[TowerTalk] Sample letter to club: BPL comment filing--urgent--please participate

[Rob Atkinson, K5UJ]

Hi everyone--below is an email I sent to my local radio club yesterday re 
BPL
Feel free to use it as a template.  Note that some of the wording may
seem odd because it is an employee club.

Rob
K5UJ

Hi all,

This is a note to the club's full and associate members to ask you to take
action during the latest phase of the FCC's inquiry as to the interference
potential of broadband internet over power line service (BPL).  Currently
the FCC is accepting comments on their electronic comment filing system
(ECFS) filed in response to previously filed comments to the FCC's original
inquiry.  In response to this notice of inquiry (NOI) the BPL industry filed
comments indicating that field trials revealed no reported interference to
other services.  See for example this excerpt from the United Power Line
Council's filed comments:

<B.  Interference
             In this proceeding, the FCC inquires concerning the potential
for interference from BPL systems under the existing Part 15 emission
limits,[1] and it inquires whether the existing measurement procedures are
appropriate.[2]  The UPLC is pleased to respond that there has been no
interference reported in any of the field trials by its members.>

The UPLC's full document is available at:
http://www.uplc.utc.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/7966/conman/03-104+Com
ments.doc

This statement is easily refuted.  The ARRL sent a representative to 4 trial
towns in which he drove around the streets in a vehicle equipped with a HF
transceiver, and a mobile HF antenna.  The RFI received was horrendous.  A
video of this trip showing the receiver S meter, and audio of the RFI is
available for viewing at http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg (for high
speed connections)
and http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-small.mpg (for dial-up connections).
Note that the RFI is constant while the operator is spinning the tuning knob
on the transceiver and that the signal strengths likely would have been much
greater with full sized/gain antennas.

At the very least, on your own time please view the streaming video, then
file a response at the FCC's ECFS, at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ simply
stating that UPLC's statement is misleading in that "no reported
interference" does not necessarily mean there was none, and that in the
trials monitored by the ARRL, the RFI was severe.  Cite the video at the
above URLs as a footnote.  Since I'm not sure what the current policy is on
doing this from here, it may be advisable to file from home.  If you do not
have an internet connection there, you may file from a public library or
mail in your comment.  Please keep your comments calm and factual by
avoiding exaggeration or subjective contentiousness with words such as
"stupid" and "idiotic."  Nothing about the process is furthered by caustic
comments or remarks with no factual basis.

Thanks very much for your time and cooperation.  The deadline for reply
comments is Aug. 20th.  BTW, stick with the video to the last trial--it is
the worst one and a real eye-opener.  At this time, the number of filed
comments represents a tiny fraction of the total number of licensed hams.
It is extremely important that we fight this every step of the way so that
we can continue to enjoy our hobby in its present form.

73,

Rob
K5UJ
FARC V.P.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus