ARRL doesn't look out for us?

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] ]The ARRL has filed a federal appeals court brief outlining its case
and requesting oral arguments in its petition for review of the
FCC's broadband over power line (BPL) rules. The League has
petitioned the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to review the
FCC's October 2004 Report and Order (R&O) in ET Docket 04-37 and
its 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order. In its brief filed May 17,
the ARRL contends, among other things, that the FCC's actions in
adopting rules to govern unlicensed BPL systems fundamentally alter
the longstanding rights of radio spectrum licensees, including
Amateur Radio operators.

"For the first time ever, the FCC has permitted new unlicensed
devices to operate in spectrum bands already occupied by licensees,
even if the unlicensed operations cause harmful interference to the
licensees," the League said in stating its case. "The orders under
review reverse nearly seven decades of consistent statutory
interpretation and upset the settled expectations of licensees
without so much as acknowledging the reversal, let alone justifying
it."

The ARRL argues that the FCC's approach to adopting rules to govern
BPL flies in the face of Section 301 of the Communications Act,
which requires that operators of devices that emit radio frequency
energy first obtain an FCC license. "For years, the FCC has
consistently read Section 301 to apply to unintentional radiators,
such as BPL devices, and has expressly embodied that interpretation
in its rules," the League's brief recounts.

The Commission then compounded its error by asserting that BPL
devices do not fall within Section 301 at all, the League said.

The ARRL contends that the FCC orders under review "jeopardize the
license rights of ARRL's members and other license holders by
authorizing providers of a new device -- Access Broadband over Power
Lines, or 'BPL' -- to send radio signals across the electric grid in
the frequencies the license holders occupy, but without having to
obtain an FCC license."

The League's brief further asserts that the FCC "has failed to
discuss or disclose significant information in the record that
potentially contradicts its key interference findings." The
Commission not only withheld its internal studies until it was too
late to comment, the ARRL alleges, but has yet to release portions
of studies that may not support its own conclusions.

The ARRL wants the appeals court to determine if the Commission
acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner for not disclosing
"significant information that potentially contradicts its key
interference finding," the League said in its brief.

The League also has taken issue with what it argues is the FCC's
"arbitrary and capricious" adoption of a BPL emission measurement
standard that's unsupported by the record in the proceeding and
ignores contrary evidence.

The ARRL brief asserts that, for the first time ever, the FCC "has
authorized the operation of unlicensed devices that it concedes
interfere with licensed devices" and has declared that such devices
"may continue operating even where proven to cause interference."

The FCC, ARRL contends, has concluded that BPL's acknowledged
interference risks are manageable, but it bases that conclusion --
which ARRL calls "the linchpin of the challenged orders" -- on FCC
studies the Commission has declined to make public in unedited form.

The FCC's response to the League's brief is due July 2.


BTW, this all costs money!

73,

Mike

[KD6NIG]

Its all fine and good, except for one thing:

BPL projects pay fees to the local municipality, as well as fees to have the proper licensing to run their systems. They also are out to make money.

Notwithstanding vanity fees, the Amateur Radio service costs far more to administer than it takes money in.

Expect this to be considered when the ruling comes down.

[NN3W]

Actually, why would it be considered? Thats not relevant to the court's inquiry and, frankly, they could care less who derives what revenue from what administrative function.

[KA4DPO]

I agree. The court will look at the points of law that are being addressed. The outcome has nothing to do with commerce.

I supported this effort and I stand behind ARRL 100%. BPL is a bad deal for amateur radio and other HF spectrum users. I would like to see the court overturn the FCC R&O and make them re-think the rules for BPL. We know there are PLC systems out there right now that don't cause harmful interference.

[KD6NIG]

The court may rule against it, it may go back to the FCC.

But unless BPL is somehow made even more unreachable by making it too expensive to be feasible, don't expect the people with the money behind them to give up.

ARRL may win this injunction-but all it does is send it back to the FCC. Winning this doesn't mean winning the war.

Its a step, but one of many that will need to be taken to actually stop it from happening.

[k3wrv]

Well guys-

This comes down to a couple of things.

First, lawyers charge money, so that part can get expensive, and ARRL may not have much left over after paying their Executives.

Second, the Court will only look at whether the FCC "made a mistake" or that the FCC decision wasn't "supported by the evidence on the record as a whole". It will not listen to new arguments from the rest of us or new evidence!

Third, as NIG says, all the Court can do is send the case back to the FCC, it can't make BPL just go away. That's not how it works!

Fourth, the Court may decide to use a "balancing approach", seeking the greater good (if the case is a close one). I'm not a communications lawyer, but we ain't out of the woods yet!

Regardless of you view of the ARRL, it's about all we have right now!

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (k3wrv @ May 31 2007,13:09)]Regardless of you view of the ARRL, it's about all we have right now!
This is one of the reasons I started this thread....not so much about BPL, but the fact that despite how many on QRZ feel about ARRL, they are looking out for amateur radio and this support does cost money.

[NN4RH]

I assume that as evidence of the devastating effects resulting from the arbitrary and capricious FCC rules, the ARRL included a listing of the many thousands of hams who must be suffering from unmitigated BPL harmful interference.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ June 01 2007,05:53)]I assume that as evidence of the devastating effects resulting from the arbitrary and capricious FCC rules, the ARRL included a listing of the many thousands of hams who must be suffering from unmitigated BPL harmful interference.
Your sarcasm belies a misunderstanding. Fundamentally, the ARRL seeks to have the FCC follow their own rules and procedures instead of speaking out of both sides of its institutional mouth.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ June 01 2007,06:57)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ June 01 2007,05:53)]I assume that as evidence of the devastating effects resulting from the arbitrary and capricious FCC rules, the ARRL included a listing of the many thousands of hams who must be suffering from unmitigated BPL harmful interference.
Your sarcasm belies a misunderstanding. Fundamentally, the ARRL seeks to have the FCC follow their own rules and procedures instead of speaking out of both sides of its institutional mouth.
That's exactly right. This isn't about interference, it's about precedence and the FCC trying to establish a legal double standard. If they were left to just get away with it what might they do in the future.

I'm thankful to live in a country where we have the right to challenge the government.

[KI4NGN]

Well, I disagree. This is about interference, but interference that is being allowed because of not following the rules, which is the basis for the argument to remove the interference.

As far as the sarcastic comment about the devastating effect on thousands of hams:

First, if it was only a handful and you were one of them, would you have the resources (time and money) to do anything about it?

Second, the point is to stop it before it does become devastating to thousands of hams.

Love them or hate them, they (the ARRL) are the only organization fighting these battles.

73,
Mike

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ June 01 2007,04:57)]Quote[/b] (k3wrv @ May 31 2007,13:09)]Regardless of you view of the ARRL, it's about all we have right now!
This is one of the reasons I started this thread....not so much about BPL, but the fact that despite how many on QRZ feel about ARRL, they are looking out for amateur radio and this support does cost money.
Just the issues they can't make money on.
They get their panties in a twist over BPL but are all for unleashing HF email robots anywhere and everywhere.

What's the word I'm looking for.............oh yeah...............schizophrenic.

[KI4NGN]

The ARRL is a non-profit organization. Any money that they 'make' goes towards supporting the organization and mitigates the necessity to raise dues.

How do they 'make money' from HF email?

[kb2vxa]

Hi all,

Have you forgotten that hams aren't the only at risk licensees here? Just let your fingers do the walking through the FCC database and you'll be amazed how many HF commercial stations are out there.

I got a surprise when I searched marine radiotelephone looking for fishing boats (of interest to one living in a fishing community) and found that HF Shore stations aren't limited to the coastline, Cranford NJ for one is far inland and a most unlikely city of license.

Surely there are many more services affected by BPL but you with the blinkers on only see the road ahead for you.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ June 01 2007,09:58)]The ARRL is a non-profit organization. Any money that they 'make' goes towards supporting the organization and mitigates the necessity to raise dues.

How do they 'make money' from HF email?
Do you really think the boys at WinLink haven't made a "donation" or two? How about those lucrative Homeland Security grants?

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]ARRL, they are looking out for amateur radio

Especially on the issue of BPL, it is just this narrow minded approach that has led to failure after failure for the people in Newington trying to fight industry supporters of this technology.

For those who have been following the controversy from the start, the club started out poorly when its leaders insisted on making their pitch as a ham radio issue, NOT as one that affects other HF users.

This enabled the BPL industry to isolate the Amateur Service and characterize us as a bunch of eccentric Luddites opposed to fresh technology.

In effect, the League's leadership flushed down the toilet the excellent technical research carried out by staffer Ed Hare, which could have been extrapolated to illustrate how other users, including those more important than ham radio, are at risk from extraneous RF radiation from high-voltage power lines.

Sure, you may feel this lawsuit is an effective tactic.

I submit to you that the League's confrontational approach will lead to yet another spanking of ARRL officials, more loss of what little equity they retain with regulators, and less respect from an industry that previously was more careful to protect radio hobbyists and the putative emergency resource they have represented in the past.

Meantime, even within the latest court document, there is little emphasis on the low-voltage form of BPL that the ARRL SUPPORTS, references to which could provide an Administrative Law Judge with the kind of solution that could benefit us all.

Nice job, League.

Paul/VJB

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ June 01 2007,10:51)]For those who have been following the controversy from the start, the club started out poorly when its leaders insisted on making their pitch as a ham radio issue, NOT as one that affects other HF users.
Yes, how could that organization, who's sole purpose to exist is to support and defend amateur radio and its spectrum, approach an interference problem from the perspective of why they exist to begin with??? What were they thinking???

Yes, we should chastise this relatively small, non-profit organization for not realizing that a fight against behemoth companies using fact-based arguments would not be enough. How dumb of them!

Hindsight is a wonderful tool.

Jeez...this is proof that for some people, no matter what the issue, the ARRL is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[wa3vjb]

Thanks for agreeing with me by not questioning the main points I made.

The important part is that Ed Hare's research is valid, strong, and persuasive.

You need to understand that by putting constraints on how his findings are applied, the group's leadership has frittered away what could have been a compelling chance to form alliances with all manner of HF users.

With THAT kind of front, the BPL industry may have been blunted in its unquestionably successful approach with the FCC.

So, go ahead, keep your nearsighted view of things, and then feel like a victim when things don't work out.

Paul/VJB

P.S. You may want to explore the League's filings in a number of regulatory proceedings that do NOT directly involve the Amateur Service. It disputes your contention that the group's activities are as limited as you believe. You will find that they have stepped well beyond ham radio many times.

They should have done so in the BPL matter.

On the other hand, if you were looking for a reason to wave the flag for the League's fundraising efforts, this subject matter is probably not a good choice.

Maybe you should review their jewelry promotion from a few months ago and find ways to support it as a revenue stream. I can't find it in their catalog anymore, tut tut.

[ab8yy]

Personally I don't think ARRL is FOR us. why? They are supporting winlink.

Winlink is dangerous for amateur radio until they get it back to pactor I and turn on the busy detect. Winlink is constantly causing harmful interference to other users of the frequencies and they (owners) do not care one way or the other. They are also in violation of Part97 because they are being used as a replacement for an available commercial method of unattended internet email.

Steve

[N5PVL]

I was thinking along similar lines....

The ARRL may be looking out for someone or something, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is "Joe Ham" that they are looking out for. - The last few year's ARRL misbehavior should disabuse knowlegable hams of THAT notion!

It's all for WinLink these days, and to hell with the rest of the hobby and everybody in it.

[WA2CWA]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ June 01 2007,11:30)]Maybe you should review their jewelry promotion from a few months ago and find ways to support it as a revenue stream. I can't find it in their catalog anymore, tut tut.
Ya only need to look more closely:

http://www.arrl.org/catalog/images/NO-RING.jpg

And to order yours today, go here:
Rings For Paul (http://www.mastercraftawards.com/arrl/)

Pete, WA2CWA

[wa3vjb]

THANKS PETE !

I was thinking of buying a little something to hang on the US Towers representative encountered at Dayton.

http://www.mastercraftawards.com/arrl/images/7_thumb.jpg

She was placing these little stickers on lapels, see, and I said, she needs an ARRL pendant of some kind.

http://wa3vjb.amham.com/pics/stickergirl.jpg

[N5PVL]

She's 'selling' free stickers there, big spender. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KC9ECI]

Those are pacemaker alarms.

[KI4NGN]

My fellow operators, I was not even hinting that everything about the ARRL is good. I am also against WinLink and disagree with the ARRL defending it.

My only point is that they do have and fight for positions that no amateur can deny is for the good of our hobby. Siding with WinLink is one current position and battle. Fighting BPL is another current battle.

How many operators have been turned to the ARRL for help with legal problems related to antennas or RFI problems? I don't know the numbers, but in many threads in this site, for various problems, hams have been directed to contact the ARRL for assistence.

VJB: YOU are the one who said that the ARRL started out the battle too narrow minded, not me. All I sarcastically replied is that their initial action was quite reasonable and understandable.

As far as the low-voltage approach to BPL:

Quote[/b] ]The ARRL has again demanded that the FCC shut down Ambient
Corporation's broadband over power line (BPL) pilot project in
Briarcliff Manor, New York. On May 21 the FCC called on the BPL
equipment maker and system operator to demonstrate it's complying
with all terms of the Part 5 Experimental license authorizing the
system, or face possible enforcement action. In a May 31 letter to
FCC Spectrum Enforcement Division Chief Kathryn S. Berthot, ARRL
General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, contended that it's "long past
time that the Commission enforce its own rules," and again objected
to the Commission's "inexplicable inaction" in the face of evidence
the system is noncompliant. Imlay pointed out that the FCC's May 21
letter made no mention of Condition #1 of Ambient's Part 5
Experimental license.

"That condition requires that if any interference occurs, the holder
of the authorization will be subject to immediate shutdown," Imlay
wrote. "Interference has repeatedly occurred, and it has been
witnessed and verified by a member of the Commission's Enforcement
Bureau staff. Yet no action has been taken whatsoever to terminate
this experimental authorization over a period of more than two and
one-half years. This is inexcusable."

Ambient operates the Briarcliff Manor BPL pilot program under
Experimental license WD2XEQ. ARRL testing as recent as late May
indicated the system is operating outside of the parameters of its
FCC authorization.

The League called the FCC's most recent push to get the company to
comply with the terms of its Experimental license "too little, too
late and an abdication of the Commission's responsibility to protect
its licensees from interference from unlicensed RF devices."

"The Commission's obsessive compulsion to avoid any bad news about
BPL has clearly driven its multi-year inaction," the League
continued. "Had this been any other experimental authorization
dealing with any technology other than BPL, the experimental
authorization would have been terminated long ago." The League's
complaints regarding interference to Amateur Radio communication
from the Briarcliff Manor system date back to October 2003 and
included supportive technical reports and test results.

As it stands, the League maintained, the FCC should have shut down
Ambient's BPL system a long time ago. The ARRL further objected to
Ambient's "repeated misrepresentations in its six-month reports
claiming that its Briarcliff Manor BPL system meets FCC emission
limits."

New measurements done May 24 by ARRL Laboratory Manager Ed Hare,
W1RFI, conclusively establish that the Ambient BPL system, in Hare's
words, "continues to operate well above the Part 15 emission limits
that are stipulated as a condition of its Experimental license."
Hare said his latest excursion marked the third time his emissions
testing in Briarcliff Manor showed the system to be operating
significantly above Part 15 emissions limits.

"The spectral masks in this system intended to protect some radio
services from interference work poorly enough in this generation-1
equipment, but when the system is operated at excessive levels,
strong interference is an inevitable outcome," he commented. "By
operating this system above the Part 15 emissions limits, Ambient is
making it impossible for any electric utility to use results from
this experiment to reach any conclusions about the technical and
commercial viability of BPL."

The ARRL further argued that the Ambient BPL system should not be
permitted to continue operating under the radar with an Experimental
license instead of under the FCC's Part 15 BPL rules, adopted in
2004. The Briarcliff Manor system does not even appear in the FCC's
BPL database, the League noted.

"Causing Ambient to operate in accordance with the BPL rules rather
than allowing it to hide behind its experimental authorization would
at least be consistent with the Commission's regulatory plan for
BPL, however inadequate that plan is in terms of interference
avoidance," Imlay's letter concluded.

Seems they are very aware of it.

73,
Mike, Raleigh, NC

[wa3vjb]

Pacemaker alarms, indeed !!!
I thought I would witness a few cardiacs when, first of all, she would introduce herself by asking a gent if he'd like a lapel sticker, showing them the one she had strategically placed.

Since she was not wearing any lapel, and since she had given you permission, you HAD to look carefully at the location, and read the sticker, sometimes for a long time, carefully checking that you understood the message.

But then, after installing the sticker on the chap, which invariably took a firm pat and a rub to get it to stick, she would next hold the candy dish "just so" and these guys could feel the ambient heat she was giving off as they reached for the sweets.
http://wa3vjb.amham.com/pics/candy.jpg

I'd like to know how many USTowers they sold consequently.

http://www.ustower.com/3tubs.jpg

By contrast, the "youth hospitality table" at the ARRL was empty when I walked by. They are clearly using the wrong bait trying to lure subscribers, and lawsuits don't win many friends either.

[ky5u]

Reminds me of:

[WA2CWA]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ June 02 2007,05:40)]Pacemaker alarms, indeed !!!
I thought I would witness a few cardiacs when, first of all, she would introduce herself by asking a gent if he'd like a lapel sticker, showing them the one she had strategically placed.

Since she was not wearing any lapel, and since she had given you permission, you HAD to look carefully at the location, and read the sticker, sometimes for a long time, carefully checking that you understood the message.

But then, after installing the sticker on the chap, which invariably took a firm pat and a rub to get it to stick, she would next hold the candy dish "just so" and these guys could feel the ambient heat she was giving off as they reached for the sweets.
When I walked by, I got one of those "looks could kill", so I kept on moving. Don't know why, but wasn't going to wait to find out. Anyway, I was in work mode, so stickers and "candy" weren't high on my list.

Pete, wa2cwa

[ky5u]

You were just too handsome, Pete.