On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:59:20 -0400, Hare,Ed, W1RFI wrote:
>So, imagine that 100 hams converged on a BPL area to "demonstrate"
> that the BPL system is susceptible to interference. Does anyone think
> that the industry would suddenly see the error of their ways and stop
>promoting BPL? Or would they now start talking about how amateur
>radio acted irresponsibily and that such conduct should not be worthy
>of protection?
Some questions:
1. How many licensed hams are there within all of the BPL test sites?
Have they been carefully selected to minimize the likelihood of
interference occuring?
2. How many of them are active? Is the interference so bad that they
have to shut down?
3. If a ham is in an area where BPL is wiping out his receiver, is a
ham in violation by attempting to make a QSO, and requesting the
station he/she is trying to work to go QRO to get over the noise?
4. In all of the driving that is been done around BPL test sites with
ham transceivers, has anyone attempted normal ham QSO's in areas where
interference has been received?
In my opinion, it is not a violation of any part of the FCC rules for
me to attempt to hold a QSO on a ham band with licensed power. The fact
that someone is using that spectra under Part 15 is immaterial. In
fact, the way I read Part 15 is that users of the spectra under Part 15
must accept whatever interference they receive from licensed users of
that spectra.
Further, if test areas are chosen with few hams and other licensed
users so that they are unrepresentative of the real world, it would
seem to be appropriate for the ham community to defend their turf by
making the tests realistic.
It is my opinion that when folks are lying, their lies should be
exposed. Sitting in the weeds and wringing our hands is not exposing
those lies.
Jim Brown K9YC
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|