[CW] What it Means.

[RJ Eimer]

See Below:

-----Original Message-----
From: cw-admin@mailman.qth.net [mailto:cw-admin@mailman.qth.net]On
Behalf Of Donald Chester
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:36 PM
To: cw@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [CW] What it Means.




>>   RIIIIGHT! Joe Ham will just go to the Power Company and tell them to
>>knock it off, they're QRMing Ducie Island. Of course, the FCC, who is our
>>friend, will make them stop. If not, the ARRL will ORDER the FCC to make
>>them, or they'll hold their breath until they turn blue.

>The FCC has recently ordered some power companies, including our local one
>here, to clean up line noise problems. The power companies would have to be
>ordered to "knock it off" by the federal courts.  The power industry
>wouldn't just voluntarily shut down its BPL, and it is doubtful the FCC
>would take aggressive action.

Yes, the FCC has a responsibility to protect us.  But they also have a
responsibility to protect hundreds of other spectrum users, from public
service agencies to paying businesses to huge cell-phone conglomerates and
the military.

Yes, they've sometimes been slow to respond.

Yes, they've sometimes responded "faster" when the harmed party was the
military (understandable) or the cell-phones (money talks, sometimes) but
they are still somewhat responsive for the "non-paying" band users (public
service and amateur radio.  It's the power companies that don't understand
the problem that don't want to spend the money to track down a complaint of
"one" customer.  But with BPL, unless they can prevent the interference, it
won't be one customer, it will be thousands.

>The bottom line would not be BPL, but the status of federal
"administrative"
>law.  If the CFR says Part 15 devices must not cause interference to
>licensed services, and the FCC is taken to court to force them to enforce
>their own regulations, it would become a matter of whether or not federal
>"rules" enjoy the status of law.  If the courts ruled that Part 15 rules do
>not have to be enforced, wouldn't that set a precedent that other federal
>"rules," including those of other agencies such as the IRS, also have no
>legal standing?


>If radio users pursued our case, it could lead to a major showdown that
>could have far-reacing effects on the way the government operates.  I don't
>think the feds would let that happen.

That has already happened.  And it cuts both ways.  On the one hand, the
last administration decided to VERY aggressively pursue enforcement of
environmental rules (not the laws themselves, but the implementation of them
by the EPA) - many without valid scientific backing and against the
specifics of what the laws themselves were supposed to do.  At the same
time, they decided to ignore other federal regulations enforcement, as in
drug policy, immigration, etc.  They were challenged (with no success) on
both sides.  But the new administration "fixed" the problem by mandating
that the agencies reverse their policies on which regs they'd enforce, and
which they'd let slide.  This issue is going to come to a head one way or
another, with or without the FCC being the victim.  I suspect it will be
EPA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education or the INS that sees this kind of
challenge first.

>The ham commuinty and other radio users would have to be willing to put up
a
>legal fight.  Justice is a commodity that is bought and sold for a price.

Yep.

Jay
KD5WLX

>Don K4KYV

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

_______________________________________________
CW mailing list
CW@mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw