FW: ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules

From: Piatt, Darwin (dpiatt@fnni.com)
Date: Fri Oct 06 2006 - 08:20:34 CDT

  • Next message: Paul W. Schleck: "Please refrain from sending HTML/Rich-Text E-mail"

    Passed on from the local BPL action group.

     

    Darwin (Dar) Piatt W9HZC

     

    ________________________________

    From: AKSARBENtalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AKSARBENtalk@yahoogroups.com]
    On Behalf Of EDWARDS, EDDIE J
    Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:40 AM
    To: hdxa@yahoogroups.com; AKSARBENtalk@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: <AKSARBENtalk-2006> FW: ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal
    of certain BPL rules

     

    For those not getting ARRL bulletins, important BPL info:

    SB QST @ ARL $ARLB018
    ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules

    ZCZC AG18
    QST de W1AW
    ARRL Bulletin 18 ARLB018
    >From ARRL Headquarters
    Newington CT October 4, 2006
    To all radio amateurs

    SB QST ARL ARLB018
    ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules

    The ARRL Executive Committee is expected this weekend to ratify
    plans to appeal in federal court certain aspects of the FCC's Part
    15 rules governing broadband over power line (BPL) systems. Assuming
    the EC signs off on the strategy, the League will file a Notice of
    Appeal by October 22 with the US District Court of Appeals - DC
    Circuit. ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said the
    League went forward with its appeal plans only after considering the
    effect on licensed spectrum users of letting the BPL rules stand.

    ''This decision was made after careful review of the FCC's October
    2004 BPL Report and Order (R&O) and of the August 2006 Memorandum
    Opinion and Order (MO&O) that dealt with petitions for
    reconsideration,'' said Sumner.

    Several reconsideration petitions of the initial R&O - including one
    from ARRL - called on the FCC to strengthen rules aimed at
    protecting licensed radio systems from BPL interference. Instead,
    in a new rule only revealed after the FCC made the MO&O public, the
    FCC limited the extent to which an unlicensed, unintentional
    radiator has to protect a licensed mobile station.

    The new rule, 15.611(c)(1)(iii), provides that BPL operators only
    have to reduce emission levels below established FCC permissible
    limits by 20 dB below 30 MHz and by 10 dB above 30 MHz - even if
    that's not enough to resolve harmful interference complaints.

    Sumner contends the rule change contravenes the International Radio
    Regulations and the Communications Act of 1934. ''The FCC has, in
    effect, tried to redefine harmful interference,'' he said. ''It can't
    do that. The Commission doesn't have the authority to do that, and
    we're going to demonstrate that to the Court of Appeals.''

    What the FCC has done with respect to licensed mobile services
    ''should strike fear into the hearts of those who rely on public
    safety communications,'' Sumner added, especially since the rule
    requires BPL operators to do even less above 30 MHz than at HF.

    The Commission also declined to adjust the 40 dB per decade
    ''extrapolation factor'' applied to measurements performed at
    distances from power lines other than those specified in Part 15.
    Sumner says this is an important technical point because the
    existing Part 15 rule causes test results to underestimate actual
    field strength. Petitions for reconsideration from the ARRL and
    others argued that a figure closer to 20 dB per decade was more
    appropriate. Sumner called the Commission's stand on the 40 dB per
    decade rule ''clearly, demonstrably and inarguably wrong.''

    He said the principles that the FCC appears to be following for the
    first time - if applied generally - represent an abuse of licensees'
    rights. ''It's unacceptable that the FCC would reduce the rights of
    its licensees in favor of unlicensed, unintentional emitters,'' he
    said. ''Remember that 'unintentional emission' is just another term
    for 'spectrum pollution.'''

    Sumner made it clear that the League is not suing BPL providers for
    causing interference, nor suing the FCC for failing to enforce its
    own rules against harmful interference. ''We are not satisfied with
    the level of attention the Commission is paying to existing cases of
    BPL interference, but this is not the time to pursue that in federal
    court,'' he said.

    While the separate standard for what constitutes harmful
    interference to a mobile and the 40 dB per decade extrapolation
    factor issues precipitated the decision to appeal, Sumner said, the
    arguments the League puts forward in its court filing may touch on
    other matters as well.

    ''The court is not going to rewrite the rules,'' Sumner explained.
    ''The court can make the Commission go back to the drawing board and
    re-decide them, however.''
    NNNN
    /EX



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 08:59:25 CDT