforcement was all about and why the agency had to do it - when Clinton got in. Hundt was followed by Bill Kenard, whose greatest achievement was to make the spectrum auction system work. Bush_II brought us Michael Powell, the cheerleader of BPL. And Jim wonders why I'm embarrassed ?? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
#123
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#124
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
: "Alun" wrote in message ... What's irresponsible about excercising our privileges on our frequencies. How could it be jamming when BPL isn't a radio transmission? I have not and would never advocate jamming. Alun, I did not suggest that *you* were advocating operations designed to intentionally disrupt BPL. However, I have seem some comments that, if they don't outright advocate it, come so close that the BPL spin doctors could clearly make them look so. We do have a right to use our frequencies in legitimate ways that our licenses permit. All I am saying is that discussing - even if in jest - operations designed specifically to disrupt BPL are a VERY bad idea and will harm our cause. 73, Carl - wk3c I disagree. I consider it to be valid testing. The ARRL has been active in looking at what would be radiated by UPL, but those who propose it don't care about that. If, OTOH, it can be shown that BPL falls over when exposed to licenced services, they will care about that. Our position is stronger now than it would be with millions of entrenched BPL users in place. |
#125
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Phil Kane wrote: On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote: I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how interference is to be mitigated. That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air because of same. The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in the mid 1980s....... It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15 devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground to preserve aesthetic standards. There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access, because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done about it. Isn't that the case now? If my computer monitor interferes with my cordless phone, can I insist that FCC fix the problem? Just try! All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone, then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so the list will grow... But will a device that meets Part 15 "30 meter" specifications interfere with BPL? I don't think so. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#126
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote: I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how interference is to be mitigated. That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air because of same. Uh-oh... The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in the mid 1980s....... "Getting the government off our backs"... It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15 devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground to preserve aesthetic standards. And even if BPL is not deployed on a wide scale, setting that precedent makes the *next* battle that much less winnable. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#128
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 28 Mar 2004 04:04:30 GMT, Alun wrote:
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. The danger in that is a repeat of the fiasco that occurred at the height of the unlicensed CB enforcement problem. The Commish' was asked by The Congress what its most costly field enforcement problem was. The reply was "tracking down and citing unlicened CB operators". The result was ordering the Commish' to drop the license requirement and changing the law to allow such. Poof -- the problem went away. Instantaneously. Let's hope that the same "instantaneous solution" method doesn't happen when ham HF signals are intercepted by BPL users and the complaints start flowing to the Commish'. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
#129
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#130
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 3/28/2004 3:32 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (the paralegal gunnery nurse) rants, raves, and writes: But, on the thread SUBJECT...the FCC cannot directly stop Access BPL. It doesn't have the direct legal authority to do so. All the FCC can do right now is to set standards on the levels of incidental RF radiation from an Access BPL system. That is what NPRM 04-29 is all about. Sure it can. The second a complaint is filed by an FCC licensee they ahve the authority to stop it. To "stop" WHAT? There's NO Report and Order from the FCC saying that Access BPL exists per se. If the proposed rulemaking given in NPRM 04-29 becomes an R&O, then it has a specific definition in terms of incidental RF radiation levels. What "R&O" is required for the FCC to go to Joe Schmo's Cable Company and say "your system is interfering with Commission licensees, and you'll either stop it or we'll invoke NAL's..??? Right now, the FCC regulations on incidental radiation devices...(SNIP) Thank you for YOUR "paralegal" advice, Lennie, but it doesn't stack up. Kind of spoils all your ranting and posturing with reality of the situation, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk. Lennie, NOTHING you cited "ruins" anything. I am a Commission licensee. If I start experiencing interference to my otherwise properly operating station, it's teh FCC's OBLIGATION to resolve the issue. Sorry you don't agree. Steve, K4YZ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NPRM and VEC | General | |||
BPL NPRM Approved | Policy | |||
BPL NPRM | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse coderequirement. | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |