[BC] The FCC bends over...AGAIN

[Jerry Mathis]

This is another obvious indication that the FCC has abandoned its technical
mission, and now answers only to a political agenda. Shrub obviously has
friends who want to profit from BPL, and anyone else be da**ned. Those
darned laws of physics should be repealed. Who needs 'em anyway?

Jerry Mathis


On 10/23/07, Dana Puopolo <dpuopolo at usa.net> wrote:
>
> From Cnet:
>
> Broadband-over-power-lines battle goes to court
> Posted by Anne Broache
> WASHINGTON--A dispute that could affect the roll-out of broadband over
> power
> lines, which some hope will one day compete with cable and DSL services,
> went
> before a federal appeals court on Tuesday, but no immediate resolution
> occurred.
>
> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard arguments
> from
> attorneys for the Federal Communications Commission and the American Radio
> Relay League, which represents amateur radio operators, about FCC rules
> aimed
> at allowing BPL services to flourish.
>
> Therein lies the dispute: The FCC says its rules, which date back to 2004,
> have struck the right balance between encouraging unlicensed BPL
> deployment
> and protecting existing licensed devices--including those run by public
> safety
> workers, TV broadcasters and amateur radio operators--from harmful
> interference on those airwaves.
>
>
> The ARRL, however, contends the FCC's rules are inconsistent with federal
> law
> and aren't strict enough to prevent BPL signals from disrupting its
> members'
> communications. (The group says it's not just about protecting hobbyists,
> either: ham radio operators were widely praised as a valuable source of
> information after Hurricane Katrina downed normal communications
> channels.)
>
> Specifically, for the first time in decades, the FCC decided against
> requiring
> that operations found to cause "harmful interference" be shut down
> immediately--a stance that ignores the "right of the license holder to be
> free
> from interference," Jonathan Frankel, the ARRL's attorney, argued in court
> Tuesday.
>
> The FCC has also withheld portions studies that would "potentially" show
> BPL
> does cause harmful interference to other devices--and ignored reports of
> tests
> the ARRL argues offer "substantial" evidence of interference problems,
> Frankel
> said.
>
> "We're talking about devices that radiate for football fields in length
> and
> all along power lines," Frankel said of the BPL gadgets. "When you drive
> down
> the street, (an amateur radio operator's) service is interrupted
> constantly."
>
>
> Attorney C. Grey Pash, arguing for the FCC, defended the agency's
> approach. He
> said the FCC didn't require the so-called "cease-operations" rule because
> it
> didn't find ample evidence that BPL posed real potential for "harmful"
> interference.
>
> Pash said the studies the FCC relied upon, including one by the U.S.
> National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration, found that so long as
> the
> FCC restricts the strength of the signals emitted by BPL devices--as it
> did
> through its rules--others sharing that spectrum "won't notice a
> difference" in
> the quality of their services. As for the ARRL's allegations the FCC
> scrubbed
> its reports, Pash said the redacted sections were staff opinions
> referencing
> earlier sections of the report, not "a bunch of new information."
>
> The three-judge panel that heard Tuesday's arguments peppered both
> attorneys
> with questions but didn't signal how it planned to rule.
>
> BPL: An infant industry
>
> The outcome of the ARRL's appeal could be significant if it prompts
> revisions
> in the FCC's rules, as the agency says it has sought to keep potentially
> innovation-stifling requirements to a minimum.
>
> To be sure, the commercial BPL industry is still in its infancy. According
> to
> the United Power Line Council, which represents public utility companies
> engaged in such projects, there were fewer than a dozen commercial
> deployments
> and about two dozen trials as of this July, mainly concentrated on the
> East
> Coast and in the Midwest.
>
> The ARRL has always maintained it's not out to kill off BPL services. The
> group has suggested one solution to its complaints would be for the FCC to
> confine BPL operators to certain frequencies that are less likely to cause
> interference with amateur radio operators.
>
> The FCC, for its part, says that's a needless restriction that would
> inhibit
> the design of BPL services and make them less efficient, reducing their
> benefit and raising their costs to the public. But if real-world evidence
> of
> harmful interference arises, the regulators have voiced willingness to
> reconsider their rules.
>
>
>
> Hmmmm...restrictions on interference are "needless"...unless you are a
> pirate
> of course!
>
> -D
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Test Gear-Tools-Lots More + Now Barix too!
> www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>
>


-- 
Jerry Mathis