In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to
even us poor dumb amateurs.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...:-)

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.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Since the FCC has NO power to "stop" any Access BPL now,
the thousands of amateurs complaining about it aren't going to be
at all effective in stopping it. All that proceedings 04-37, 03-104,
and 04-29 in the ECFS are seemingly good for is a place to vent
steam generated by whatever frustrations all those thousands of
amateurs must have.

Anyone who really wants to "stop" Access BPL would have better
luck contacting their federal congressperson or senator and tell
Congress to stop it. The FCC doesn't have the legal power to
stop Access BPL; all the FCC can do right now is to set regulations
for incidental RF radiation levels.

I've made my comments on all three proceedings. That's in the
public record. Maybe it is effective, maybe not. The point is that
I and all of us can DO it. We have the direct input to the FCC and
the congresspersons have web addresses and postal addresses.
I am NOT going to do anyone's work for them. I sure as heck
can't tell anyone in this newsgrope what to do, can I? :-)

Besides, argumentative one, you've implied so many times that
you "know" what the FCC thinks. That's a key to get them to
"stop" Access BPL, isn't it? Why don't you spread around that
information for all to share? Show your dedication and
committment to the "amateur community."

LHA / WMD

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

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.

"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.

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

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

Subject: BPL NPRM v. NOI
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

You've waved your "professional" credentials here innumerable times, but you
can't tell us how to convince FCC of something that's blaringly obvious to
even us poor dumb amateurs.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a low self-image.

You can't bolster that low self-image by attempting to force others
into answering your questions...those usually a set-up for an
expected reply...

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.

So far, literally thousands of amateurs have complained bitterly
about Access BPL to the FCC on proceedings 03-104, 04-37,
and 04-29. They've demanded that the FCC "stop" it. The FCC
cannot "stop" it. All the FCC can do is set standards for incidental
RF radiation from Access BPL systems. Very, very few, if any,
amateurs have suggested ANY levels of such RF radiation limits
other than zero as in stopping Access BPL entirely.

Sure they can "stop it".

Steve, K4YZ

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

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.

Right now, the FCC regulations on incidental radiation devices, Part
15, Title 47 C.F.R., simply acknowledge devices that radiate RF and
include maximum signal levels. There are limitations on the FCC's
"stopping" power since they must investigate interference claims
first in order to determine unspecified or unidentifiable sources of
such interference. There are NO "radio police officers" at the FCC,
just an Enforcement Bureau which may or may not ask for U.S.
Federal Marshals to be the "police officers" accompanying FCC
investigating agents.

There are NO widely-distributed public documents on the technical
details of any of the Access BPL systems currently undergoing
tests. There are NO specific details available on the incidental RF
radiation signal levels from any of those Access BPL test sites.
The FCC doesn't have any. The ARRL has only some audio and
video examples for download. Access BPL proponents have NO
specific data for public release other than a lot of PR BS. NO
radio amateurs have done any quantitative calculation or modeling
to simulate the actual Access BPL test installations' levels.

Further, the FCC is NOT "in charge" of approval or disapproval
of Access BPL as a system despite what a lot of commenters on
three ECFS procedings think. All the FCC can do is regulate the
amount of incidental RF radiation from the system. Right now,
NOBODY, probably not even the proponents, have any real
numbers on those RF radiation levels. Until someone comes up
with those real numbers from real tests done by real instruments
at real sites, all the complainants are shouting and hollering in
the dark, posturing and ranting like so many did during the
McCarthy communist witch hunting during the 1950s. Federal
law on technical subjects requires actual information that can be
incorporated into that law. Until then all of the fuss and furor,
the fist-shaking and shield-waving, posturing, and epithet-throwing,
threats of "action" is just a lot of silly, ignorant BS tossing.

In NPRM 04-29, the FCC is asking for DATA to use, just as they
did in NOI 03-104. I don't see any of that data.in 5,956 documents
of three proceedings in the ECFS. Show real numbers.

Kind of spoils all your ranting and posturing with reality of the
situation, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk.

LHA / WMD

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