[Lowfer] Enabling Smart-Grid Communications in Rural Regions

[Douglas Williams]

Well said, John.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:59 PM, 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
>