 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
 Previous: Running Barefoot on the Beach |  Next: A Little Trip to the Mother Ship |
The FCC, in a letter to Yehuda Cern, Chief Engineer for Ambient Corporation, concluded their investigation into whether Ambient's BPL operation caused "harmful interference" to Amateur Radio stations in Briarcliff Manor, New York. The Commission found that "Ambient's BPL operation has violated the radiated emission limits of Section 15.109" of the FCC Rules "and the terms of its experimental license, call sign WD2XEQ." The FCC's letter went on to say that "we hereby admonish Ambient." No findings were made, however, as to whether or not the system actually caused interference to Amateur Radio, and the Enforcement Bureau left open the issue of future experimental BPL operations at Briarcliff Manor.
Since Ambient's Briarcliff Manor facility is operating under an experimental license, the FCC says Ambient "is subject to the operating conditions contained on its license. Condition 4 of its license requires that Ambient file a progress report six months from the date of the grant. Additionally, Condition 5 provides that the progress report '... should include, but is not limited to, a description of measurements and results demonstrating compliance...' with the radiated emissions limits of Section 15.109."
Ambient submitted a progress report on February 5, 2007. The report indicated that Ambient "[h]as notched out its signals on the Amateur Radio bands, demonstrating significant advancements..." but the report did not address Condition 5, according to the FCC.
FCC Responds to Ambient
The FCC's Spectrum Enforcement Division sent letters to Ambient in March and May 2007, directing Ambient to "provide the results of any measurements made prior to the filing of its February 5, 2007 report to demonstrate compliance with the radiated emission limits of Section 15.109." The Division also directed Ambient to "submit a follow-up report confirming compliance once it had completed any necessary system modifications."
Ambient's attorneys filed responses to the FCC's March and May letters in June. Ambient's response, the FCC said, indicated that Ambient "had made compliance measurements as required by the Division." Ambient's response further stated that they had found "an older, first generation BPL unit in its network was malfunctioning, causing the device to exceed the applicable Section 15.109 emission limits," and that it "immediately took the equipment out of service." Ambient, the FCC said, "indicated that [they] would soon replace the remaining first generation equipment in its network with newer equipment."
In August, Ambient told the FCC that it has replaced all its first generation BPL equipment with second generation equipment. The FCC's letter to Ambient goes on to say that Ambient has completed and submitted results of on-site testing that demonstrates compliance with the Commission's regulations. In the time since Ambient replaced all their equipment, "neither Ambient or the [Spectrum Enforcement] Division has received complaints indicating continuing interference to Amateur operations from Ambient's BPL system," the FCC's letter said. The FCC made no findings about the interference that had been previously reported, however, nor did the Commission undertake any on-site investigation or inspection of the facility at Briarcliff Manor.
The FCC found that Ambient's BPL operation in Briarcliff Manor "has operated in violation of Section 15.109 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we admonish Ambient for violating Section 15.109 of the Commission's Rules and the terms of its experimental license, call sign WD2XEQ." The FCC cautioned Ambient that any violations of future license provisions "may result in additional sanctions."
ARRL Filed Numerous Complaints with FCC Regarding Ambient's Briarcliff Manor Operation
ARRL first filed a complaint with FCC concerning the radiated emission violations at Briarcliff Manor on October 12, 2004. Subsequent complaints were filed on December 17, 2004; January 7, 2005; March 17, 2005; January 6, 2006; March 29, 2006, and June 1, 2007 each of which reported ongoing harmful interference caused by the unlawful operation of Ambient's BPL system at Briarcliff Manor. The complaints included technical reports on the result of tests conducted by ARRL staff. Each of the complaints requested that the Ambient system be required to cease operation immediately. The FCC took no action on any of these complaints, and it did not address any of them in its letter to Ambient.
Still before the Commission is the question of whether or not Ambient's experimental authorization should be renewed for a further period. Ambient has had an experimental authorization in Westchester County, NY since June of 2002. The most recent experimental authorization expired August 1, 2007. On July 24, Ambient filed an application to extend their authorization for an additional two-year period. ARRL filed an informal objection to that application on July 25, arguing that Ambient should be held to the same standard as the other BPL companies which are subject to the rules governing BPL, such as inclusion of the BPL system in the public database, so that victims of BPL interference can determine the source of it.
ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said, "It is gratifying that the FCC finally has recognized that Ambient's BPL operation in Briarcliff Manor violated both the FCC rules and the terms of its experimental license, has made these violations a matter of public record and has admonished Ambient; however, this action comes three years and one month after the ARRL first brought Ambient's violations to the Commission's attention. This is hardly the speedy resolution that the Commission has promised, and to which its licensees are entitled."
ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, concurred with Sumner, saying "The FCC's admonishment to Ambient was 'too little, too late' from the FCC's Enforcement Bureau. It continues the disappointing inaction that we have come to expect from FCC in addressing blatant cases of harmful interference. Must Amateur Radio operators wait more than three years for some relief after filing legitimate complaints of harmful interference? The FCC has consistently refused to even acknowledge, much less investigate, the complaints of harmful interference at Briarcliff Manor, because it wants no bad news about BPL."
| Previous: Running Barefoot on the Beach | Next: A Little Trip to the Mother Ship |
