Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: ARRL doesn't trust FCC - Duh!!
said by moonpuppy  :The ARRL has done the testing using scientific methods. Comtek has denied the problem, said it wasn't bad, replaced equipment and still denied the problem. How can you help fix a problem when the opposite side refuses to even acknowledge a problem?  The "scientific testing" I saw on their website was some hackney driving around with a scanner in his car making whistles and pops.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs:
| That "hackney" was Ed Hare, a well-respected RF Engineer. And it wasn't a "scanner" in his car, it was an ICom HF radio.
They've also done other testing using Spectrum Analyzers to clearly show the interference in the supposedly "notched" band segments.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. |
|
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| said by drjim :That "hackney" was Ed Hare, a well-respected RF Engineer. And it wasn't a "scanner" in his car, it was an ICom HF radio. They've also done other testing using Spectrum Analyzers to clearly show the interference in the supposedly "notched" band segments. Right, but the FCC is stating it's within Part 15 requirements, so what's the problem?
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Matt :Right, but the FCC is stating it's within Part 15 requirements, so what's the problem? And you believe everything the FCC says?
As for that "hackney", Ed Hare has probably more technical knowledge and know how then 80-90% of the people on this website. |
|
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs:
| reply to Matt
The problem is that Part 15 states an unlicensed service must not cause harmful interference to a licensed service. The FCC is trying make an end-run around their own rules by claiming the interference (they grudginly admit it's real) is not "harmful". The gist of the ARRL lawsuit against the FCC is to get them to follow thir own rules.
I have nothing against BPL or PLC. I (like most hams) just want the providers to deploy a system that doesn't pollute the radio spectrum.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. |
|
Devistater
join:2004-02-13
Clovis, CA | reply to moonpuppy
Only 90%?? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Devistater :Only 90%?? Trying to be conservative. My guess is higher but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
December 27th, @08:16AM
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by drjim :That "hackney" was Ed Hare, a well-respected RF Engineer. And it wasn't a "scanner" in his car, it was an ICom HF radio. They've also done other testing using Spectrum Analyzers to clearly show the interference in the supposedly "notched" band segments. Right, but the FCC is stating it's within Part 15 requirements, so what's the problem? Much like there's never been a credible third party around with a good camera to document a UFO sighting, there's never been anyone around other than a BPL carrier or equipment vendor when the FCC takes BPL measurements. It's not within any BPL company's best interests to highlight bad areas or show the FCC what someone has filed a complaint about. And when the FCC publishes no measurement data or the measurement equipment list and technique, it's unknown whether their measurements are valid. I'm not saying the ham measurements are automatically valid, but nearly every claim I've seen so far has been backed up with published measurements. Why a government agency can't publish theirs poses a lot of questions.
This is just one in a long line of questionable actions the FCC has done with regards to BPL. Just a few weeks ago, the FCC passed a rule that exempts BPL systems from further action to remedy interference to mobile stations if their emissions are 20 dB below the emissions limit. The emissions limit was never intended to be a level at which there would never be interference to licensed stations, it was merely a regulatory limit. The new rule was arguably a gift with no technical basis for the BPL industry and it was passed without being published in any previous FCC proceeding, nor was it available for public review like all proposed FCC rules. What's even scarier, this rule exempts carriers if they go 10 dB below the emissions limit on low band VHF frequencies. There's still many communities (including mine) that have emergency services on this band. The new FCC rule allows the BPL carrier to emit levels that can interfere with these services, and they are not obligated to take action. Few emergency agencies would know how to identify BPL interference, and BPL carriers aren't required to notify them that they are using their spectrum in their systems.
I think the ARRL should just quietly walk away from this and hire an independent EMC measurement firm that has no amateur radio operators on their staff, collect measurements for a week and hire a video production firm to film it. Otherwise, this is going to continue to be a "the glove doesn't fit" situation. |
|
