Musings of the Membership, June 2003
Musings
These Musings, taken from this month’s Journal, deal with the FCC proposal to introduce broadband Internet service over power lines. This has the potential to destroy the ability to receive shortwave signals. Please read this, as well as this month’s Technical Topics column, and take appropriate action.
Paul Brouillette, 611 Illinois Street, Geneva, IL 60134
Recently, the FCC has issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking public comments on what they are calling Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) deployment in the US. BPL is also known as Power Line Communications (PLC) in Europe and elsewhere. With this system, electric power lines are used to transmit broadband services (Internet, etc.), instead of using coax or fiber optic cable. The logic is that power lines go everywhere without having to run expensive coax or fiber optic cable all over the country.
So, what does this have to do with SWLing? Well, the broadband BPL signal that would be placed on power lines would occupy the RF spectrum from 2 to 80 MHz. That’s all the SWBC, and HF amateur radio spectrum, and quite a bit more! The more technical people out there will recall from basic transmission line theory that wires configured as power lines will work fine carrying 60 Hz AC power, but will radiate any RF on them like crazy! The FCC proposes to limit this RF emission by Part 15 of its rules. But according to calculations by various amateur radio experts, among them W1RFI, Ed Hare, RF Guru of the ARRL, the Part 15 rules combined with the unique characteristics of the digital broadband signal, could result in a solid S9 blanket of interference over all the HF bands, all the time. These theories have been borne out by hard data taken during testing by various groups in Germany, Austria, Japan and the UK. The ARRL is currently set to run similar field tests here in the US in the several cities where BPL is being used on a limited trial basis.
The FCC Commissioners are unanimously and enthusiastically in favor of this system, but they are not quite sure if it is technically feasible. Thus, their issuance of the Notice of Inquiry. They want to know what we, the people, think about this idea. I think it would be good if we let them know! Please keep in mind that any public comment you wish to file with the FCC should be respectful, factual, and as un-emotional as possible. Technically oriented comments are the most useful. You must indicate that your comments are in reference to et Docket No. 03-104. The postal mail contact information is as follows:
Office of Engineering & Technology
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
There should be a way to submit comments electronically also. But at this time, I do not see this Docket number listed on their public comments web page. Perhaps this is because it is an ET (Engineering & Technology) Docket.
I have sent my comment letter to their postal address. If anyone would like a copy for his or her reference, please send me a business-size sase.
Joe Buch joseph.buch@dol.net, PO Box 1552, Ocean View, DE 19970
Paul makes some excellent points and we all should thank him for taking the time to submit comments to the FCC. I second his motion for all of us to submit comments in opposition to deployment of this technology.
He mentions the work the ARRL has been doing to mitigate the effects of this technology on ham radio HF communications. I have a copy of a paper written to present the results of some testing ARRL already did to measure the detrimental effects of this technology as the standard was being developed a few years ago. The results are presented in this month’s Tech Topics column elsewhere in the Journal.
The bottom line is that ARRL negotiated notches in the radiated spectrum, which correspond to the ham bands. They have done nothing and cannot be expected to do anything in those parts of the spectrum used exclusively for sw broadcast. The standard developers also stood to gain from being cooperative because just as they will interfere with ham radio receivers, ham transmitters have the potential to also mess up power line communications. Avoiding the ham bands makes sense to the developers of this standard as a way to minimize ingress of unwanted interference.
If this system is widely deployed, it will likely end shortwave broadcasting reception in the USA. Because ARRL has their own spear to carry into this battle, it is essential that every member of naswa submit comments that state our case. You can submit written comments via us Post as mentioned in Paul’s musing or electronically. The Tech Topics article explains how to submit your comments electronically.
I believe we should not emphasize the hobby aspect of what we do. Inconveniencing a few thousand hobbyists will carry little weight with the FCC commissioners when compared to opening another way for millions of us households to access competitive broadband Internet services.
In my comments to the FCC I plan to emphasize the right of free people to access information from all over the world without the biases or diluting effects of intermediaries. If I want to listen to the news as seen by the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, that is my right in a free society. If I want to listen via shortwave radio, that is also my right. Nobody should be forced to pay for something they can legally get free.
The possible deployment of this technology would not be in the interest of the people of the USA because tests performed by ARRL and the developers of the HomePlug standard have already proven there will be devastating effects on access to international radio broadcasts.
There are many examples of governments prohibiting their citizens from listening to foreign broadcasts throughout history. Nazi Germany and the Stalinist ussr are two examples that leap to mind. Today many Asian countries prohibit their citizens from using satellite TV antennas to access outside viewpoints and information. The USA prides itself as being an example to the world of how a free society must, if it is to remain free, encourage free access to the written and spoken word. Unfortunately, the FCC, if it adopts a technology that limits our access to foreign radio broadcasts, will be cutting off access to information just as surely as Hitler, Stalin and Saddam did to their subjects.
Sure, it may be argued that inexpensive broadband Internet access will provide infinitely more access to information including print, audio, and even interactive video formats. In response I maintain that a free people should not be forced by their government to pay to access information that is today available for free on the international radio bands. This approach will place an unfair economic disadvantage on the poorer economic classes ensuring the widening gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” will continue to grow.
The greatest impact will be on the people who can least afford to pay for broadband access of any kind.
Now it’s your turn. Use your own words; make your own points. Be polite, logical and unemotional as Paul suggests. As the guy who ran Radio Moscow’s Moscow Mailbag said many times, “You can’t do better than to write us that letter.” Write your letter to the FCC or submit your electronic comments and do it by June 15 [deadline since extended to July 7 -Ed.].
Joe Buch
Jeff White, President National Association of Shortwave Broadcasters, radiomiami9@cs.com, 10400 NW 240th Street, Okeechobee, FL 34972
We wish to inform you and your readers of a potentially disastrous Notice of Inquiry (NOI) currently being undertaken by the Federal Communications Commission. This NOI deals with Broadband Internet Service over Power Lines, or BPL. The Press Release for this noi can be found at the following url: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-A1.doc.
The actual NOI can be found at this url: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-100A1.doc.
This BPL system will operate by injecting a broadband signal on power lines within a person’s home in the frequency ranges of 2-30 MHz. These are broad-spectrum signals that will effectively make the wiring in a person’s home a noise generator throughout the HF broadcast spectrum. Noise from power lines is bad enough as it is–adding this to the existing background noise could make the hf bands totally useless from a listener’s standpoint.
Similar systems are being implemented in Europe, with disastrous results (See http://www.powerline-plc.info/video). Japan last year totally rejected BPL as a method of Internet distribution because of its disastrous effects on the HF bands.
I would urge your readers to research these sites, and write to the FCC in response to this NOI. Make the FCC aware that there are shortwave enthusiasts in the United States that are opposed to any system that would further degrade the quality of their hobby–shortwave listening.
When writing a response, an original and four copies should be sent to:
Commissioner’s Secretary
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
If possible, responses should be received by the FCC by June 13, 2003 [deadline since extended to July 7 -Ed.]. Thank you for allowing us to make this issue known to all shortwave enthusiasts.
Sincerely, Jeff White