Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "David Stinson" wrote in message . .. Forgive me if this has been mentioned before- I haven't read this group for years. Concerning fighting BPL, which the power industry is ramming at us using Part 15, why can't we use Part 15 to clobber *them?* The FCC has a history of listening when you quote their own laws to them. Here is a good one: It has been mentioned many times before. The fear is that commercial interests will be able to convince the FCC to change the rules so that hams have no defense against BPL. Do you have FCC NPRMs on your "killfile," too, Dee? :-) If you look carefully at NPRM 04-29, you will find that they are NOT going to change the levels of incidental radiation to above today's standards. The Commission isn't giving in to any Access BPL company's request to increase the incidental radiation. The FCC is NOT sanctioning Access BPL nor is it "licensing" it. They can't get involved directly with an Access BPL unless a system's service area crosses a state boundary. All the FCC can really do is regulate INCIDENTAL RF radiation from any system. Part 15, Title 47 C.F.R. is involved with INCIDENTAL RF radiation. Are you or is anyone displeased with the levels of incidental RF radiation now in the Regulations (and has been the same for years)? If so, what have you DONE other than scare up the village that some bogeything appeared? The NPRM 04-29 changes are mainly with a definition of the service and some of the test methods to insure that incidental RF radiation stays within regulations...regulations that aren't going to be raised. READ the NPRM and all its footnotes before jumping off into some rant. Do you or anyone else have a bitch, gripe, or other complaint about the existing incidental RF radiation limits? If so, DO something about it. COMMUNICATE with the FCC...or with your elected congresscritter who could, if you don't write in crayon, forward it to the FCC which is obliged by law to make it part of the pulic record. Or, you or anyone else can stay on newsgroups and foment more and more hysteria about falling skies like so many headless Chicken Littles. Do you or anyone else want to make a case about "monitoring the interference" from an Access BPL system now under test? If so, get some amateurs who Know How To Measure, use some radio receivers that have been calibrated with a traceable source, using good (professional) standards and practices, describing all of it along with the monitoring record. A tape or WAV file full of noise all by itself isn't going to cut it as the "evidence." [I can generate one of those using a SWLBC portable and standing next to a power substation and it won't be worth technical squat] Know what you are doing technically. FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology can talk technical. Few hams can. Or, you can sit back and play morseperson on your radios and let the ARRL do all the work. But, think about it. The A in ARRL stands for Amateur. ARRL has only one legal firm representing them in DC. There are over a half dozen Access BPL companies and more in the wings, PROs who want some potential profit, all with their own legal firm representatives. Legal-wise, the ARRL is outnumbered. Quit trying to act the spoiled child "deserving of the attention" because you are hams and essentially hobbyists. By the way, if you or anyone else wants to assert you are untouchable becasue of that license, try reviewing Parts 97.101 (d), 97.121, and 97.303 (a). Or contact the Enforcement Bureau at the FCC. But, if you insist that the sky is falling even when it isn't, continue the hysteria build-up and make yourselves and the "amateur community" look like dummies. LHA / WMD |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Using Existing Law Against BPL | General | |||
BPL - Comments on the original Inquiry document | General | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part Two (Communicator License) | Policy | |||
All New as well as existing | Policy | |||
existing plc qrn?? or something else? | Policy |