RadioBanter - View Single Post - BPL Pilot Project In Cedar Rapids Shuts Down

July 3rd 04, 08:44 PM

In article ,
(Sigmund Fraud) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Oddly enough, despite the urban myth of some objecting to BPL,
the FCC does NOT have any power to stop Access BPL!

Actually, they do.

NO, they don't have ANY ability to STOP any Access BPL.

Yes, they do.

If the Access BPL system does not radiate incidental RF beyond
FCC regulations, the FCC is powerless to do anything about an
Access BPL system.

That might change in the future...but then the NTIA and FCC
would be vying for control of the information highway.

All the FCC can do - at the moment and in what they will probably
have on a new R&O - is the ability to stop INCIDENTAL RF
RADIATION beyond the level established by the Commission.

Wrong....Again.

Incorrect. Quite right as I stated.

The FCC has NO power at present to control broadband
distribution of the Internet or other data services on any Access
BPL system. All the FCC can do - and are apparently NOT doing -
is checking the incidental RF radiation levels of installed Access
BPL systems in the USA.

Where is it indicated by the FCC has actually gone out and
measured the incidental RF radiation from any installed Access
BPL system? Answer: They haven't.

The broadband communications service over Access BPL can
CONTINUE in the USA.

Not as long as it creates interference.

The installed Access BPL systems ARE creating incidental RF
radiation on HF and low-VHF. Now.

FCC hasn't done any measurements. Other folks have.

Docket 04-37 is about an NPRM by the FCC to further define the
test and measurement parameters of BPL plus add a definition
in Part 15 about Access BPL. The FCC hasn't done any
measurements...they haven't established - for themselves - a way
to do it. Not even a year after they asked about it (docket 03-104
an NOI or Notice of Inquiry).

The FCC is NOT acting on their chartered (by law) task of civil
radio. Access BPL is NOT a radio service.

All the FCC can do is put limits on the incidental RF radiation
from a BPL system, then enforce it.

It would be a simple matter for FCC to set the levels so low that none of
the
systems could come close to meeting it. That would effectively ban it.

But FCC won't do that. Yet.

FCC doesn't come even close to the German levels already
established.

Even so, the FCC CANNOT STOP Access BPL. Do you under-
stand your own error? Access BPL can, and already does, by
rather obvious examples, ALREADY EXCEED REGULATORY
STANDARDS on incidental RF radiation levels.

Then the FCC CAN stop it. Wether they will or not is subject to
debate. But they CAN stop it.

All the FCC seems to be doing is sending letters.

There are several open issues of electric power lines in the USA
causing excessive incidental RF radiation. That hasn't been
stopped.

The measured incidental RF radiation from already-installed
BPL test systems has already exceeded FCC regulations. Those
test systems haven't been stopped.

Read the NTIA Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports.

The NTIA does not enact nor enforce FCC rules and regulations.

No kidding? :-)

Why did you bring up your supreme court ruling?

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 pretty well outlines (by law)
which agency does what and where.

If you bother to look (which you obviously haven't), the NTIA does
have the legally-authorized power to measure things like the
incidental RF radiation from unintentional emitters. NTIA also has
power to consider spectrum utilization insofar as the entirety of
the United States.

The NTIA study does NOT try to take over anything. It is a study
of already-installed Access BPL systems and comment on the
impact of such incidental RF radiation on existing radio services,
both civil and government.

Well, what are you going to DO about it? Just sit there and send
messages on a broadband provider talking all about "CW getting
through when nothing else does?"

No one has made that assertion in this thread, Lennie.

Well, what is the forever murine going to DO about BPL?

Point fingers, shout and yell because his little pride has been
hurt in the newsgroup? Tsk, tsk. Poor baby.

Access BPL has already been proved to radiate excessive RF
noise at all test installations in the USA. Enough so that the
NTIA higher echelons have declared - A 10 db increase in the
noise floor on HF is a small price to pay for increased availability
of broadband for all citizens.

So, the forever murine wants to accept an HF noise floor that
is ten times higher in noise power? Apparently so.

Please try to keep your emotions from interfering with judgement.

(oooooops....too late...)

The incidental RF radiation from overhead electric power lines is
going to affect ANYONE trying to listen on HF and some low-VHF
frequencies.

Uh huh.

And the FCC has issued dozens of letters to those carriers demanding they
clean up their act or else.

WHERE are all those "dozens of letters" to "carriers?" [service
providers]

There's no, repeat NO, evidence of "dozens of letters" in public view.

I've ALREADY addressed the ENTIRE COMMISSION as ignorant
on technical matters. They are. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum.
[it is as demonstrated] That's in public view, on the record.

So are your frequent misrepresentations of the character of Amateur
Radio, your military record, and your professional "career".

Irrelevant in this discussion. The forever murine wants to FIGHT
over old, old issues he lost long ago in here. That is NOT a part
of the good work done by the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, amateur radio
organization on their Access BPL problems.

Dozens of licensed radio amateurs, organizations have already
chided the Commission on their apparent ignorance of technical
matters concerning Access BPL. Add to that at least four
state-licensed professional engineers who have no amateur radio
licenses. It's all there in over 1500 Comments on docket 04-37.

Another personal attack on someone who didn't attack you personally.

Putz.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The forever murine resorts to Yiddish colloquialisms
which are pejoratives again?

The forever murine speaks Yiddish? Hebrew? He thinks it is "okay"
to use foreign (to him) cuss words because he isn't familiar with
the language? Yet the forever murine tries to object when another
uses Anglo-Saxon four-letter words...saying that is "profanity!"

:-)

The ARRL is NOT the major objector to Access BPL. You could see
that from the comments on dockets 04-37 or 03-104. But, you can't
see that and continue with the "praise the league" as if they were the
only group against BPL.

That's not what he said.

Rev. Jimmie cannot fault the ARRL in much. The League is
sacrosanct to him. That's what he has said repeatedly in many
many messages in here.

What "help" did the ARRL do in Cedar Rapids, Iowa?

Identify that "help."

The Cedar Rapids group WENT OUT AND DID IT BY THEMSELVES.

They TOOK ACTION.

They didn't go around mumbling catechisms for the league and do
nothing. THEY DID SOMETHING.

Uh huh.

Supported by League elected field leadership.

Describe this "field leadership." :-)

You cannot describe it because you do NOT know it. All you can
do is mouth very general phrases. Tsk.

How do you know what it would take, Len? Have you done it?
Have you sent a check to help out?

Why are you trying to start a Flame War on this?

He asked you a direct question.

Nope. It was a leading question. Irrelevant.

I praised the Cedar Rapids amateur radio group for their efforts
which are clearly seen in several docket 04-37 comments.

Somehow the forever murine can't understand that.

What have YOU done to help support the anti-BPL effort?

Far far more than the forever murine has done. :-)

Clue: Access BPL is NOT a "radio service."

Clue: It IS a communications technique deployed via an FCC-controlled
medium.

Incorrect. It is not a "communications technique." Try to get
reasonably close to the correct nomenclature.

The FCC does not "control mediums." It regulates USA civil radio
according to Congressional laws Communications Act of 1934 and
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Access BPL systems are NOT radio systems. They do not
intentionally broadcast any information, broadband or otherwise.

The FCC can regulate the incidental RF radiation from devices.
So far, the FCC doesn't do a good job on those incidental RF
radiation devices other than Access BPL.

Access BPL has INCIDENTAL RF RADIATION that is "not intentioned
to transmit any radio frequency information."

And that "incidental radiation" IS an FCC regulated value.

It is a level. [try to use common terms, it makes it easier for others
to understand what you are mumbling about...]

So far, the only "regulation" on incidental RF radiation devices has
been some letter writing and trying to calm down irritated citizens
who are still victims of RF noise pollution.

Access BPL is a broadband communications carrier. As such it
might be - at some future time - under FCC control IF IT CROSSES
STATE BOUNDARIES in providing such a communication service.
[the telephone infrastructure already crosses state boundaries by
default since the communications capabilities are so built-in]

It already IS under FCC control.

The forever murine still doesn't understand the issue over Access
BPL. Try to understand. It is difficult but, if you apply yourself
dilligently, you MIGHT be able to understand.

Are you ever going to participate in that "civil debate" that you always
lament others as allegededly not doing?

Not in an atmosphere of the forever murine always calling his
perceived enemies as "putz." :-)

Why are you trying to hide from the obvious RF pollution?

A thorough read of Jim's posts indicate otherwise.

Incorrect.

And at least Jim HAS a license that allows him to USE those HF
allocations.

That AMATEUR radio license doesn't have any legal power to
pollute RF. Read Part 97 carefully.

AMATEUR radio licenses are rather limited in their "USE" of HF
communications. That's the LAW. :-)

LHA / WMD