[Lowfer] Enabling Smart-Grid Communications in Rural Regions

[Neil]

Holy PLC crud!!! That explains a lot, JD. I thought internet over power lines was dead!!! I sure hope the FCC can see how insidious the power companies are being on this. 
 
Tnx fer ur reply. 

Sent from Neil's iPhone

On Nov 12, 2015, at 11:59, JD <listread at lwca.org> wrote:

>>>> Is PLC being revived??
> 
> Yes.  This is the real reason the utilities still absolutely oppose any amateur allocation at 630 meters.  Existing PLC usage on transmission lines is a smokescreen, a red herring, the camel's nose in the tent with all this new RF pollution waiting to sneak its way in to our neighborhoods on DISTRIBUTION lines.
> 
> They were very underhanded in the current proceeding.  In their initial comments, UTC made no reference at all to two very important issues: the nature of coordination as they envisioned it, and the impact of allocations on "smart grid" applications.  They studiously avoided any mention beyond acknowledging that the FCC had asked about them.  Instead, they improperly waited until the end of the reply period to put forth their ideas, so no one could comment upon them.  J'accuse!
> 
> If you haven't read the UTC reply filing, you need to...and read ever so slightly between the lines, because it's all in there.  While nominally paying lip service to the proposed 1 W EIRP/200 ft antenna cap/1 km separation distance, they turn around and make a mockery of that framework by insisting that coordination with the utilities should be required of _all_ new amateur LF installations, not just ones that are of questionable spacing. More than that, they insist there should be no time limit on their decision, and no operation until they have rendered that decision. J'accuse!
> 
> They took great pains to set up a straw man, faulting ARRL's analysis for supposedly ignoring latency concerns, and emphasizing how critical that is for protection of TRANSMISSION lines...which increasingly DON'T rely on PLC because of that very concern...but then turned around and applied that reasoning as an excuse for holding up any action at 630 m there's no track record of coexistence there.  Ludicrous on the face of it.  But when you read their reply comments closely, you realize they're actually talking about NEW "smart grid" systems on DISTRIBUTION lines, which supposedly are covered by all current Part 15 restrictions.  But they don't want them to be thus limited.  J'accuse!
> 
> That latter point is the real reason for their desire to have PLC systems (from context, evidently ALL of them, not just the existing transmission line systems) elevated to the same status as the amateur radio service. They claim it's because amateurs could otherwise bump them off "their" band by filing interference complaints, but the FCC has already said that's not going to be allowed.  First, it's not clear how that elevated status could even be achieved without making them an allocated and licensed service; and they certainly don't want "outside" regulation from the FCC.  They've already been able to keep new users off the band for decades under the weight of their existing special status, so why ask for elevated status now? Only one possible reason stands out: the anticipated new uses, which they sneakily declined to identify as new and/or acknowledge the currently limited status thereof under Part 15.  And because they declined to address it either in original comments or earlier in the reply period, the rest of us have no chance to reply.  J'accuse!
> 
> Someone might read UTC's filings and take everything there at face value and come away less cynical than I am at the moment.  But you'd have to bury your head pretty deeply in the sand not to have suspicions that they were being far less than candid in their filings!
> 
> Their grudging tone toward 2200m and their insistence on keeping us off 630m entirely until they have their new stuff grandfathered in place make it very clear that they bear us NO good will whatsoever. Thus, I find it quite ironic that the petitioner who was previously urging us all to be so conciliatory toward the utilities completely failed to use his own late-filed reply to address any of these points.  Can he really still believe appeasement will work?
> 
> Anyway, it's in the FCC's hands now.  I'm sure the staff see what's going on, but the question will be how much of UTC's fearmongering the Commissioners are willing to buy into.
> 
> John 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
> Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment!
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html