rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
April 26th, @09:43PM
| reply to PDXPLT
Re: Don't Hold Your Breath
said by PDXPLT  :said by TK Junk Mail :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. |
