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 -

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

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

HAW!!

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.

I see your point - I was addressing the problem if interference did actually
happen.

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.

Yup.

Kinda like the person who objected to the installation of the cable TV coax on
the poles at the front of his property. His objection was that the cable
carried stuff like the "Playboy Channel". Never mind that he wasn't a cable
subscriber, and that the pole line easements predated his ownership of the
property - he didn't want his property used to distribute such programs in any
way!

Of course you can guess how much legal water that objection held...

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:32:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

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.

That's the joy of the trespass laws - the property owner can
discriminate all s/he wants as long as the property is not involved
in commerce or open to the public.

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^)

Or individual aluminum-foil hats......

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 29 Jan 2005 03:09:22 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Kinda like the person who objected to the installation of the cable TV coax on
the poles at the front of his property. His objection was that the cable
carried stuff like the "Playboy Channel". Never mind that he wasn't a cable
subscriber, and that the pole line easements predated his ownership of the
property - he didn't want his property used to distribute such programs in any
way!

Too bad if either the deed granted a utility easement (which most deeds
have) or a default easement (equivalent to "squatter's rights") was
created by the utility occupying that area.

As long as the dominent tenement (the easement-holder) is doing what
the easement describes or some other lawful act in furtherance of
same, the servient tenement (the easement-granter) is SOL.

Do not confuse those tenements with a similar-named type of housing
in which I grew up.

Of course you can guess how much legal water that objection held...

Yup...

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:32:32 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:


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.


That's the joy of the trespass laws - the property owner can
discriminate all s/he wants as long as the property is not involved
in commerce or open to the public.


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^)


Or individual aluminum-foil hats......

A much better suggestion! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article . com,
writes:

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.

Yep - that was the old ISM band (industrial-scientific-medical). Remember
diathermy machines?

The problem was that those machines were often spectrally unclean. Harmonics
all over the place - including high band VHF mobile. And there was often nobody
in the plant who really understood how they worked or checked up on whether
they were still in the band.

knew an operation in the '60s that had a rather interesting visit from
Philadelphia's Finest because their machine had a harmonic on the dispatch
channel. Commissioner and later Mayor Rizzo was *not* pleased...

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 . . !

Yup.

btw, Chambersburg dumped their BPL proposal. See the ARRL website - local
opposition caused the town fathers to look elsewhere for broadband.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

On 29 Jan 2005 03:09:22 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Kinda like the person who objected to the installation of the cable TV coax
on
the poles at the front of his property. His objection was that the cable
carried stuff like the "Playboy Channel". Never mind that he wasn't a cable
subscriber, and that the pole line easements predated his ownership of the
property - he didn't want his property used to distribute such programs in
any
way!

Too bad if either the deed granted a utility easement (which most deeds
have) or a default easement (equivalent to "squatter's rights") was
created by the utility occupying that area.

Utility easement from wayback.

As long as the dominent tenement (the easement-holder) is doing what
the easement describes or some other lawful act in furtherance of
same, the servient tenement (the easement-granter) is SOL.

We had a classic case of this in my old neighborhood, atop RadioTelegraph Hill.

Water company bought up several lots on one street and built an above ground
water tank on two of them. Kept the other two lots for expansion if a second
tank was ever needed. Fenced the front of the property but not the back.

Property owners who backed up to the vacant water company area were allowed to
use the ground but not put up anything permanent. They kept the grass cut and
the weeds down, and there was no vandalism.

But after 20 years the water co. had to build a fence and kick the neighbors
off, even though they offered to sign legal papers disavowing any claim to the
land or right of access to it. Water co. was afraid of establishing a precedent
and a default easement, which in PA happens if you allow something for 21
years. Also liability, which was becoming more of an issue in those days (early
1970s).

Do not confuse those tenements with a similar-named type of housing
in which I grew up.

Of course you can guess how much legal water that objection held...

Yup...

OK, how about this one - actually had this discussion with a lawyer back in the
old analog-cordless-phone days(!):

Drug dealer operates out of a house unsuspected by neighbors because the
operation is so well concealed. But the dealer makes a mistake and gets one of
those first-generation no-security cordless phones

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.

No,I want them to keep the signal off my house wiring, which I own. My
house wiring is connected, at my choosing, to the power system in order
to receive the AC supplied by the power companyu for my use, which I pay
for. I do not have a need for any BPL signals on my house wiring and I
should have the right to demand they not be there. The fact that I own
the house wiring should be enough reason for me to say what is or isn't
put on that house wiring.