ARRL REBUTS DENIAL OF INTERFERENCE FROM BPL TRIAL

We have done that Chip. What we get is: Interference? There is no inteference. And best of all: Inteference? Well, it is not harmful interference.

Come on Chip, physics has not changed unless both of us have been on another planet. You put a RF signal on a wire that is unshielded, it is going to radiate! I do it on 75 meters all the time.

As to notching (as some of the BPL folks claim) it does not work. The NTIA folks told me that as did a number of PHD's who are working on the problem.

 

Another point Chip: Are you telling me that the ARRL should roll over on BPL just because you say that a "minority" of the amateur community use HF? Is that what you are saying?

Amazing indeed!

 

No Jim,

I'm saying that the FCC regulations provide for the prevention of harmful interference--if it and when it occurs. Going after an industry with the scare tactic that it WILL affect thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of radio amateurs--and prevent them from executing THEIR mission under Part 97--is, IMO, activism in its worst form.

I am sorry that you have not got the response you wanted from the FCC; the White House; and so on. It sounds like you came a cropper this round.

IMO, you must have received the cordial level of response you deserved.

Could you kindly summarize--briefly-- a list of CEO's and VP's of the various BPL companies who YOU have met with since June 1, for example? I'm not talking about what underlings got sent to waste time with underlings. I'm talking about the President of ARRL meeting with top management.

If not, then why not?

As for the ARRL, the answer is obvious, IMO: the ARRL is not a player in this. The issue is between the FCC and any possible unlicensed sources of harmful interference. It is in their best interest (the unlicensed sources) to resolve issues--without (IMO) an apparently activist non-profit badgering the White House and the FCC; wasting member resources; riling up hostility. Again, my opinions. Yours may differ.

You had the opportunity to make something positive of this: 1) get the BPL industry to work with ham radio; 2) get the BPL industry to support the ARRL and ham radio (how about a Tech Innovation fund??) ; 3) get the FCC to work with bringing together the two huge gaps of amateur telecom that now coexist: amateur 'radio' and amateur 'wireless'. Instead, I don't think anyone wants to really talk with the ARRL. Oh, they'll talk with you, but will they give you the time of day? Again, my educated opinion.

That's what the ARRL SHOULD have done. I have reason to believe there was a window for this in 2004. But times have changed; now the issue is how much money can the ARRL throw at the 'problem' in the little time that is left to have any potential impact on the result. I think you have, oh, 4 months at best. My pure speculation and opinion. We'll see what its worth, won't we?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

To claim that the FCC is attempting to resolve the issue of BPL interference is true...if one is willing to redefine the word "resolve." In this case, the FCC is seeking a resolution, a finality, to the issue, and that finality may be encapsulated in the phrase, "What interference? Oh...what HARMFUL interference?"

There likely is no opportunity to impact this matter, at least as far as having the BPL industry change its stance or methods. As long as the FCC supports its denial of harmful interference, the industry is off the hook and the status quo is acceptable.

Perhaps what Jim and ARRL are doing is all they can to lay a groundwork to support legal action at a later date. Yes, ARRL will petition for reconsideration of the published rule, but it is unlikely that will go anywhere.

Chip, you continue to comment about legally operating part 15 devices/services. The fact of the matter is that when a device causes harmful interference (to a licensed device), it is no longer "legal" according to Part 15 rules, regardless of its radiated emission limit. In the case of BPL, the FCC (and perhaps NTIA...comments, anyone?) have documented instances where the radiated emissions levels exceed what is allowable under Part 15, period.

ARRL has summarized the situation appropriately: this is a clash of incompatible technologies. It is my opinion that unless a court decides otherwise, the unlicensed BPL technology will win the fight in the long run...unless it proves economically unviable. Even then, FCC is likely to try to "pick" winners and in the name of creating a "level" playing field may set up new mechanisms to prop up an industry that cannot stand on its own. Think subsidies (which can be regulatory); think an economy of "pull"; think "Atlas Shrugged."

Jim, thank you for continuing your work in this area. It is similar to times I have continued to bid for government contracts, having strong information that the bidder has been preselected, and not according to its ability to meet the bid specifications. One follows the process through, in the hope that one of these days the entity in question will be forced to follow its own rules, rather than exist above them.

Lord Acton was correct, and unless the courts intervene, or another branch of government with oversight privilege intervenes, its power may be absolute in this matter. Power and right are entirely different matters, and FCC will be dead wrong even though it has and exercises the power to push a Part 15 system ahead at the expense of numerous licensed services.

Respectfully submitted,
Art

 

Art, I appreciate that the finer points of reading can get softened in a pool of words, but you have misrepresented my previous comments.

The FCC is aware and the FCC is dealing. If there is harmful interference, it will lead to major fines, and even shut down. When has the FCC EVER deviated from that point? Indeed, the October R&O affirms it. The issue is shepherding the BPL technology to work within Part 15. the secondary issue--with a few activists pushing like it's God's mission-- is to cool the hot heads who are preventing a natural, positive resolution to the conflict.

Stating with 100 % conviction that BPL can't exist is a formula for disaster. Ham radio will suffer profoundly in the next decade, IMO, if this tact is pushed much further: our mission will be reviewed and re-assessed and we will lose.

Also, I suspect Jim was referring to someone other than the FCC when discussing the 'what interference'? comments.

I don't see ANY evidence that the FCC has DENIED harmful interference--if and when present. Why do you assume this?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I have to side with the ARRL on this one. They may be fighting one of the most pivotal battles in the future of our hobby. Sound melodramatic? Read on.

Note the bold statement above. Chip is not half wrong if the ARRL can't stem the tide of BPL. Presently the IEEE standards body has a sub group called 802.22. The head of the IEEE 802.22 committee is none other than Carl Stevenson, who also serves as president of No Code International and the 802.22 specification includes calling for the use of a "cognitive" radio which can detect vacant space between channels and use that spectrum. Add to this the fact that formerly the standards groups were focusing activity on frequencies above 900mHz and now with 802.22, have set their sites on frequencies near the Amateur Bands used by Technician Class licensees. From an article on the internet recently:

Today the ARRL can make a case for 6m, 2m, and 70cm being used. What happens if No Code International gets it's way and telegraphy testing is removed? You don't have to be a fortune teller to see that the result of the NCI action could be making frequencies above 54 mHz vacant for plucking by IEEE 802.22. Next comes the bandwidth bandplan on HF which removes mode arguments and facilitates the ultimate channelization of HF. Actions in the past by the ARRL to simply put teeth into the voluntary band plan were opposed by.....you guessed it.....Mr. Stevenson representing NCI. Then come the IEEE 802.22 folks (lead by Mr. Stevenson) with their devices designed to work between HF channels. Looks like Chip's crystal ball is tuned in!

In the past, the ARRL has argued that Part 15 devices as unlicensed do not have a voice in Part 97 (spectrum allocation matters), a position rejected by the FCC. Here Chip tells us that as Part 97 licensees, we don't have a voice in Part 15 (BPL). Nice try. The game plan by the BPL and the IEEE 802 groups seems to be to make the ARRL interest in BPL interference into a fight about Amateurs challenging the FCC's authority to regulate Part 15 devices. It should be abundantly clear to everyone that the ARRL is interested in the interference from the part 15 devices and protection of Amateur frequencies from that interference.

How does possible IEEE interest in Amateur frequencies tie into BPL? The missing element for further loss of our frequencies is historic evidence that Part 15 devices can coexist with Amateur users. BPL could provide that evidence if the ARRL is not successful documenting the facts to the contrary.

 

Going after an industry with the scare tactic......

Scare tactic? Chip come on... what we and the NTIA have presented is science and fact, hardly "scare tactices". Why are you in denial over pure facts?

Or, is that scary?

 

Jim,

My deep concern is that the ARRL position is so far from reality, that radio amateurs will lose frequencies and privileges in the next decade, for reasons that have nothing to do with BPL or Part 15--but with approach, motivation, and 'what exactly do we need ham radio for'?

We'll get attention from the League's approach, but not the sort you may have had in mind.

That is my educated opinion. But, as you have pointed out, what do I know?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

" Looks like Chip's crystal ball is tuned in!"

And so it seems. If you knew me better, you would be in a position to understand my ken.

Are you a good listener, or shall I continue to hear hostile rants and denial from many?

I am tiring of having my comments construed as destructive to ham radio; me being 'anti-ham', and so on. There is a strategy that works and oodles that won't.

Knowledge is power; keen guessing comes in a close second.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

What do you expect from a power company.

We have a situation locally where Aquila purchased property and began construction of a peaking power plan right next to a neighborhood, without consulting the residents, without rezoning the land or obtaining permits from the county.

When confronted with the fact they are not following the law, their response is "they don't need a permit" Law suits were filed and the judge feels differently. Stop Aquila Web Site

What does this have to do with BPL? If the power companies are willing to do this where obvious rules are in place, what do you think they're going to do with the vague guidance provided by the FCC?

Be afraid, be very afraid!

 

Here ya go Jim...here's one of those 'scare tactics'.

Chip

 

Jim, W5JBP:  Thank you very much for yours and the League's efforts to encourage the FCC to follow what Congress intended them to do:  Enforce the law and promulgated regulations.

Unfortunately, when government entities do not do their jobs properly and fairly, the people must rise up to obtain appropriate relief.  And, of course, the first step is, as you have done, to demand proper behavior.

Unfortunately, once again, we have our 'usual 'contributor' nay-saying what has been shown to be factual by your testing, that of the NTIA, and many amateurs' experience.  As you've probably already read, from my earlier postings, Dr. Nathan 'Chip' Cohen, N1IR, has a pecuniary interest in RFID technology via his ownership, in part, of Fractal Antennas.  A manufacturer of RFID antennas.  Similar FCC laisse faire behavior toward any interference from unlicnesed RFID devices would greatly benefit the RFID industry. One doesn't need a PhD in Physics to recognize this.

If I could make a suggestion:  The one place you should go, if you haven't yet, is to House E&C Committee Chaiman Joe Barton's office in Arlington, and sit down with him for a rather lengthy discussion.  Call it 'Texan to Texan', if you'll pardon my frankness.  You need to show him what has been transpiring, and also what the risks to licensed services will be, should deployment of BPL continue.  This is incredibly serious stuff, as you know.  It scares me to think of the potential for injury and property damage by virtue of HF and low VHF spectrum being unusable in times of crisis and emergency.


73,

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

 

Yes, Chip, BPL's VERY scary, if you think about it. Don't let the thought of having one of your fractal antennas in the cap of every soda pop bottle fog up common sense.....

 

You bet I do RFID antennas there Lee Lots and lots. Lots and lots of all kind antennas Fun stuff!

And say --so does CUSHCRAFT! You know Cushcraft, don't you there Lee? They make ham antennas, and commercial antennas...and RFID antennas!

Why does making RFID antennas make one interested in relaxing Part 15 standards for RFID? That's a new one on me, and I certainly have never heard that, except from you.

Can you provide some evidence for this? Or any of your other false statements?

All ears OM.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

If Cushcraft were on here taking the position you have repeatedly, I'd be announcing that as well.  But, they aren't strongly supporting BPL and aren't to my knowledge purposefully ignoring factual data concerning BPL, as you are each time you are reminded of it.

No, I won't go to the trouble of supplying references.  I really don't need to.  Read what I said carefully.
 
There have been some articles written about the prospect of UHF and microwave RFID systems potentially interfering with licensed services.  You've already tried to put down our service's 902MHz assignment by berating it as only 'secondary', as if to berate our rights to use the 902MHz band over your unlicensed 'soda pop wands.'

As I had conjectured on another BPL thread, equal treatment under our laws is guaranteed (supposedly) by our Constitution.  I won't cite the Amendent, I'll let you find it yourself.  Needless to say, if the FCC looks the other way for BPL interference claims, I would think that they could be obliged to do the same for unlicensed RFID interference complaints.  Elementary logic.

False statements?  I don't believe that I've made any. Correct your partial Curriculm Vitae in the experience department if what I've said isn't correct.

Ciao and touche',

Lee
W6EM