ARRL REBUTS DENIAL OF INTERFERENCE FROM BPL TRIAL

Amusing propaganda.

Actually, quite a few folks are complaining right now to the FCC, or anyone else they think will listen , in case you didn't notice. The problem is that, with a  few exceptions, they range from the bizarre to the misguided, IMO.

I think the more people who make bizarre and misguided comments--now--the quicker will be the re-examination of the amateur radio service. Of course, I suppose that the subtlety of making a prediction --as opposed to whether one desires that prediction-- is a bit tough to sort out for some.

My desires are not the predictions. BTW.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

One of those problems they solve should be their problem of interference with the Amateur Radio Service. If the ARRL slinks away as "Chip" suggests, then that problem will be one less for the BPL industry to solve.

 

I think you missed the point of the use of mobiles.  First off, they were a platform of convenience, and it would be really no different for a residence ten to twenty feet from an overhead line.  Since the BPL industry allegedly carefully selected trial areas where no hams existed, the ARRL and others had to take mobiles to the test areas to effectively measure the effects of a nearby BPL system.

Perhaps since you live in Virginia, or close by, you should take a drive over to Manassas and see how many places where the city electric department's overhead lines exist that you could effectively operate.  If their system is fully deployed, I'll bet you won't find any spot on a dedicated street which has an overhead medium voltage distribution line carrying BPL, that you can operate from satisfactorily.

 

Oh, I don't suppose the ARRL will change its position. Probably it's too late.

I just don't believe the present stance will have the desired effect. Other approaches, IMO, would work strikingly better.

I am not requiring the ARRL to change; I am stating an opinion on what the outcome will be, and pointing out that the opportunity cost was very dear.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Ahhh...

a sane and thoughtful man.

Go ahead: why listen to me? Listen to this OM. Either way it is silly to shoot the messenger.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

If you agree with "Chip" you are "sane and thoughtful". Hmmm...

I and a couple of "silly" friends have started tallying his logical fallacies and are having a hard time classifying some of them. We are thinking that the main, overarching error running through his thread of misdirection is the repeated false dilemma about the Amateur Service being eliminated or deprecated later, if the ARRL complains about BPL RF pollution now. It is strange how the same guy who complained more than once about someone using a "scare tactic" (wrongly, BTW, as I noted), is basing his entire argument on a scare tactic.

 

Apparently your knowledge of BPL needs broadening somewhat.  BPL modems are designed to utilitize spectrum up to about 70MHz.

Although normal, day to day, local and state public safety operations usually don't occur below 30MHz, there's a great deal of them using 30 to 49.99999MHz.

What do you begin to think COULD be done to change the potential interference to public safety agencies within the "30 day pre-operation notification window?"
Have BPL not operate at all?  Tell PS agencies, such as the Missouri Highway Patrol or the California Highway Patrol to quickly switch to 800MHz or tell their officers not to go near overhead lines or they might miss a call?

How stupid of the FCC.  Yes, how stupid.  There are currently TWO Petitions for Reconsideration timely filed to hopefully address such inane provisions.  Hopefully, the League and others such as the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers will provide additional input as to the impracticality of such an approach.

So, you speculate that our "head butting" approach caused us not to receive special treatment?  No, I certainly don't think for a second that such was at issue.  No, simply one of the Commission siding with strong commercial interests with lots of bucks.  If you're afraid to challenge your government, then you are on your way to losing more of your freedoms than you already have.

The ARRL has done an outstanding job so far.  And, hopefully, once the Petitions are likely ignored and dismissed (in usual Commission fashion) they and others can take the next steps.

And, there are legal remedies, including a Writ of Mandamus, to force a reluctant agency to enforce the law as it should.  Kind of like slapping the wrist of a disobedient child......

73,

Lee
W6EM

 

And I present you with the wookie that Chip uses to employ "The wookie defense."

 

Meaning of WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Definition: [n] an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official's discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail.

K2WH

 

The VHF/Lo band is not covered by the frequency notching rules. Also the states of California and Missouri are not in an exclusion zone.

The state agencies using VHF/Lo band would be protected on a complaint basis, "when and if interference occurs."

Only the feds got frequency notching and exclusion zones.

 

In Manassass, they use the same equipment that was tested here in Rochester in our Phase I trial. If there is little traffic on the system, there is little interference. If there is a modest amount of traffic (one PC going 'full-boogie') the result in our tests was S-6/7 noise on most 'notched' ham bands, and S9+ outside the ham bands. With many users, it would be worse. If you were transmitting on your mobile rig, the traffic probably dropped to zero on the network, because you probably knocked it down!

Many years ago, I was engaged in a somewhat similar battle with a different emerging industry - cable television. Our local cable TV provider had shut down the cable access channel that my non-profit organization operated, in violation of various agreements, and in order to circumvent FCC's rules.

We fought "the good fight" in that one. We did it all through the lawyers. I devoted 5 years of my spare time to meeting with others, communications lawyers, various non-profit groups, etc.. The law was very clearly on our side. To make a very long story short, after reaching a multi-million dollar settlement which got the story out of the press, the other side quietly knifed us in the back through their lawyers - all perfectly legal!
FCC turned a blind eye - ignored their own rules, as did all the politicians we'd befriended, and all the public agencies we'd helped. We were dead...

So, I applaud the ARRL for taking a public position. When big money is involved, it is the only way to fight. And you must never, never, never allow the other guy to get it back behind closed doors.

 

No, I doubt that the ARRL will "slink away".

I am of the opinion they will pursue this approach with vigor, and then run out of money to pursue it. There will likely be a combining of efforts, and the matter will be rendered moot in 3 years, as it is thrown out, and BPL deploys widely. Your opinion may differ.

Of course, there could have been a different approach, where industry works with hams, and decides that donations to a non-profit is a nice idea, and ham radio embraces the new while enhancing the old.

A HUGE consideration that many are blindsighted to, is that many of the people who have, and are leading, the telecom revolution, started or are, hams. Most, IMO, inactive. I wager they view the ARRL's position as hopelessly outdated, at best; holding onto a fifty year outmoded set of approaches that went out with WiFi , digicoms, and SDR.

Why don't you ask them? Oh, don't bother. They might not be as bemused by the abuse as I am.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Is it any wonder the FCC would not support the information provided them that the interference is real? Afteral, Powel is in bed with the utilities and anything brought up by the ARRL or amateurs is just that, info. Not facts to Powell. The guy is an idiot.

 

Chip
I only have one wish for you. That the BPL will soon build equipment all around your ham antenna so that it will knock you off the air. With you getting down on ARRL, and FCC I hope no one comes to help when you’re having a problem


Val
KD6ZXT
73

 

Well, I guess you and your pal have LOTS of free time

I certainly don't intend, nor have presented, this in some scary way. I appreciate that you chose to interpret it this way, so here it goes for clarification.

If you DON'T take a cooperative approach, then it behooves the other side to consider how the public views ham radio, especially in contemporary terms. I do not believe that the public--which the FCC serves--will be any thing but indifferent to ham radio--at best. We have already seen some profoundly negative publicity to ham radio--the Wall Street Journal article was a real killer in my opinion--and there is no reason to expect that there won't be more.

I'm not being off the wall. Read the Wall Street Journal article yourself.

73,
Chip N1IR