At 10:20 AM 8/9/03 -0700, Cortland Richmond wrote:
>Stephanie (and list members),
>One of the arguments made by BPL proponents is that they have received no
>Considering the 20 August cut-off for Reply comments, if harmful
>interference is shown to be BPL related I think we hams need to take note
>of it in our Replies, as well as *filing formal complaints to the FCC* in
>parallel with complaints to perpetrators.
>We have in the past accommodated a lot of interference because we could
>work around it. Perhaps it is also time to stop doing that. BPL proponents
>and others who would put RF on power wiring seem to assume that compliance
>with Part 15 is good enough (though more than a few want even that
>relaxed); we know it is not. The Commission, with few of our complaints in
>its files, has little data to back up our assertion. I expect it will get
With the limited extent of BPL tests in this country, the probability that
an HF or low-VHF op would a) recognize the weird interference as BPL and b)
complain officially about it makes it very unlikely that anyone has much of
a complaint record yet.
I respect Mike a lot, but I also think that Ed is fully competent to tell
the difference between BPL of various types and the other types of
power-line-associated RFI. Just looking at the video is a poor substitute
for reading the ARRL's submission.
73, Pete N4ZR
The World HF Contest Station Database was updated August 4.
123 stations were added or updated.
Are you current? www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm