Although a few BPL providers seem to be bailing out, there seems to be a
growing trend of new ones coming on line. The ARRL has asked the FCC to
shut down immediately a few of the cronic offenders, but with no reaction
from the FCC.

The only recourse I see to this issue is Legal Action, against both the
offending BPL provider, and possibly the FCC for failing to uphold their
own regulations.

Has anyone heard of a ham preparing to take this matter to the courts?


Ed

Ed wrote:
Although a few BPL providers seem to be bailing out, there seems to be a
growing trend of new ones coming on line. The ARRL has asked the FCC to
shut down immediately a few of the cronic offenders, but with no reaction
from the FCC.

The only recourse I see to this issue is Legal Action, against both the
offending BPL provider, and possibly the FCC for failing to uphold their
own regulations.

Has anyone heard of a ham preparing to take this matter to the courts?


You might want to read this first:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html

In short, despite the FCC's cheerleading of BPL, it is almost certainly
not going to fly. It offers nothing not already provided in a better
fashion by other, superior services.

And quite frankly, it would be foolhardy to consider any legal action
before seeing the outcome of the election.

- Mike KB3EIA -

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html


Thanks., That is an interesting article, and does give some hope on
this issue. It just gauls me, though, to hear of the ARRL requesting
shutdown of some cronic RFI sources of BPL and the FCC just ignoring
those requests. If I were a ham with deep pockets suffering such
situation, I'd strongly feel compelled to seek legal recourse.


Ed

"Ed" wrote in message
. 92.175...


http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html


Thanks., That is an interesting article, and does give some hope on
this issue. It just gauls me, though, to hear of the ARRL requesting
shutdown of some cronic RFI sources of BPL and the FCC just ignoring
those requests. If I were a ham with deep pockets suffering such
situation, I'd strongly feel compelled to seek legal recourse.


Ed




They (BPL) is the unlicensed user, we (hams) are the legal users. Fire up a
KW beacon on a dead ham band.

Dan/W4NTI

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:33:43 GMT, Robert Casey wrote:

We are going to have to develop a new digital mode that looks a
lot like BPL, such that any BPL systems in the neighborhood
are trashed when we fire up the transmitter. Tough bananas
BPL providers, we are licensed...

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:37:54 GMT, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

They (BPL) is the unlicensed user, we (hams) are the legal users.
Fire up a KW beacon on a dead ham band.

It's not that simple.

At present we have protection against non-licensed users including
BPL. When it becomes uncomfortable for the BPLers, they will
petition the FCC and with enough "juice" applied, the situation may
very well change 180 degrees as to who has to protect whom.

The protection that the Rules grant can be reversed at the stroke of
a pen.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:33:43 GMT, Robert Casey wrote:


We are going to have to develop a new digital mode that looks a
lot like BPL, such that any BPL systems in the neighborhood
are trashed when we fire up the transmitter. Tough bananas
BPL providers, we are licensed...


On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:37:54 GMT, Dan/W4NTI wrote:


They (BPL) is the unlicensed user, we (hams) are the legal users.
Fire up a KW beacon on a dead ham band.


It's not that simple.

At present we have protection against non-licensed users including
BPL. When it becomes uncomfortable for the BPLers, they will
petition the FCC and with enough "juice" applied, the situation may
very well change 180 degrees as to who has to protect whom.

The protection that the Rules grant can be reversed at the stroke of
a pen.

Correct.

Do you have any idea how the rules might be rewritten so that they
exempt BPL, but don't apply to every other unlicensed service? THe act
of unlicensed services given carte blanche to interfere with the
licensed ones would indicate that they can interfere with other
unlicensed services!

Just wait until some intermod interferes with a baby monitor at the
wrong time! Guess Mr and Mrs Smith will be consoled that their neighbor
can download his porn via protected BPL.

This is the opening of a brave new world of wonders! Just imagine once
those pesky "regulations" (a swearword in republicanese) go away.

Those cheap Chinese TV's will be a couple bucks cheaper once they can
get rid of that stupid RFI shielding.

The same for computer monitors. Those sissies that are worried about
monitors pooping all over international distress frequencies can go take
a hike. The need for another broadband option and the needs of the many
far outweigh the needs of a crashed pilot. Hell he or she knew the risks
when taking off for that flight.

So many electronic items can be made cheaper by removing those stupid
interference regulations, it is a wondrous thing. The free market rulez.

Somewhere along the way, people will discover that *nothing* works
anymore tho'. ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Ed wrote:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/37378.html



Thanks., That is an interesting article, and does give some hope on
this issue. It just gauls me, though, to hear of the ARRL requesting
shutdown of some cronic RFI sources of BPL and the FCC just ignoring
those requests. If I were a ham with deep pockets suffering such
situation, I'd strongly feel compelled to seek legal recourse.

What we can do is if we live in an area served by BPL, to make an
official complaint as soon as we hear an interfereing signal. THAT will
be addressed. Coffin nails so to speak. Iff the FCC ignores tat, they
might as well ignore all RFI complaints.

I wonder what happens when BPL starts interfereing with BPL? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article 75, Ed
writes:

Has anyone heard of a ham preparing to take this matter to the courts?

Here's one success story:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/

73 de Jim, N2EY