Has the ARRL joined forces with the purveyors of 3G Cellular (UMTS, WCDMA, etc)
and WiMax (802.16) to emphasize the superiority of these solutions to the "last
mile" problem in comparison to BPL? Its all well and good to expose BPL's
flaws, but focusing on a better alternative changes our image from "impediments
to progress" to "promoters of modern technologies". Companies like Motorola,
Verizon, Intel, Microsoft, ATT, and Lucent have serious political influence;
these companies are all focused on 3G and WiMax for next-generation
metropolitan area networks.
One might also suggest that the power industry should focus on upgrading the
grid to transport power reliably. What good are wide area networks during wide
area blackouts?
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com]On
Behalf Of Hare,Ed, W1RFI
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 8:38 PM
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] BPL Protest Opportunity? Give up? NO!
When all this started, we had the anwers about interference, and I truly
believed that when they were put on the plate, the right choice would be made.
To some extent, that was correct, but the process is as much political as it is
techncial. That is not my role, but ARRL has also stepped up the political end
of this, too.
I urge hams to use the info on ARRL's BPL page -- the "lead" story on BPL at
http://www.arrl.org/bpl is intended for folks to use as a leave-behind with
their Congressfolks. It explains in relatively straightforward terms why
Amateur Radio and others are so concerned about BPL.
You can add to that, citing things from the NTIA report, and filings like
Boeing's, Aeronautical Inc.'s, APCO's and the NRTC/NRECA (two major rural
utility groups). Boeing and ARINC said that BPL poses a serious risk to
aeronautical safety. NTIA says it will interfere with aeronautical
communication 40 km from the source. APCO is equally concerned with
interference to low VHF public safety. (I have heard S7 to S9 BPL noise on
35-48 MHz in the Amperion and Ambient BPL areas, along about a mile of overhead
line). A personalized letter to your Congressfolks will carry some weight.
ARRL has intentionally not offered a "canned" letter, because those really
don't work very well. If you can, make an appointment with your Congressfolks
and show them the interference video, with a personal explanation about what
that will do to the Amateur Service and other critical HF use.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed -K0iL [mailto:eedwards@tconl.com]
Sent: Sun 5/9/2004 9:25 PM
To: Hare,Ed, W1RFI; rfi@contesting.com
Cc:
Subject: RE: [RFI] BPL Protest Opportunity? Give up? NO!
Ed,
I wasn't calling on the ARRL to give up the battle front with the FCC.
Quite the contrary; it's because of the great work that you and the
crew
are doing at the League that I feel my limited efforts are best spent
aiming at the Congress and Bush. We have to fight on all fronts if
we're
to find a weak spot at all.
Keep up the great work! And those that have the time and writing
skills,
keep filing those comments on the NPRMs as the come up.
73,
de ed -K0iL
-----Original Message-----
From: Hare,Ed, W1RFI
Sent: Friday, 07 May, 2004 4:07 PM
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] BPL Protest Opportunity? Give up? NO!
> I'm not giving up, but I'm not wasting my time with the FCC any
longer.
The FCC started out with the premise that they were going to remove
unnecessary restrictions on BPL. The NPRM removed no restrictions, but
added two measures: a mandate that BPL equipment must be designed to
change frequency and power levels in response to interference complaints
and a requirement to maintain a public database of BPL equipment and
locations. FCC did that in response to the input from spectrum users
that
you imply did no good.
It is, IMHO, not a practical solution, but I, for one, do not intend to
stop just because the FCC didn't fully understand the issues raised. Nor
should anyone. If what has been provided to the FCC has not been enough
for them to understand why the solutions they propose are not practical,
then the information needed to make the point needs to be developed and
given to FCC. The ARRL's comments in the NPRM are a start at that, and
the
process of modeling and testing will continue through the reply comment
period and beyond.
The interference cases that are now about about 50 and counting
(although
for some inexplicable reason, some of the complainants have not reported
their interference to the FCC, and some who have reported them to the
FCC
have not informed ARRL so their cases can be "counted" in our summary
totals), and the process of documenting interference will continue, too.
The BPL industry started out by saying "we will not cause any
interference. They they claimed that they can correct any interference
that
might occur. Now, from the statements of some in the NPRM, they are
asking
that they be allowed to interfere, or at least that what interference
they
cause not be considered to be "real" interference.
Those that want an organized list of the BPL filing comments can go to:
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html
http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NOI_hyperlinks.html
Ed Hare, W1RFI
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|