"It Seems to Us . . ." The FCCâs BPL Decision
By David Sumner, K1ZZ
Editor's note: Typically, only ARRL members get to read the "It Seems to Us ..." editorials that run each month in QST. We're posting this editorial that appears in the December, 2004 issue of QST in the hope that both ARRL members and nonmembers might appreciate it and find it informative. At its October 14 meeting the Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules for Broadband over Power Line (BPL) systems. In doing so the FCC moved unusually quickly from a Notice of Inquiry (April 2003) to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (February 2004) and on to the adoption of final rules in ET Docket No. 04-37. The stated purpose of the new rules is to encourage the deployment of BPL systems as an additional way for consumers to gain access to broadband services while safeguarding licensed radio services against harmful interference. At this writing, just one week after the meeting, the Report and Order containing the details of the new rules has not yet been released. However, it is safe to say that the rules will place new restrictions on BPL systems that are not present in the existing FCC Part 15 rules. Indeed, they are more restrictive than the FCCâs proposals contained in the NPRM released earlier this year. Spokesmen for the nascent BPL industry claim to be happy with the new rules. They will be less happy once they actually see whatâs in them. In the meantime they must put on a brave face for the benefit of their investors. Certainly they have reason to welcome the end of the period of uncertainty that always marks a pending rulemaking, although the battle is far from over. Yet to come are petitions for reconsideration and judicial review of the Commissionâs decision, the grounds for which are unusually fertile thanks to the FCCâs own procedural errors. And they will come, because the FCCâwhile it has tightened the rules for BPLâhas fallen far short of providing adequate protection for over-the-air radio services, including but not limited to Amateur Radio. We have ample reason to be unhappy. There is no longer any question but that BPL pollutes the radio spectrum. The technical showings submitted by the ARRL and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) clearly establish that fact. Because so-called Access BPL devices have a significantly greater potential for causing interference than typical unlicensed devices, the FCC will subject them to tighter equipment authorization procedures: in FCC-Speak, âcertificationâ instead of âverification.â Unfortunately, the FCC did not take the logical next step of mandating a lower radiated emission limit for BPL devices. That they should have done so is clear to anyone who objectively reviews the record of the Docket 04-37 proceeding. The ARRL and others have documented harmful interference that is occurring now at BPL test sites. Measurements taken at those sites corroborate calculations by the ARRL, NTIA, and others showing that interference to typical radio stations is a certainty if BPL systems operate at the existing Part 15 limit. On September 13, the NTIA submitted findings to the FCC showing that the probability of harmful interference from a power line carrying a BPL signal at the Part 15 limit is essentially 100% up to 200 meters from the power line at 4 MHz. The interference distance increases with frequency, to about 400 meters at 20 MHz. Given the virtual certainty that any FCC-licensed station will operate in closer proximity than that to power lines, and given that FCC licensees are entitled to protection from harmful interference from unlicensed emitters, the FCC was and is obligated to mandate a lower limit. That the Commission has chosen not to do so is irresponsible. If anyone doubts the legitimacy of the interference issue, consider this. To protect aeronautical communications, the new rules establish numerous frequency bands that BPL must entirely avoid. If the interference isnât real, why did the NTIA insist that the FCC take this step? Why do the new rules establish exclusion zones and consultation requirements to protect federal government, public safety, and certain other stations? Weâre looking forward to reading the Report and Order to find out whether the FCC will require coordination around its own field offices, as the NTIA thoughtfully proposed on their behalf. As for the rest of us who are licensed to use the radio spectrum, the FCCâs plan is to saddle us with the burden of identifying BPL as the source of the harmful interference we will inevitably encounter and tracking down the responsible party. To provide a starting point, the FCC will require the BPL industry to maintain a publicly available database. The new rules will require that any BPL devices that are deployed must have the capability to be adjusted and shut down remotely, presumably to give BPL system operators the ability to resolve interference in real time. Whether or not they will actually be required to do so remains to be seen. Throughout the entire proceeding, the ARRL has been the principal voice of reason arguing against the headlong rush to pollute the radio spectrum for short-term gain. An unfortunate side effect of our activism on the issue is that to some, this is a battle between âoldâ Amateur Radio technology and ânewâ broadband technology. It is not. It is a battle over a unique and priceless natural resource: the narrow slice of the radio spectrum that supports long-distance communication without the need for any infrastructure whatsoever. There is nothing new about sending radio signals over power lines; itâs been done for decades, within rational limits that until now have kept radio interference from being an issue. There is nothing old about Amateur Radio technology; we are on the leading edge in introducing digital applications to the HF environment. It is sad beyond measure that the FCC is willing to squander a unique natural resource in order to provide a short-range broadband connection that can easily be provided by several other, non-polluting means. SOURCE: American Radio Relay League |
_______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx