[TenTec] BPL, Harmful Interference

Thu Apr 8 14:19:50 EDT 2004

Using International Law may be a very good argument and a possible tool for 
to convince the FCC.

However,

To depend on 'international law' is a dangerous prospect, The dependency 
implies loss of ones sovereignty.

International law is based on customary procedures, not so much actual legal 
laws, A country, any country, can withdraw from a treaty or ignore sections 
of a treaty at almost any time it begins to be contrary to the population's 
interests.  This is done frequently without significant recourse.  The only 
reason a country would follow international laws as such is if it were in 
both countries mutual interests.

Even though the idea of using international law is intriguing, I for one 
would be very careful in using it in anything more than a reminder that the 
treaty is there.

The markets may well dicatate the success or failure in the end.

73's
Rich
K5SF

>From: DJ5IL at aol.com
>Reply-To: tentec at contesting.com
>To: tentec at contesting.com
>CC: w1rfi at arrl.org
>Subject: [TenTec] BPL, Harmful Interference
>Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:13:02 EDT
>
> > I'd appreciate some help in finding the definition of "harmful
>interference"
> > per 47 C. F. R. paragraph 15.5(b).  I'm working on my letter to the FCC 
>and
> > my congressional representatives.
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jim, W8KGI
>
>Jim,
>
>I follow the BPL discussion in your country with great interest. In Europe
>that dirty technology is called PLC (Power Line Communication) and  here
>in Germany we had to face that threat long before it became a topic in the
>USA. Unfortunately it seems to be barely known that all radio services are
>defined within and ruled by international law. I will take the opportunity 
>to
>point out the most important and relevant details. It is quite astonishing
>that the
>International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Radio Regulations are
>not even mentioned on the very detailed PLC information page of the ARRL
>(http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/). Because I consider this to be 
>very
>important, a copy of this email goes to Ed Hare, W1RFI (w1rfi at arrl.org).
>
>The amateur radio service is defined within the International
>Telecommunication Convention of the ITU. Currently 189 states, among
>them the United States of America and Germany, have signed this Convention
>and the 'Radio Regulations' and thus are strictly bound to it.
>
>Here are some important definitions and articles of the Radio Regulations
>which are binding law for all ITU member states:
>
>Radio Regulations, Article I, Terms and Definitions:
>
>"1.19 radiocommunication service: A service as defined in this Section
>involving the transmission, emission and/or reception of radio waves for
>specific telecommunication purposes."
>
>"1.56 amateur service: A radiocommunication service for the purpose
>of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried
>out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio
>technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."
>
>"1.96 amateur station: A station in the amateur service."
>
>"1.137 radiation: The outward flow of energy from any source in the
>form of radio waves."
>
>"1.138 emission: Radiation produced, or the production of radiation,
>by a radio transmitting station."
>
>"1.166 interference: The effect of unwanted energy due to one or a
>combination of emissions, radiations, or inductions upon reception in a
>radiocommunication system, manifested by any performance degradation,
>misinterpretation, or loss of information which could be extracted in the
>absence of such unwanted energy."
>
>"1.169 harmful interference: Interference which endangers the functioning
>of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously
>degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication
>service operating in accordance with these Regulations."
>
>Radio Regulations, Article 15:
>
>"15.12 § 8 Administrations shall take all practicable and necessary
>steps to ensure that the operation of electrical apparatus or installations
>of any kind, including power and telecommunication distribution
>networks ... does not cause harmful interference to a radiocommunication
>service and, in particular, to a radionavigation or any other safety 
>service
>operating in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations."
>
>Radio Regulations, Article 25:
>
>"25.8 § 5 1) All the general rules of the Convention, the Convention
>and of these Regulations shall apply to amateur stations."
>
>Please note thet the definition of "harmful interference" in the Radio
>Regulations that are binding law for all ITU member states does not contain
>a reference to any EMC emission limits. In fact, harmful interference is 
>not
>defined in quantity by exceeding any limits but *in quality* by it's effect 
>on
>radio communications. By definition any effect of unwanted energy due to
>one or a combination of emissions, radiations, or inductions upon
>reception in a radiocommunication system is an interference. If such an
>interference seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts any
>radiocommunication service operating in accordance with these
>Regulations it is a harmful interference, no matter which standards are
>met or not met by the source of interference. In that case, administrations
>shall take all practicable and necessary steps to stop that interference.
>
>The essential EMC requirements are that electrical and electronic
>appliances shall be so constructed that: the electromagnetic disturbance
>it generates does not exceed a level allowing radio and telecommunications
>equipment and other apparatus to operate as intended and the apparatus
>has an adequate level of intrinsic immunity to electromagnetic disturbance
>to enable it to operate as intended. EMC standards define technical
>characteristics which can be used to meet these essential requirements.
>However, and this is important, if such appliance meets the standards it is
>only *presumed* to comply with the essential requirements, nothing more.
>This is not just my personal interpretation but a fact that you can find in
>many places, for example within the "EMVG" (EMC Act) as part of our
>national German law. In the case of EMC emission limits this is logically
>the only possible way to go, because otherwise the standards would
>infringe the Radio Regulations and thus international law.
>
>The consequence is: If any electrical or electronic appliance, for example
>a PLC-modem, interferes with your reception and your station is in the
>amateur radio service, then you definitely have the right to complain and
>it does absolutely not matter if the unwanted radiation from that appliance
>is within any EMC emission limits. Of course it is highly desireable to 
>have
>EMC emission limits as low as possible, but regardless of any standards
>amateur radio as well as any other radio service as defined within the
>Radio Regulations are protected by international law. That's why it is so
>important for us that amateur radio is defined as a radio *service* in
>contrast to other radio applications.
>
>Radio amateurs should not hesitate to complain in the case of harmful
>interference and show that they know their rights. The more complaints the
>authority receives, the higher is the chance that the administration will
>favour low emission limits, because they have to fear a disaster when they
>are forced to solve thousands of cases of harmful interference.
>
>73
>Karl, DJ5IL
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/