>>>AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of N6KJ
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:29 PM
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: RE: [RFI] Broadband over Power Line (BPL) radio interference
This nation is governed by laws and regulations. The way we maintain a
reasonably civil society and avoid anarchy is through a set of laws and
punishments for failure to adhere to the law. You may not like the American
system, but this is what we have. Personally, I think it is better than any
of the alternatives. The FCC Part 15 regulations state that Part 15 devices
must NOT cause interference to licensed radio users and must ACCEPT any
interference from licensed radio devices. The FCC has failed to enforce its
own set of regulations in order to allow this technology to move forward.
The American people SHOULD be concerned about any wide-scale lawbreaker that
is allowed to continue breaking the law with impunity.
>>>As I understand it, the current BPL pilots are all have experimental
licenses from the FCC. I've not examined these licenses, but suspect that
they set out a process for mitigating interference that would otherwise be
immediately problematic under Part 15.
If BPL is so darn important that all HF users should be displaced for the
"good of society" then change the law/regulations. If amateur radio is
really as "antiquated" and "pointless" and "retro" as you suggest then why
doesn't the FCC just eliminate amateur radio HF bands and give it to other
services (in this case BPL).
>>>Under the right circumstances, I have no doubt that the FCC would alter
amateur privileges if it concluded that this was in the country's best
interest. It is empowered by law to do so. Weren't amateur radio privileges
terminated during the Second World War?
>>>By the way, I didn't say that amateur radio is antiquated, pointless, or
retro, I said that many people unfamiliar with the hobby regard it that way,
and that our opponents -- the UPLC -- have adopted this positioning.
The problem with your argument is that you are, in essence, saying that it
is ok to break the law as long as you are doing something that is considered
"good for society". I reject that view.
>>>I don't believe that the BPL pilots are breaking any laws. If you know of
one being broken, please cite it.
On a related note...I'm sure it would be in MOST people's best interest to
open up ANWAR to oil drilling. I'm sure the majority of Americans would be
supportive of doing so. Why don't we do it? Because a small minority (with
huge political clout) successfully lobby Congress to prevent it. Such is
Representative Government.
>>>As I said, arguments over self-interest are subjective.
Oh yeah, a couple more things. In your statement you talked about a
hypothetical cancer treatment machine that could ONLY use HF frequencies.
You went on to say that if such a machine existed then amateur radio
operators should roll over and die for the "good of society". First, you
fail to recognize that amateur radio is still used for emergency
communications. It is hard to estimate how many people are saved or helped
with amateur radio. Are
you suggesting that "numbers are the only thing that is important"? Can you
name another "life saving technology" that was allowed to supplant an
existing "life saving technology" because it saved more people than the one
it is supplanting? Our government routinely writes laws that are intended
to save no more than a handful of people. My point is to say that for those
in the "life saving" business, losing one person is too many. What do you
think would happen the first time that one of those cancer machines caused
enough interference to prevent an amateur radio operator from helping save
the life of someone? Can you say "lawsuit"? Why? Because to that ONE
person's family, it is unacceptable to allow their loved one to die so that
1000 other people can get cancer treatment. What do you think will happen
the first time that BPL interferes with home medical equipment (operating on
49MHz for example) and causes someone to die or to be severely injured? Can
you say "lawsuit"?
>>>Hams around the world save at most 1000 lives per year; cancer killed
more than 500,000 Americans last year. Were the hypothetical anti-cancer
machine to exist, it would quickly be accompanied by laws indemnifying its
use.
You also can't compare your hypothetical cancer treatment machine to BPL
because you specifically stated that the cancer treatment machine could only
work on HF frequencies and you implied that this machine is one-of-a-kind in
its ability to cure cancer. In other words: there is no
alternative. BPL has numerous alternatives, most of which are far superior
both technically and economically. If BPL were the ONLY way of providing
broadband to people then I would agree that maybe it needs to be allowed in
spite of what it does to amateur radio. In that case we truly WOULD be
standing in the way of progress. This is simply not the case with BPL. If
it can be implemented with no interference then go for it, but
otherwise...there are better (and cleaner) alternatives.
>>>You missed my point. I fabricated the anti-cancer example to point out
that even hams would forego their hobby for an advance of sufficient
magnitude. I don't think BPL is remotely close to this magnitude. But there
are others who have much less sympathy for amateur radio, and have been
convinced (or seduced) into believing that BPL is a cheap, quick fix for
rural broadband access. If we make the debate one of self-interest, then we
create a situation where the majority can simply decide that our
self-interest will not prevail.
Let me also remind you that BPL is not the end of this. BPL is merely the
"Camel's Nose" under the tent. As soon as a precedent is set which allows
Part 15 devices to interfere without fear of FCC enforcement you can bet
that more polluting devices will follow. You can't selectively enforce the
law without risking chaos. I guess the FCC doesn't realize this.
>>>The FCC explicitly granted experimental licenses for the BPL licenses.
While we may not like this particular technology, experimental licenses are
essential if we're going to move technologies forward. Many amateur
technologies were developed through this route, were they not?
I find it quite interesting that one of the National Conventions (maybe
both) has stated that WiFi will be prohibited due to the fact that it
INTERFERES with television broadcasting. Hmmmmmm. Obviously, our elected
officials know something about interference. I assume they only care about
it when it affects them directly OR it affects one of their large campaign
donors!
>>>Really? So the on-site TV we've been seeing over the past two years has
been conducted from WIFI-free zones? This sounds a lot like the "no
powered-up cell phones on commercial airplanes because they interfere with
the navigation electronics" lie.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:50:07 -0400, "Dave Bernstein" wrote:
>
> Attacking BPL on the primary grounds that it causes severe radio
> interference to hams, CBers, and SWLs is a bad idea. Why? Because too
> much of the audience will wonder why we should hold back the advance
> of broadband internet access so that a small group of retro hobbyists
> can continue to communicate via the ionospheric refraction of HF
> signals.
>
> [ Lots of Stuff Deleted ]
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|