[GreenKeys] (greenKeys) Indulgez Moi!

Sun Jan 16 12:22:38 EST 2011

That the FCC, who is supposedly the "guardian" of the public spectrum 
(along with the NTIA), would embrace BPL has always mystified me.  
Obviously, when logic fail, politics will likely be found nearby.

There are a huge number of known, and probably as yet not know, uses for 
the HF spectrum.  Noise from one particular form of internet connection, 
especially when there are multiple noise-free alternatives, should have 
been fought tooth and nail byboth the FCC and NTIA.  What is the point 
of stringent intermod, spurious and harmonic constraints on transmitters 
if the noise floor is raised to unusable levels by BPL?  Does it make 
sense to give a homeowner a summons for having their lawn sprinkler on 
during a torrential downpour?

Thank you George for your efforts on this, it has clearly benefited 
many, even if not getting direct results.  The time may be ripe to 
revisit this idea, especially as superior fiber (FttH) networks are 
spreading across the country.  There are a lot of underutilized 
frequencies out there on HF.  We're not asking for the moon here.

What can we all do to advance this?

Peter

On 1/16/2011 12:35 AM, George B. Hutchison wrote:
> GreenKeyers - - -
>
> Those of you who have been around for ten years or more might recall the
> teletype news broadcasts from WA9AHN and WC2XPF, which were the two licenses
> granted for the experimental TTY broadcasts. We were assigned 6994 KHz and
> 13972 KHz.
>
> These transmissions ran daily for about 21 months.
>
> When the feds would not renew WC2XPF we finally shut down.
>
> Enough infor mation and feedback was obtained during that period that a
> Petition for Rule making was written and submitted to the FCC to establish a
> new class of service on the HF bands
>
> Here is a link to the file on hand at the FCC - - -.
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?z=ykzw3&name=RM-10765
>
> The petition languished and I guess wandered around the FCC for perhaps six
> months.
>
> There were several members of congress and two or three senators who
> according to some internal sources were interested in such a service..
>
> Some calls were made to influential people and I guess the fan went to fast
> speed and some poo was thrown in it, and the result was a letter to yours
> truly from a Mr. Edmund Thomas, who at the time was the head of the Office
> of Engineering and Technology.
>
> Mr. Thomas' comments were such that I sincerely doubt he read any of the
> petition, but simply regurgitated some of the comments that had come from
> other sources. If you read the petition and then the letter from Mr. Thomas
> you can pretty well tell he was not speaking referencing anything he had
> read.
>
> I think that the real reason the FCC wanted nothing to do with it was that
> the petition was submitted at about the time that Michael Powell and his
> band of cronies were beginning to extoll the wonders, the magic, and the
> aura (and the stupidity) of BROADBAND OVER POWERLINE, or BPL, and how the
> world was going to be a better place because of it.
>
> A proposed new use of the HF spectrum as contrasted with Powell's Plainly
> Poor Powerline Propagation Plan would throw a big TILT in the field of
> politics.
>
> For the Commission to consider ANYTHING that might be perceived as a monkey
> wrench or a couple of hundred pounds of C-4 near Mr. Powell's "baby" could
> only be labeled "unthinkable", and had to be quashed at any and all cost.
>
> The ARRL was instrumental in the court action wherein the FCC was admonished
> for numerous technical and procedural improprieties with regard to their
> rulemakings and the haste and disregard they displayed for the comments and
> findings of their own technical people.
>
> And it was intriguing that the NTIA, who initially berated the BPL concept
> as being essentially a danger to the spectrum, suddenly reversed their
> position and extolled in their own language how glorious BPL would be.
>
> My nephew, who at the time was still in the Navy assigned to the Space
> Systems Command, had to attend several meetings at certain installations
> surrounding the Gulf of Mexico wherein the topic was  "What  impact would
> BPL have on the Navy's Low Frequency Over-The-Horizon Radar system that in
> concert with the DEA was being employed to track the import of drugs from
> South America.???" The Navy was NOT happy about BPL.
>
> I would ask FCC types questions that essentially centered around "If BPL is
> of no consequence technically, how close to any of the nineteen FCC
> monitoring stations that are located around the US would BPL installations
> be permitted?" or, "How close to the National Quiet Zones surrounding our
> large Radio Telescope locations would BPL be allowed?"  NEVER got a straight
> answer!!!
>
> Regarding RM-10765, when the link below is tripped one will find the the
> title block that FCC Rules Sections 2 and 73 are affected by the petition.
> That is quite erroneous, as part 73 would not be affecteed at all. Indeed,
> languuage in the petition was written to establish a new part of the rules,
> Part 96.
>
> The FCC rules in general are a template of how to write FCC rules in the
> language and sentence structure that they have throughout the entire rule
> collection. Inasmuch as Part 96 was unused at the time, I just wrote "Part
> 96", and tried to make it look like they had done it.
>
> You can read the entire petition if you go to the Search for Comments
> RM-10765, and go to page 6 of the links, and you'll find my name at
>   the bottom and the there are several parenthesized groups that look
>   like the following:
>
> View (25)  View (25)  View (24)  View (24)  View (25)  View (24)  View (25)
> View (24)  View (24)  View (25)  View (25)
>
> Each "view" is about 25 pages of the petition. As I recall there were about
> 272 pages total.
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?z=ykzw3&name=RM-10765
>
> For a group as small and as diverse as is GreenKeys, there was a hell of a
> lot of positive commentary and feedback.
>
> I am pleased to see that Dick Dillman of the  Maritime Historical Society
> has included comments on this topic of RTTY broadcasting..
>
> A little side note here - - -
>
> Dick - You might be interested to know that I was able to talk with the
> manager of KONP, our local radio station in Port Angeles.
>
> I broached the subject of the possibility of the use of their current tower
> for a maritime coastal station after they complete their move to a standing
> two-tower array on the eastern side of PA. HE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD
> THING TO DO!!
>
> The ground system is 65 years old and paved over, so may not be much more
> than some green dirt under a field of asphalt, but I know that removal of
> the tower would be a costly and hazardous undertaking due to the maze of
> power lines and guy cables that intertwine around the tower.
>
> He also liked the thought of the Western Washington Historical Radio
> Society, Inc., as a means of getting petitions through the feds
> expeditiously.
>
> So anyway, GreenKeyers, there you have a bit of the experience gained in
> this part of the country with regard to RTTY broadcasting.
>
> Signals over the internet are nowhere as intriguing as the challenge of
> getting solid copy when all you can hear is white noise and maybe a couple
> of  bleeps now and then, but ITTY does give the machines something to do,
> and that's why it is there.
>
> 73,
>
> George - W7TTY - ITTY Central
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> GreenKeys mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:GreenKeys at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>