[Lowfer] FCC Denies 136khz Band

[Tod Olson - Idaho]

I have to admit that I was stunned to see the outcome of the 135 kHz
decision. I know that Chris Imlay, the ARRL General Counsel, was stunned as
well. My previous comments to members on this reflector were based on
conversations with Chris. I know he felt the draft preparers for the FCC had
assured him it would be in the release. One can only conclude (in the
absence of real data) that the members of the Commission are so concerned
with 'encouraging' the "new" BPL technology that they are non-critically
supporting anything the Power Distribution Group says is important to the
future of BPL and directed that it be specifically eliminated.

One interesting note is contained in the body of the actual FCC release
detail. It is stated (1) that Power Line companies using PLC have no actual
standing with the Commission with respect to their PLC signals being
protected. And (2) it is stated that the Power Line companies are concerned
that radio amateurs would insist that they prevent the PLC transmissions
from interfering with the licensed amateur service (proposed for 135 kHz).
That would cost them time and money and interfere with the economic
distribution of reliable power to the country. The Commission goes on record
to say that it is more important for the country to have secure power line
transmission control than to obtain the technical benefit that might be
provided by  few radio amateurs experimenting on LF. "Homeland Security" is
invoked at this point. One can only assume that the same thoughtful and
analytic, intellectual giants that proposed 'Duct Tape and plastic sheeting'
for nuclear and biological terrorism protection were hired to provide this
analysis.

I am sorely tempted to suggest that someone try deliberately to interfere
with a PLC signal to see if one could actually do it even if you tried using
1 watt ERP. If someone does this, please do it at 160-190 kHz so that the
discussion afterward (success or not) concentrates on a better piece of LF
spectrum.

 *** Note*** I said, "sorely tempted..." NOT "Someone should ... " I don't
think this is one of those things that justifies 'civil disobedience'.


Lurking in the text of the release seems to be the implication that PLC
transmissions (and probably BPL transmissions) are incredibly fragile types
of communications. If this is true I would suppose that AM broadcast
stations, NDB's and mobile radio (amateur and others) will be causing
communication problems on any BPL signals that are routed in their vicinity.

One can only hope that this "tulip bulb mania" runs its course quickly.

Tod Olson
K�TO