CLINCA BAJA MEDIX
Outpatient and emergency ambulance services is located near (one block east) the Rosarito Beach Hotel, Mar del Norte # 484, 24-hour phone - 661.613.1266.
Membership Health Plan information
· Call Dolly for an appointment - 661.613.0383
· A copy of the membership agreement is available at the clinic for review.
· To discuss the plan contact Hector Camacho at 661.612.1266
Clinca Baja Medix is directed by Dr. Elias Perales (former head of the Red Cross Clinic in Rosarito) who has an excellent reputation in Rosarito.
It is recommended that expatriates register with BAJAMEX even though they do not decide to enroll in the health plan. The fact that you have your medical information on file with a Mexican clinic will facilitate obtaining medical care/ambulance transportation here should you require it.
In addition, registration will provide the necessary data and examination required for a death certificate. A death certificate is required by the U.S. State Department before a body can be brought into the U.S.
sábado, febrero 19, 2005
domingo, febrero 13, 2005
"The FCC has no established procedure for measuring this radiation"
"Dear (San Diego) Union Tribune,
I am so thrilled to see your great endorsement of Broadband over Power Line(BPL) yesterday. It just further enforces my long standing belief that the UT never investigates anything anymore but just re-writes peoples press releases and prints them as fact. Especially those from SDG$E like this"Editorial" and the recent errored report of the "first" wind power farm in the back country. Consider the following.
How do you figure that our SDG$E, who is one of the highest priced power producers in the USA, is going to provide competitive pricing in broadband, an industry they know nothing about?
Do you really think they are going to invest the equipment dollars required to bring BPL to the back country? BPL is not free to implement. Cable and DSL are not in the back country because it has no economic payback for them. Unless it's 100% subsided by the rate payer what is SDG$E going to do different?
This is an old, obsolete technology. When I was in (the) industry 30 years ago BPL was going to solve all our communications problems. 30 years later they are still running "trials". Unless you assume the people responsible for making BPL work are stupid you must believe it doesn't work well.
Finally, BPL is a brute force technology that generates massive amounts of RF interference. Not only does it destroy Amateur Radio, short wave, and broadcast reception blocks from the BPL devices but it also can and has strongly interfered with military and Department of Homeland Security HF networks.
What is the "real" answer to wide range, high speed wireless? Third generation cellular and wireless. It's here, more is rolling out now andwill be in place competitively long before BPL finishes its trials.
On the off chance you want to do a real report on BPL I have included the recent Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL) article below. It contains links to further information on the thus far, failed attempts by the power industry to implement BPL. There is also a primer on BPL at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ARRL:==>ARRL TELLS FCC TO "RECONSIDER, RESCIND AND RESTUDY" BPL ORDER
The ARRL has petitioned the FCC to take its broadband over power line (BPL)Report and Order (R&O) back to the drawing board. In a Petition forReconsideration filed February 7, the League called on the Commission to"reconsider, rescind and restudy" its October 14, 2004, adoption of new Part15 rules spelling out how BPL providers may deploy the technology on HF andlow-VHF frequencies. Asserting that the R&O fails to adequately take intoaccount the technology's potential to interfere with Amateur Radio and otherlicensed services, the League called the FCC's action to permit BPL "a grosspolicy mistake." The R&O, the ARRL said, "represents a classic case ofprejudgment" by an FCC that knew better but ignored evidence already at itsdisposal.
"It is readily apparent that the Commission long ago made up its mind thatit was going to permit BPL without substantial regulation, no matter whatthe effect of this flawed application of old technology is on licensed radioservices," the League's petition declares. The ARRL accuses FCC CommissionerMichael Powell and his four colleagues of deliberately authorizing "a spectrum pollution source" that's proven to be incompatible with existinglicensed uses of the HF spectrum.
"The Commission wanted nothing to contradict its enthusiasm about BPL," the League said, and its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) saw to itthat evidence of the "fundamental incompatibility" between BPL and incumbent HF radio services "was suppressed, ignored or discredited." The FCC has not adjudicated a single interference complaint, the ARRL added, but has swept interference complaints under the rug.
While expressing appreciation for Commissioner Michael Copps' concernsregarding BPL's potential to interfere with Amateur Radio and his call forquick complaint resolution, the League said his admonition "has not beenheeded by either the Enforcement Bureau or the Office of Engineering andTechnology."
In the filing, which included several technical exhibits to bolster its major points, the ARRL further argued that Powell--a self-described"cheerleader" for the technology--the ARRL further argued that Powell should have recused himself from voting on the R&O. The chairman, the ARRL says,violated the FCC's own ex parte rules by attending a BPL provider's demonstration October 12, after release of the October 14 agenda. Powell "tainted this proceeding" by taking part in the demonstration, and that alone is sufficient to have the Commission vacate and reconsider its action,the ARRL alleged.
The League also said the FCC's "late and incomplete" responses to ARRL's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests fail to show any support forFCC's conclusions regarding interference to licensed services from BPL. The highly redacted information release contained nothing that supports theFCC's conclusions about BPL's interference potential and suppressed negative recommendations from its own technical investigators, the petition says. As a result, the League said, the Commission "failed to conduct impartial, reasoned rulemaking."
The Commission used an unlawful "balancing test" that weighed BPL'spurported benefits against its interference to licensed services, the League asserts, creating "a hierarchy of licensed radio services" based upon "how much interference each service deserves." The Communications Act, the League's petition points out, requires an objective determination from the outset that the likelihood of harmful interference from a proposed unlicensed service is virtually nil.
The interference mitigation rules in the R&O are both ineffective andinequitably applied, the ARRL's petition further argues. Noting the new rules do not require BPL systems to shut down in the event of interference except as "a last resort," the League said the practical effect is "that systems will never have to shut down," even if the BPL operator has not been able to remedy ongoing harmful interference to the Amateur Service. The newrules, the petition charges, accord priority to unlicensed BPL, "regardlessof the preclusive effect" or the duration of interference.
In its unanimous BPL decision, the Commission, the League says, has abandoned its fundamental obligation to avoid interference in telecommunication systems, instead requiring complainants to initiate contact with BPL providers and "beg for resolution." The ARRL petition also faults the Commission's adopted measurement standards.
The League's Petition for Reconsideration in ET Dockets 03-104 and 04-37 ison the ARRL Web site,www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/et04-37/recon_petition/.
==>BPL LEGAL WRANGLES CONTINUE IN AUSTRIAN CITY
Local telecommunication authorities in Austria have sent a "first-step"legal notice to Linz Strom GmbH (Linz Power), calling on the utility to"take necessary technical measures" to operate its "Speed-Web" broadband over power line (BPL) system so it doesn't cause interference to other telecommunication equipment. Joseph Ibinger, who heads the UpperAustria-Salzburg field office for the Federal Ministry for Commerce,Innovation and Technology (BMVIT), told Linz Power in late December that interference mentioned in complaints is definitely coming from the utility's BPL system. From the time the BPL installation was a pilot project, radio amateurs have been among the most vocal in expressing their displeasure,blaming BPL for causing excessive interference on HF bands throughout theCity of Linz. The Austrian Amateur Transmitter Federation (ÖsterreichischerVersuchssenderverband--ÖVSV), Austria's International Amateur Radio Union(IARU) member-society, praised the action, which the utility is very likely to appeal.
"The Austrian Amateur Radio Society applauds this decision of local authorities and notes that radio users have repeatedly indicated the problem of unwanted radiation from unshielded mains wiring," said ÖVSV PresidentMichael Zwingl, OE3MZC. "The recent decision will be an example for authorities in other European countries facing similar problems in BPL trials."
In October 2003, Linz Power received a similar letter from local telecommunications authorities asking the utility to "remove the illegal interference" on the HF bands generated by the utility's BPL then-pilot project. As a result, Zwingl says, the utility took legal action against ÖVSV.
Assuming an appeal by Linz Power, the BMVIT must move Ibinger's initial response--essentially the equivalent of a warning notice or citation--up tothe next level, and it could take up to six months to resolve the matter. Zwingl says if the federal authorities affirm the local decision, they could prohibit operation of the BPL system. As it now stands, the utility was given a month to resolve the interference.
Zwingl said ÖVSV has been unable to obtain a copy of the actual decision andwas only able to obtain details of the document in January by working through a "peoples' lawyer," essentially a legal ombudsman who runs interference between the Austrian federal government and citizens.
According to legal ombudsman Peter Kostelka's report to Zwingl, the telecommunication authorities cited Linz Power's use of unshielded wiring totransport data signals, resulting in constant emissions that interfere with short wave bands as "an undesirable byproduct" of the system.
The Linz Power BPL system boasts upward of 4000 "satisfied customers" out of the 40,000 in its service area. It offers its basic service for €24 a month; a faster version goes for €42 a month, both less installation charges. Speed-Web uses Main.net BPL technology.
Zwingl said the recent official decree followed "some years of complaints and investigations" into the Linz Power BPL project.
"We put pressure on officials to not just take measurements but also to react by all legal means," he said. "It took us some time, but we never agreed with the opinion of some authorities who have made a judgment between the importance of ham radio and BPL." Zwingl maintains that Austria's telecommunication rules conform with International Telecommunication Union(ITU) regulations and "protect radio services and spectrum regardless of subjective importance."
Linz Power Executive Josef Heizinger reportedly reacted calmly to the field office decision. "We are absolutely in the right, legally, and will continuethe BPL development according to plan," he's quoted in the media. In another interview, Heizinger declared that "simultaneous problem-free operation ofBPL and Amateur Radio equipment is possible," and he blamed a small group of dissident radio amateurs for trying to discredit "this innovative ande conomical technology."
Linz Strom blames the few radio interference problems its system has caused on "defective equipment," and says it's resolved those cases promptly.
ÖVSV continues to insist that in its current form BPL--also known inGerman-speaking countries as "Internet from the Electrical Outlet"--is incompatible with HF reception.
Craig A. Williams W6CAW
Craig Williams Consulting
Campo, CA619-806-4146"
www.craigwilliams.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenda:
As of March 20, 2003, BPL (Broadband over powerline) was in one million US homes.
I found an interesting comment from the March 20, 2003, CITI Powerline III conference held at Columbia University, New York, NY*
"At issue is unintentional radiation created by the PLC signal as it travels over powerlines. PLC vendors have been vigilant about FCC Part 15 certification of all their equipment. As an industry, PLC has held that existing Part 15 standards are sufficient to regulate any interference that may be caused. But Alan Scrime, Chief of the Policy and Rules Division at OET, posed this question:
If you are doing everything right, and existing regulations are sufficient, why am I up here asking you questions?
Brett Kilbourne, Director of Regulatory Services for UPLC, had the answer:
Because there are incumbent users [of that spectrum] that you have a duty to protect.
In the PLC band of spectrum, there are established broadcast uses, including amateur radio and military applications such as radar, with which unregulated wireline services such as PLC may not interfere. And while Part 15 explicitly sets limits for point sources of radiation such as pieces of equipment, it does not address interference caused by a network of overhead or underground wires.
Speaking with Alan Scrime after the presentation, he made it clear that the FCC does not know of any PLC interference problems, has no wish to obstruct the growth of the industry. Yet, there is no denying that the heterogeneity of the power network makes it possible that some lines will unintentionally radiate the PLC signal, the cumulative effect of which is unknown. The FCC has no established procedure for measuring this radiation, and no limits to protect incumbent spectrum users. For months, said Alan, PLC vendors and organizations have promised to set up testing sites and report measurements. It has not happened, and with the industry progressing toward commercial deployment the FCC felt compelled to act. The proceeding is expected to begin this month, but has not yet been announced."
* URL: http://www.wave-report.com/other-html-files/citipowerline3.htm
Patrick Mullen
"Dear (San Diego) Union Tribune,
I am so thrilled to see your great endorsement of Broadband over Power Line(BPL) yesterday. It just further enforces my long standing belief that the UT never investigates anything anymore but just re-writes peoples press releases and prints them as fact. Especially those from SDG$E like this"Editorial" and the recent errored report of the "first" wind power farm in the back country. Consider the following.
How do you figure that our SDG$E, who is one of the highest priced power producers in the USA, is going to provide competitive pricing in broadband, an industry they know nothing about?
Do you really think they are going to invest the equipment dollars required to bring BPL to the back country? BPL is not free to implement. Cable and DSL are not in the back country because it has no economic payback for them. Unless it's 100% subsided by the rate payer what is SDG$E going to do different?
This is an old, obsolete technology. When I was in (the) industry 30 years ago BPL was going to solve all our communications problems. 30 years later they are still running "trials". Unless you assume the people responsible for making BPL work are stupid you must believe it doesn't work well.
Finally, BPL is a brute force technology that generates massive amounts of RF interference. Not only does it destroy Amateur Radio, short wave, and broadcast reception blocks from the BPL devices but it also can and has strongly interfered with military and Department of Homeland Security HF networks.
What is the "real" answer to wide range, high speed wireless? Third generation cellular and wireless. It's here, more is rolling out now andwill be in place competitively long before BPL finishes its trials.
On the off chance you want to do a real report on BPL I have included the recent Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL) article below. It contains links to further information on the thus far, failed attempts by the power industry to implement BPL. There is also a primer on BPL at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the ARRL:==>ARRL TELLS FCC TO "RECONSIDER, RESCIND AND RESTUDY" BPL ORDER
The ARRL has petitioned the FCC to take its broadband over power line (BPL)Report and Order (R&O) back to the drawing board. In a Petition forReconsideration filed February 7, the League called on the Commission to"reconsider, rescind and restudy" its October 14, 2004, adoption of new Part15 rules spelling out how BPL providers may deploy the technology on HF andlow-VHF frequencies. Asserting that the R&O fails to adequately take intoaccount the technology's potential to interfere with Amateur Radio and otherlicensed services, the League called the FCC's action to permit BPL "a grosspolicy mistake." The R&O, the ARRL said, "represents a classic case ofprejudgment" by an FCC that knew better but ignored evidence already at itsdisposal.
"It is readily apparent that the Commission long ago made up its mind thatit was going to permit BPL without substantial regulation, no matter whatthe effect of this flawed application of old technology is on licensed radioservices," the League's petition declares. The ARRL accuses FCC CommissionerMichael Powell and his four colleagues of deliberately authorizing "a spectrum pollution source" that's proven to be incompatible with existinglicensed uses of the HF spectrum.
"The Commission wanted nothing to contradict its enthusiasm about BPL," the League said, and its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) saw to itthat evidence of the "fundamental incompatibility" between BPL and incumbent HF radio services "was suppressed, ignored or discredited." The FCC has not adjudicated a single interference complaint, the ARRL added, but has swept interference complaints under the rug.
While expressing appreciation for Commissioner Michael Copps' concernsregarding BPL's potential to interfere with Amateur Radio and his call forquick complaint resolution, the League said his admonition "has not beenheeded by either the Enforcement Bureau or the Office of Engineering andTechnology."
In the filing, which included several technical exhibits to bolster its major points, the ARRL further argued that Powell--a self-described"cheerleader" for the technology--the ARRL further argued that Powell should have recused himself from voting on the R&O. The chairman, the ARRL says,violated the FCC's own ex parte rules by attending a BPL provider's demonstration October 12, after release of the October 14 agenda. Powell "tainted this proceeding" by taking part in the demonstration, and that alone is sufficient to have the Commission vacate and reconsider its action,the ARRL alleged.
The League also said the FCC's "late and incomplete" responses to ARRL's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests fail to show any support forFCC's conclusions regarding interference to licensed services from BPL. The highly redacted information release contained nothing that supports theFCC's conclusions about BPL's interference potential and suppressed negative recommendations from its own technical investigators, the petition says. As a result, the League said, the Commission "failed to conduct impartial, reasoned rulemaking."
The Commission used an unlawful "balancing test" that weighed BPL'spurported benefits against its interference to licensed services, the League asserts, creating "a hierarchy of licensed radio services" based upon "how much interference each service deserves." The Communications Act, the League's petition points out, requires an objective determination from the outset that the likelihood of harmful interference from a proposed unlicensed service is virtually nil.
The interference mitigation rules in the R&O are both ineffective andinequitably applied, the ARRL's petition further argues. Noting the new rules do not require BPL systems to shut down in the event of interference except as "a last resort," the League said the practical effect is "that systems will never have to shut down," even if the BPL operator has not been able to remedy ongoing harmful interference to the Amateur Service. The newrules, the petition charges, accord priority to unlicensed BPL, "regardlessof the preclusive effect" or the duration of interference.
In its unanimous BPL decision, the Commission, the League says, has abandoned its fundamental obligation to avoid interference in telecommunication systems, instead requiring complainants to initiate contact with BPL providers and "beg for resolution." The ARRL petition also faults the Commission's adopted measurement standards.
The League's Petition for Reconsideration in ET Dockets 03-104 and 04-37 ison the ARRL Web site,www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/et04-37/recon_petition/.
==>BPL LEGAL WRANGLES CONTINUE IN AUSTRIAN CITY
Local telecommunication authorities in Austria have sent a "first-step"legal notice to Linz Strom GmbH (Linz Power), calling on the utility to"take necessary technical measures" to operate its "Speed-Web" broadband over power line (BPL) system so it doesn't cause interference to other telecommunication equipment. Joseph Ibinger, who heads the UpperAustria-Salzburg field office for the Federal Ministry for Commerce,Innovation and Technology (BMVIT), told Linz Power in late December that interference mentioned in complaints is definitely coming from the utility's BPL system. From the time the BPL installation was a pilot project, radio amateurs have been among the most vocal in expressing their displeasure,blaming BPL for causing excessive interference on HF bands throughout theCity of Linz. The Austrian Amateur Transmitter Federation (ÖsterreichischerVersuchssenderverband--ÖVSV), Austria's International Amateur Radio Union(IARU) member-society, praised the action, which the utility is very likely to appeal.
"The Austrian Amateur Radio Society applauds this decision of local authorities and notes that radio users have repeatedly indicated the problem of unwanted radiation from unshielded mains wiring," said ÖVSV PresidentMichael Zwingl, OE3MZC. "The recent decision will be an example for authorities in other European countries facing similar problems in BPL trials."
In October 2003, Linz Power received a similar letter from local telecommunications authorities asking the utility to "remove the illegal interference" on the HF bands generated by the utility's BPL then-pilot project. As a result, Zwingl says, the utility took legal action against ÖVSV.
Assuming an appeal by Linz Power, the BMVIT must move Ibinger's initial response--essentially the equivalent of a warning notice or citation--up tothe next level, and it could take up to six months to resolve the matter. Zwingl says if the federal authorities affirm the local decision, they could prohibit operation of the BPL system. As it now stands, the utility was given a month to resolve the interference.
Zwingl said ÖVSV has been unable to obtain a copy of the actual decision andwas only able to obtain details of the document in January by working through a "peoples' lawyer," essentially a legal ombudsman who runs interference between the Austrian federal government and citizens.
According to legal ombudsman Peter Kostelka's report to Zwingl, the telecommunication authorities cited Linz Power's use of unshielded wiring totransport data signals, resulting in constant emissions that interfere with short wave bands as "an undesirable byproduct" of the system.
The Linz Power BPL system boasts upward of 4000 "satisfied customers" out of the 40,000 in its service area. It offers its basic service for €24 a month; a faster version goes for €42 a month, both less installation charges. Speed-Web uses Main.net BPL technology.
Zwingl said the recent official decree followed "some years of complaints and investigations" into the Linz Power BPL project.
"We put pressure on officials to not just take measurements but also to react by all legal means," he said. "It took us some time, but we never agreed with the opinion of some authorities who have made a judgment between the importance of ham radio and BPL." Zwingl maintains that Austria's telecommunication rules conform with International Telecommunication Union(ITU) regulations and "protect radio services and spectrum regardless of subjective importance."
Linz Power Executive Josef Heizinger reportedly reacted calmly to the field office decision. "We are absolutely in the right, legally, and will continuethe BPL development according to plan," he's quoted in the media. In another interview, Heizinger declared that "simultaneous problem-free operation ofBPL and Amateur Radio equipment is possible," and he blamed a small group of dissident radio amateurs for trying to discredit "this innovative ande conomical technology."
Linz Strom blames the few radio interference problems its system has caused on "defective equipment," and says it's resolved those cases promptly.
ÖVSV continues to insist that in its current form BPL--also known inGerman-speaking countries as "Internet from the Electrical Outlet"--is incompatible with HF reception.
Craig A. Williams W6CAW
Craig Williams Consulting
Campo, CA619-806-4146"
www.craigwilliams.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addenda:
As of March 20, 2003, BPL (Broadband over powerline) was in one million US homes.
I found an interesting comment from the March 20, 2003, CITI Powerline III conference held at Columbia University, New York, NY*
"At issue is unintentional radiation created by the PLC signal as it travels over powerlines. PLC vendors have been vigilant about FCC Part 15 certification of all their equipment. As an industry, PLC has held that existing Part 15 standards are sufficient to regulate any interference that may be caused. But Alan Scrime, Chief of the Policy and Rules Division at OET, posed this question:
If you are doing everything right, and existing regulations are sufficient, why am I up here asking you questions?
Brett Kilbourne, Director of Regulatory Services for UPLC, had the answer:
Because there are incumbent users [of that spectrum] that you have a duty to protect.
In the PLC band of spectrum, there are established broadcast uses, including amateur radio and military applications such as radar, with which unregulated wireline services such as PLC may not interfere. And while Part 15 explicitly sets limits for point sources of radiation such as pieces of equipment, it does not address interference caused by a network of overhead or underground wires.
Speaking with Alan Scrime after the presentation, he made it clear that the FCC does not know of any PLC interference problems, has no wish to obstruct the growth of the industry. Yet, there is no denying that the heterogeneity of the power network makes it possible that some lines will unintentionally radiate the PLC signal, the cumulative effect of which is unknown. The FCC has no established procedure for measuring this radiation, and no limits to protect incumbent spectrum users. For months, said Alan, PLC vendors and organizations have promised to set up testing sites and report measurements. It has not happened, and with the industry progressing toward commercial deployment the FCC felt compelled to act. The proceeding is expected to begin this month, but has not yet been announced."
* URL: http://www.wave-report.com/other-html-files/citipowerline3.htm
Patrick Mullen
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
