SB QST @ ARL $ARLB018
ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules

ZCZC AG18
QST de W1AW  
ARRL Bulletin 18  ARLB018
From ARRL Headquarters  
Newington CT  October 4, 2006
To all radio amateurs 

SB QST ARL ARLB018
ARLB018 ARRL plans federal court appeal of certain BPL rules

The ARRL Executive Committee is expected this weekend to ratify
plans to appeal in federal court certain aspects of the FCC's Part
15 rules governing broadband over power line (BPL) systems. Assuming
the EC signs off on the strategy, the League will file a Notice of
Appeal by October 22 with the US District Court of Appeals - DC
Circuit. ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said the
League went forward with its appeal plans only after considering the
effect on licensed spectrum users of letting the BPL rules stand.

''This decision was made after careful review of the FCC's October
2004 BPL Report and Order (R&O) and of the August 2006 Memorandum
Opinion and Order (MO&O) that dealt with petitions for
reconsideration,'' said Sumner.

Several reconsideration petitions of the initial R&O - including one
from ARRL - called on the FCC to strengthen rules aimed at
protecting licensed radio systems from BPL interference.  Instead,
in a new rule only revealed after the FCC made the MO&O public, the
FCC limited the extent to which an unlicensed, unintentional
radiator has to protect a licensed mobile station.

The new rule, 15.611(c)(1)(iii), provides that BPL operators only
have to reduce emission levels below established FCC permissible
limits by 20 dB below 30 MHz and by 10 dB above 30 MHz - even if
that's not enough to resolve harmful interference complaints.

Sumner contends the rule change contravenes the International Radio
Regulations and the Communications Act of 1934. ''The FCC has, in
effect, tried to redefine harmful interference,'' he said. ''It can't
do that. The Commission doesn't have the authority to do that, and
we're going to demonstrate that to the Court of Appeals.''

What the FCC has done with respect to licensed mobile services
''should strike fear into the hearts of those who rely on public
safety communications,'' Sumner added, especially since the rule
requires BPL operators to do even less above 30 MHz than at HF.

The Commission also declined to adjust the 40 dB per decade
''extrapolation factor'' applied to measurements performed at
distances from power lines other than those specified in Part 15.
Sumner says this is an important technical point because the
existing Part 15 rule causes test results to underestimate actual
field strength. Petitions for reconsideration from the ARRL and
others argued that a figure closer to 20 dB per decade was more
appropriate. Sumner called the Commission's stand on the 40 dB per
decade rule ''clearly, demonstrably and inarguably wrong.''

He said the principles that the FCC appears to be following for the
first time - if applied generally - represent an abuse of licensees'
rights. ''It's unacceptable that the FCC would reduce the rights of
its licensees in favor of unlicensed, unintentional emitters,'' he
said. ''Remember that 'unintentional emission' is just another term
for 'spectrum pollution.'''

Sumner made it clear that the League is not suing BPL providers for
causing interference, nor suing the FCC for failing to enforce its
own rules against harmful interference. ''We are not satisfied with
the level of attention the Commission is paying to existing cases of
BPL interference, but this is not the time to pursue that in federal
court,'' he said.

While the separate standard for what constitutes harmful
interference to a mobile and the 40 dB per decade extrapolation
factor issues precipitated the decision to appeal, Sumner said, the
arguments the League puts forward in its court filing may touch on
other matters as well.

''The court is not going to rewrite the rules,'' Sumner explained.
''The court can make the Commission go back to the drawing board and
re-decide them, however.''
NNNN
/EX