Yes, Tom, we can, though it isn't over yet. We received a letter, as did five of the six BPL interference complainants in Manassas, dated December 14, 2006. A copy is attached of the two-page letter (sorry for the two PDFs, I received it that way from the locals, and haven't yet combined the two files). The letter doesn't include copies of the measurements that FCC allegedly took; it doesn't detail the methodology used; it doesn't even specifically state when the FCC took the measurements; and it omits reference to one of the complainants, Arthur Whittum, W1CRO, who filed a specific complaint about a specific location in Manassas. He was not even served with a copy of the letter. Finally, OET was apparently involved, for inexplicable reasons (except that they needed to make sure that there was no interference found, so they could bury this case) even though only the EB was supposed to be involved. There is no, repeat no, good reason why OET is still involved in this, other than political reasons, unless they are prepared to argue that only OET knows how to do BPL measurements and doesn't trust the EB to do them. We are preparing an FOIA request for all that stuff they didn't tell us about. We are also preparing a response. Riley Hollingsworth was supposed to have been involved in the local testing. They agreed to that a long time ago (right after Joel Harrison and I woodshedded the EB about inaction in the BPL interference cases). He was left out of the loop entirely. He tells us (and please, everyone, keep this confidential for obvious reasons) that Kathryn Power, in the Enforcement Bureau told him that all the Manassas hams were given notice of the FCC field testing in Manassas and chose not to be present. I have written confirmations from the complainants that no such notice was ever given. We will circulate the response when it is ready to file. 73, Chris W3KD -----Original Message----- From: frenaye@pcnet.com To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 5:30 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:14972] BPL - bad news? Is this true? Can someone fill me in on what's going on with this one (and our other BPL interference problems)? Or is it just more bluster? -- Tom
UPLC Powerline: Manassas Complaint Dismissed
From the Dec 19 issue
FCC: MANASSAS COMPLAINT DISMISSED
The FCC's Spectrum Enforcement Division dismissed interference complaints from five amateur operators against the BPL deployment bythe City of Manassas and COMTek. It found that emission measurement staken by the Commission on October 25-26, 2006 "demonstrate that the Manassas BPL system is in compliance with the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.611(b) of the Commission's Rules at the two sites in areas we tested where emissions appear to be the highest.These measurements also demonstrate that the system is utilizing notches of 20 dB or more to protect the 7 MHz amateur band." The FCChad conducted tests in six areas that were chosen based on their proximity to locations identified in the interference complaints filed by the five amateur radio operations and drive-through monitoring ofthe system in test-mode. This is complete and total vindication forManassas, which has been the target of pending complaints for two years. For more information, contact the UPL! C Lega l/Regulatory Department.
===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444 ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.