Technical Topics, March 2004
FCC To Issue Proposed BPL Rules
On February 12 the FCC voted unanimously to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to eventually allow full-scale deployment of BPL in the United States. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the FCC has apparently heard the outcry of users of the short-wave spectrum and has proposed procedures to mitigate interference.
In spite of warnings expressed by entities like FEMA, NTIA, ARRL, NASWA and thousands of individuals, the FCC cheerleaders for BPL technology have decided to charge ahead. Instead of proposing a reduction in Part 15 limits as NASWA requested in its comments, the FCC is proposing to leave the unintentional radiation restrictions as they currently are. The FCC instead proposes placing the burden on licensed services to take action when they experience interference. The good news is that they did not propose to raise the limits at this time as some BPL advocates desired.
The ARRL, which represents the interests of hams, quoted their CEO, Dave Sumner, in their weekly newsletter, “…the Commission’s own presentation and the individual FCC members` comments demonstrated to him that the NPRM should have cut the permissible emission limits under Part 15. The Commission clearly recognized that the existing Part 15 emission limits are inadequate to stop interference, Sumner said, but it is placing the burden of interference mitigation on the licensed user that is supposed to be protected. Sumner said that if the FCC really believed current Part 15 emission limits were sufficient, it would not have had to require that BPL providers institute interference mitigation procedures and systems.”
The FCC is proposing procedures to ensure that they cannot be accused of totally ignoring the earlier warnings by over 5000 responders to their earlier inquiry. The FCC is proposing that persons and agencies that experience interference shall have the burden of identifying the interference as BPL, finding out where that interference should be reported, reporting it, convincing the BPL providers it is their problem to fix, and possibly living with the problem while the process unfolds.
Here is what the FCC is proposing to minimize the impact of BPL on licensed services:
- Proposes rules requiring BPL devices to employ adaptive interference mitigation techniques to prevent harmful interference to existing users, such as public safety and amateur radio operators. These techniques would enable BPL devices to cease operations altogether, dynamically reduce transmit power, and/or avoid operating on specific frequencies to prevent harmful interference;
- Proposes developing a public database that would include such information as location, operational frequencies, and modulation type of BPL devices, which will facilitate the resolution of interference issues in a timely fashion;
- Seeks comment on specific RF measurement guidelines for BPL devices and other carrier current systems. These guidelines will ensure that emission measurements for these systems are made in a consistent manner.
The BPL industry actually wanted Part 15 emission limits raised in order to use higher power transmitters that would require fewer repeaters along the power line. Fewer repeaters mean lower installation cost and a higher probability that BPL can be economically viable.
In a personal statement FCC Chairman Michael Powell said, “I am confident that the proposals we adopt today balance the potential benefits of BPL services and give careful consideration of the potential interference from BPL operations by establishing new requirements that will help minimize harmful interference that may occur and guidelines for measurement of radio frequency (RF) emissions from carrier current systems.”
Each of the individual FCC commissioners also weighed in with statements of support and caution. Here is what each said about the interference issue:
Commissioner, Kathleen Q. Abernathy, who has previously been quoted in this column as an unabashed supporter of BPL, “One of the key issues in this proceeding is the potential for harmful interference by BPL systems to licensed spectrum users. Based on the record, it is appropriate that we are proceeding cautiously. I support our tentative conclusion to craft technical rules that minimize the potential for harmful interference to existing licensees and also ensure that any instances of interference are quickly resolved. I look forward to reviewing the comments on these technical proposals and am hopeful that we will be able to develop rules that protect existing licensees from harmful interference, while enabling a promising new technology to move forward.”
Commissioner Michael J. Copps said, “…I strongly support the technical inquiries and proposals we make today. We need to set the technological rules of the game early and transparently, so that the entrepreneurs in this industry can make investments with confidence. As regards interference, I believe we make another step in that direction today, so I’m happy to support the technical side of our item.” That quote is not very clear but I think he was saying he believes they are addressing the potential interference issue by proposing procedures to be used when interference occurs.
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin in his statement said, “In this proceeding, we are considering how to facilitate deployment of BPL while ensuring that existing users are protected against interference. Most importantly, NTIA and FEMA have raised concerns about interference to Government operations, including some emergency communications. In addition, many amateur operators fear that they will experience unacceptable interference from BPL systems. I take these concerns very seriously. I am optimistic, however, that we can craft rules that will fully address these concerns and still allow BPL to flourish. I thus look forward to receiving comments in this proceeding.”
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein in his statement said, “…I am encouraged by some of the proposals set forth in the NPRM to ensure that BPL systems do not cause harmful interference to existing services.” He went on to say, “While we must be mindful of harmful interference, we cannot let unsupported claims stand in the way of such an innovation as BPL systems. Provided that the engineering bears out, I believe that we need to push the boundaries to accommodate new technologies. A little noticed provision of the Communications Act, Section 157, reads that ‘It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public.’ I am fully committed to that mission to promote new technologies, and to provide a framework for innovation so they can succeed. In order to do so, we must first resolve the technical interference issues addressed in this NPRM.”
So it is plain that all the FCC commissioners and the Chairman believe they are simply responding to the will of Congress by promoting this new technology. Note too that although they mention the interference potential to government and amateur radio communications, there is no mention of the rights or interests of those who choose to get their news and information about other cultures via short-wave radio.
Although NASWA did its best to lay out the issues affecting short-wave listeners, our lone voice, and that of a few other individuals, was lost in the noise of more than 5000 radio amateurs who made a strong impression with their concerns. I only saw comments from a few SWLs in the more than 5100 comments filed previously. We must do better this time around.
SWLs now have another opportunity to get their message across. You cannot leave this ball for somebody else to carry. Study the proposed rules when they are eventually issued. The FCC electronic filing system is easy to learn and use. You can file your comments at:
Formulate your comments and submit them to the Commission. NASWA will likely submit additional comments on the NPRM but it is obvious that there is strength in numbers so you must also do your part.
A free flow of information is essential to the preservation of a free society. As citizens of a free society we have a right and an obligation to inform ourselves about the world around us. Many NASWA members choose to learn about other cultures and international news through the reports and programs of foreign broadcasters. We do not depend on the often agenda-driven reports of domestic media to inform ourselves about the outside world. Make sure the FCC knows that you believe that as a free society, free access to foreign broadcasts via short-wave radio must be preserved as a protected, licensed service. Make sure the FCC understands that the government should not be in the business of forcing US citizens to go to the Internet for news and information that today is available freely on short-wave radio. Force the FCC to address how non-technical people who simply know how to turn on and off their receivers can be expected to identify BPL interference from other sources of electromagnetic noise.
While our technical problem is similar to that of amateur radio operators, in several ways our problem is more difficult. We often use portable receivers inside the house. Our whip antennas are very close to the house power wiring. Therefore, the amount of BPL signal we receive with such a setup can be much stronger than what an amateur radio operator will receive with a good outside antenna far away from the power line.
It is not too late to put forth a strong position. The comment window will begin with publication of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register.
I will be making a presentation on BPL at the Winter SWL Fest in Kulpsville, PA on Friday March 12. As a part of that presentation I will be playing a tape, made by the American Radio Relay League. The tape demonstrates what BPL sounds like. It also shows the ARRL interference guru, Ed Hare, driving under power lines carrying BPL signals. The tape was made in two locations, each using a different type of BPL modulation. You will learn how to recognize a BPL signal when you hear it and you will learn just how awful BPL will sound on your radio.
The FCC has posted the promised Notice of Proposed Rule Making for BPL on their web site. We will have 45 days to comment after the clock begins ticking with the publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register.
You can download the 38 page document in MS Word format from the FCC web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-29A1.doc.
The document contains instructions for filing comments both electronically and via the US postal service. Even the paper submissions must be accompanied by the same information in MS Word or a compatible format on a 3.5 inch floppy disk.
The FCC is not proposing to relax the Part 15 limits as many BPL proponents requested. That’s the good news. The bad news is the FCC admits BPL will interfere with HF communications and expects persons encountering interference to be able to identify it as BPL interference and places the burden on the party being interfered with to bring it to the attention of the BPL operator and be able to convince them that their system is causing the interference. That is a bit much to expect of non-technical people who only know how to tune their radios to a predetermined frequency and adjust the volume. I submit this description applies to the large majority of short-wave listeners although possibly not a majority of NASWA members.
NASWA will likely file comments on behalf of those of us who choose to listen to foreign broadcasts for our news and cultural information about other countries. NASWA’s comments will likely address the basic problems associated with non-technical people correctly being able to identify BPL interference when they hear it. Comments will also address the fact that many who use shortwave radio to keep up with news from their home country are often not fluent in the English language and would in many cases not be capable of communicating with BPL operators when interference is encountered.
Comments from individuals are needed to let the FCC understand there still are lots of folks out there who choose to listen to HF broadcasts. The FCC is under the impression that only hams are raising hell about BPL. There were over 5000 inputs from hams to the initial inquiry. You can’t do better than to write that letter (thanks to Joe A. for that phrase).
Short-wave broadcasters need no additional excuses to terminate short-wave broadcasting directed to North America. Widespread BPL deployment could provide that excuse as cash-strapped bureaucrats look to maximize the effectiveness of their broadcast budgets. Stay tuned.