how-to block ads
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath
said by TKJunkMail  :But the FCC won on what I think is a big item: - the right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum. The ARRL wants the FCC to shut down any BPL systems that cause interference. The court said the FCC doesn't have to do that. Good thing they lost that one. Otherwise, I'd have to stop using this computer. And every other digital device in my house, and so would everyone else in the U.S.
Every radio system is subject to interference. Under Part 15, the FCC allows unlicensed operation as an "overlay" in bands that include licensed operation, so long as the interference from the unlicensed device does not rise to the level of "harmful interference", which is precisely defined in Part 15. But zero interference is impossible.
But this is my big issue with the ARRL: there have clearly been instances of harmful interference to Ham operators from a few BPL deployments, and the ARRL is within their rights to seek to have it rectified. But they've failed to control their overzealous lawyers, who've made absurd arguements. Every filing to the FCC from the ARRL on Part 15 matters (BPL-related and others) has mantained that the Commission has no authority to authorize operation of Part 15 devices. So the ARRL filings maintain that unlicensed use of the spectrum cannot be permitted; e.g., much of the modern world as we know it should not be permitted.
This position is so extreme that the ARRL doesn't even publicize it to their members (most of it would disagree with it), but it's there in black and wihite as the official, under penalty of perjury, position of the ARRL leadership as filed with the FCC.
It sounds like (from the last quote above) pushing this ridiculous, overreaching argment came back to bite them, and as a result they may have lost some protections they, and other licensed users hertofore had under FCC Rules. Way to go, ARRL lawyers. | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
2 edits | said by PDXPLT :said by TKJunkMail :But the FCC won on what I think is a big item: - the right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum. The ARRL wants the FCC to shut down any BPL systems that cause interference. The court said the FCC doesn't have to do that. Good thing they lost that one. Otherwise, I'd have to stop using this computer. And every other digital device in my house, and so would everyone else in the U.S. That's a logical fallacy. Imagine your computer interfered with a communications system. Before you had to rectify the problem by reducing the emission down to a level that didn't interfere or stop operation of the device. What the FCC rules did with BPL was allow it to continue operating if the emission level was dropped by a certain amount even if the interference continued.
Every radio system is subject to interference. Under Part 15, the FCC allows unlicensed operation as an "overlay" in bands that include licensed operation, so long as the interference from the unlicensed device does not rise to the level of "harmful interference", which is precisely defined in Part 15. Precisely? Read the rules and it's far from precise. This was one of the big issues that both sides in the BPL interference debate fought over.
So the ARRL filings maintain that unlicensed use of the spectrum cannot be permitted; e.g., much of the modern world as we know it should not be permitted. Bull. The ARRL never claimed that. I believe you've claimed this several times before here. Their problem was that an unlicensed device was essentially given licensed status (the whole Section 301 versus 302 issue). They never claimed unlicensed use of spectrum cannot be permitted.
This position is so extreme that the ARRL doesn't even publicize it to their members (most of it would disagree with it), but it's there in black and wihite as the official, under penalty of perjury, position of the ARRL leadership as filed with the FCC. How do you know of this supposedly "extreme ARRL position" (that you've mischaracterized/manufactured) if they don't publicize it? Also, the ARRL article on their website and weekly mailing links directly to the ruling document and all their previous filings are a matter of public record have been linked to by ARRL articles, so how in the world are members not going to find out about it??????  (talk about a flawed argument)
It sounds like (from the last quote above) pushing this ridiculous, overreaching argment came back to bite them, and as a result they may have lost some protections they, and other licensed users hertofore had under FCC Rules. Way to go, ARRL lawyers.
The rule in question was already on the books so the court order caused licensed users to lose nothing.
Want to see some people at the FCC get uncomfortable? Petition the FCC to apply the 15.611 rule we are talking about in language in all the licensed parts of Title 47 that pertain to the spectrum that BPL can affect. For example, add something like "all licensees must accept, without recourse, harmful interference from an unlicensed Part 15 device with emissions X dB below the Part 15 emissions limit." Technically it would be correct as the rules stand now, it's just tucked away in 15.611 and not in the parts directly pertaining to the BPL-affected licensed services. See how NAB and a bunch of other entities and organizations react  Again, realize this is 100% technically correct and appropriate the way the rule is written. | |
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to PDXPLT
Good thing they lost that one. Otherwise, I'd have to stop using this computer. And every other digital device in my house, and so would everyone else in the U.S. Good thing you are wrong. The FCC rule that was challenged in court was the one that said that if interference is reduced to a level 20 dB below the emissions limits, that will not be considered to be interference to mobile stations. That doesn't make it at all legal for your computer to cause interference to stations licensed radio services.
Every radio system is subject to interference. Under Part 15, the FCC allows unlicensed operation as an "overlay" in bands that include licensed operation, so long as the interference from the unlicensed device does not rise to the level of "harmful interference", which is precisely defined in Part 15. But zero interference is impossible. Part 15 is an underlay, not an overlay, but the gist of what you are saying is correct, although other only interference from BPL to only mobile operation, Part 15 does not define a level that will be considered to be harmful interference. You can consider that to be a good thing, because the level that is in that rule would reduce the range of your cellular telephone by about 50%. Cell phone use is also a mobile technology.
Every filing to the FCC from the ARRL on Part 15 matters (BPL-related and others) has mantained that the Commission has no authority to authorize operation of Part 15 devices. Not quite accurate; those filings maintain that the authorization of unlicensed devices that have a strong and demonstrated potential to cause harmful interference should not be authorized as an unlicensed device. This has been applied to filings related to things like BPL and 10-watt transmitters that have a range of many tens of miles.
So the ARRL filings maintain that unlicensed use of the spectrum cannot be permitted; e.g., much of the modern world as we know it should not be permitted. Incorrect. ARRL filings maintaint that unlicensed use of spectrum cannot be permitted for devices that have a high potential to cause interference.
Let's bring this argument a bit closer to home for you. Do you believe that every telephone pole in your community should have a device that operates on the cellular telephone frequencies at a level that is hundreds of times stronger than the weakest cell signals you can use now to make somewhat reliable telephone calls? Do you think that every pole should have a device that operates on your local TV channels at a level that is lower than the minimum TV signal you can use, but still strong enough to be quite visible on your TV? Those are the analogies that best represent the way BPL systems are built and the impact they have on Amateur, CB and shortwave broadcast spectrum.
It sounds like (from the last quote above) pushing this ridiculous, overreaching argment came back to bite them, and as a result they may have lost some protections they, and other licensed users hertofore had under FCC Rules. Way to go, ARRL lawyers.
Criticizing for things that aren't true makes you look uninformed and ridiculous. The court decision does not change the no-harmful-interference provisions of Part 15 at all. It is a setback in that it affirms the FCC's regulatory determination that a level that IS hundreds of times greate than the present median levels of man-made noise will not be considered to be harmful interference ONLY to mobile stations and ONLY to interference from BPL.
If the courts had not made the decision it made, nothing would be different; the rule would still have been on the books.
Ed Hare, ARRL | |
|
