FCC Dealt Setback In BPL Push

SonicSpike writes in with word that an appeals court has dealt a setback to the FCC's plans to encourage broadband over power lines. The court ruled that the FCC erred when it withheld parts of the studies it had used in arriving at its position on BPL. The court did not rule that the FCC's decision was incorrect or that it should be revisited. According to the article, about 5,000 people nationwide subscribe to BPL in 35 pilot projects. We've been discussing BPL for years. "...a federal appeals court has sided in part with amateur radio operators who challenged rules designed to speed the nascent Internet service's rollout. When setting rules for BPL operators nearly two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission said it was trying to encourage deployment of a 'third pipe' to compete with cable and DSL services, while establishing limits aimed at protecting public safety, maritime, radio-astronomy, aeronautical navigation, and amateur radio operators from harmful interference. The American Radio Relay League, which represents amateur... radio operators, however, promptly sued the agency, contending that the FCC's approach was insufficient to ward off interference with its radios and inconsistent with its previous rules. On Friday, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued a ruling (PDF) that took issue with the way the FCC arrived at its rules."

Comments

eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat my shorts slashdot !!

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, eat your shorts !!!!!

OLD NEWS!! April 28

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing new here, Move on

The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

No where in the US Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate communications. If the federal government wants to regulate communications they should've proposed an amendment to the States

And yes I am ham radio operator and the OP.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[ya really]

I agree that that FCC does way too much meddling, but it does serve a purpose. If there was no regulation, think of how many douchebags out there would be treading all over each other's frequencies with their higher powered antennas. It's pretty certain there would be some who just dont like X's radio station and would just pump out static for spite as well. Now, if you say that the states should have control over the regulation instead, I'll totally agree with you. However, no regulation of frequencies is just a horrible idea.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

I am not advocating anarchy over the airwaves.... just that the federal government shouldn't be involved. Per the 10th Amendment the federal government isn't allowed to be involved in regulation of communications. It should be left to the States.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Commerce clause + necessary and proper clause?

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Awptimus Prime]

Agreed, we need regulation. Back in the 1970's I had a nice Bearcat Citizen's Band radio with an antenna on a mast and linear amplifier to run right at the legal limit. Back then, these waves were similar to the local Internet chat room of today except you likely knew the folks you were talking to in real life, assisting drivers with directions, etc. Plus we all used snazzy handles just like on the Internet today.

Starting in probably 79, a lot of people started using linear amps that were so powerful, you could pick their signal up from 30+ miles away and it would drown out channels above and below the one you'd be monitoring. These people were so ungodly annoying because you would not be able to respond to them, as they are out of range of probably 90% of the people who were getting their signal, and causing general mayhem for folks trying to hold down a conversation miles away.

If it hadn't been for the above, I probably never would have cared or understood, but just knowing how annoying random people can be with radio technology when enforcement is weak, makes me like the idea of reasonable regulations. If anything interferes with current radio infrastructure, it needs to go back to the drawing board until something is improved. It only takes five minutes with a portable scanner to see how many non-data, critical services are managed via radio and it's reasonable to suggest that any change to those would be far more expensive to society than not running Internet over power lines unless they are reasonably shielded.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[mixmatch]

I find it hard to argue that most transmissions governed by the FCC are for the purpose of commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes, especially those that are radio-based with a range under 20-30 miles.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Ignorant Aardvark]

No where in the US Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate communications. If the federal government wants to regulate communications they should've proposed an amendment to the States

And yes I am ham radio operator and the OP.

As a ham radio operator, you should be knowledgeable enough to realize that the entire radio spectrum would be unusable trash without regulation. Our hobby would be dead. Most of our equipment goes up to 50, 100, maybe 200 watts (if you have a really expensive rig) tops. How in the hell would you get your signal heard above all of the companies using huge swaths of the spectrum at high wattages simply because that's the only way they can be heard? Should all ham radio operators have to go out and spend thousands of dollars on many-kilowatt linear amplifiers just to penetrate the noise?

And if you think amateur radio would be bad off, cell phones wouldn't even exist. Cell phones put out a puny 5 watts at max; there's no way you'd ever get through the noise with that.

C'mon, think. The government is necessary for some purposes. Regulating and protecting a public resource like the radio spectrum is one of them.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

The necessary and proper clause is NOT a grant of extra power. It simply means that Congress is authorized to do what is necessary and proper:

"Congress shall have power... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States,"

And regulating communications is NOT listed in Article 1 Section 8 last time I checked.

Commerce clause means "to make commerce regular" among the States. In other words no trade wars, no tariffs, import taxes etc among/between the States.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

I didn't say it shouldn't be regulated. I said the federal government isn't allowed to regulate it per the US Constitution.

Unless an amendment is proposed and ratified, it should be handled by the States. Read the 10th Amendment after reading Article 1 Section 8.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[badboy_tw2002]

So around New York which state agency would regulate? New York? Pennsylvania? New Jersey? Would they have to have agreements? What if it broke down? Hell, even CT and DE could get in on some of that action if the transceivers were big enough! What about satellite bands? Do I now need to clear my signal with 50 different regulatory agencies?

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of hard to leave it to the states. Rhode Island could make all the broadcast regulations it wants, but Connecticut and Massachusetts could just let their broadcasts bleed over into RI (in fact, it would be difficult for them to not do so)

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[msauve]

What do Luxemburg, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands do?

You really should study the issue so you have some knowledge before commenting.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[kfort]

I'm an ham radio operator and I agree. There would be more interference, but at the same time we could develop technologies to combat the interference using less power using stuff like DSP and spread spectrum.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Creepy Crawler]

I agree too, but I disagree in that it will never happen as you would like.

Our federal government likes too much control, and we have allowed it to continue. The only way to go back to states rights is to go before the civil war, and no militia from bumfuck is going to fight. It will come down to the states seceding from the union, as it did once before. I'd rather leave for somewhere nice, like Australia, Switzerland, or Japan before that crap happens. I want no part of that.

Our federal government shouldnt have any power to control in-state substances, nor control firearms, nor even have the fed. It's just not a power granted to Congress, but that doesnt stop them. It's pretty much wishful thinking on the part of Ron Paul and other Constitutionalists. It should happen, but wont.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[sgladfelter]

I don't know why these sorts of arguments keep coming up.

When the constitution was written, radio didn't exist. Neither did lots of other things that the courts have decided that the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate. Simply put, if the courts decide a law [like the one establishing the FCC] is constitutional, then it is [Marburg v Madison]. No matter what you think. I posted this elsewhere in the thread:

The FCC notes that the Supreme Court in 1969 upheld the government's authority to limit broadcast licenses. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. vs. the United States, the high court held, "Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency."

Source http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/Tree_Radio_Berkeley_Appendix.shtml

Although I'll say that if [I'd estimate] 4/9 of the Supreme Court had their way, then all of these regulatory powers that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution would go away. This is why the next election is so critical. So go out and vote!

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[sgladfelter]

Obviously, I meant my other post to reply to one of these "Originalists" in the thread. Sorry 'bout that- too bad he won't get to read my fabulous arguement!

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Bruce Perens]

What do Luxemburg, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands do?

Mostly let the EU run things.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[mrchaotica]

When the constitution was written, radio didn't exist.

So? That's exactly what Amendments are for!

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[moosesocks]

Keep on blowing that states-rights horn.

The small-federal-government-big-state-government folks have been around for as long as the US has.

It was tried. It didn't work. The US isn't divided culturally, economically, racially, etc... according to state borders. There's barely enough interest in the democratic process to keep the federal government going, let alone the states.

Ron Paul's not a bad man, but you've got to realize why he voted against all of those things in your sig.... If it were the state of Texas proposing any of them, he (by his own admission) would have voted 'Yes' to virtually all of them. Reading his campaign platform was eerily similar to my 17th-century American history class in high school. I mean.... the guy wants to abolish the federal reserve and go back to the gold standard. Does this mean we'll see a resurgence of the Whig party to oppose him?

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[gbobeck]

Heres the thing... the FCC is also responsible for the coordination of how the radio spectrum is used. Some of the coordination activities are international.

For example, if I was to require some spectrum use in the 460 MHz region, the FCC would be responsible for issuing out a few frequencies (as well as transmission power limits) for my use in my area. If I was close to Canada or Mexico, the FCC would have to coordinate with those governments, if necessary.

Now, I didn't think states could draft up internatonal treaties, as would be required to coordinate radio frequencies between a commercial user here in a city in the US and either the Mexican or Canidian governments.

I think the big reason for having a federal level agency for coordination and regulation of communications is that radio is international, and subject to international laws. I don't think it would be workable if each state had to ratify international treaties, let alone ratify laws for domestic radio purposes (example: radio operator in IL can transmit to radio operator in KS...)

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[dmizer]

Heres the thing... the FCC is also responsible for the coordination of how the radio spectrum is used. Some of the coordination activities are international.

For example, if I was to require some spectrum use in the 460 MHz region, the FCC would be responsible for issuing out a few frequencies (as well as transmission power limits) for my use in my area. If I was close to Canada or Mexico, the FCC would have to coordinate with those governments, if necessary.

Now, I didn't think states could draft up internatonal treaties, as would be required to coordinate radio frequencies between a commercial user here in a city in the US and either the Mexican or Canidian governments.

I think the big reason for having a federal level agency for coordination and regulation of communications is that radio is international, and subject to international laws. I don't think it would be workable if each state had to ratify international treaties, let alone ratify laws for domestic radio purposes (example: radio operator in IL can transmit to radio operator in KS...)

Please mod this up.

Abolishing the FCC makes about as much sense as doing away with the FHWA (obligatory car analogy). The FCC is most certainly (as parent points out) a necessity. Radio (not just Amateur Radio) is a world wide communication medium. And if you want to take a look at what happens to a radio medium without regulation, just tune across the "Citizen's Band".

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[jeff419]

Under the current system the power is very concentrated and easy to corrupt, as is the norm in our Congress.

Under a State by State system you'd have 50 different parties negotiating for something that's best for everyone as equals.

Which system do you think the big companies that actually control and utilize these 'licenses' over spectrum prefer??

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[flayzernax]

Ahhhh but the FCC doesn't just say who and what and when and were can use the radio tubes...

they decide what also gets transmitted through them...

So....

Honestly I think its a good idea to allow people to have protected frequencies that aren't usable by others. But they should be able to transmit whatever the fucking hell they want over those god damned frequencies they are allowed to use through whatever selection process it is we come up with as a COUNTRY and the Fucking Communications Cocks don't give a damn about free speech

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[amper]

I'l tell you what they do--they follow the guidelines of the ITU.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[amper]

Actually, Amateur Radio operators are, for the most part, authorized to transmit at up to 1500 W, not 200 W, and if your have a "really expensive rig", you ought to be able to transmit at full legal power.

Did you know that Amateur operators can use 802.11 at 1500W, provided that they do not use encryption? The 802.11 frequencies fall within the Amateur allocations, but using anything above Part 95 power levels requires that you comply with the Amateur rules, meaning that your transmissions cannot be encrypted.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[BBandCMKRNL]

I am not advocating anarchy over the airwaves.... just that the federal government shouldn't be involved. Per the 10th Amendment the federal government isn't allowed to be involved in regulation of communications. It should be left to the States. Actually, I believe that regulating the use of the airwaves is one of the FEW vaild uses of the Interstate Commerce Clause, given that radio waves don't respect State boundaries.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[devman]

However unregulated transmissions with ranges under 20-30 miles could interfere with interstate commerce if you could use any band you liked.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[BBandCMKRNL]

Commerce clause means "to make commerce regular" among the States. In other words no trade wars, no tariffs, import taxes etc among/between the States. So when Massachussetts creates rules governing the airwaves that allow transmitters in Massachussetts to completely wipe out any and all transmissions in Rhode Island, and most of the rest of the States in New England, you are saying it wouldn't be a valid power of the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause to remedy the situation?

If this is the case, how do you propose that the situation be remedied?

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[devman]

Yes and no letting people from Rhode Island dominate a common interstate resource simply because RI would refuse to enforce restrictions on what bands could be used by radios, thus ruining that resource for states around it. All hypothetical of course, but plausible in the vacuum of non-regulation.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[urcreepyneighbor]

Plus we all used snazzy handles just like on the Internet today. "Lookout", "Bootlegger", "Leaky Larry", and "Mr. Racist".

CB is an infested, fetid swamp. Always has been, always will be. ;)

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[jrmcferren]

There are two errors in your post. One amateurs of all classes (except for novice which is not allowed in those bands) are only permitted 100 watts for Spread Spectrum technology. Two, Part 95 does not cover WiFi, it is covered under part 15. Also important to note, if you have a WiFi access point in the ham band and a ham asks you to turn it off (if you are causing interference to them), you must change the channel (if you are directly on the ham band, or turn it off (if you are on another ham band), remember that the ham has a right to use that frequency and under the law your access point, (bluetooth device, microwave oven, or any other unlicensed transmitter) may NOT cause harmful interference to ANY licensed service. Also if a ham interferes with your telephone (not even a radio device), or cordless telephone (unlicensed and only applies if it is not operating on the ham band the ham is using, you have very little to no legal recourse. A part 15 device may not cause harmful interference (to a licensed service), and MUST accept any interference received even if it results in undesired operation (from a licensed service). So if your printer screws up your neighbor's tv for example, you MUST fix the printer or stop using it, if you do decide to get it fixed, you must stop using it until it is fixed.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, it's called the European Communications Committee.

You really should study the issue so you have some knowledge before commenting.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[stevewa]

I have only one thing to say to those who think the FCC regulates too much: AM Stereo The FCC took a hands-off approach to AM Stereo and we ended up with a colossal mess. Sorry folks, there are times when government regulation is the only way to enable the world to work. 73 de AD7OG

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

Your points are valid. However without an amendment to the Constitution, per the 10th Amendment, it is not Constitutional for the federal government to regulate communications. Nipplegate anyone?

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

A situation as you describe probably wouldn't exist because the neighboring States would negotiate on their RF policy because it would be in their best interest to work together. In cases where one State was trashing the spectrum for the next State over, then the issue would be decided in court. Litigation over regulation.

Do you really want the feds regulating communication? Nipplegate anyone? They are not allowed to per the US Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

Incorrect. The ICC was written to keep commerce between states regular, not regulate commerce. Even Jefferson agrees with me. Language has changed a bit since it was written.

Remember they didn't want currency imbalances, trade wars, tariffs, and import taxes among or between the States.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

Ron's platform for federal office was based upon a platform of Constitutionality. The Constitution happens to be a very libertarian document. If he was running for office in Texas he would probably be running on more of a libertarian platform instead.

And the federal form of government that the Constitution creates actually DID work until it was perverted by various President (mostly Lincoln, FDR, Teddy) and various bad ruilings from the Supreme Court (John Jay, Marshall, and others). The Lochner Era was one of the best that we had in terms of USSC integrity to the US Constitution.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[SonicSpike]

Well not just hat but it's a LOT easier to hold your local governing officials accountable than the people 1000 miles away in Washington.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not debating this, you are just standing in the room shouting that your point of view is the only point of view that can be accepted.

You are the type of person that would want to be on TV shouting obscenities and showing pornography just to prove how audacious you can be. You want freedom but you do not want to exercise responsibility in acting out your freedom.

What you want is to reduce the United states to something less that the Confederation that existed before the Constitutional United States.

Your example above clearly shows that at least the management of the radio spectrum is definitely a matter of interest of the Federal Government. States are not to be making treaties with other states.

Also as people have pointed out, treaties with foreign nations govern what the Federal Government does. Unfortunately for you, this is another nail in the coffin of your specious arguments.

Go crawl back up that mountain valley you crept out of.

This ad hominem attack was brought to by my frustration with idiots like you. Flame on.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

[gbobeck]

OK, communications regulations encompasses a huge area.

1. Nipplegate
Obscenity has no protection under first ammendment. The first case which came to my mind is Miller v. California

2. FCC is Unconstitutional...

2.1 from http://www.themicroeffect.com/limitedfcc.htm:

"The Federal Communications Commission was created by Congress with passage of the Communications Act of 1934. The Commission continues to operate under the act, as amended. In Section 1, under the heading Purposes of Act, is written, "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio ...".

The wording of the phrase insures that it will conform with the Constitution for the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The Act makes no reference to the regulation of either intrastate commerce in communications or private communications. The Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to regulate such activity within individual states of the Union."

2.2 so what?

No offense, but the US government routinely ignores the constitution.

Half of what the FCC does could be challenged as being unconstitutional, however some of their activities are allowable. But I couldn't find any supreme court cases which tried to declare the FCC unconstitutional.

Along those lines, I didn't find any supreme court challenges which challenged the constitutionality of the US Army. If my memory serves me correctly, the Army was supposed to exist for 2 years, not 200... however this is off topic for this discussion.

!Data

[Gewalt]

My father in law lives in west bumfuck, farmland. They tried for years to get BPL working there. But the sad fact of reality is that powerlines just arent up to the task. His community sunk massive funds into that project and they only ever managed to serve like 10 customers. And it was slow. And they all left for some type of LoS wi-fi. (I know not the underlying tech that went in, but its several towers at the tops of hills, and he himself had to install a 4 story tower in his yard.) They have all been very pleased with their wi-fi. And it was much cheaper than the powerline nonsense.

Re:!Data

[blindseer]

My parents live in east bumfuck, farmland while one of my brothers lives in south bumfuck, farmland and at both houses they have DSL. Satellite has been an option for a while now. Cell phone networks as well. Both are getting faster and cheaper as infrastructure is built up and competition sets in.

BPL is a dead end. With the interference it produces along with the expense it just doesn't make sense.

Re:OLD NEWS!! April 28

[Izabael_DaJinn]

totally....first snails...now two months old news? is there somewhere to vote for worst news day ever?

Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[Bananatree3]

BPL's interference can have detrimental effects well beyond the ham bands. They can take out local emergency comms if BPL interferance is high enough. For a visual example of whats going on here, check out this video. It shows plainly the kind of interference BPL can cause.

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[Eil]

I usually don't read YouTube comments because they tend to be racist, trollish, or just plain inflammatory in general. But the first one underneath the video is priceless:

"I think the most disturbing part of this entire video is that every vehicle shown in motion is driving on the wrong side of the road. BPL seems like a minor issue in comparison."

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

How would it interfere with emergency services?

BPL carriers are in the 10-30 MHz range, and public safety is typically in the 800 MHz band.

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[atomicthumbs]

Correction: trunked (frequency hopping) public safety is in the 800MHZ band (usually). Many fire departments, police departments and the like haven't bought or don't use (for whatever reason) trunking systems. The sherrif's dispatch where I live is 47.9 MHZ.

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[atomicthumbs]

Bah. Slashdot messed up my reply. BTW: My callsign is KI6EFA.

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that fair to say that BPL has been designed for countries with a reasonably modern power infrastructure?

That would obviously mean buried power lines in a city...

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[DMUTPeregrine]

Also, one of my neighbours is a ham. He and many other hams use their radios to aid emergency services when normal communication lines are down. In the recent San Diego fires he relayed calls for the fire department in the area, since their systems couldn't handle the load. If BPL interferes with Ham radio, it interferes with emergency services.

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[dmizer]

That is, if your proverbial "modern city" is not located in a seismically active zone.

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

[iwein]

What strikes me in the video is the fact that the power lines are very low above the ground, crossing the streets etc. Where I come from there are no above the ground power lines. They we're all cleaned up in the 90's and now it's no longer allowed that power lines run above ground (other than high tension which wouldn't carry a signal anyway)

If the lines would be below ground the interference would be a lot less right?

Re:OLD NEWS!! April 28

[Anonymous Coward]

old enough that the link to the court ruling returns 404 not found

correct link

Unfortunately, its a losing battle

[LM741N]

BPL is just one of a thousand different devices that pollute the HF and VHF spectrum. Computers, laptops, touchlamps, plasma TV's (are the worst). Just about any device that uses high speed digital circuitry or switch mode power supplies. In computers, spread spectrum clocks are used to get pass FCC emission requirements, but if you live in a dense neighborhood where people leave their computers on 24/7, that doesn't help much.

Re:Unfortunately, its a losing battle

[jcgf]

BPL is just one of a thousand different devices that pollute the HF and VHF spectrum. Computers, laptops, touchlamps, plasma TV's (are the worst).

BPL is the only one that has a huge ass antenna to radiate the RFI with (ie the lines themselves). I can deal with all of the other things you have mentioned. They are either easy to shield if they are mine or they belong to a neighbor and are too far away and sometimes they're even in a stucco house where the wire mesh for the stucco blocks out most anything from getting to me.

Re:Unfortunately, its a losing battle

[LM741N]

Actually all of those mentioned devices have large antennas to radiate with- ie the line from your house to the pole transformer. If you live in the city like here, one transformer is used by a number of houses. So the net affect is similar to BPL. In order to cut costs, most manufacturers use as little filtering on these consumer devices as they can get away with. Some things, like light dimmers have no filtering at all. The AC line safety ground does little to shunt out the noise as its designed for 60hz, not RF.

GO SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS FUCKTARD!!

[Anonymous Coward]

N/T

Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[zoikes]

Perhaps we should scrap those antiquated rules...
after all, we don't provide hitching posts and water troughs outside public buildings anymore, do we?

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Anonymous Coward]

Twentieth Century...Yup, it is.
Let's see here Satelite communications, radio linked VOIP, long distance (>500 miles) wireless internet connections, digital voice and simultaneous wireless voice and data comm, TV and more; This is all stuff that Hams are expiermenting with and using.

Also don't forget, when disasters strike, ham radio is available for emergency communications within minutes. Your phone company, local authorities and internet provider may take days to restore their communications capabilities.

I live in the mountains... When the wild fires struck, there was no power, no phone, no cable, no cell phone. All I had was batteries and radio.

I hope you don't ever find yourself in the same situation if those antiquated rules are scrapped.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[postbigbang]

You can't scrap the laws of physics. And amateur radio operators were the first hackers. Wait until you're in a flood, a hurricane, or another natural disaster.

Or the next time you try to watch TV, listen to a radio, you'll use technology that hams invented, tested, retested, and helped put towards commercial use for your convenience.

Hams are hackers..... and were, far before your great grandfather was born.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Ixtl]

Don't raise the ire of a fellow close-knit group of geographically disparate nerds. Internecine geek warfare is bad for all of us.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Perhaps we should scrap those antiquated rules...
after all, we don't provide hitching posts and water troughs outside public buildings anymore, do we?

Are you even aware of the multitude of amateur radio digital modes that are in use these days? Saying ham radio is "twentieth century" makes as much sense as saying that automobiles are "twentieth century" — both have evolved considerably over time.

Just be thankful for us ham radio operators. Someday your ass might be saved in an emergency by a ham who is capable of getting a signal through when the communications infrastructure goes down. The Internet is a great thing, I'll grant you, but when power goes out across an entire region (like it did with the Northeast blackouts a few years ago), you're not going to get any net connectivity and you're not going to get any cell connectivity either. The only people who will be able to relay vital emergency messages will be ham radio operators working off of battery backups or generators.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[mschuyler]

The point is that the FCC withheld evidence that contradicted their decision, something the ARRL caught them on. Judge Rogers said,

"It would appear to be a fairly obvious propositioon that studies upon which an agency relies in promulgating a rule must be made available during the rulemaking in order to afford interested persons meaningful notice and an opportunity for comment."

Another judge, David Tatel, wrote,

"In this very case the Commission redacted individual lines from certain pages on which it otherwise relied...there is little doubt that the Commission deliberately attempted to exclude from the record evidence adverse to its position."

Amateur radio may not enjoy the popularity it once did, but it still works when your precious ethernet is buried in mud and the cell phones are down (e.g. Katrina) and is an essential cog in rescue operations when your average laptop is utterly useless. And BPL, by the way, is deader than amateur radio. Dallas just threw in the towel. There isn't much left.

KZ7B

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[jcgf]

Perhaps we should tie you to a tree, turn on the amp, and point a yagi at your scrotum. Since we will be using 2.4GHz, we will not cause RFI like BPL does.

73 mother fucker.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Anonymous Coward]

And hackers are all self-important unsocialized assholes, so fuck 'em.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Clueless Moron]

Spun the dial on a shortwave radio lately?

The vast bulk of traffic that takes place on it is commercial and military, not ham.

It's just that hams, having the technical savvy, were the first to raise a stink about it.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Anonymous Coward]

If the power goes out, BPL leaking into other frequencies isn't so much of a problem, is it?

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[dlgeek]

Yes, but with BPL causing interference all the time, there is no incentive to purchase, use, maintain, practice with, etc. amateur radio equipment. Ham radio is a hobby, if it can't be practiced for fun it won't be practiced at all.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[driftingwalrus]

For the most part, the ham bands are *not* covered by the average shortwave radio. Little wonder you don't see much traffic on it.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Anonymous Coward]

When all else fails...have a Field Day!

The gloves are coming off this weekend as I challenge everyone (especially the naysayers) to a contest 4 days from now in the following venue:

Time: June 28-29
Location: Anywhere, USA (International parties also invited)

I challenge all you naysayers of Amateur Radio to take a serious look this weekend at what a modern-day 21st Century, efficient, coordinated communications network that is free of limits imposed by wires or distance, or even power lines...

and when you meet your local HAMS out in the field everywhere this weekend having a total Field Day with their hobby, remember this:

When the next disaster, hurricane, emergency or blackout occurs with catastrophic communications failure...P2P networks beyond wires will born within minutes under isolated, minimal power (batteries, solar, etc)...which exist to serve the public and save lives far more effectively than an energy-hungry internet of webs ever could...

When all else fails, Amateur Radio works!

73
___
CAPTCHA of the comment: COMMUNE

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[nessman]

I'll be home fucking my wife, and the overweight smelly "hamsexuals" will be out circle jerking in a park somewhere because that's all they have to look forward to in life, that and the "hamfest" selling overpriced crap from the backseat of their beat-up Dodge Caravan with 20 antennas on the roof to people riding around in motorized scooters.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[moosesocks]

Are you even aware of the multitude of amateur radio digital modes that are in use these days? No. Care to enlighten me?

Someday your ass might be saved in an emergency by a ham who is capable of getting a signal through when the communications infrastructure goes down. Any emergency that would take down our entire communications infrastructure would also seem likely to disable BPL. Problem solved.

Also, in that sort of global catastrophe, what are the odds of finding an actual Ham, and what are the odds of there being somebody on the other end to respond? Sounds like a first-aid course might be a better investment....

I know my hypothetical situation is ridiculous. However, so is yours.

There is indeed a place for decentralized civilian and military communications. However, I think we can safely begin to move away from analogue amateur radio. (I'm not sure how decentralized it is, but Iridium also strikes me as being as robust as you could ever wish for)

However, to me, Hams always came across as a bunch of condescending nutters clutching on to a technological relic, with a side of cold-war paranoia. I'd love to be proven wrong, but statements like "who will save your ass when..." certainly don't help their case.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[iwein]

.. but when power goes out across an entire region (like it did with the Northeast blackouts a few years ago)

Surely that would solve the interference problem too?

...on that note, I'm wondering how many hams have an aggregate to power their equipment.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[amper]

You should really try not to be so much of a jackass when talking about technologies about which you clearly have little to no understanding. Amateur radio operators have been for a very long time, continue to be, and will continue to be, absolutely indispensible in situations where regional communications failures have occurred.

Granted, in recent years, we have done a much better job re-installing other forms of radio comms in disaster areas, but amateur radio operators were still on the scene first, do it for free, and don't ask for anything more than a modicum of respect for their services.

73 DE K2TIV

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[oldave]

Are you even aware of the multitude of amateur radio digital modes that are in use these days? No. Care to enlighten me?

BPSK, from 31 Hz to 125 Hz wide. Yes, 31 Hz. You can squeeze 6 to 8 "conversations" in to the same bandwidth required for one voice conversation, using exactly the same radio and antenna system.

RTTY. Olivia. MFSK. Just to name a few.

Someday your ass might be saved in an emergency by a ham who is capable of getting a signal through when the communications infrastructure goes down. Any emergency that would take down our entire communications infrastructure would also seem likely to disable BPL. Problem solved.

Also, in that sort of global catastrophe, what are the odds of finding an actual Ham, and what are the odds of there being somebody on the other end to respond? Sounds like a first-aid course might be a better investment....

More often than not, emergencies that take out communications are local in nature. Tornadoes and other wind storms, earthquakes or wild fires.

Hams step up and help with communications links in a lot of cases we don't hear about in the mainstream media.

Granted, we would use "local" frequencies such as VHF or UHF for these local links, so BPL noise wouldn't be as much of an issue, and as you note, the power's off over a wide area, anyway.

However, to me, Hams always came across as a bunch of condescending nutters clutching on to a technological relic, with a side of cold-war paranoia. I'd love to be proven wrong, but statements like "who will save your ass when..." certainly don't help their case.

I see this, as well, and I'm a ham. The simple reality is that amateur radio can help, and even be a lifesaver, but mostly, even in widespread disasters like Katrina, provides health and welfare links rather than critical infrastructure. The "whackers" would have you believe otherwise.

When a tornado roars through, and all the power's out and cell (and POTS) phones don't work, of course a ham can hook up a 30 year old radio to a car batter that they find in a tree, use part of a fence for antenna and make a call for help to authorities outside the immediate area. Can't say I've heard of that happening, though... it's really a stretch.

73 de KN4DS

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[ChrisA90278]

Why do you say "dead"? There are more amateur radio today than there ever were. Maybe as a percent of the population the numbers are down but the total number of people holding a license is growing

I think we are actually right at the beginning of another "golden era" of amateur home building and design. With thing like Software Defined Radio (SDR) and parts like FPGAs and low cost high speed analog to digital converters a new design space has opened up.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[epee1221]

Surely that would solve the interference problem too?

It'll solve the interference problem, but if BPL noise is the normal state of things, you won't have many hams left.

...on that note, I'm wondering how many hams have an aggregate to power their equipment.

In my case, I've just got my car (battery/alternator) for backup power, but I've seen a few stations with dedicated generators. In the realm of emergency communication, most of the check-ins I hear on the weekly Houghton Co, MI net are on "emergency power" (battery/generator) just to make sure everything's working right, and IIRC the Lake Co, IL EOC has its own backup generators.

73 de KD0AMG

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[moosesocks]

That's fine. I actually support y'all in these cases.

However, the Hams seem like a sort of pesky special interest group that used to be a whole lot more relevant than they are now.

Why can't we work together to develop some new standards for a robust civilian radio network that uses less bandwidth and isn't as prone to interference?

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[Clueless Moron]

I'm a ham, so I hear plenty of ham activity on shortwave. However, the shortwave bands make up a small part of shortwave.

HF (aka shortwave) makes up 1.8MHz to 30MHz. Have a look at this chart to see what parts are ham. It's not that much.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

[iwein]

It'll solve the interference problem, but if BPL noise is the normal state of things, you won't have many hams left.

Good point.

In my case, I've just got my car (battery/alternator) for backup power, but I've seen a few stations with dedicated generators. In the realm of emergency communication, most of the check-ins I hear on the weekly Houghton Co, MI net are on "emergency power" (battery/generator) just to make sure everything's working right, and IIRC the Lake Co, IL EOC has its own backup generators.

Yep, that emphasizes as well that you need to get rid of the interference to be able to test.

Misguided FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

..federal appeals court has sided in part with amateur radio operators who challenged rules designed to speed the nascent Internet service's rollout.

Hmm.. here's an idea. How about the FCC focus more on enforcing the roll-out of fiber optic services, like the telecommunication companies were supposed to start doing over 10 years ago. No interference with amateur radio operators, faster and more reliable service for everyone too.

FCC sucks

[mrsteveman1]

Perhaps if they would get off their ass and do something about the non-competition in the market they wouldn't be having to go out of their way to find poor solutions.

Competition between classes isn't competition.

Re:FCC sucks

[tsm_sf]

Just ran out of mod points but I'm not sure why your point hasn't been brought up before. Putting the hurt on the phone companies would be the ideal solution.

Frequency Questions

[bill_mcgonigle]

Good video, thanks. Why aren't they using frequency hopping to mitigate interference?

Also, why does BPL need to interfere on this frequency band? Isn't this tunable?

Re:Frequency Questions

[jcgf]

Why aren't they using frequency hopping to mitigate interference?

That is not as easy as you think with HF especially mobile because your antenna is cut to be used on a narrow range of frequencies. For example on 40m (about 7 megacycles) when I operated HF mobile, I would get about 100kc bandwidth at 2:1 SWR (7.050 - 7.150). Frequency hopping would not work at all for me.

Re:Frequency Questions

[bill_mcgonigle]

I think I wasn't clear in my question (or didn't understand your answer). To be more precise: why don't the BPL operators use frequency hopping so they're not stepping on the Ham guys' range so drastically?

Re:Frequency Questions

[colfer]

Don't think it's tunable. They try to "notch out" the ham and other frequencies so as not to interfere. Not clear if it's working. The whole electric line becomes an antenna.

I live in one the three "deploying" areas on this map: http://www.bpl.coop/deploymentmap.php and I can tell you the thing is so many years behind schedule that the local power company (co-op actually) has removed all updates from its website. Previously it said it was deployed at one substation so far, which would mean a few hundred homes out here at most.

We are far enough out that our power service is still partially subsidized by a federal agency, successor to the 1930s Rural Electrification Administration. That's how they got the grant for this, apparent, train wreck.

Re:Frequency Questions

[colfer]

Ironically, radio interference played a role in the biggest natural disaster in this area (I am replying to my own post). In 1969 the largest hurricane in US history jumped 800 miles inland and killed 157 people here in the mountains. Emergency response was hampered by a radio silence zone established to protect the Green Bank National Radio Astronomy Observatory several counties away in West Virginia.

Re:Frequency Questions

[Creepy Crawler]

He answered your question rather effectively.

BPL uses a modulated carrier around 6 meter (~50 MHz). Our amateur licensed transmitters can transmit from 50MHz to 54MHz. And as we learn with radio, a transmitter is also a weak receiver and vice versa. I know that BPL uses a carrier in that band, but I am unsure of the exact frequency allocation.

Because they use that carrier, the whole power grid turns into an antenna. That prevents us from using much of 6m. Along with that, if we use a linear amp (say 1kW) to poke out of the interference zone, which we are legally allowed to do, we inject our signal back in the power lines eliminating the broadband in BPL.

And as a note, 6m is known to do atmospheric bounce for thousands of miles. I was at one Field day where we used a 1 watt transmitter and contacted someone in Rio de Janerio (sp?).

Re:Frequency Questions

[bill_mcgonigle]

He answered your question rather effectively.

BPL uses a modulated carrier around 6 meter

Help me out then, because I must be really missing the concept. Isn't the point of frequency hopping spread spectrum that there is no carrier wave? Wouldn't eliminating the carrier wave greatly reduce the interference problem?

I'm not disagreeing with your explanation of how BPL works at all or what the HAM issue is - I'm wondering why it needs to be designed that way in the first place.

Re:Frequency Questions

[Creepy Crawler]

Sorry, I didnt answer this either, but I know it intuitively from working on this stuff.

We have simplex (talking on 1 channel). That is what BPL uses, as it stays in 1 spot on the frequency chart. X watts is emnated at this frequency. That means that specific frequency is essentially blasted out. Why? Modern receivers can receive signals as low as a nanowatt, along with major noise reduction equipment and finely tuned band-pass filters.

0000/\0000
___/--\___

Is what it looks like. One swath is cut out. Now, if we go with FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum), we raise the noise floor. Now, normally we would destroy one channel on 6m. Instead, FHSS would raise the whole 6m spectrum making the whole 6m band purely unusable.

_/\__/\_
00000000

There's crappy ascii arts of where the spikes and noise floor would be. It's more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.

Re:Frequency Questions

[Detritus]

Frequency hopping does not eliminate the carrier wave, it just moves it around on a set schedule. Imagine you and a friend both had an FM radio with a digital tuner, and a computer that produced pseudo-random numbers between 88E6 and 108E6. You could use the computer to program the radio with a new frequency every second. As long as you kept the two computers synchronized with each other, both radios would shift to a new frequency every second. You are still using conventional FM to communicate. The only difference is that the carrier frequency is changing every second. This makes it hard for other people to jam or intercept your communications if they don't know the algorithm used in the pseudo-random number generator.

Re:Frequency Questions

[Bruce Perens]

The Radio Quiet Zone still exists, but the observatory works effectively these days with local hams to make sure they can communicate and that there will be working repeaters, etc. when the next emergency comes up.

Re:Frequency Questions

[mrchaotica]

Why aren't they using frequency hopping to mitigate interference?

Why should they have to?

Re:Frequency Questions

[mrchaotica]

Never mind, I thought you were talking about the amateur radio operators, rather than the BPL operators.

Re:Frequency Questions

[bill_mcgonigle]

Right, but if the BPL were frequency hopping and the hams were on a fixed frequency wouldn't BPL sound like an occasional microsecond of static rather than a continuous source of interference?

Perhaps I'm greatly overestimating the amount of bandwidth we're talking about. I'm not suggesting that the BPL ought to interfere with ham operations, but it doesn't appear to do anything to mitigate the interference either. And I still don't understand why it has to operate on these frequencies.

o.O

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty amazing. I didn't know about BPL before, but hey, if it works, let it work...

~ joe.fisher999@gmail.com

Re:o.O

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if they were required to re-install all the power cabling such that it is properly ground shielded to prevent radio interference. But if they're going to do that with the infrastructure, people would be better off with fiber optic...

And speaking of radio spectrum, anybody putting together a 100W or less VHF TV kit to roll out in Feb 2009? (Not like anyone will be using analog on it when it opens up anyways, may as well give the neighbors some new programming to watch on their "outdated" sets...)

Re:o.O

[Man On Pink Corner]

And speaking of radio spectrum, anybody putting together a 100W or less VHF TV kit to roll out in Feb 2009?

That's an amusing idea. I could see the next wave of pirate TV taking the form of private "studio-to-transmitter links," where a simple, dirt-cheap transmitter is installed someplace in public where it can get electricity, like an office building roof or light pole. It would translate a lower-power 2.4 GHz signal down to the VHF or UHF TV band. When the FCC eventually tracks down the transmitter and puts it out of commission, they'll have no idea who owns it or controls it, and another one can be installed as soon as they leave.

Paging ladyada.net...

They did mandate new proceedings

[Jay Maynard]

The court did mandate that the FCC conduct a new comment period, with the entire content of the studies they relied on entered into the record, and that they either explain their total rejection of one interference measurement parameter that they solicited comments on, or ellse adopt a different one and explain that. ...de K5ZC

Good decision by the Court

[Ignorant Aardvark]

This was a good decision by the US Appeals Court. I'm an amateur radio operator myself (there's over 700,000 of us in the United States alone), and it wouldn't make any sense to severely degrade our performance for the benefit of only 5,000 people. Remember, amateur radio isn't merely a hobby: it's been proven useful time and time again in severe emergencies when the communications infrastructure goes down and no one else can get a signal through.

And even if you make the argument that the number of BPL customers will go above 700,000 at some point in the future, it's still not worth it. There's only one radio spectrum, but there's a large variety of ways to get data into households, the rest of which do not pollute the radio spectrum. There's simply no excuse for trying to send data along entirely unshielded power lines. They weren't designed for this purpose and they leak RF like mad. You want to get people access to broadband? Send the data through shielded cables — oh wait, that's what we already do for millions of people!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What I really want to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

How will this development set back Ubuntu's new network project? As you all know, with the introduction of 2010's "Nappy Nigger" LTS release Ubuntu is planning on proving a free BPL-based internet service codenamed "Imus".

There you go. Thanks FCC.

BPL is bad news

[40ohms]

This is actually a good thing. The FCC was trying to push a technology that does not work well, interferes with others, and costs much more than some other ways of getting connectivity. Even if the Amateur bands can be notched out, the other frequencies suffer. There are a lot of other communications in the range of frequencies that BPL wipes out. The FCC needs to rethink their stance and pay attention to the laws of physics. If BPL is allowed to exist I believe there will be a time in the future we will regret the down side of this technology. In the places it is being used now there are a number of interference problems that keep different services either off the air, or make the use of that spectrum damn near impossible. There is also another side to the story. Licensed equipment transmitting in close proximity to a BPL system can shut down the BPL connection. The bottom line is BPL should never have been adopted. There are better, more effective and less costly ways of getting connectivity without polluting the HF spectrum.

Re:BPL is bad news

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC should be investigated to find out *who* was influenced, and who had a conflict of interest.

In Australia, the Electronics magazine Silicon Chip, with the aid of a digital frequency meter clearly showed massive interference and well as nasty harmonics. And depending on how you house was wired up, and wavelength multiples, could could be 'tuned' on to the interference.

Basically, they did our equivalent of the the FCC's job for them, and lots of undeniable pictures made it hard to ignore a dirty spectrum polluter.

Now all we have to do is ban crappy imports that don't meet several electrical standards.

Re:BPL is bad news

[colfer]

There are grants from the federal gov't involved in this. Look at the key on the bottom right of the map:
http://www.bpl.coop/deploymentmap.php
I'm generally in favor of public programs, but I'm starting to suspect pigs at the trough in this one. If you read Kevin Phillips, the current US president's family has been mining federal contracts for several generations, as opposed to legit business. But I digress.

Acronym Soup

[MLS100]

Am I the only one who takes it as a personal affront when people use obscure or ambiguous acronyms.

These people just can't wait for someone to ask what the acronym means so they can go through the motions to utterly shame you.

For instance, if someone were to come up to me at the water cooler with this headline, it would go something like this:

===

Iam Beterthanyoo: "Hey, did you hear that the FCC was dealt a setback in the BPL push, it seems that BPL rollout is not going to be pushed anytime soon because there were problems with BPL research and BPL other things, and the BPL..."

Actual Message: PLEASE ASK ME WHAT BPL IS, I AM SMART AND KNOW THIS INFORMATION.

Me (interrupting): BPL?

Actual Message: Clarify please you pretentious fuck.

Iam: ..and the BPL statistics board.. huh? Yeah BPL. So anyway, the board was..

Actual message: I'll pretend I'm assuming you didn't hear me correctly so I can drive the knife deeper when you are forced to follow up.

Me (interrupting): No, no, what is BPL?

Actual message: Yes I must not have heard you the first ten times you said BPL.

Iam: Ohhhhhhh...

Actual message: Well gosh I just assumed that you must not have heard me correctly because you can't possibly be asking for clarification of something so obvious. I am shocked at your complete and utter ignorance.

Iam: BPL stands for Broadband over Power Lines.

At this point Iam likely will not be able to resume his story because it was all a ruse anyway and all he was doing was trying to fit the BPL acronym into some fragments of the story until he could put you in your BPL ignorant place, he really knows nothing beyond the headline and what BPL means.

This is usually where I will counterattack and ask a (seemingly) informed question about the story.

Me: Oh, Broadband over Power Lines, was the problem the recent state initiative on property rights of the existing fiber infrastructure?

Actual message: Fuck you.

Iam: Yes, yes, something like that I think.

Actual message: Uh oh I'm caught. Bail out, bail out!

Iam: Anyway I have to get back to work.

Actual message: I'm off to find another victim.

===

The mentality is the same as the groups of girls in school who would make up their own language to talk to each other, then turn to the person next to them in class and say something to them in the language, sparking giggles all around from those 'in the know', as though the person is a complete moron for not being able to decipher that he was just called a cootie face in a made up language, the moron.

Re:Acronym Soup

[Cliff Stoll]

Well put!

I'm a ham, and I've thought that BPL meant "Brass Pounder's League", an elite group of ham operators who handled a lot of traffic.

I'm also a physicist; I walk out of colloquia when the speaker uses five acronyms I don't know. Seminar cookies aren't worth putting up with small minded arrogance.

I'm also a nonfiction writer. As the the parent posting suggests, acronyms kills your audience. Talk in tongues when you want to exclude others, when you're tight on bandwidth, or when you want to show you're a member of an in-group.

Re:Acronym Soup

[maxume]

Dude, here is the first sentence from the summary: "SonicSpike writes in with word that an appeals court has dealt a setback to the FCC's plans to encourage broadband over power lines."

I guess there could be a (BPL) in there to make it somewhat clearer, but I get the feeling if someone walked up to you and said "Hey, did you see the game?", you would say "nope" but be thinking "Hey fuck you, I don't like football" even though it was baseball season.

Re:Acronym Soup

[MLS100]

I didn't mean to criticize the submitter of this story in particular, just used it for a launchpad to my rant on obscure acronym dropping.

CQ CQ CQ

[bluefoxlucid]

CQ CQ CQ, N3XMQ anyone out there? How copy?

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Creepy Crawler]

N3XMQ DE KC9JEF slashdot QRM K

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[bluefoxlucid]

Shouldn't it be SK?

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Creepy Crawler]

No, SK is for sign off. I was passing the channel back to you or another ham :)

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Chucklz]

N3XMQ DE KC2SST K

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Creepy Crawler]

Congrats on your extra.

KC9JEF, 73

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Bruce Perens]

Does anyone else think it's silly to use Q signals on radiotelephone, and for that matter on TCP/IP with its full error correction and ample bandwidth? I don't live in a QTH, it's a house. And instead of QSY, "would you please change frequency" sounds a lot clearer. It makes sense to use them on Morse Code transmissions, and with people who don't understand the same language.

Bruce K6BP

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[gbobeck]

N3XMQ DE W9QNY QSN slashdot K

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Skapare]

Yes, it is silly. That's why it's so much fun :-)

K6BP DE KA9WGN

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[DF5JT]

Aaaah, the No-Coder speaks -)

But I agree, in regular communications, Q-Codes and other abbreviations are nonsense, but unlike you, I actually do morse code and use all those Q-Codes and abbreviations as part of making communications on the band easier.

73/161 de DF5JT

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Creepy Crawler]

What is sad is I complained about slashdot's noise level and nobody caught it :(

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Creepy Crawler]

Of course. If people start using Q codes on simplex or a repeater, you're going to get funny looks and a lot of "whats that in english?", even with the best of hams.

Now, if we're talking about a moonbounce signal using 2m and transmitting on only 30Hz of bandwidth, then there's no voice for you. You had better have some shorthand system. That's where Q codes work. They also work rather well on the very low HF bands... One can hear the cw chirps over the static.

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[Bruce Perens]

I caught it.

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[EmagGeek]

N3XMQ DE N2JBE QTH EM73TS HW? K

Re:CQ CQ CQ

[bluefoxlucid]

K THX BYE

No...

[msauve]

You're setting up a straw man - that is NOT what the OP said.

Federal regulation is, quite simply, unconstitutional. It is not a power granted by the Constitution.

State regulation of spectrum would be workable, and as proof I point to Europe where countries are the comparable in size to US States.

And yes, I too am a ham (extra class).

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those countries abide by the same treaty the US abides by. This international treaty calls for national goverments to regulate their radio emmissions in accordance with the agreed to spectrum allocation. By approving the treaty the US senate elevated thisrequirement to the "supreme law of the land" to quote the constitution's verbage on treaties. With a treaty in place, and with the comerce clause in hand, Congress was well with in the constitution when they created the FCC.

Re:No...

[msauve]

Quite simply, the Federal government had no power to do so. Since they didn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate spectrum, they didn't have the power to negotiate or agree to a treaty, making it null and void.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Federal regulation is, quite simply, unconstitutional.
> State regulation of spectrum would be workable,

Because the only thing better than one set of byzantine regulation is 50 sets of byzantine regulation?

No thanks. And yes, I too am a ham.

Re:No...

[sgladfelter]

The courts are tasked with the authority to review laws and judge their constitutionality [Marburg v Madison]. Since congress passed a law to establish the FCC and task them with regulating the radio spectrum, and the courts evidently believe that this falls under regulation of interstate commerce [Article 1 Section 8], then by default it IS constitutional.

The courts' opinion is the ONLY opinion that matters in deciding the constitutionality of a law. Why do you believe differently?

Re:No...

[sgladfelter]

Can I also add to my other post that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this?

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. vs. the United States, the high court held, "Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency.

Here's the full text http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/Tree_Radio_Berkeley_Appendix.shtml

Re:No...

[mrchaotica]

[Marburg v Madison]

Damn it, it's Marbury, not "Marburg!" Maaar-buur-yeee! You've fucked it up in two different posts already, and it's pissing me off, so quit it!

And every Supreme Court decision perverting the Interstate Commerce Clause was wrong, anyway, judicial review or not!

Re:No...

[suky]

Quite simply, the Federal government had no power to do so. Since they didn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate spectrum, they didn't have the power to negotiate or agree to a treaty, making it null and void. I think maybe you should brush up on your constitutional law before making a claim like that.

Protip: Missouri v. Holland

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Catchily short answer: FAIL.

Care to retry? While you may not like it (personally, I don't), the Constitution is understood to grant the power to enter into treaties even if implementing the treaty exceeds the government's Constitutionally delineated authority. This was established in 1920 (Missouri v. Holland), and while there was a later ruling that somewhat limited this little "loophole" (Reid v. Covert, 1957), it's still largely intact. You can (IMHO) accurately proclaim that this should not be so, but for the time being it is so (as the GP more-or-less correctly stated).

Re:No...

[stevewa]

Actually, there is coordination through the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) for most frequency allocations...because radio waves don't respect borders! The spectrum is a limited resource and as such its use must be coordinated and regulated. Europe has the CEPT and there are other regional organizations. Frankly we'd be better off if all allocations were internationally agreed to...as it stands today different ITU regions have different allocations which leads to complications when communicating between them. As long as we're flaunting our credentials, I am also an Amateur Extra class operator.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the Supreme Court ruled that there was no freedom of speech (against all sense), would that suddenly be constitutional?. No, it would not be. Even the Supreme Court can be wrong.

Re:No...

[amper]

Well, if that's the case, as I will say to every respondent in a topic concerning Amateur Radio, post your call sign, so we can all verify that you are what you claim.

73 DE K2TIV/AG

Re:No...

[devman]

Actually it was quite on point. FCC imo falls very squarely under regulation of interstate commerce. Radio waves are an interstate resource that can and is used for commerce. Very constitutional.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, my call sign is W2OLS.

No wait, it's KE9UK.

Or maybe KB9BMB.

I can't believe someone on Slashdot would fall for that.

Re:No...

[SonicSpike]

"the Constitution is understood to grant the power to enter into treaties even if implementing the treaty exceeds the government's Constitutionally delineated authority."

INCORRECT. All treaties and laws in the US passed / ratified are subservient to the US Constitution because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Re:No...

[SonicSpike]

Unfortunately most "constitutional law" these days is NOT based upon the Constitution but based upon case law which is erroneous. The Constitution isn't even really taught in law school anymore - just the relevant cases studied. This produces mass ignorance about the document unfortunately.

Many many supreme court decisions have cited previous cases, not the Constitution. Stare decisis (let the decision stand) is bad policy.

Power fluctuations bad ?

[billcopc]

IANAEE, so please if any of you are, I hope you can enlighten me here.

I'm just guessing, but BPL would require some sort of low-power modulation on the circuit, right ? Wouldn't that potentially cause added strain on electrical components ? I'm basing this on the vicious damage caused by DC ripples to computer equipment... my limited electrical knowledge tells me the broadband signal would appear as voltage noise to anything plugged on the same circuit, which means more wasted current, thus more heat. Given the dozens of cheap Chinese power bricks that come with every gadget these days, I fear a lot of them would pop prematurely.

Am I completely out in left field here, or what ?

Re:Power fluctuations bad ?

[EmagGeek]

Yes, completely out in left field. (IAAEE)

DC ripple does not damage electrical components unless the voltage applied exceeds the absolute maximum ratings of the part. DC ripple can and does, however, cause unintended or undesirable operation. BPL will not cause physical damage to things on the grid, and it is very very unlikely that any of it would penetrate into devices plugged into the wall and cause undesired operation.

Part of the UL approval process is testing conducted immunity to things on the power line. Devices must be able to filter out transient noise on the power line so that it does not cause problems with the operation of the device.

The biggest problem with BPL is radiated emissions. Power lines are not impedance-controlled, they are not closed to RF (They do not completely confine the transmitted signal to the transmission medium like coax and fiber do). Any time there is a change in impedance of the transmission medium, three things happen: transmission, reflection, and radiation. The power lines are going to radiate a significant amount of the RF energy they are carrying, and those radiated emissions are going to interfere with services that are intended for those frequencies.

Amateur Radio, a federally licensed emergency communications service, is not the only thing that uses the spectrum that BPL does. The ARRL just happens to be practically the only organization with enough money and enough lawyers to do anything about it.

Re:Power fluctuations bad ?

[billcopc]

Fantastic! That's precisely the reply I was hoping for. Thank you!

CB plus ANY "linear" amplifier == illegal

[Nick Driver]

If you had *any* "linear" amplifier (RF transmitter power booster amp) connected to your CB radio, you were illegal. Back in the 70's, the FCC allotted you an absolute max of 5 watts of input power to the final RF amp in your CB transceiver. The transceiver had to be type-accepted by the FCC also, to be legal to be sold and used in the USA.

Re:CB plus ANY "linear" amplifier == illegal

[Awptimus Prime]

I think my station was only a couple of amps, but the amplifier was 5-7 amps at most. It all came from the Radio Shack down the street, but that was the 70s so lord only knows how legitimate it was in reality, as many Radio Shacks back then stocked items they wanted and not like the cookie cutter stores like they are nowadays. I got it to overcome some rather long cables between the station and the antenna. All I know for sure, nobody ever yelled at me over boosting and bleeding over to other signals.

I also had some knobs for tweaking reception in another box, but have no recollection of what it was called.

A lot of people chime in when I bring up something from the mid 70's, saying was illegal with a tidy link they Googled, but you have to remember that was a time when you had to hit the library to even begin to know what the laws were and many "illegal" items were on store shelves in small towns everywhere, even the police officers of the time didn't know, or care, about much of it. It wasn't until the mid-80's they even started to crack down on illegal firecracker sales around here. :)

Re:CB plus ANY "linear" amplifier == illegal

[amper]

More importantly, the CB rules weren't always what they are now, but since we're discussing the subject, even if you had long cables, your line losses couldn't possibly have been that great in the 11 meter band, unless you either were using equipment wildly unsuitable for the purpose, or your transmitter was really more than several hundred feet away from your antenna system.

Re:CB plus ANY "linear" amplifier == illegal

[Awptimus Prime]

Well, the mast was on a hill about 75 feet away, if I had to guess, and the cable was the cheapest stuff Radio Shack had. The per capita ratio of Miltons on /. has increased lately.

Since when were linears ever legal on CB?

[the_rajah]

The answer is never. The power limit was, and still is, 4 watts of carrier power for amplitude or 12 watts PEP for single side band. See the rules and regulations and note rules 9 and 10.

The other problem, even if the power limits are followed, is that some idiots have the idea that any amount of over modulation helps them be heard better so they get a "power boost" amplified microphone. They need to listen to their own transmitter from someone else's receiver. Oh, and those echo gadgets are another impediment to understanding what they are trying to say, if, indeed, it's anything worth listening to in the beginning. I only use a CB on the road when I'm on a long trip. It has definitely saved me time and aggravation, but it sure would be nice if it was cleaned up, both in signal quality and operator quality.

Beyond that, I agree with what you say. Reasonable rules and reasonable and effective enforcement are necessary to avoid chaos and unusability.

BPL is a horrible idea. At anything much above quite low frequencies, power lines are huge antennas.

Re:Since when were linears ever legal on CB?

[amper]

Don't forget the distance limitation on Citizens' Band communications. It's not only PEP that's involved. 30+ miles is child's play for 12 W SSB.

Re:Since when were linears ever legal on CB?

[DF5JT]

There is no distance limitations on CB.

CB is 27 MHz and the closest ham band is 28 MHz, i.e. technically speaking there is no difference between these two.

I have made many, many international contacts on 28 MHz, worked all 5 continents with 10 Watts and a simple vertical antenna.

I don't agree

[Quadraginta]

I think the Commerce Clause doesn't have to stretch very far to cover radio communication that can go worldwide; that is, radio communication clearly influences interstate commerce, so I think the Constitution grants Congress the power to make law about it fair and square.

I think you're wrong on the facts as well as the law. The only reason to let each state make its own regulations (assuming its not required by the Constitution, vide supra) is if they are going to regulate differently, because, e.g., the citizens of state X have different needs than citizens of state Y, or because X believes it has a better idea than Y and we want to let them all try their individual plans out, to see which is best (the "50 laboratories of democracy" concept).

But even if that could be argued to make some kind of sense for VHF and UHF, it makes no sense at all for HF and AM, where signals easily cross many states. The states could not, in practise, make different regulations for those parts of the spectrum without chaos resulting. So if the state must, as a practical matter, all regulate in the same way, what's the point? Why not just have the Feds do it? Why have 50 wasteful duplicative efforts that must reach the same result?

(And since we're signing our bona fides here, I have an Extra ticket, too.)

Re:I don't agree

[gbobeck]

I may only be a General, but I agree with you.

I also thought only the federal government could draft and/or ratify international treaties. (For example, the state of IL can't declare war on Canada, nor could it ratify the Kyoto protocols on its own as only the federal gov could do those actions...) Obviously radio is international as we are well aware.

Re:I don't agree

[amper]

We're not "signing our bona fides here" unless we post our call signs, which can be verified online in a matter of seconds.

If you indeed are an Extra Class Amateur Operator, I would expect that you would understand the difference between a mode (AM) and a band (VHF, UHF, HF). That is to say, I would expect that you would understand that AM can be used in any frequency band, and that AM travels approximately the same distance in any given frequency band as any other mode, such as CW, FM, SSB, or what have you.

73 DE K2TIV/AG

Re:I don't agree

[Quadraginta]

Mike, I would be nuts to post my call on a forum accessible by any present or future flake, Google and its eternal cache being what it is, not to mention the existence of the FCC ULS site to which you refer, or qrz.com, et cetera, where such flakes can look up my home address. I don't mind giving it out to fellow hams, because they are a fairly trustworthy crowd, thanks (ahem) to the FCC hoops they have to jump through to get licensed, which helps to keep out riff-raff not truly interested in being part of the community. If I hear you on 20 meters when the sunspots come back, I'll be happy to exchange calls and QTHs. (Not especially likely, as I live in 6 land and only operate 2m/440 as part of a RACES team and backpack QRP with one of those tiny Yaesu 817s and a wire up a tree.) But I don't think the Internet in general is any longer the kind of place where you leave the private identity doors unlocked, so to speak.

I'm not even sure why you think verifying that the call exists would serve as some kind of verification that me, the person posting, actually owns it. You'd be better off posting 5 random questions from the Extra question pool and seeing if I could answer them.

But to return to your point, by "AM" I meant what most people would understand it to mean, shorthand for "commercial broadcast AM," the stuff between 500 and 1500 kHz. I didn't mean everything from A1 to J3, you know?

Re:I don't agree

[Quadraginta]

"Only" a General? That makes you "only" smarter and more disciplined than about 98% of humanity. Stand tall.

And, yep, you make a good point, that radio has significant international repercussions that if nothing else would demand the involvement of the Federal government. Even Thomas Jeffersion, that inveterate hater of Federal power, would have to agree.

Go for the upgrade! See you on the bottom 25 kHz one of these days, huh?

Re:I don't agree

[gbobeck]

Thanks :-)

Actually, I am planning to resume studying for the extra exam after I finish grad school in August.

73

Re:I don't agree

[SonicSpike]

Again, you too are misunderstanding the Interstate Commerce Clause. The ICC was written to keep commerce between states regular, not regulate commerce. Even Jefferson agrees with me. Language has changed a bit since it was written.

Remember they didn't want currency imbalances, trade wars, tariffs, and import taxes among or between the States.

If the federal government needs to regulate communications then a Constitutional amendment should be passed to allow this. I personally don't think the feds are the best choice to regulate communications.... Nipplegate anyone?

Hey Colfer, where in Nelson are you?

[dadisman]

Hey Colfer,

Are you near coleen or Arrington? The broadband study thing in the county continues forever, meanwhile a few of us have been experimenting with non line of sight wireless gear and microwave. I have a somewhat stable link about 7 miles from the access point. Email dhuggins at diversifiedexperts dot com if you want to give it a try. Correct the above email address obviously.

Link to court decision

[James VAR]

The CNET article used a wrong URL when linking to the decision by the appellate court. The domain name should be pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov. You can download the PDF of the opinion here.

Don't forget the international aspect

[DF5JT]

We are talking about the 10-30 MHz spectrum, i.e. shortwave. Shortwaves have the unique capability of being reflected from the ionosphere, the very effect that made international communication possible on these frequencies. A faulty BPL installation in West Bumfuck, FarmLand can easily be heard all over bands all over the world given the right time.

While we are in the absolute minimum of the sunpot cycle these days, in another 2 or three years it will again be easy to communicate internationally with a couple of Watts and a piece of wire. And BPL in that sense would be an international disaster, at least for those ham radio operators who want to use the shortwave bands.

Re:Don't forget the international aspect

[Anonymous Coward]

A faulty BPL installation in West Bumfuck, FarmLand can easily be heard all over bands all over the world given the right time.

It would be nearly impossible for such a condition to exist, but yes, it could be heard across the world. Maybe all BPL links should be require to contain a unique ID like a call sign, so that bad installs can be tracked down and eliminated.

The commerce clause...

[msauve]

doesn't have to stretch at all. Wickard v. Filburn stretched it beyond measurement (or legitimacy).

Re:The commerce clause...

[Quadraginta]

Don't get me started. I'm saying the virgin Commerce Clause, before she was gang-raped by a concupiscent Congress at the shameful invitation of her nine pimps on the Supreme Court, could accomodate the FCC's purview comfortably.

Re:The commerce clause...

[BBandCMKRNL]

Wickard v. Filburn stretched it beyond measurement (or legitimacy). Ah yes, what many people refer to as the "wheat decision". It is decisions like this that help me to understand why at least one of the Founding Fathers gave the United States a life expectancy of only 25 years before bloodshed would be required to set things right again.

I was actually amazed when U.S. v. Lopez was decided in favor of the virgin Constitution.

Re:The commerce clause...

[devman]

Yet the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over all waters in the United States. Which happens because the feds can regulate interstate commerce, why, because rivers are a shared resource, just like airwaves. FCC disappears it will be a contest to see who has the bigger transmitters, others be damned, and there isn't anything you can do about it. (Though I'm sure the big telco's and TV stations will work out agreements (basically a MAD scenario, but sorry if your not a huge cooperate entity you get nothing.) Would you really want to leave those decisions to the GREED of corporate America even more so than they are now?

As an Amateur Operator my self...

[tekshogun]

I am an amateur operator in the Northern Piedmont of North Carolina. Ham radio operators and the ARRL are not against BPL; what we are against is the blatant disregard for our service and others. Amateur radio is defined and protected under the Radio Act of 1927 as well as commercial, government, and maritime radio communications. To allow another source of radio transmission to harmfully interfere with another service will set a precedence. Since amateur radio is hardly in the limelight (but is typically on site in disaster/emergency situations providing communications for the public and government sectors) it is easiest to be picked upon. This world needs amateur radio and is often on the front line of fighting for the public's use of the airwaves by fighting for our own use of our defined radio schedule. The FCC must work with the BPL companies to find less harmful means of transmitting data over powerlines. The interference is apparent and many hams have gone out and demonstrated this in areas where BPL is being operated. The noise is obvious and detrimental to our communications, local, regional, and abroad. The highly qualified persons that work for the FCC (many of them amateur operators), ARRL, and the general ham public have lots of ideas and are often some of the smartest people around to work on these types of situations.

The commerce clause...

[msauve]

is quite clear - "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce ... among the several states"

That's "commerce," not things peripherally associated with commerce, not things which might have some disingenuous "effect" on commerce (i.e. growing crops in your own backyard, talking to a buddy over a walkie-talkie), but commerce itself. While the Federal government may have some right to regulate commercial speech between the states (and that is debatable - see 2nd Amendment), it has absolutely no authority for regulating private communications using the RF spectrum.

Courts be damned, just because they proclaim that red is green, that doesn't make it so. The Constitution is clear and unambiguous - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's something which the Federal courts have always ignored. We haven't been a nation of (legitimate) law for many years.

Distance, Linear, and Ham

[deck]

1) There is a 250 Kilometer (155.3 mile) limit on Citizen Band Communications.(Title 47, Part 95.413(9))

2) Linears have never been leagal on CB.

3) Until 1958, the 11 Meter Band was assigned to Amateur Radio use. Eleven Meters was taken away for Class D Citizens Band.

Re:Distance, Linear, and Ham

[DF5JT]

Uh, all of what you say may well be true for the USA, but please take a look at my nick.

no surprise

[poot_rootbeer]

The power lines of rural America are, in general, even worse than the awful phone and cable TV lines that were preventing customers there from having more traditional broadband service.

It shouldn't surprise anybody that a power infrastructure built to meet specs of '60Hz more or less, somewhere between 100 and 130VAC hopefully' would be under-engineered for reliable data transmission.

Just like tcp/ip

[bobbuck]

I have been arguing for years that the federal government should set up a bureaucracy to govern the flow of ip packets since they travel tubes in every state. It's only fair that the tube usage should be regulated by fair politicians instead of allowing greedy citizens (i.e. DMCA violators) to hog them. I am so glad you agree!

Re:Just like tcp/ip

[rootooftheworld]

mod parent up +8 realist

Background info

[Anonymous Coward]

I am lucky enough to count one Frank Gentges, K0BRA, as a friend and associate. He is a consummate engineer and scientist.

Frank is one of the fellows who did the measurements that show how nasty the interference from BPL really is.
He outfitted a large van, at his own expense, and did all the driving and measuring with some very sophisticated gear, traceable to NIST.

BPL interference is not limited to the area around 50 mhz either, but extends from VLF on up, due to the nature of the modulation scheme used. The power companies claimed they could put in some notch filters for the ham bands, but this is highly disingenuous, as that would also make their spread spectrum scheme not work.

And, it's loud with only one home involved -- it more than doubles the background noise on many ham bands, The result is that weak signal QSO's that used to make it, wouldn't anymore, and the transmitter would have to be twice as powerful or more to get the same contact, which isn't always either possible or legal. With just one house radiating, and the measurement taken over a block away.

Frank was also trying to get a new VLF ham band opened at the time, for low max radiated power, almost down in the audio frequency range, for transatlantic experiments and propagation studies.

The power companies got the FCC to veto this, as they stated a couple of watts of power in the 60-70khz region would mess up their telemetry over powerline system. Most hams would not be able to radiate anything like that -- think of the antenna size for a quarter wavelength! OF course, BPL will radiate far more than a few watts across all the household-wiring antennas they want to put on the system.

Note that no effect on the power companies was reported during the initial time the FCC allowed hams to use this band. None. Many successful transatlantic contacts were made with on the order of 1/4 watt radiated power, at of course, very low bit rates -- less than one BPS. Once you get a little power into the air at these low frequencies, it seems the ionosphere is almost a perfect reflector, and it all goes around the earth many times before ground losses absorb it.

So there are some interesting unreported motivations on each side happening here.

I hope the FCC tells the power companies to stuff it. They have little hope of being competitive anyway (or will cheat and just find a way to get extra money off that other revenue source to pay for their losses at this), and don't know how to run an ISP business either. I can imagine how customer service would be for a customer who represents the tenth part of a fleabite to their revenue stream. Better ISPs that are smaller.