Phil Kane wrote:
On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:


I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.


That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.


There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access,
because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices
would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done
about it.

All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...

You can continue to argue among yourselves in here on the subject,
or you can put forth some effort for your "amateur community"
(which shows your dedication and committment) by communicating
with the FCC. See docket 04-37 in the FCC ECFS.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Phil Kane wrote:
On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:


I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.


That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.


There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access,
because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices
would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done
about it.

Isn't that the case now? If my computer monitor interferes with my cordless
phone, can I insist that FCC fix the problem? Just try!

All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...

But will a device that meets Part 15 "30 meter" specifications interfere with
BPL? I don't think so.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Phil Kane wrote:

On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:



I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.


That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.


There would almost have to be a exemption specifically for BPL access,
because if the whole of part 15 was chucked, then the part 15 devices
would be able to interfere with each other, but nothing could be done
about it.


Isn't that the case now? If my computer monitor interferes with my cordless
phone, can I insist that FCC fix the problem? Just try!

I read them as both part 15 devices, and they have to put up with each
other's interference. Hopefully the manufacturers making the junk will
either redesign or go out of business.


All the things that can radiate in the HF spectrum and interfere with
or be interfered with by BPL are a large list. And if part 15 is gone,
then they won't have to worry about RFI protection in design any more so
the list will grow...


But will a device that meets Part 15 "30 meter" specifications interfere with
BPL? I don't think so.


Not sure here Jim.

- Mike KB3EIA -