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