FCC Dealt Setback In BPL Push 177
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."
The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
Misguided FCC (Score:0, Insightful)
..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 [newnetworks.com] start doing over 10 years ago. No interference with amateur radio operators, faster and more reliable service for everyone too.
Good decision by the Court (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we should scrap those antiquated rules...
after all, we don't provide hitching posts and water troughs outside public buildings anymore, do we?
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:The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:1, Insightful)
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:1, Insightful)
> 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.
I don't agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
I'l tell you what they do--they follow the guidelines of the ITU.