The Fed's Anti-Ham Trojan Horse
 

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.

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.

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.

C: Produce a dependency upon the federal government that did not exist
before, bringing new, long-lived federal control over our activities that
previously did not exist.

We were starting to be a problem, so the federal government threw money at
us. Soon we were tainted with greed, discredited, dependent, disorganized
and fighting each other instead of BPL.

Cheap at any price, especially when you're spending somebody else's money to
start with, eh?


Charles Brabham, N5PVL

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.

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.

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

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 -

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:02:44 -0700, Cmd Buzz Corey 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?

Of course you can demand it. Whether they do so is another matter.

It is identical to the neighbor saying "I want that ham to keep his
radio signals from going through or crossing the space above my
house".

Don't open that can of worms.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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.

On 29 Jan 2005 01:51:32 -0800, wrote:

'Scuse the silly nit-picking here

Ah!! Something that I can join in with....

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.

The major problem with the old-style heat sealers was the harmonics
which were generated - the fundamental frequency swept upwards as
the plasitic melted and the fifth harmonics fell in the aviation band.

Upon complaint from the FAA backed up by FCC field measurments, the
local FCC Engineer in Charge (now called District Director) has the
legal authority to issue a Cease and Desist Order closing down not
only the machine in question but the entire site until the site was
certified harmonic-free and so verified by an overflight of the
FAA's (notorious) instrumentation plane, usually piloted by a
someone we called - with sufficient reason - "Vertical John". We
always declined to accompany him....

We didn't like to use that authority too often because it would result
in the unemployment of a lot of minimum-wage immigrant employees.

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 . . !

In reality, it came about when the ITU designated the band 27.12 +/-
160 kHz for "Industrial, Scientific, and Medical" and in came the
heat sealers, diathermy machines, and similar noise generators. That
resulted in 11 meters being turned into an electronic garbage can.
The CBers got it on the basis of "if you can use it for any local
communications through all the garbage, go ahead and do it".

The only reason that any communications can be conducted on that
band now is that all the shielding, bypassing, and grounding
necessary to comply with the harmonic elimination requirement also
keeps the fundamental from being radiated.

A ham for whom I was the "elmer" some 30+ years ago became the test
engineer at the Varian Tube division that manufactures the
wastebasket-sized tubes for ultra high power uses, and Ray swore
that someday he was going to design a test jig that would have all
the harmonic suppression but permit the unlimited field radiation
allowed for ISM devices on 27.12 MHz, thereby solving the "CB
problem" for about one-third of the US.

He never did.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 29 Jan 2005 15:31:01 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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

And the rest of the question ??

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

On 29 Jan 2005 15:31:01 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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

And the rest of the question ??

Hit the send key too fast. Sorry.

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

He claimed that listening in on the conversation was the same as wiretapping,
and since there was no warrant for a wiretap, the evidence was all illegally
obtained and none of it could be used.

I said that the radio signals were not legally protected in any way, because
the Communications Act does not authorize the use of the radio spectrum for
illegal purposes. I also said that wiretapping involves connection to the
common carrier's equipment, and the customer-phone company contract specified
privacy of communications, while the radiating cordless phone is customer-owned
and no such privacy is contracted or even implied.

Also, I made the following analogy:

Suppose it is a quiet night in comfortable weather. Everyone in the
neighborhood has their windows wide open. Suppose Neighbor A, on his own
property, overhears Neighbor B, on *her* own property, discussing a drug deal
or other illegal act. Neighbor B doesn't realize how loud she is talking and
how well she can be heard across property lines. Is that evidence admissible?
Or is Neighbor A supposed to plug his ears and shout "lalala I can't hear you"?


My layman's guess is that, today, such an overheard conversation could only be
used to get a warrant.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

(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

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.

On 29 Jan 2005 22:20:26 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

He claimed that listening in on the conversation was the same as wiretapping,
and since there was no warrant for a wiretap, the evidence was all illegally
obtained and none of it could be used.

That's what the law is today. Before the ECPA was amended, there
was a loophole that didn't cover transmissions from a cordless base
unit, only the handset. There was an actual court case in Nebraska
where a neighbor picked up a drug deal from a cordless phone base
unit, and the court held in that case that there was no violation
and the evidence was admissible.

Then the ECPA was amended to close that loophole.

I said that the radio signals were not legally protected in any way, because
the Communications Act does not authorize the use of the radio spectrum for
illegal purposes.

Not so - the purpose of the ECPA was to limit the power of the
government to use warrentless intercepted telephone or radio
conversations as mandated by the SCOTUS _Cohen_ case that
established the concept of "expectation of privacy" in
communications.

I also said that wiretapping involves connection to the
common carrier's equipment, and the customer-phone company contract specified
privacy of communications, while the radiating cordless phone is customer-owned
and no such privacy is contracted or even implied.

No again. Ther term "wiretapping" is applied to any communication
- aural, wire, or radio. IIRC that term is "street slang" and does
not appear in the ECPA.

Also, I made the following analogy:

Suppose it is a quiet night in comfortable weather. Everyone in the
neighborhood has their windows wide open. Suppose Neighbor A, on his own
property, overhears Neighbor B, on *her* own property, discussing a drug deal
or other illegal act. Neighbor B doesn't realize how loud she is talking and
how well she can be heard across property lines. Is that evidence admissible?

Sure is, to the limit of admissible hearsay.

My layman's guess is that, today, such an overheard conversation
could only be used to get a warrant.

That's because otherwise-inadmissible hearsay is admissible to
establish probable cause but cannot be used at trial.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane