We're already seeing this. Progress Energy, one of the NC utilities tesing
BPL, had this to say on interference complaints:
"It is PEC's position and interpretation of the FCC's rules with regard to
'harmful interference' that any interference that may still exist is not
'harmful' as that term is defined by the FCC's rules... This level of
interference does not seriously degrade ham radio operation or transmissions
or cause repeated interuptions" (Len Anthony, PEC Attorney for Regulatory
Affairs)
(Just love the doublespeak in that one. George Orwell would have been
proud.)
Now if I have that translated correctly, I think it means "yes, there is
interference, but since WE don't think it meets the strict legal definition
of 'harmful interference' WE don't intend to do anything about it, so go
take a long walk off a short pier." But that's just me.
73, ron wn3vaw
please note my new email address
email sent o my old address is no longer being forwarded
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Brown" <ken.d.brown@verizon.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Boeing and BPL
> >
> >
> >there are no standards for BPL per se. Once the problems caused by BPL
> >can be measured, standards will be estblished, and regulations will be
> >written.
> >
> I can see it now. There needs to be a clear definition for "harmful
> interference". The BPL promoters will come up with something like: any
> interference that causes permanent and irreversible damage to the
> receiving apparatus is harmful. Anything less is not harmful.
>
> DE N6KB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|