Hi Dennis,
Thank you for your reply,
True about the disaster for radio, and yes, reguarding this treaty, the US
would probably not back away from it even others already have.
however it is also true that international law is a perception, not a
reality. Countries only abid by it when it is in their interests. by that
i mean the peoples interests... Thus there is no authority that can truely
enforce it.
73's
Rich
K5SF
From: "Dennis Baumgarte" <dbaumgarte@hvc.rr.com>
Reply-To: tentec@contesting.com
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] BPL, Harmful Interference
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:18:03 -0400
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
_________________________________________________________________
Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2
months!
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|