straydog wrote:



On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:02:44 -0700
From: Cmd Buzz Corey
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: The Fed's Anti-Ham Trojan Horse

wrote:


Never mind that BPL turns all of the
house wiring, not just the distribution wiring, into a noise radiator,
even if you're not a subscriber. 73 de Jim, N2EY

What if I don't want BPL signals on my house wiring, which I own,
interfering with radio reception in my house? Can I demand they keep
their BPL signals out of my private wiring?



Well, if I were sufficiently resourceful and beligerant, I'd do one or a
combination of the following: i) move to some place out in the boonies
where the power lines are far away and generate my own electricity. I'm
in a retirement house and they had to bring power lines 700 feet to the
house and 300 feet from my property line to the nearest source and I
seriously looked into purchasing a 10-30 kw diesel generator and giving
THEM the finger. ii) unhook your house from the utility and generate
your own (might not help for RF radiated from the PLs), iii) explore
other modes and frequencies if you get BPL ORM and see if you can live
with what is left in your hobby, or iv) change hobbies (birdwatching,
beer, etc).

w4pon

Well, I know the whole thing is a bit far out, but it is fun to dream of
harrasing the BPL folks.

(see quoted material below).

Yeah, I read that snot below (authored by the FCC) and its all part of the
commercialization of ANYthing that can be commercialized. Its all about
money and power. Enron/Anderson/Worldcom/etcscams. Export the jobs to
India/China, degrade human flesh born in the USA, and it doesn't matter
who you vote for, the politicos will listen to the lobbyists not the
citizens. Someday they'll figure out how to tax you for the air you breath
and the sunlight that falls to earth and we use it to see the landscape
and where we are. I read some years ago that some guy in the FCC had the
great thought that someday frequency spectrum will be bought and sold on
the stock market, futures markets, options. Just like flesh on the block
(slavery) years ago.

================================================== ===========

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 wrote:

Date: 28 Jan 2005 10:08:01 -0800
From:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: The Fed's Anti-Ham Trojan Horse


Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Charles Brabham wrote:

Ham
Radio was dissed by the FCC as not being relevant enough to protect
from BPL
interference.

That's an awfully strong statement -- please provide proof that the
FCC
actually made that proclamation.

From the Report and Order to 04-37, as reported in the ARRL Letter:

BEGIN QUOTE

"We recognize that some radio operations in the bands being used for
Access BPL, such as those of Amateur Radio licensees, may occur at
distances sufficiently close to power lines as to make harmful
interference a possibility,"

"We believe that
those situations can be addressed through interference avoidance
techniques by the Access BPL provider such as frequency band selection,
notching, or judicious device placement."

"In addition, because power lines inherently can radiate significant
noise
emissions as noted by NTIA and ARRL, good engineering practice is to
locate sensitive receiver antennas as far as practicable from power
lines,"

"such noise can often be avoided by carefully
locating their antennas; in many instances an antenna relocation of
only a
relatively short distance can resolve noise interference."

BPL operators would be required to avoid certain bands, such as those
used
for life and safety communications by aeronautical mobile or US Coast
Guard stations. The FCC R&O makes clear, however, that similar rules
will
not apply to the Amateur Service.

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio frequencies warrant the
special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international
aeronautical and maritime safety operations," the Commission said.
"While
we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing
emergency
communications," the FCC added. It described typical amateur operations
as
"routine communications and hobby activities." (

Although some cases of harmful interference may be possible from BPL
emissions at levels up to Part 15 limits, the FCC said, "we agree with
NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] that
the
benefits of Access BPL service warrant acceptance of a small and
manageable degree of interference risk." The Commission reiterated in
the
R&O its belief that BPL's public benefits "are sufficiently important
and
significant so as to outweigh the limited potential for increased
harmful
interference that may arise."

Further, the new rules spell out the locations of "small geographic
exclusion zones" as well as excluded bands or frequencies--concessions
made primarily at the insistence of the NTIA, which administers radio
spectrum for federal government users--and "coordination areas" where
BPL
operators must "precoordinate" spectrum use. The rules also detail
techniques to measure BPL emissions from system equipment and power
lines.

The FCC said it expects "good faith" on both sides in the event of
interference complaints. While the Commission said it expects BPL
operators to take every interference complaint seriously and to
diagnose
the possible cause of interference quickly, it also suggested that
complainants have responsibilities.

"At the same time, we expect the complainant to have first taken
reasonable steps to confirm that interference, rather than a receiver
system malfunction, is occurring and, to the extent practicable, to
determine that the interference source is located outside the
complainant's premises," the Commission said.

Shutting down a BPL system in response to a valid interference
complaint
"would be a last resort when all other efforts to satisfactorily reduce
interference have failed," the FCC said.

END QUOTE

While the FCC paid lip service to amateur radio's role in public
service communications, they did not see fit to protect the ARS from
BPL interference. Instead, we are supposed to "relocate sensitive
receiving antennas" and have
good faith in the BPL providers. Never mind that BPL turns all of the
house wiring, not just the distribution wiring, into a noise radiator,
even if you're not a subscriber. And never mind that many hams do not
live on large unencumbered properties where antenna location can be
chosen freely.

Basically the message is that the Administration, through its
appointees in the FCC, sees the need for BPL as being more important
than the ARS.

73 de Jim, N2EY


73 de Jim, N2EY

Charles Brabham wrote:
Something occurred to me recently that I thought I'd share... It has to do
with the Feds, the ARRL, BPL and ARESCOM / WL2K.

Note how the ARRL was getting some traction early on with the BPL deal by
taking a rational, scientific approach to the problem. Remember the video of
Ed Hare driving around listening to BPL hash? Being above commercial
concerns, amateur radio operators were in a good position to comment on
technical matters with no taint of commercial motivation or greed. We spoke
from an old, well-respected reputation.

Then things seemed to go wrong in a murky sort of way. - In the end, Ham
Radio was dissed by the FCC as not being relevant enough to protect from BPL
interference.

To me, this says that somebody within the federal government who wanted to
boost BPL decided to pull a few strings and ham radio obligingly tripped
over those strings.

I was thinking about how the federal government sometimes handles problems
and wondered if the Department of Homeland Security grants may have been a
successful "trojan horse" weapon that we are currently suffering the effects
of.

It strikes me funny that all within a year or so, the feds (DHS) would throw
millions of dollars at amateur radio through the DHS grants, and then the
same feds (FCC) turn around and say our work is so irrelevant that it does
not merit protection from inteference. To me, they are all "the feds"
because of the heirarchy of command there.

The government ain't that well organized. Remember that one of the
complaints about 9-11 was that the various intelligence and
investigative agencies did not talk with each other. More often
you get fiefdoms and turf wars.

With its deep pockets, it seems to me that the DHS grants handed out were a
very cheap and effective way for the federal government to:

A: Eliminate the Amateur community's "detatched, objective" status by
throwing money at the problem, depending on us to discredit ourselves by the
way we react to the existence of that sudden influx of money.

But DHS has nothing to do with BPL, so this doesn't follow.

B: Throw the ARRL and the amateur community into disarray, making the
organized, concerted effort against BPL that was building much less likely
to jell into something effective.

That wasn't it. What did it was that the commissioners are
lawyers and not technically inclined, and were bullshjtted by
BPL lobbyists.