I somewhat agree with you, Cortland. The BPL proponents did not gain seem to
gain ground here. Most hams are unhappy because hams didn't make
a touchdown here and squash BPL completely. It will take time to determine
how bad this ruling really is. The unfortunate thing is that the camel now
has his nose under the tent.
I have one question for the FCC and the BPL proponents. If interference
isn't a big issue, then why did they intentionally avoid the AM broadcast
band? I believe we all know the answer. It is because they know it will
interfere and they knew BPL wouldn't fly if they interfered with the AM
broadcast band. AM is far more ubiquitous than any other HF user.
My biggest concerns are:
1) Skywave propagation. Nobody has figured out yet how much this will raise
the ambient noise floor all across the country/globe. I may be able to move
somewhere that isn't serviced by BPL, but I can't get away from skywave
propagation of BPL hash. How does the FCC justify deploying this without
knowing how it will affect the ambient noise floor all over the globe. Aren't
there international treaties covering such things?
2) Enforcement of interference prohibitions. How can the FCC possibly believe
they can enforce this? It often takes years to fix power line noise. Why
do they think this will be any better?
I think the biggest complainers about BPL are hams. As a result, if I were
in the BPL business the first thing I would do is notch out all of the HF
ham bands. It would be cheaper than spot filtering whenever there's a
complaint. That won't help other HF users, but it will probably shut up
the biggest source of interference complaints.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:04:11 -0800, "Cortland Richmond" wrote:
>
> Before folks get into the griping and plotting (too late!) mode, I'd like
> to say this is not a defeat. The NOI was about whether the FCC should
> increase permitted conducted and radiated emission levels. BPL didn't get
> what they asked for. They DID get a new, additional requirement to stop
> interfering when contacted locally; Part 15 only requires generators of
> interference to stop only when contacted by the Commission.
>
> Yes, they'll make a hash of the spectrum. But not any more so than Part 15
> allowed them to before their unwise request for special treatment. And if
> all the folks they interfere with complain, there won't be many frequencies
> left for them to use. I am a MARS member, and the frequency matrices of the
> Tri-Service MARS programs, plus the Amateur bands, would pretty much rule
> out their profitable use of HF.
>
> Of course now we have to work at keeping them in line.
>
> Cortland Richmond
> KA5S / AAR9UT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jim Brown <jimbrown.enteract@rcn.com>
> > To: RFI List <rfi@contesting.com>
> > Date: 2/13/2004 7:36:36 AM
> > Subject: [RFI] FCC okays BPL proposal
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:20:58 -0500, ARRL Web site wrote:
> >
> > >The FCC has unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
> > >(NPRM) to deploy Broadband over Power Line (BPL).
> >
> > As a city resident and ong time believer that one should be a good
> > neighbor, and as a ham who believes that much of the fun of operating
> > lies in doing it with lower power, I've never run more than 100 watts
> > in my 49 years of hamming.
> >
> > BPL changes that. I'm buying a legal limit amplifier, and I'm going to
> > use it a lot.
> >
> > Use it, or lose it.
> >
> > Oh -- and I'm also going to work very hard to defeat Republicans in the
> > upcoming elections, who are the reason the FCC is packed with folks who
> > think all of this is a good idea.
> >
> > Jim Brown K9YC
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|