View Full Version : FCC Goes AFTER Manassas BPL Provider
This is it, the FCC has finally had it up to here with this system. It's about time these miscreants and liars are forced to admit their system stinks. The interference was and is real and needs to be eliminated. Who says ARRL doesn't help amateurs and I hope everyone sees the wisdom of the ARRL's slow and even handed pressure. This is a great victory for all hams and helps put another "BIG" nail in the BPL coffin.
Read about it on the ARRL Website and click on the PDF files, the actual letters from the Enforcement Bureau.
Next up Briarcliff Manor, NY
K2WH
I'd like to see W9WHE try to run his mouth now.....
Quote[/b] (K1OU @ June 19 2006,10:51)]I'd like to see W9WHE try to run his mouth now.....
And good ol Chip, N1IR.
K2WH
K4KWH
06-20-2006, 01:56 AM
One of things that always bugged me (and I am no lawyer) was that *if*, according to Part 15 a given level noise was being emitted how could they(FCC) say on one hand that no "interference" was being generated, but turn right around and cite a power utility for "interference" to Amateur communications---which they were doing right along while saying that
BPL caused no interference. #Would not talking out of both sides of their mouths come back to bite them in the butt sooner or later? #Is it not reasonable to assume that some Amateur would eventually file suit using FCC's own rules against to them to prove that noise is noise and also show that FCC was enforcing their rules unevenly?
Discussion anyone?
73
Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 19 2006,18:56)]Discussion anyone?
Follow the money trail...who in that organization stands to profit from widespread implementation of BPL, and how?
k0cmh
06-20-2006, 12:37 PM
OK, discussion it will be
Well, it all probably started with some of the utility companies wanting to get in on the internet scheme. They probably pressured (another term for bought) some congressmen who pressured the FCC to give it a try.
Old saying, Money talkes, . . . .
FCC caved to pressure, then realized they had a mess on their hands.
This happens often within our congress/government. An agency gets a poor program pushed upon them, they try to stand by it for awhile, and after awhile, they finally gather enough complaints, etc. to dump it. Happens all the time in these great United States.
Usually the support for the poor project ends when the money stops flowing to the congressmen who pushed it.
The opposition now has 100 word to reply.
I wouldn't get too excited about this just yet.
If you read the actual FCC letters, what they are telling the BPL provider is "... if you are not able to resolve the specific claims, you are directed to reduce the emissions level in the areas described in the complaints on the pertinent frequencies to at least 20 dB below the Part 15 limit."
There could be several "outs" in this for the BPL folks, and if you study it there are some important things that it does NOT say.
a) The FCC asks them to address "specific claims". Well, the specific claims (read the complaint letters) deal only with one specific frequency (ECARS net) on 40 meters and one specific frequency on 20 meters, and certain specific locations.
It does NOT say that all ham frequencies must be cleaned up throughout the city. They could just shift the interference to, say, 30 meters, 17 meters, lower end of 40 meters, etc.... since there are no "specific claims" about those frequencies. Or they could route the BPL signals through a different neighborhood instead of along the specific roads mentioned in the complaints.
b) And it provides an alternative to actually eliminating interference - i.e., to reduce the emissions levels to 20db below the Part 15 limit.
Well, 20 dB below the Part 15 limit may still be quite a lot of noise. We don't know what the emissions levels are now but suppose they are right at Part 15 limits. The complaints claim interference of "20 to 30 dB" over S9. So reducing the noise by 20 dB would still leaves S9 to S9+10dB noise levels.
So, this is not nearly in the end game. This will drag on for years.
Quote[/b] (nn4rh @ June 20 2006,02:00)]I wouldn't get too excited about this just yet.
If you read the actual FCC letters, what they are telling the BPL provider is "... if you are not able to resolve the specific claims, you are directed to reduce the emissions level in the areas described in the complaints on the pertinent frequencies to at least 20 dB below the Part 15 limit."
There could be several "outs" in this for the BPL folks, and if you study it there are some important things that it does NOT say.
a) The FCC asks them to address "specific claims". Well, the specific claims (read the complaint letters) deal only with one specific frequency (ECARS net) on 40 meters and one specific frequency on 20 meters, and certain specific locations.
It does NOT say that all ham frequencies must be cleaned up throughout the city. They could just shift the interference to, say, 30 meters, 17 meters, lower end of 40 meters, etc.... since there are no "specific claims" about those frequencies. Or they could route the BPL signals through a different neighborhood instead of along the specific roads mentioned in the complaints.
b) And it provides an alternative to actually eliminating interference - i.e., to reduce the emissions levels to 20db below the Part 15 limit.
Well, 20 dB below the Part 15 limit may still be quite a lot of noise. We don't know what the emissions levels are now but suppose they are right at Part 15 limits. The complaints claim interference of "20 to 30 dB" over S9. So reducing the noise by 20 dB would still leaves S9 to S9+10dB noise levels.
So, this is not nearly in the end game. This will drag on for years.
Incorrect!
If you read the 1st letter, it states:
"We note that these frequencies are not part of the amateur band and thus, seperate from Mr. Agnews complaint. #Accordingly to fully comply with the Commission rules, you are directed to take immediate steps to eliminate ALL excessive emissions"
This seems quite clear to me what the BPL provider must do. #Whether in or out of the ham bands, all BPL emissions, must comply with Part 15 throughout the entire distribution system. #Moving the interference to another frequency will not give them a get out of jail card. #Re-routing along another street is their prerogative, as long as it complies with Part 15 emission limits.
The tone of the FCC letters implies they are not going to let this intolerable situation slide anymore. #The complainant Mr. Agnew, is well within his rights as a licensed amateur to travel any road he chooses even down a road they re-routed their lines to avoid the interference issue and file a new complaint. #Dogging them is permissable and should be done.
We all must understand, BPL is an UNLICENSED service and CANNOT interfere or take precedence over a LICENSED service.
However, you are correct, that depending on the hams antenna location and gain, reducing of the strength of BPL signal, while they may be in compliance with the rules, may not stop all the interference. #That is not the issue though. #Once it is proven the emission level is in accordance with Part 15, they are legal and can proceed. #But, reducing the level of emissions, requires them to turn the power down. #Doing this may not provide a strong enough signal to the subscribers.
However again, this is another large nail in the BPL coffin. #Investors will now probably flee from this lost cause and put their money elsewhere.
K2WH
K4KWH
06-20-2006, 09:14 PM
Well, nobody has tackled *my* question yet!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif # *IF* a certain level of noise is generated and FCC has routinely answered complaints of Amateurs regarding powerline-generated noise, then is not precedent set for making FCC abate the noise under Part 15? #Therefore, #noise is noise emanating from a powerline, right. #So how could FCC defend *IF* somebody decided to show discrimination in the way FCC enforces Part 15 and bring suit? It looks to me--and I am no attorney--as tho a judge would be forced to rule in favor of the aggrieved ham, and that his case would be proven based on long precedents set by FCC itself. Even now there is a case on ARRL Letter about FCC going after a power company. So how can they enforce one thing and ignore the other?
Any attorneys out there!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Anyway, this IS a hopeful sign.
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2006,15:17)]The tone of the FCC letters implies they are not going to let this intolerable situation slide anymore.
I think we agree that there are two issues - one is the interference issue and the other is the emissions limit issue. And that reducing the emissions doesn't necessary solve the interference problem.
My reading of the FCC letters is that FCC is saying something to the effect of - well guys, take a stab at getting rid of the interference, but if you can't do it, then 20 dB below Part 15 emissions limits is good enough.
I don't know where this threshold of 20dB below Part 15 comes from. It seems arbitrary. And somehow I doubt that going from S9+30dB noise down to S9+10dB noise is really going to satisfy any of the complainants, even if it does satisfy the FCC.
Quote[/b] ]We all must understand, BPL is an UNLICENSED service and CANNOT interfere or take precedence over a LICENSED service.
Not quite. The rules prohibit harmful interference. What's going on is that the FCC has apparently decided that some interference is OK - as long as the emissions are 20dB below Part 15 limits, then they will not consider it to be harmful to mobilers. I am concerned about this precedent being applied to fixed stations, as well, as some point in the future.
Quote[/b] ]Investors will now probably flee from this lost cause and put their money elsewhere.
The city government of Manassas got sold on the idea that the BPL system would be a revenue souce for the city. Getting any kind of government entity to give up a potential revenue stream may not happen as quickly or simply as an investor pulling out.
The BPL operator is telling Manassas that this is just a glitch, that will be solved as soon as they get their "second generation" equipment installed (supposedly by the end of July). I don't think Manassas is going to panic and pull out just yet. Not unless the city budget starts suffering a chronic loss.
Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 20 2006,17:14)]Well, nobody has tackled *my* question yet!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif *IF* a certain level of noise is generated and FCC has routinely answered complaints of Amateurs regarding powerline-generated noise, then is not precedent set for making FCC abate the noise under Part 15? Therefore, noise is noise emanating from a powerline, right.
Last year, the FCC amended Part 15 with a whole new set of rules specific to BPL. It's not treated quite the same as ordinary power line noise in some key respects.
Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 20 2006,10:14)]Well, nobody has tackled *my* question yet!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif # *IF* a certain level of noise is generated and FCC has routinely answered complaints of Amateurs regarding powerline-generated noise, then is not precedent set for making FCC abate the noise under Part 15? #Therefore, #noise is noise emanating from a powerline, right. #So how could FCC defend *IF* somebody decided to show discrimination in the way FCC enforces Part 15 and bring suit? It looks to me--and I am no attorney--as tho a judge would be forced to rule in favor of the aggrieved ham, and that his case would be proven based on long precedents set by FCC itself. Even now there is a case on ARRL Letter about FCC going after a power company. So how can they enforce one thing and ignore the other?
Any attorneys out there!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Anyway, this IS a hopeful sign.
I have been scratching my head over this issue for years. I notice how many times the FCC would send a letter to some utility that your system is causing interference to amateur X2CCC.
But the silence was deafening on the BPL issue. I was and still am totally bewildered by FCC inaction of what I considered to be the same thing.
In a word "Politics". Thats the only thing I can conclude. Feel assured, you are not the only one that has noticed the "Selective" enforcement.
K2WH
"Not quite. The rules prohibit harmful interference. What's going on is that the FCC has apparently decided that some interference is OK - as long as the emissions are 20dB below Part 15 limits, then they will not consider it to be harmful to mobilers.
Fortunately, mobile stations for the most part will all be the same distance from the medium voltage lines simply because of their 30-50 foot distance above the street. #So this is a constant basically.
It was estimated that this distance would provide the needed isolation from a signal source that is already fairly weak as long as it is a certain signal strength at a certain distance from the line. From this point it should decay rapidly.
K2WH
K4KWH
06-21-2006, 01:13 AM
What happens if #militant, and P. O.'ed ham decides to park right under the lines and "boot" the subscribers?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #Kind of a electronic hit-n-run strategy to disrupt their system. #I know, not kosher, but mighty tempting! Park. Send out some high power CQ's, then scoot to a different location.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
73
K4KWH
06-21-2006, 01:21 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ June 20 2006,15:50)]Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 20 2006,10:14)]Well, nobody has tackled *my* question yet!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif # *IF* a certain level of noise is generated and FCC has routinely answered complaints of Amateurs regarding powerline-generated noise, then is not precedent set for making FCC abate the noise under Part 15? #Therefore, #noise is noise emanating from a powerline, right. #So how could FCC defend *IF* somebody decided to show discrimination in the way FCC enforces Part 15 and bring suit? It looks to me--and I am no attorney--as tho a judge would be forced to rule in favor of the aggrieved ham, and that his case would be proven based on long precedents set by FCC itself. Even now there is a case on ARRL Letter about FCC going after a power company. So how can they enforce one thing and ignore the other?
Any attorneys out there!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Anyway, this IS a hopeful sign.
I have been scratching my head over this issue for years. #I notice how many times the FCC would send a letter to some utility that your system is causing interference to amateur X2CCC.
But the silence was deafening on the BPL issue. #I was and still am totally bewildered by FCC inaction of what I considered to be the same thing.
In a word "Politics". #Thats the only thing I can conclude. #Feel assured, you are not the only one that has noticed the "Selective" enforcement.
K2WH
Like I said, *I* ain't no lawyer! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif # But, it would seem to my simple mind that FCC has left itself wide open for a suit--even if it DID change the rules to make them more favorable to BPL. #There's YEARS of precedent, and now changing the rules in midstream would seem, to a good barrister, to be like "somebody's greasing some palms". #They are actually, IMHO, talking out of both sides of their mouths, and that could be their undoing if somebody wanted to follow up on it.
The good news (no, I didnt save hundreds on car insurance #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #) is that BPL might be killed by good old competition.
73
Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ June 20 2006,21:21)]Like I said, *I* ain't no lawyer!
I don't think being a lawyer would help.
But, if you were a politician, that might help understand it.
K4KWH
06-23-2006, 02:02 AM
THAT, I can understand! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
73