 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
 Previous: Surfin': Hammin', But No Truckin' |  Next: The K7RA Solar Update |
Manassas hams check BPL interference earlier this year: (L-R) Butch Blasdell, W4HJL, George Tarnovsky, K4GVT, and Brian Cochran, WC4J. All three had filed BPL interference complaints with the FCC. |
Operated by COMTek, the Manassas BPL system uses Main.net equipment operating between on frequencies between 4 MHz and 30 MHz, according to the BPL database. |
The BPL signal can be heard along "miles of road" on 40, 20, 17 and 15 meters, one Manassas amateur reported earlier this year. |
The Manassas BPL system operates over both overhead and underground utility wiring. |
NEWINGTON, CT, Dec 22,2006 -- The FCC on December 14 told five Manassas, Virginia, radio amateurs that its testing showed the city's BPL system complies with FCC Part 15 rules. The League is questioning the Commission's conclusions, however. Six Manassas hams earlier this year complained of BPL interference to their mobile operations. FCC engineers took measurements at several locations in Manassas on October 25 and 26. Spectrum Enforcement Division Chief Kathryn S. Berthot reported the results in a December 14 letter.
"These measurements demonstrate that the Manassas BPL system is in compliance with the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.611(b) of the Commission's rules at the two sites in areas we tested where emissions appear to be the highest," Berthot wrote, adding that the measurements showed the system is notching at 20 dB or greater to protect the 40-meter band. "Accordingly, based on the results of our investigation, we conclude that the Manassas BPL system is in compliance with the FCC's requirements, and the complaints are hereby dismissed." BPL proponent The United Power Line Council called the letter "complete and total vindication" of the Manassas BPL system.
Not so fast, says ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, who responded to the December 14 letter December 21 on behalf of the League and the complainants. Imlay maintained that Berthot's letter raised more questions than it answered. Because the "alleged testing" took place in the presence of BPL operator COMTek and equipment maker Main.net but without the complainants, Imlay said, there's no independent means to evaluate the conclusions Berthot describes.
"In ARRL's view, the Commission owes the complainants a far more comprehensive response to their two-year-old complaints than what is set forth in the terse and uninformative dismissal letter," Imlay wrote. Copies of his letter went to the five FCC commissioners and to the complainants. One complainant, George Tarnovsky, K4GVT, says neither he nor the other five complainants was alerted to the planned FCC testing. The others are Donald "Butch" Blasdell, W4HJL; William South, N3OH; Arthur Whittum, W1CRO; Jack Cochran, WC4J, and Dwight Agnew, AI4II,
Nothing Resolved
Imlay said the ARRL in August urged the FCC Enforcement Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to take independent measurements in Manassas, rather than relying on COMTek to provide the information. "It was urged then that the complainants be contacted beforehand in order to provide an opportunity for all concerned to witness the testing and to be assured that valid test methodologies were used," Imlay said. "Had that been done, and had the measurements been fairly and objectively made, and if the results were as the Commission stated in its December 14 letter, this matter would have been resolved. As it is, nothing is now resolved."
For starters, Imlay says, Berthot's December 14 letter overlooks Whittum's May 2006 complaint that BPL interference precluded communication with the EastCARS and MidCARS nets on 40 meters. As a result, Imlay says Whittum's complaint "remains pending and unadjudicated." Beyond that, Imlay contended, the Amateur Radio complainants, as FCC licensees, deserve better treatment and protection from the FCC. "They have diligently worked with COMTek and Manassas to attempt a cooperative resolution of this matter," Imlay continued. "They are deserving of protection from interference from unlicensed RF devices."
FCC's Conclusions Prompt Questions
Because the Commission -- and especially OET -- has exhibited "an overwhelming and obvious bias in favor of BPL" and "done everything possible to deny or obfuscate the substantial interference potential of BPL" on HF, Imlay said the League remains unwilling to accept what he called "the unsupported conclusions" in Berthot's letter. Those conclusions vary substantially with the complainants' empirical observations and measurements, verified by the ARRL Laboratory staff, which recently made its own interference assessment in Manassas.
Among other things, the League wants to know if any of the complainants were notified prior to the FCC's October testing, whether the OET is "routinely involved" in enforcement-related field measurements, when COMTek and Main.net learned of the planned testing, precisely where the FCC tested and how it determined the sites and the system's status during the tests -- including system loading.
The ARRL also wants to know if the results of the testing on October 26 varied from those of the previous day, and what system changes COMTek or Main.net may have made prior to the second day's testing. In addition, the League requested technical details of the testing, including measured emission levels.
Finally, the League seeks any correspondence, including e-mails, regarding the tests between or among the OET, Enforcement Bureau, Main.net, COMTek and the City of Manassas.
Complainants Stonewalled, League Charges
Imlay charged that the Amateur Radio complainants "have been stonewalled by the City and COMTek, and now they have been stonewalled by the Commission, after waiting patiently for two years for some action." He further asserted that the Manassas BPL system has not been in compliance with FCC rules regarding radiated emissions, and that none of its Main.net equipment has been certified by the Commission.
Imlay contended that if the FCC seriously intends to claim that the Manassas system complies with the rules, it "must be willing to provide the information necessary to support its dismissal order with documentation that is objectively verifiable."
| Previous: Surfin': Hammin', But No Truckin' | Next: The K7RA Solar Update |
