You should think about how a power company, who probably already does a
poor job of responding to noise complaints today is going to respond to
complaints about a completely new technology (to them) and how that can
go dreadfully wrong. How about complaints from users that their new BPL
service keeps suffering outages - will they be told it's because of Joe
Ham down the road from them? Think about how these situations could be a
disaster for ham radio, and then respond to the current dockett on the
FCC response system with suggestions on how the companies could be
regulated in a way that would reduce or eliminate those problems. That's
what this is all about now, and we need to give input that could help
them make the right decisions. Then send the same letter with
introductory information to your congressmen and senators. Mine is
already sent, but we need lots of good, thoughtful input.
73, Duane
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:03:15 -0800 "John Clifford"
<johnclif@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Okay, I read the FCC Notice. As a ham I am also concerned about
> possible
> interference and I believe Ed Hare and others when they say that BPL
> as it's
> implemented now causes massive across-the-band interference well
> above Part
> 15 limits.
>
> But the FCC Notice says that BPL will be required to abide by Part
> 15. If
> BPL causes interference to licensed services (including us hams)
> then it has
> to come up with a way to cease interfering and if this can only be
> done by
> ceasing operation then so be it.
>
> So, this gives the BPL implementors motivation to come up with a way
> to
> reduce interference to a point that it doesn't affect us. There
> seem to be
> several methods, but the obvious one (and provided/called for by the
> Notice)
> is for them to lock out frequencies that are causing interference.
> If they
> don't transmit anything below 30 Mhz or notch out all of the amateur
> freqs
> as well as freqs that would cause problems from harmonics, then
> interference
> to HF amateur radio should be impossible... right?
>
> If BPL is implemented so that it doesn't interferere with ham radio,
> then
> why should we as hams give a fig about it? Having more options for
> broadband access is a good thing as long as no problems occur (I
> agree with
> the FCC on this). If it DOES interfere, then under Part 15 the BPL
> provider
> is required to fix it.
>
> It looks like the future will see widespread rollout of BPL. I
> wonder if
> there will be reason for widespread complaints filed by amateurs,
> and how
> quickly the response to correct the problems will be (and that
> quickness is
> a real problem because if they only have to be as responsive as they
> are
> concerning ordinary power line interference then we're in trouble).
>
> Finally... seems to me that it would be more cost-effective for the
> power
> line providers to set up neighborhood Wi-Fi nodes every 1/4 mile or
> so and
> then charge for that. The equipment is out there, no interference
> problems,
> and Wi-Fi is being built-in to more and more equipment. Maybe the
> cell
> phone companies will beat them to the punch.
>
> - jgc
>
> John Clifford KD7KGX
>
> Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9
> Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2/KPA100
> Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1, Centaur, 238B
> Alinco DR-605TQ, DJ-V5
> Icom T90A
>
> IRLP #3978
>
> email: kd7kgx@arrl.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
Duane Calvin, AC5AA
Austin, Texas
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|