[TenTec] FCC rules, BPL, side effects

[Kenneth Stringham]

Hi,

I did raise this issue in an e-mail that I sent
Commissioner Abernathy. She made a statement before an
industry association that indicates to me that the FCC
will entertain any technology and provide space for it
if there is sufficient money in the package. In fact,
I got the distinct inpression that this set of
commissioners believes that the service allocation
stategy, that has been in use since the advent of
radio regulation, is outdated and prevents deployment
of promising new technologies.

I think you must face the fact that licensed services
and frequency allocations for them are real problem
for an industry that is spectrum hungry.

There is another under lying thing I see here. I think
this commission believes that licensed services that
the lower frequencies are a waste land. Most of the
services that use these frequencies can be accomodated
in the satellite services and many have already moved
into the higher frequencies to avoid the problems
variations in propagation bring. Those services that
remain will just be authorized higher power to
overcome the interference and we amateurs will follow
suit by abandoning QRP activies and resort to higher
power as well.

You could take this as a challenge. This could
encourage us to develop technologies to defeat the
interference. We could also take our QRP work to
higher frequencies too.

They only thing that can be said for QRP, and this is
the challenge that I like, is this permits minimal
communication that may save lives in a disaster. This
is not a problem for the commission because in that
situation, BPL will not be working anyway. We can
still develop equipment and test in locally, we just
will not have the satisfaction of working over very
long distances.

Do you really think the Commission is concerned about
us? I think not. In fact, I think that they would
eliminate us, should International Treaties be changed
to enable it.

There are two NOI presently active concerning spectrum
within this government. One covering government
services and the other domestic services. The tone of
these NOI indicates to me that the commission and NTIA
are looking to apply spectrum efficiency to determine
who is allocated spectrum. Can we be said to be
spectrum efficient?

I have seen, in print, the cry for changes to the way
spectrum is allocated. There are hundreds, if not
thousands, of new ideas that require spectrum out
there that are not being implemented because the
present allocation tables do not provide a place for
them and they are looking to change the way spectrum
is parsed out.

I think I've said enough for now, but we can not sit
back. We need to make our voices known and our
interests must be voiced.

Ken

AE1X:kes

--- fredhwagner@comcast.net wrote:
> One BPL problem that hasn't been mentioned yet is
> that QRP has become popular, and the majority run
> relatively low power on HF (<5W QRP, 20W Argosy V,
> 50W Century21/Argosy 525, 100W most others). If BPL
> is allowed anywhere, it will propagate just as our
> signals do, and to make ourselves heard, more of us
> will step up our power levels to overcome the noise,
> so we can make contacts - per the FCC rules, we use
> no more power than is necessary to communicate - BPL
> will force us to use more power, so we'll be causing
> more RFI to our neighbors, just trying to be heard
> over the BPL noise. So BPL will cause higher local
> RF levels wherever hams are, even if the BPL isn't
> the one causing the high RF level in those
> locations, it will be the hams raising their power
> to be heard elsewhere. Can someone explain this
> clearly to the FCC ?
> 
> Fred Wagner, KQ6Q
> _______________________________________________
> Tentec mailing list
> Tentec@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/tentec


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com