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

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

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 -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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?

BPL isn't an unlicensed service. It's an incidental radiator - under present
rules..

One simple change that could happen would be to define BPL as a new class of
service - perhaps with a "license" of some sort.

THe act
of unlicensed services given carte blanche to interfere with the
licensed ones would indicate that they can interfere with other
unlicensed services!

(Insert standard "not a lawyer" disclaimer here)

Who defines what constitutes "harmful interference"?

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.

Not a question of intermod. And since the baby monitors have to accept
interference today, they'd not be protected anyway.

Besides, it would be a simple matter to notch out a narrow band around 49 MHz
for old cordless phones, baby monitors, etc.

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

Just the next step in "getting the government off your back"...

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.

There are people who will argue that point.

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

Sort of.

Consider that for many people today, "radio" below UHF almost doesn't exist.
They have broadband internet (wired), cable TV (wired), cell phones (UHF)
satellite radio (UHF), maybe a wireless lan (UHF) etc. Heck, conventional NTSC
TV is supposed to be replaced by digital HDTV a few years ago, etc.

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

Nothing *old* works anymore. The solution will be simple: Go buy a new one.
(Made guess where).

Look at the history of consumer electronics since the '70s, Mike. LPs were
replaced by CDs. Beta was replaced by VHS which is being replaced by DVD in a
bunch of formats. (Remember the big old laserdiscs?) How many generations of
computers and various hardware formats have come and gone? Etc.

Our Ford had a phrase for it: "ending is better than mending"

This isn't anything new. More than 40 years ago, the major car companies knew
that, on average,a large part of the new-car-buying public was buying a new car
every 2 model years. Their goal was to get it down to every year. Back then the
average car lasted about 7-8 years, and it was a rare one to go 100,000 miles,
but the manufacturers paradigm was that it was better that way.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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?


BPL isn't an unlicensed service. It's an incidental radiator - under present
rules..

Correction noted. It is still regulated under part 15 though, yes?

One simple change that could happen would be to define BPL as a new class of
service - perhaps with a "license" of some sort.


THe act
of unlicensed services given carte blanche to interfere with the
licensed ones would indicate that they can interfere with other
unlicensed services!


(Insert standard "not a lawyer" disclaimer here)

Who defines what constitutes "harmful interference"?

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.

Not a question of intermod. And since the baby monitors have to accept
interference today, they'd not be protected anyway.

BPL is susceptible to intermod effects is it not? I'm assuming that if
it is at different frequencies, that the frequencies can add and
subtract just like other RF.

Besides, it would be a simple matter to notch out a narrow band around 49 MHz
for old cordless phones, baby monitors, etc.

Except for that intermod problem, which would get to you via the
"incidental radiator"

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


Just the next step in "getting the government off your back"...


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.


There are people who will argue that point.

What amazes me is that there are some people that will agree with it!! 8^O


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


Sort of.

Consider that for many people today, "radio" below UHF almost doesn't exist.
They have broadband internet (wired), cable TV (wired), cell phones (UHF)
satellite radio (UHF), maybe a wireless lan (UHF) etc. Heck, conventional NTSC
TV is supposed to be replaced by digital HDTV a few years ago, etc.


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

Nothing *old* works anymore. The solution will be simple: Go buy a new one.
(Made guess where).

That shouldn't matter. Buy a new unshielded device to replace the old
unshielded device. Same problems and more. There really is only so much
spectrum to use

Look at the history of consumer electronics since the '70s, Mike. LPs were
replaced by CDs. Beta was replaced by VHS which is being replaced by DVD in a
bunch of formats. (Remember the big old laserdiscs?) How many generations of
computers and various hardware formats have come and gone? Etc.

I have to live with the problems caused by that. When you have to
archive digital data, the disappearing machine paradigm causes us to
have to re-archive, and re-archive and re-archive. Coupled with the fact
that CD's are now considered to be extremely non-archival, it's a
nightmare, or at least almost a full time job for someone!

Our Ford had a phrase for it: "ending is better than mending"

This isn't anything new. More than 40 years ago, the major car companies knew
that, on average,a large part of the new-car-buying public was buying a new car
every 2 model years. Their goal was to get it down to every year. Back then the
average car lasted about 7-8 years, and it was a rare one to go 100,000 miles,
but the manufacturers paradigm was that it was better that way.

And now (most) Automobiles cost so much that people have to take out
longer and longer term loans. I know people that have 7 year car loans!
This new paradigm is near it's endgame also. I note that the local car
dealerships are filled to bursting with those 35-40 thousand dollar cars.

- Mike KB3EIA -