Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:48:36 -0400
From: Andre Kesteloot <andre.kesteloot@verizon.net>
To: Tacos <tacos@amrad.org>,  rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Message-id: <4530F8C4.8080501@verizon.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
Subject: LF: ARRL files against FCC BPL Ruling
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

=46rom the ARRL Nesletter
Andr=E9 N4ICK

*******************************************

=3D=3D>BPL ORDERS EXCEED FCC'S JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY, LEAGUE COU=
RT FILING
SAYS

The ARRL this week notified the US District Court of Appeals -- DC Ci=
rcuit
that it's appealing certain aspects of the FCC's Part 15 rules govern=
ing
broadband over power line (BPL) systems. The ARRL Executive Committee
ratified plans to go forward with the Petition for Review when it met
October 7. The League is asking the court to review the FCC's October=
 2004
Report and Order (R&O) establishing Part 15 rules to govern BPL syste=
ms as
well as its August 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) that deal=
t with
various petitions for reconsideration of the 2004 R&O, including one =
=66rom
the ARRL.

"ARRL seeks review of the orders on the ground that they exceed the
Commission's jurisdiction and authority; are contrary to the Communic=
ations
Act of 1934; and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a=
nd
otherwise not in accordance with law," the League said in its petitio=
n.
"ARRL requests that this court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin and set =
aside
the orders."

A court filing that details the League's specific objections regardin=
g the
two orders is pending. Although the petition will argue a number of p=
oints,
two specific aspects of the FCC's BPL orders precipitated the League'=
s
appeal. One is a new rule, only revealed after the FCC made the MO&O =
public,
that limits the extent to which an unlicensed, unintentional radiator=
 must
protect a licensed mobile station.

The new rule, =A715.611(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 t=
o
resolve harmful interference complaints. The FCC called these levels
"modestly above the noise level."

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, contends the rule change in the MO&O reg=
arding
mobile stations contravenes the International Radio Regulations and t=
he
Communications Act of 1934. "The FCC has, in effect, tried to redefin=
e
harmful interference," he said. "It can't do that. The Commission doe=
sn't
have the authority to do that, and we're going to demonstrate that to=
 the
Court of Appeals."

ARRL Laboratory Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI, has said the levels applicabl=
e to
mobiles would be some 25 dB higher than the median values for man-mad=
e noise
in residential areas and up to 40 dB higher than the minimum values h=
ams use
for reliable communication.

The Commission also declined to adjust the 40 dB per decade "extrapol=
ation
factor" applied to measurements performed at distances from power lin=
es
other than those specified in Part 15. Sumner says this is an importa=
nt
technical point because the existing Part 15 rule underestimates actu=
al
field strength.

In their petitions for reconsideration, the ARRL and others demonstra=
ted
that the 40 dB per decade extrapolation factor was wrong and that a f=
igure
closer to 20 dB per decade was appropriate. Sumner called the Commiss=
ion's
stand on the 40 dB per decade rule "clearly, demonstrably and inargua=
bly
wrong."

Sumner said the League decided to go forward with its appeal only aft=
er
considering the effect on licensed spectrum users of letting the BPL =
rules
stand. He addressed a number of ARRL's concerns with the FCC's BPL ru=
les in
his "It Seems to Us . . ." editorial in October QST.

The firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP of Washington, =
DC, is
handling the ARRL's Petition for Review in conjunction with ARRL Gene=
ral
Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD.