AW: (Fwd) Re: [CW] Latest BPL news
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:02:34 +0100
Folks,
you are experiencing the same problems we initially encountered over
here in Europe. But now things are getting slightly 'better' (that is,
an increasing number of interference cases are being reported) as a
result of the tireless efforts of a number of dedicated people who
expend a huge amount of effort to apprise their fellow hams, broadcast
listeners and other users of the HF spectrum of the BPL /PLC threat.
Also, one should perhaps not be too surprised that some people do not
yet perceive BPL as a major risk when we have folks like Larry Price,
who personally told me at last year's Ham Radio in Germany that he
thought we were all a bit hysterical about the problems that BPL/PLC
might cause. I sure hope he's changed his mind since - or that he is
right!
J R 'Jo' Groeger, G4XXW, DK3NG
-----Original Message-----
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from muemailb.citykom.de ([195.202.32.22]) by
mailin02.sul.t-online.de
with esmtp id 1Arzwx-1Ub55U0; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:35:15 +0100
Received: (qmail 29783 invoked by uid 0); 14 Feb 2004 13:35:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO martinhe) ([62.134.125.216])
(envelope-sender <[email protected]>)
by muemailb.citykom.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[email protected]>; 14 Feb 2004 13:35:14 -0000
From: "Martin Hengemuehle" <[email protected]>
Organization: http://www.muenster.de/~dl5qe
To: [email protected],
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:38:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: (Fwd) Re: [CW] Latest BPL news
Reply-to: [email protected]
Message-ID: <402E32D0.13135.31465@localhost>
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
X-Seen: true
X-TOI-SPAM: n;0;2004-02-14T13:35:17Z
------- Forwarded message follows -------
In a message dated 2/13/04 9:48:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> I do not quite understand what the latest BPL statement from the FCC
> is. It is my understanding that part 15 has not been changed. Is
> this so, or has there been a modification to part 15 to make it
> easier for BPL to QRM? I thought that BPL was already legal, within
> the limitations of part 15, and was in fact in service in a few
> areas.
There are some test areas in operation.
Was there some kind
>
> of temporary prohibition of BPL that has been lifted? What has
> changed?
>
FCC regulates both wire and radio systems, and all such systems need
approval unless totally private. That obviously wasn't the case with
BPL, so it needed FCC approval.
Some BPL folks were trying to get Part 15 levels *raised*, and FCC
said no. Others were trying to turn the law on its head by making it
so that licensed radio services would not be able to even *complain
to
FCC* that BPL was causing harmful interference!
It ain't over yet, either. This is just the NPRM - we'll be able to
comment on it.
But consider this:
There are over 682,000 US hams, all of them licensed to use HF and/or
6 meters. BPL systems as demnstrated affect all ham bands from 80-6.
Yet so far FCC has only received 5100 comments on BPL, and at least
some of them aren't from hams.
So we have fewer than 1 in 100 US hams commenting on something that
has the potential to wipe out all of our HF and one of our VHF bands.
And if harmonics are involved....
73 de Jim, N2EY
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. To learn how to
post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html ---
_______________________________________________ CW mailing list
[email protected] http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
------- End of forwarded message -------Sent by Martin Hengemuehle
Email: [email protected]
http://www.muenster.de/~dl5qe
http://www.qsl.net/dl5qe