October 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:11417] Re: From a Regional Source...
by W3KD＠aol.com 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/14/2004 5:51:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, walstrom(a)mchsi.com writes: > > This does, however, confirm my concern that November 2 is a lose-lose > situation > for Amatuer Radio. > > So are we all voting for Nader? JUST KIDDING! Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11416] Re: From a Regional Source...
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

There is no mention of BPL in the speech he gave to the AARP. It may have been an unscripted remark. I've asked K7ACZ what the context was. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Walstrom, Wade, W0EJ (DIR MW) Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11415] Re: From a Regional Source... This is the first I have heard where he specifically mentioned BPL, but the position is consistent with his campaign's white paper on telecommunications that was available several months/weeks ago. This does, however, confirm my concern that November 2 is a lose-lose situation for Amatuer Radio. 73, Wade W0EJ > John Kerry is live on Las Vegas CH 3 making a speech to the AARP > convention being held here. He just said he supports BPL as a means > of getting the internet to rural areas so kids can have a better > education and wants to push its installation and use. Why do they > need BPL? If they have a phone line they can use dial-up or DSL. But > the point is he wants to push BPL. > > This is not meant to be a political statement, I am just relaying what > I have just heard with my own ears off my T.V. concerning his stand on > BPL. I normally watch the CH 3 News at Noon program but today it was > pre-empted for Kerry's speech. > > FYI FWIW. Please no Flames, remember, its not nice to kill the messenger. > 73 >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11415] Re: From a Regional Source...
by walstrom＠mchsi.com 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

This is the first I have heard where he specifically mentioned BPL, but the position is consistent with his campaign's white paper on telecommunications that was available several months/weeks ago. This does, however, confirm my concern that November 2 is a lose-lose situation for Amatuer Radio. 73, Wade W0EJ > John Kerry is live on Las Vegas CH 3 making a speech to the AARP > convention being held here. He just said he supports BPL as a means > of getting the internet to rural areas so kids can have a better > education and wants to push its installation and use. Why do they > need BPL? If they have a phone line they can use dial-up or DSL. But > the point is he wants to push BPL. > > This is not meant to be a political statement, I am just relaying what > I have just heard with my own ears off my T.V. concerning his stand on > BPL. I normally watch the CH 3 News at Noon program but today it was > pre-empted for Kerry's speech. > > FYI FWIW. Please no Flames, remember, its not nice to kill the messenger. > 73 >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11414] Re: From a Regional Source...
by Art Goddard 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

I bet you are... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:33 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11413] Re: From a Regional Source... I'm running it down. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:30 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11412] From a Regional Source... John Kerry is live on Las Vegas CH 3 making a speech to the AARP convention being held here. He just said he supports BPL as a means of getting the internet to rural areas so kids can have a better education and wants to push its installation and use. Why do they need BPL? If they have a phone line they can use dial-up or DSL. But the point is he wants to push BPL. This is not meant to be a political statement, I am just relaying what I have just heard with my own ears off my T.V. concerning his stand on BPL. I normally watch the CH 3 News at Noon program but today it was pre-empted for Kerry's speech. FYI FWIW. Please no Flames, remember, its not nice to kill the messenger. 73

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11413] Re: From a Regional Source...
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

I'm running it down. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:30 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11412] From a Regional Source... John Kerry is live on Las Vegas CH 3 making a speech to the AARP convention being held here. He just said he supports BPL as a means of getting the internet to rural areas so kids can have a better education and wants to push its installation and use. Why do they need BPL? If they have a phone line they can use dial-up or DSL. But the point is he wants to push BPL. This is not meant to be a political statement, I am just relaying what I have just heard with my own ears off my T.V. concerning his stand on BPL. I normally watch the CH 3 News at Noon program but today it was pre-empted for Kerry's speech. FYI FWIW. Please no Flames, remember, its not nice to kill the messenger. 73

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11412] From a Regional Source...
by Art Goddard 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

John Kerry is live on Las Vegas CH 3 making a speech to the AARP convention being held here. He just said he supports BPL as a means of getting the internet to rural areas so kids can have a better education and wants to push its installation and use. Why do they need BPL? If they have a phone line they can use dial-up or DSL. But the point is he wants to push BPL. This is not meant to be a political statement, I am just relaying what I have just heard with my own ears off my T.V. concerning his stand on BPL. I normally watch the CH 3 News at Noon program but today it was pre-empted for Kerry's speech. FYI FWIW. Please no Flames, remember, its not nice to kill the messenger. 73

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11410] Re: FCC"s BPL news release and statements
by W3KD＠aol.com 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/14/2004 3:05:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbellows(a)skypoint.com writes: > Perhaps we should immediately make an FOI request for all information > relating to the Chairman's visit to Manassas including the written > request for the presentation, the reply from the provider and telephone > log records between the two parties in the past week. > > Jay, KØQB > For the record, we have a pending FOIA for all FCC measurements and field studies since they last denied our FOIA for the same things. They are ten days late responding to it, but OET says that they are assembling the documents we requested. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11409] Re: FCC"s BPL news release and statements
by W3KD＠aol.com 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/14/2004 2:43:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, walstrom(a)mchsi.com writes: > > It does not appear the Powell recused himself. > > They all gave the interference issue lip service, but only one gave any > indication of taking that issue seriously. > > (sigh!) > Wade, Powell didn't recuse himself because the FCC General Counsel recommended that he didn't have to. The issue isn't over. I got a fax late yesterday (after the courts were closed) of a letter from the General Counsel, Rogovin, who said that there was an applicable exception to the ex parte prohibition during the sunshine period. I just sent the attached memo to Dave Sumner on this subject. Forgive me, it is long and somewhat ponderous. I didn't have time to shorten it. We plan to tell Rogovin that he is wrong, that we have been irreparably harmed, and that the Commission should vacate the Report and Order as the result of its taint. The basic point is that the exception doesn't apply to this situation, and even if it did, FCC didn't comply with the very specific disclosure requirements where the exception does apply. Please keep all this confidential for now, OK? 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11408] Re: FCC"s BPL news release and statements
by John Bellows 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

Perhaps we should immediately make an FOI request for all information relating to the Chairman's visit to Manassas including the written request for the presentation, the reply from the provider and telephone log records between the two parties in the past week. Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11405] Re: FCC"s BPL news release and statements Chris received a reply from the General Counsel to the effect that since Powell requested the presentation, it was exempted from the sunshine period prohibition. He and I both believe this is post hoc rationalization. The FCC's BPL Report and Order will not be available for a while, but we can synthesize a lot of what's in it. The FCC news release says the Order: - Sets forth rules imposing new technical requirements on BPL devices, such as the capability to avoid using any specific frequency and to remotely adjust or shut down any unit. Comment: Presumably this is similar to what was in the NPRM. - Establishes "excluded frequency bands" within which BPL must avoid operating entirely to protect aeronautical and aircraft receivers communications; and establishes "exclusion zones" in locations close to sensitive operations, such as coast guard or radio astronomy stations, within which BPL must avoid operating on certain frequencies. Comment: Presumably this reflects what was in the NTIA's September 13 submission. If so, Access BPL emissions are PROHIBITED in the following 12 bands (MHz): 2.850-3.025 3.400-3.500 4.650-4.700 5.450-5.680 6.525-6.685 8.815-8.965 10.005-10.100 11.275-11.400 13.260-13.360 17.900-17.970 21.924-22.000 74.800-75.200 By quick count, there are 106 "exclusion zones" where the use of 2.1735-2.1905 MHz is prohibited within 1 km of coast station facilities. There are 10 areas where the use of 73.0-74.6 MHz is excluded within 80 km of VLBA radio astronomy facilities. - Establishes consultation requirements with public safety agencies, federal government sensitive stations, and aeronautical stations. Comment: There are 53 locations listed by NTIA as "coordination areas" in addition to other locations, including the Commission's own field offices and radio astronomy facilities, to distances ranging from 1 km to 80 km. In these areas, BPL use of 1.7-30 MHz (and in the case of radio astronomy, to higher frequencies) would be subject to advance coordination. To this list the FCC apparently has added public safety agencies, but we don't know to what extent. - Establishes a publicly available Access BPL notification database to facilitate an organized approach to identification and resolution of harmful interference. Comment: Public availability is something we lobbied hard for, and the BPL industry lobbied against. So this is a win for us, albeit a small one. To address industry concerns, the information contained in the database apparently will be limited to the bare minimum needed to identify the source and the responsible party. - Changes the equipment authorization for Access BPL systems from verification to certification. Comment: Another small win for us that was opposed by the BPL industry. This is an admission by the FCC that the potential for interference from BPL devices is greater than from run-of-the-mill Part 15 devices. On the other hand, certification of the device is not as valuable as certification that the installation meets Part 15 rules. - Improves measurement procedures for all equipment that use RF energy to communicate over power lines. Comment: We don't know exactly what these "improvements" are and probably will not be entirely satisfied with them. In the presentation by Anh Wride, as well in comments by Ed Thomas during the press conference after the meeting, there was reference made to "administrative" as well as technical requirements for interference resolution. Thomas was asked about it and he said there were step by step procedures that were not really new. Franca said at the press conference that there were no "deadlines" for the resolution of interference. Otherwise we expect the R&O to be similar to the NPRM: no change in the Part 15 limits (at least below 30 MHz), no change in the absolute obligation of the device operator to eliminate interference (but with the FCC determining whether the interference is truly "harmful"). Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Walstrom, Wade, W0EJ (DIR MW) Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:43 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11404] Re: FCC"s BPL news release and statements It does not appear the Powell recused himself. They all gave the interference issue lip service, but only one gave any indication of taking that issue seriously. (sigh!) 73, Wade W0EJ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:11407] Re: FCC"s BPL news release and statements
by walstrom＠mchsi.com 14 Oct '04

14 Oct '04

One issue that has received almost no attention at all wrt BPL is the susceptibility of a BPL system to interference from the legitimate licensed services of the spectrum. From what little we understand BPL will be adversely affected by a relatively small signal that does not need to be adjacent to the system. It certainly does not appear that the FCC has thought about this. My fear is that when it can be shown that when a legitimate ham signal brings down a BPL system, I know who is going to be hammered! 73, Wade W0EJ

1 0