[South Florida DX Association] ARLB009 League files opposition to BPL reconsideration petitions

[Bill Marx]

 ZCZC AG09
> QST de W1AW  
> ARRL Bulletin 9  ARLB009
> From ARRL Headquarters  
> Newington CT  March 24, 2005
> To all radio amateurs 
> 
> SB QST ARL ARLB009
> ARLB009 League files opposition to BPL reconsideration petitions
> 
> The ARRL has filed an Opposition to three petitions for
> reconsideration in the broadband over power line (BPL) proceeding,
> ET Docket 04-37. The League's filing targets points raised in
> reconsideration petitions from Current Technologies LLC, the United
> Power Line Council (UPLC) and Amperion Inc. Each seeks
> reconsideration of certain aspects of the Report and Order (R&O) the
> FCC adopted last October, spelling out new Part 15 rules to govern
> BPL deployment. In its Opposition, the ARRL says the FCC should not
> eliminate its requirement that BPL providers give 30 days' advance
> notice of service initiation, as Current, UPLC and Amperion have
> requested.
> 
> ''Grant of the petitioners' request to eliminate the 30-day advance
> notice requirement would not only be antithetical to the
> Commission's goal of providing competitive, affordable and efficient
> broadband access;'' the ARRL said, ''it would also eliminate even
> the most minimal means for Amateur Radio licensees to be able to
> identify and contact the source of harmful BPL interference when it
> occurs.''
> 
> Keeping the 30-day notification period in place, the ARRL argued,
> offers radio amateurs a chance to determine baseline ambient noise
> levels ahead of a BPL deployment and to be able to identify
> interference when it occurs and the extent to which the HF and
> low-VHF operating environment is degraded.
> 
> The ARRL also took issue with requests by Current and UPLC either to
> extend the transition period for certification of BPL equipment
> made, marketed or installed on or after July 7, 2006, or to drop it
> altogether. Either approach, the League contended, ''is tantamount
> to an abdication of any requirement to implement any of the
> admittedly inadequate interference mitigation requirements in the
> Report and Order at all.''
> 
> As the rule is written, the League's Opposition points out, ''no BPL
> system placed in operation ever has to come into compliance with the
> interference requirements.'' The ARRL maintains that the FCC erred
> in its R&O by permitting the installation and operation of
> non-compliant equipment after the R&O's effective date.
> 
> The League Opposition also commented that the FCC ''has not adopted
> any rules that will protect licensees in the Amateur Service from
> interference from BPL systems.''
> 
> In its own Petition for Reconsideration in February, the ARRL asked
> the FCC to ''reconsider, rescind and restudy'' the October BPL R&O,
> calling the FCC's action to permit BPL ''a gross policy mistake.''
> NNNN
> /EX
>