[Ccarc] FW: ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules

[Tom Murray]

>From: "ARRL Web site" <memberlist at www.arrl.org>
>To: kb9wsl at hotmail.com
>CC: Subscribed ARRL Members:;
>Subject: ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 16:55:52 -0400
>
>SB QST @ ARL $ARLB018
>ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules
>
>ZCZC AG18
>QST de W1AW
>ARRL Bulletin 18  ARLB018
>From ARRL Headquarters
>Newington CT  October 4, 2006
>To all radio amateurs
>
>SB QST ARL ARLB018
>ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules
>
>The ARRL Executive Committee is expected this weekend to ratify
>plans to appeal in federal court certain aspects of the FCC's Part
>15 rules governing broadband over power line (BPL) systems. Assuming
>the EC signs off on the strategy, the League will file a Notice of
>Appeal by October 22 with the US District Court of Appeals - DC
>Circuit. ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said the
>League went forward with its appeal plans only after considering the
>effect on licensed spectrum users of letting the BPL rules stand.
>
>''This decision was made after careful review of the FCC's October
>2004 BPL Report and Order (R&O) and of the August 2006 Memorandum
>Opinion and Order (MO&O) that dealt with petitions for
>reconsideration,'' said Sumner.
>
>Several reconsideration petitions of the initial R&O - including one
>from ARRL - called on the FCC to strengthen rules aimed at
>protecting licensed radio systems from BPL interference.  Instead,
>in a new rule only revealed after the FCC made the MO&O public, the
>FCC limited the extent to which an unlicensed, unintentional
>radiator has to protect a licensed mobile station.
>
>The new rule, 15.611(c)(1)(iii), provides that BPL operators only
>have to reduce emission levels below established FCC permissible
>limits by 20 dB below 30 MHz and by 10 dB above 30 MHz - even if
>that's not enough to resolve harmful interference complaints.
>
>Sumner contends the rule change contravenes the International Radio
>Regulations and the Communications Act of 1934. ''The FCC has, in
>effect, tried to redefine harmful interference,'' he said. ''It can't
>do that. The Commission doesn't have the authority to do that, and
>we're going to demonstrate that to the Court of Appeals.''
>
>What the FCC has done with respect to licensed mobile services
>''should strike fear into the hearts of those who rely on public
>safety communications,'' Sumner added, especially since the rule
>requires BPL operators to do even less above 30 MHz than at HF.
>
>The Commission also declined to adjust the 40 dB per decade
>''extrapolation factor'' applied to measurements performed at
>distances from power lines other than those specified in Part 15.
>Sumner says this is an important technical point because the
>existing Part 15 rule causes test results to underestimate actual
>field strength. Petitions for reconsideration from the ARRL and
>others argued that a figure closer to 20 dB per decade was more
>appropriate. Sumner called the Commission's stand on the 40 dB per
>decade rule ''clearly, demonstrably and inarguably wrong.''
>
>He said the principles that the FCC appears to be following for the
>first time - if applied generally - represent an abuse of licensees'
>rights. ''It's unacceptable that the FCC would reduce the rights of
>its licensees in favor of unlicensed, unintentional emitters,'' he
>said. ''Remember that 'unintentional emission' is just another term
>for 'spectrum pollution.'''
>
>Sumner made it clear that the League is not suing BPL providers for
>causing interference, nor suing the FCC for failing to enforce its
>own rules against harmful interference. ''We are not satisfied with
>the level of attention the Commission is paying to existing cases of
>BPL interference, but this is not the time to pursue that in federal
>court,'' he said.
>
>While the separate standard for what constitutes harmful
>interference to a mobile and the 40 dB per decade extrapolation
>factor issues precipitated the decision to appeal, Sumner said, the
>arguments the League puts forward in its court filing may touch on
>other matters as well.
>
>''The court is not going to rewrite the rules,'' Sumner explained.
>''The court can make the Commission go back to the drawing board and
>re-decide them, however.''
>NNNN
>/EX