On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:39:53 GMT, David Stinson
wrote:

FCC Turning Blind Eye in BPL Proceeding, ARRL Charges

NEWINGTON, CT, Jun 24, 2004--The ARRL says the FCC apparently has
already made up its mind about broadband over power line (BPL) and
"wants no bad news" about the technology. In reply comments filed June
22 on the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket 03-47, the
League called on the Commission to take "a fresh look" at BPL before
enabling its deployment. Again asking the FCC to put the proceeding on
hold for a year, the League recommended that the Commission in the
meantime require BPL providers to conduct FCC-monitored interference
testing with all stakeholders. The ARRL charged that while an
overwhelming majority of comments oppose BPL due to interference
concerns, the FCC continues to rely on what the League called "vacuous
assurances that BPL would not cause harmful interference." Test data and
a growing record of unresolved complaints indicate otherwise, the ARRL said.

"ARRL is of the view that this proceeding has been prejudged and will,
in the end, be decided not on the technical issues that should control
the outcome of this proceeding, but on the politics of the matter," the
League commented. "Given the evidence on the Commission's table, it
cannot now authorize BPL at the radiated emission levels proposed, and
without substantial restrictions."

Among those restrictions, the League recommended keeping BPL altogether
away from all Amateur Radio allocations, should the FCC decide to
authorize BPL under its proposed rules. As an alternative, the FCC
should guarantee that an interfering BPL system can be shut down
immediately in the face of a valid complaint, "not after a BPL provider
has taken months to discover that the interference cannot be resolved."

Fat chance. That kind of power is reserved (by the DMCA) to
outfits like the RIAA/MPAA, who have only to assert there is material
infringing their copyrights on a website. The ISP is then required to
tear down the site while the site owner gets to try to convince
someone the material is not infringing. Or remove the material.

If it were allowed, the more likely scenario is that 300
subscribers who got cut off in the middle of their favorite T&A show
would immediately deluge the provider with complaints about being "cut
off because of some old fart across town who wants to talk to someone
he could just as easily call on the phone." The provider would likely
out the ham who complained of the interference that caused the
shutdown and sit back to watch the lynching on the 5 o'clock news.