Rich:
The U.S. would not do this for it would not only cause disaster in the
radio law but would set a presedent that the US for business gain woud frogo
international law..
Dennis AE2EE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Detweiler" <rdetweil@hotmail.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Cc: <w1rfi@arrl.org>; <DJ5IL@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: [TenTec] BPL, Harmful Interference
> Using International Law may be a very good argument and a possible tool
for
> to convince the FCC.
>
> However,
>
> To depend on 'international law' is a dangerous prospect, The dependency
> implies loss of ones sovereignty.
>
> International law is based on customary procedures, not so much actual
legal
> laws, A country, any country, can withdraw from a treaty or ignore
sections
> of a treaty at almost any time it begins to be contrary to the
population's
> interests. This is done frequently without significant recourse. The
only
> reason a country would follow international laws as such is if it were in
> both countries mutual interests.
>
> Even though the idea of using international law is intriguing, I for one
> would be very careful in using it in anything more than a reminder that
the
> treaty is there.
>
> The markets may well dicatate the success or failure in the end.
>
> 73's
> Rich
> K5SF
>
>
> >From: DJ5IL@aol.com
> >Reply-To: tentec@contesting.com
> >To: tentec@contesting.com
> >CC: w1rfi@arrl.org
> >Subject: [TenTec] BPL, Harmful Interference
> >Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:13:02 EDT
> >
> > > I'd appreciate some help in finding the definition of "harmful
> >interference"
> > > per 47 C. F. R. paragraph 15.5(b). I'm working on my letter to the
FCC
> >and
> > > my congressional representatives.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jim, W8KGI
> >
> >Jim,
> >
> >I follow the BPL discussion in your country with great interest. In
Europe
> >that dirty technology is called PLC (Power Line Communication) and here
> >in Germany we had to face that threat long before it became a topic in
the
> >USA. Unfortunately it seems to be barely known that all radio services
are
> >defined within and ruled by international law. I will take the
opportunity
> >to
> >point out the most important and relevant details. It is quite
astonishing
> >that the
> >International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Radio Regulations are
> >not even mentioned on the very detailed PLC information page of the ARRL
> >(http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/). Because I consider this to be
> >very
> >important, a copy of this email goes to Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi@arrl.org).
> >
> >The amateur radio service is defined within the International
> >Telecommunication Convention of the ITU. Currently 189 states, among
> >them the United States of America and Germany, have signed this
Convention
> >and the 'Radio Regulations' and thus are strictly bound to it.
> >
> >Here are some important definitions and articles of the Radio Regulations
> >which are binding law for all ITU member states:
> >
> >Radio Regulations, Article I, Terms and Definitions:
> >
> >"1.19 radiocommunication service: A service as defined in this Section
> >involving the transmission, emission and/or reception of radio waves for
> >specific telecommunication purposes."
> >
> >"1.56 amateur service: A radiocommunication service for the purpose
> >of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried
> >out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio
> >technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."
> >
> >"1.96 amateur station: A station in the amateur service."
> >
> >"1.137 radiation: The outward flow of energy from any source in the
> >form of radio waves."
> >
> >"1.138 emission: Radiation produced, or the production of radiation,
> >by a radio transmitting station."
> >
> >"1.166 interference: The effect of unwanted energy due to one or a
> >combination of emissions, radiations, or inductions upon reception in a
> >radiocommunication system, manifested by any performance degradation,
> >misinterpretation, or loss of information which could be extracted in the
> >absence of such unwanted energy."
> >
> >"1.169 harmful interference: Interference which endangers the functioning
> >of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously
> >degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication
> >service operating in accordance with these Regulations."
> >
> >Radio Regulations, Article 15:
> >
> >"15.12 § 8 Administrations shall take all practicable and necessary
> >steps to ensure that the operation of electrical apparatus or
installations
> >of any kind, including power and telecommunication distribution
> >networks ... does not cause harmful interference to a radiocommunication
> >service and, in particular, to a radionavigation or any other safety
> >service
> >operating in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations."
> >
> >Radio Regulations, Article 25:
> >
> >"25.8 § 5 1) All the general rules of the Convention, the Convention
> >and of these Regulations shall apply to amateur stations."
> >
> >Please note thet the definition of "harmful interference" in the Radio
> >Regulations that are binding law for all ITU member states does not
contain
> >a reference to any EMC emission limits. In fact, harmful interference is
> >not
> >defined in quantity by exceeding any limits but *in quality* by it's
effect
> >on
> >radio communications. By definition any effect of unwanted energy due to
> >one or a combination of emissions, radiations, or inductions upon
> >reception in a radiocommunication system is an interference. If such an
> >interference seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts any
> >radiocommunication service operating in accordance with these
> >Regulations it is a harmful interference, no matter which standards are
> >met or not met by the source of interference. In that case,
administrations
> >shall take all practicable and necessary steps to stop that interference.
> >
> >The essential EMC requirements are that electrical and electronic
> >appliances shall be so constructed that: the electromagnetic disturbance
> >it generates does not exceed a level allowing radio and
telecommunications
> >equipment and other apparatus to operate as intended and the apparatus
> >has an adequate level of intrinsic immunity to electromagnetic
disturbance
> >to enable it to operate as intended. EMC standards define technical
> >characteristics which can be used to meet these essential requirements.
> >However, and this is important, if such appliance meets the standards it
is
> >only *presumed* to comply with the essential requirements, nothing more.
> >This is not just my personal interpretation but a fact that you can find
in
> >many places, for example within the "EMVG" (EMC Act) as part of our
> >national German law. In the case of EMC emission limits this is logically
> >the only possible way to go, because otherwise the standards would
> >infringe the Radio Regulations and thus international law.
> >
> >The consequence is: If any electrical or electronic appliance, for
example
> >a PLC-modem, interferes with your reception and your station is in the
> >amateur radio service, then you definitely have the right to complain and
> >it does absolutely not matter if the unwanted radiation from that
appliance
> >is within any EMC emission limits. Of course it is highly desireable to
> >have
> >EMC emission limits as low as possible, but regardless of any standards
> >amateur radio as well as any other radio service as defined within the
> >Radio Regulations are protected by international law. That's why it is so
> >important for us that amateur radio is defined as a radio *service* in
> >contrast to other radio applications.
> >
> >Radio amateurs should not hesitate to complain in the case of harmful
> >interference and show that they know their rights. The more complaints
the
> >authority receives, the higher is the chance that the administration will
> >favour low emission limits, because they have to fear a disaster when
they
> >are forced to solve thousands of cases of harmful interference.
> >
> >73
> >Karl, DJ5IL
> >_______________________________________________
> >TenTec mailing list
> >TenTec@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|