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.

73, Jeff KH6O
--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

In article , says...


I keep hearing about homeland security grants for ham radio but as an
ARES/RACES EC/RO have never seen it up close and personal.

I've been offered grant money to cover membership drives by the Citizen Corps.
This was useless because it didn't offer money for what I needed which was
portable ham gear and some sort of standard attire for all the members so they
would be recognized as ham geeks by first responders.

My members are mostly retired on fixed income that lack the funds for usable
play toys other than antiques that might have PL.

The county we serve has offered to cover operating expenses for a converted
motor home used as a mobile comm center but internal gov't B.S. has prevented
us from getting even an oil change performed on the beast by the county DPW.
They are always "too busy". It is pure politic B.S. on part of DPW

The best support we have received is filtered down from the local nuke plant
operator. It allowed us to replace 15 year old 2 meter radios with quad band
mobile rigs and a set of ICOM dual band HT's along with antennas, etc.
Then again the cost of this gear could be increased cancer risk and an early
death.

From what I hear homeland security money doesn't go any further than the New
York State SEMO level, never to be seen at where the rubber meets the road.

Good old New York...Albany certainly needs an enema.

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

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?

In article , Cmd Buzz Corey
writes:

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?

(Standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE)

Seems to me that the first thing you'd have to do is *prove* that the BPL is
causing you "harmful interference". Then you'd have to let the BPL providers do
whatever they can to reduce or eliminate it - and FCC expects you to show "good
faith" and cooperate with them. And even if the interference is not eliminated,
FCC may or may not force the BPL folks to do anything about it besides trying
to solve the problem.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Cmd Buzz Corey
writes:


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?


(Standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE)

Seems to me that the first thing you'd have to do is *prove* that the BPL is
causing you "harmful interference". Then you'd have to let the BPL providers do
whatever they can to reduce or eliminate it - and FCC expects you to show "good
faith" and cooperate with them. And even if the interference is not eliminated,
FCC may or may not force the BPL folks to do anything about it besides trying
to solve the problem.

And so what then happens when in the normal course of your station
operation, you interfere with your neighbor kid's porn downloads? Same
rules apply?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Seems to me that the first thing you'd have to do is *prove* that the BPL
is
causing you "harmful interference". Then you'd have to let the BPL
providers do
whatever they can to reduce or eliminate it - and FCC expects you to show
"good
faith" and cooperate with them. And even if the interference is not
eliminated,
FCC may or may not force the BPL folks to do anything about it besides
trying
to solve the problem.

And so what then happens when in the normal course of your station
operation, you interfere with your neighbor kid's porn downloads? Same
rules apply?

Who knows?

As I understand it, the old concepts worked like this:

One of the prime directives of the FCC was to protect the various radio
services from interference. This meant both interference between different
radio services, and interference from other electrical devices. Licensed radio
servics *always* had priority over nonradio electrical devices.

For example, if you had a business that used an RF-based heatsealing machine,
and the machine radiated RF that interfered with someone's radio operations,
you'd be required to shield it so no harmful interference resulted, or shut
down.

In almost all cases, methods of interference abatement have been developed. The
RF-based heatsealing machines were shielded to the point that they didn't
radiate enough to interfere, and their frequencies of operation chosen to avoid
common problems if some RF did leak out.

These rules usually worked OK for point sources of RF in industrial
environments. But BPL is neither a point source, nor is it usually meant for
industrial environments.

What's different about how FCC has addressed BPL is that the potential for
interference is not only obvious, it's been demonstrated - and remediation
techniques are very limited, because the power lines make good antennas by
their very nature! Yet FCC allows BPL to exist, probably because it's more a
political decision than an engineering one.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

.. . . .


For example, if you had a business that used an RF-based heatsealing
machine,
and the machine radiated RF that interfered with someone's radio
operations,
you'd be required to shield it so no harmful interference resulted,
or shut
down.


'Scuse the silly nit-picking here but those unlicensed old open-cabinet
induction heat-sealing machines operated around 27 Mhz back when
licensed hams also operated on those freqs. If I recall it right
problem was that 11M was a shared band and us licensed types had no
legal bitch on heat-sealing machine RFI, it was live with it or go play
on some other ham band.

But eventually the FCC lowered the boom on the heat-sealing machines.
Then they tossed us out of the band and turned it over to the CBers.
Which at the time was (temporarily) another licensed service. Ah, the
webs "they" weave . . !

. . . .


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

On 29 Jan 2005 00:35:13 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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?

(Standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE)

I don't have that problem. My disclaimer is that I'm not "your"
(generic plural) lawyer ggg

Seems to me that the first thing you'd have to do is *prove* that the BPL is
causing you "harmful interference". Then you'd have to let the BPL providers do
whatever they can to reduce or eliminate it - and FCC expects you to show "good
faith" and cooperate with them. And even if the interference is not eliminated,
FCC may or may not force the BPL folks to do anything about it besides trying
to solve the problem.

Nah - that's a solution to a different problem.

What he wanted is for them to keep the signals out of his house on
demand. PERIOD. No reason need be given.

That's a different bucket of worms.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:

On 29 Jan 2005 00:35:13 GMT, N2EY wrote:


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?


(Standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer HERE)


I don't have that problem. My disclaimer is that I'm not "your"
(generic plural) lawyer ggg

Seems to me that the first thing you'd have to do is *prove* that the BPL is
causing you "harmful interference". Then you'd have to let the BPL providers do
whatever they can to reduce or eliminate it - and FCC expects you to show "good
faith" and cooperate with them. And even if the interference is not eliminated,
FCC may or may not force the BPL folks to do anything about it besides trying
to solve the problem.


Nah - that's a solution to a different problem.

What he wanted is for them to keep the signals out of his house on
demand. PERIOD. No reason need be given.

That's a different bucket of worms.

Sure enough, Phil. But would this situation include:

Shortwave stations
Domestic broadcast stations
Service comms - police, safety, ambulance, etc
Other folks rf radiators - wireless telephones, wireless
headphones.
And the most prevalent RF - cellphones.
Cosmic rays
The background radiation of the universe

Lots of other RF trespass if we stop to think about it.

Seems that if a person were to concentrate on Amateur radio, they would
be discriminating against one group.

Since there is no way to eliminate all the RF that a person might have
on "their" property, perhaps a yard sized Faraday cage is in order? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -