Very good point, Chris!
I personally know three hams who don’t have, or can’t
have, antennas at their home, but do have a “mobile” installation
and they use that installation for a lot of operation from their home. In a
scenario where an interfering BPL installation was in the neighborhood, none of
them would be able to operate “fixed” from their home if you
considered the use of an antenna and/or station that consisted of a mobile whip
on a vehicle parked in the drive way of their home as a “mobile”
installation.
Joel
From:
w3kd@aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:11
PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: ARRL v. FCC; Brief of
Intervenors on FCC's side
Greetings. Here is the Intervenors' joint brief (i.e.
the intervenors on the side of the FCC). It was obviously written by our worthy
nemesis, Mitch Lazarus, now with Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, formerly with
WilmerHale. The rest of the lawyers on the list likely just signed off on
Mitch's work-product.
Mitch has walked into something of a trap, however. A main argument is an
attempt to justify the lack of protection for mobiles and the distinction
between that and the confirmed obligation to protect fixed stations from BPL
interference. I had a long conversation with the WilmerHale lawyers today about
the lack of any distinction between modern Amateur fixed and mobile stations.
Is an "itinerant" Amateur station (e.g. a Field Day station) mobile
or fixed? Is my TS-50S in my SUV with a whip on the trailer hitch a mobile
station if it is parked in my driveway? Suppose I put up a tower trailer behind
my SUV in a parking lot? The distinction for this purpose between mobile and
fixed installations is meaningless, and WilmerHale is going to exploit that in
our reply brief, due July 31.
All comments are welcome, and I will forward any with mine to Jon Frankel and
Dileep Srihari at WilmerHale shortly after the Board meeting.
73, Chris W3KD
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more
about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.