April 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:14000] ARTICLE ABOUT AR IN HGARPERS
by Jim Weaver, K8JE 16 Apr '06

16 Apr '06

I just recewived a phone call from a memb er who tipped me off to an excellent article on Amateur Radio in the May Harpers Magazine. It focuses around Don Wallace, W6AM (SK) and was written by his grandson, also Don Wallace. It begins on p. 65. This issue is not on the web, yet. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director Great Lakes Division ARRL Chairman Legislative Action Committee <http://www.arrl.org/> www.arrl.org 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 E-mail <mailto:K8JE@arrl.org> K8JE(a)arrl.org; Tel. 513-459-0142; FAX = same as Tel. ARRL, the Reason Amateur Radio is! Members, the Reason ARRL is!

1 0

[arrl-odv:13999] Re: ARRL reply to Manassas COMTek filings
by Jim Weaver, K8JE 15 Apr '06

15 Apr '06

Dredging from the depths of my far distant youth I recall a phrase from a political campaign that applies in principle: Give em Hell, Harry. Good show to all involved. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division Chairman, Legislative Action Committee 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 K8JE(a)arrl.org; Tel., 513-459-0142; FAX, same ARRL, the Reason Amateur Radio is! Members, the Reason ARRL is! -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:07 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13997] ARRL reply to Manassas COMTek filings Last Thursday, the City of Manassas and COMTek responded to Joe Casey's March 7 letter directing the City to take action with regard to the ongoing BPL interference there. Today Chris Imlay filed the attached reply to these responses. Ed Hare did a remarkable analysis of the test report. The file is a bit large; if anyone has trouble with the attachment we will set it up for downloading from the Web site early next week. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:13998] Re: ARRL reply to Manassas COMTek filings
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

Sorry about the duplication! My fault. Dave

1 0

[arrl-odv:13997] ARRL reply to Manassas COMTek filings
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

Last Thursday, the City of Manassas and COMTek responded to Joe Casey's March 7 letter directing the City to take action with regard to the ongoing BPL interference there. Today Chris Imlay filed the attached reply to these responses. Ed Hare did a remarkable analysis of the test report. The file is a bit large; if anyone has trouble with the attachment we will set it up for downloading from the Web site early next week. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:13996] Fwd: Response of ARRL to April 6, 2006 letters from City of Manassas and COMTek re BPL Interference in Manassas, Virginia
by w3kd＠aol.com 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

Greetings. The battle with the City of Manassas and COMTek, the purveyor of dirty BPL and quite a few misrepresentations, continues. The following is self-explanatory. Please take a look at Ed Hare's engineering study here. He buried COMTek's last-second technical study they commissioned. I think it is some of Ed's best work to date. Substantial contribution to the text from Mr. Sumner as well. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: W3KD To: joseph.casey(a)fcc.gov; katherine.power(a)fcc.gov Cc: K4GVT(a)comcast.net; W4HJL; da(a)agnew.us; williamsouth(a)comcast.net; dsumner(a)arrl.org; ehare(a)arrl.org; prinaldo(a)arrl.org; w5zn(a)arrl.org Sent: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:49:40 -0400 Subject: Response of ARRL to April 6, 2006 letters from City of Manassas and COMTek re BPL Interference in Manassas, Virginia Greetings. Attached as a PDF file is the response of ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio, to the April 6, 2006 correspondence from attorneys for the City of Manassas and Communications Technologies, Inc. This document is being filed with the Office of the Secretary by courier as well. Copies are being mailed to counsel for Manassas, Virginia and COMTek. Mr. Agnew and other Amateur Radio licensees involved in this matter are being served by e-mail. Should any question arise concerning this filing, please communicate with undersigned counsel. Regards, Chris Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG

1 0

[arrl-odv:13995] Fwd: Response of ARRL to April 6, 2006 letters from City of Manassas and COMTek re BPL Interference in Manassas, Virginia
by w3kd＠aol.com 14 Apr '06

14 Apr '06

Greetings. The battle with the City of Manassas and COMTek, the purveyor of dirty BPL and quite a few misrepresentations, continues. The following is self-explanatory. Please take a look at Ed Hare's engineering study here. He buried COMTek's last-second technical study they commissioned. I think it is some of Ed's best work to date. Substantial contribution to the text from Mr. Sumner as well. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: W3KD To: joseph.casey(a)fcc.gov; katherine.power(a)fcc.gov Cc: K4GVT(a)comcast.net; W4HJL; da(a)agnew.us; williamsouth(a)comcast.net; dsumner(a)arrl.org; ehare(a)arrl.org; prinaldo(a)arrl.org; w5zn(a)arrl.org Sent: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:49:40 -0400 Subject: Response of ARRL to April 6, 2006 letters from City of Manassas and COMTek re BPL Interference in Manassas, Virginia Greetings. Attached as a PDF file is the response of ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio, to the April 6, 2006 correspondence from attorneys for the City of Manassas and Communications Technologies, Inc. This document is being filed with the Office of the Secretary by courier as well. Copies are being mailed to counsel for Manassas, Virginia and COMTek. Mr. Agnew and other Amateur Radio licensees involved in this matter are being served by e-mail. Should any question arise concerning this filing, please communicate with undersigned counsel. Regards, Chris Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG

1 0

[arrl-odv:13994] Re: Manassas developments
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

As far as I know, it is not necessary to be a registered professional engineer to make technical submissions to the FCC. There would be a problem if they claimed to be PEs and weren't, but I have rarely seen a PE stamp on technical submissions to the FCC. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Wade [mailto:walstrom@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments I have serious doubts about the competency of this report from Public Safety Engineering, Inc. Neither Mssrs. David Foerstner nor Steven Hoke signed this report as registered professional engineers and there are no professional engineering stamps and accompanying statements attached. Neither Mssrs Foerstner nor Hoke are found on the Florida database of registered professional engineers nor, more importantly, in the Virginia professional engineer database. If they indeed are not registerd professional engineers in Florida and Virginia, complaints could be filed against them for practicing without a license. Hmmm. 73, Wade W0EJ P.E. (Iowa, California) -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments Last week, COMTek provided the FCC with less than the FCC had required in responding to the BPL interference complaint filed by Dwight Agnew, AI4II. That did not prevent COMTek from issuing a news release that made it sound as if they had been found to have a clean bill of health: http://www.comtechnologies.com/pr_20060407.htm The ARRL Web story has just been posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/12/102/?nc=1 You will find links to the COMTek response to the FCC and to the interim lab report. Ed Hare has completed a scathing analysis of the deficiencies in the lab report. Chris Imlay will be filing it with the FCC as soon as he gets a chance. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:13993] Re: Manassas developments
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

COMTek and the lab claim they did on/off testing. There were one, possibly two things wrong with what they did. First, instead of a typical radio receiver hooked to a typical antenna they used a spectrum analyzer -- which is not as sensitive as a typical receiver -- and a loop antenna -- which is far less efficient than even a typical mobile antenna. What they were actually measuring was the noise floor of their own equipment, so when they did the on/off test, it didn't have much effect. (According to their measurements the noise sometimes INCREASED when the BPL equipment was turned off!) Second, it isn't clear from the interim test report that they actually turned off the BPL "system." They may have just turned off the nearest injector. It is unlikely that they turned off all of the in-premises modems in the homes of nearby customers. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Wade [mailto:walstrom@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:32 PM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments One sure fire way to determine if th eCOMTEK system is causing the interference: Shut it off momentarily and see if the interference goes away! Of course, the right thing to do then would be to leave it off if the system was indeed causing the interference. None of these actions are likely, unfortunately. 73, Wade W0EJ -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments Last week, COMTek provided the FCC with less than the FCC had required in responding to the BPL interference complaint filed by Dwight Agnew, AI4II. That did not prevent COMTek from issuing a news release that made it sound as if they had been found to have a clean bill of health: http://www.comtechnologies.com/pr_20060407.htm The ARRL Web story has just been posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/12/102/?nc=1 You will find links to the COMTek response to the FCC and to the interim lab report. Ed Hare has completed a scathing analysis of the deficiencies in the lab report. Chris Imlay will be filing it with the FCC as soon as he gets a chance. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments
by Wade 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

I have serious doubts about the competency of this report from Public Safety Engineering, Inc. Neither Mssrs. David Foerstner nor Steven Hoke signed this report as registered professional engineers and there are no professional engineering stamps and accompanying statements attached. Neither Mssrs Foerstner nor Hoke are found on the Florida database of registered professional engineers nor, more importantly, in the Virginia professional engineer database. If they indeed are not registerd professional engineers in Florida and Virginia, complaints could be filed against them for practicing without a license. Hmmm. 73, Wade W0EJ P.E. (Iowa, California) -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments Last week, COMTek provided the FCC with less than the FCC had required in responding to the BPL interference complaint filed by Dwight Agnew, AI4II. That did not prevent COMTek from issuing a news release that made it sound as if they had been found to have a clean bill of health: http://www.comtechnologies.com/pr_20060407.htm <http://www.comtechnologies.com/pr_20060407.htm> The ARRL Web story has just been posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/12/102/?nc=1 <http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/12/102/?nc=1> You will find links to the COMTek response to the FCC and to the interim lab report. Ed Hare has completed a scathing analysis of the deficiencies in the lab report. Chris Imlay will be filing it with the FCC as soon as he gets a chance. Dave K1ZZ

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments
by Wade 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

One sure fire way to determine if th eCOMTEK system is causing the interference: Shut it off momentarily and see if the interference goes away! Of course, the right thing to do then would be to leave it off if the system was indeed causing the interference. None of these actions are likely, unfortunately. 73, Wade W0EJ -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:50 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13990] Manassas developments Last week, COMTek provided the FCC with less than the FCC had required in responding to the BPL interference complaint filed by Dwight Agnew, AI4II. That did not prevent COMTek from issuing a news release that made it sound as if they had been found to have a clean bill of health: http://www.comtechnologies.com/pr_20060407.htm <http://www.comtechnologies.com/pr_20060407.htm> The ARRL Web story has just been posted: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/12/102/?nc=1 <http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/12/102/?nc=1> You will find links to the COMTek response to the FCC and to the interim lab report. Ed Hare has completed a scathing analysis of the deficiencies in the lab report. Chris Imlay will be filing it with the FCC as soon as he gets a chance. Dave K1ZZ

1 0