Technical Topics, November 2004
FCC Approves BPL Rules
On October 14, 2004 the FCC voted unanimously to issue rules to govern the deployment and operation of broadband power line (BPL) transmission systems. Even though those rules are as yet to be finalized and published, the FCC plunged ahead in their relentless campaign to see to it that BPL is given a firm nudge by the government in spite of many demonstrations that BPL technology will disrupt reception of shortwave broadcasting and amateur radio services.
The FCC said to their engineering folks that they trusted the final rules would provide a viable mechanism for resolving interference complaints from radio amateurs. Nothing was said about protecting the rights of citizens and visitors to access foreign broadcasts beamed to the USA.
We haven’t seen a railroad operation like this since the great golden spike was plunged into the sands of Utah a century and a half ago. The FCC cheerleaders were not deterred by over six thousand comments filed in opposition to the concept.
In fairness to the FCC commissioners and staff, the FCC is responding to the will of Congress as expressed in a modification to the Communications Act of 1934. In that amendment the Congress mandated that:
“SEC. 7. [47 U.S.C. 157]
NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES.
(a) It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or party (other than the Commission) who opposes a new technology or service proposed to be permitted under this Act shall have the burden to demonstrate that such proposal is inconsistent with the public interest.
(b) The Commission shall determine whether any new technology or service proposed in a petition or application is in the public interest within one year after such petition or application is filed. If the Commission initiates its own proceeding for a new technology or service, such proceeding shall be completed within 12 months after it is initiated.”
So the FCC is, in their own collective mind, simply lurching in the direction your elected representatives shoved them.
Each of the commissioners issued a personal statement with their vote on October 14. Only one commissioner had any real reservation and that concerned whether the utility companies would burden the electricity customers to finance their foray into broadband telecommunications under the pretext that the BPL technology would be useful for the utilities to determine where the source of an outage was located.
Under every black cloud there is a silver lining and this ruling is no exception. The FCC will include in its rules a requirement that each BPL system be certified to comply with Part 15 emission limits. The BPL industry fought certification and the idea of a central database that would list who was operating the BPL system in each geographic area and provide contact information. They fought this idea on security grounds, claiming that it would reveal too much about the power distribution and BPL architecture infrastructure making it and the electric grid vulnerable to sabotage. The industry lost on this one. A central database will be a part of the rules. The FCC also indicated they wanted a mechanism to deal swiftly with interference complaints. The devil is in the details, however, and as of the cutoff date for this column, those rules have still not been made public.
Anh Wride of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), said that Access BPL devices “pose a somewhat higher potential for interference to licensed radio services than typical Part 15 devices.” That is an understatement to say the least. But, Wride continued, “We believe the specific benefits of BPL warrant acceptance of a small degree of additional risk, and that this interference potential can be satisfactorily managed.” Time will tell if this expectation can be realized in practice.
In the FCC’s press release they listed the primary features of the new rules:
- Sets forth rules imposing new technical requirements on BPL devices, such as the capability to avoid using any specific frequency and to remotely adjust or shut down any unit;
- Establishes “excluded frequency bands” within which BPL must avoid operating entirely to protect aeronautical and aircraft receivers communications; and establishes “exclusion zones” in locations close to sensitive operations, such as coast guard or radio astronomy stations, within which BPL must avoid operating on certain frequencies;
- Establishes consultation requirements with public safety agencies, federal government sensitive stations, and aeronautical stations.
- Establishes a publicly available Access BPL notification database to facilitate an organized approach to identification and resolution of harmful interference.
- Changes the equipment authorization for Access BPL systems from verification to certification; and improves measurement procedures for all equipment that use RF energy to communicate over power lines.
Commissioner Michael Copps, speaking of the possibility of interference to radio amateurs said, “I take the concerns of this community very seriously and believe that the FCC has an obligation to work hard to monitor, investigate and take quick action, where appropriate, to resolve harmful interference.” No equivalent concern for the rights of the other civilian users of the shortwave spectrum such as broadcast listeners was publicly stated.
FCC Chairman, Michael Powell and Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy cut to the chase with this comment, “…ubiquitous broadband deployment is important to the economic, educational, social, medical, and cultural welfare of the country. In order to achieve this goal, national policies should facilitate rapid deployment of all broadband technologies, including BPL. Policymakers at all levels should coordinate their efforts to promote a minimally intrusive policy framework for such technologies.” In a joint statement with Commissioner Abernathy he said, “Because BPL is a nascent technology and the broadband market has no dominant incumbent service provider, only minimal regulations are appropriate. However, this does not mean that we have not been cognizant of the need to protect existing licensed services from interference. To address this issue, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) has done thorough testing of BPL systems to ensure the rules we are adopting protect existing governmental uses, amateur radio operators, and other licensees from interference. We have also closely coordinated with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to make sure that their concerns have been addressed. We believe the new requirements we are imposing will help minimize harmful interference that may occur and, to the extent any harmful interference does occur, to quickly resolve any issues.”
Commissioner Michael Copps said, “This is a market desperate for more competition. We all know by now that our country is now number 11 in broadband penetration. That’s pretty hard to take. …when we consider that consumers in other countries are getting magnitudes more of capacity at prices far lower than we are getting, it’s time to get concerned. I’m not arguing that every country has the same broadband market, but consider that in countries like Japan, Korea and Canada, consumers get much more bang for their buck-like 8,000-10,000 kilobits for $10-$15 a month. Should we be surprised that consumers in those countries are signing up in droves?
“I’m not alone in my concern. Business Week recently called our country a ‘broadband backwater.’ Its article concluded: ‘If the U.S. is not to lose out in the global race of the next-generation Internet and the new businesses it can spawn, change is needed.’ I agree.”
Commissioner Copps went on to say, “So we can certainly use the innovation and new competition BPL may bring, and I am happy to support the vast majority of this item. But I do have some worries that I want to note.
“I remain concerned with the question of interference to amateur radio users. I take the concerns of this community very seriously, and believe that the FCC has an obligation to work hard to monitor, investigate, and take quick action where appropriate to resolve harmful interference. If interference occurs, we must have a system in place to resolve it immediately. If an amateur radio user makes a complaint and an agreement between the BPL provider and the amateur radio user cannot be reached, the FCC should step in and resolve the matter. These cases must not take years to resolve.”
So again the amateur radio community through the well-funded and well-reasoned efforts of the ARRL has made a significant impression on the commissioners. Fortunately, the rules the FCC adopts to mitigate interference to amateur radio operators will potentially be useful by shortwave broadcast listeners. Time will tell whether or not the actual rules, when published, will address whether listeners to ITU authorized broadcast frequencies will be afforded the same interference protection rights as amateur radio operators.
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin said, “Working closely with NTIA, we have taken strides to address interference concerns of both Government and private users. Nevertheless, I recognize that Amateur radio operators still have concerns that they will experience interference from BPL systems. In addition, broadcasters are concerned that BPL systems will cause interference in the low VHF band. I take these concerns–as well as the other concerns expressed about BPL systems causing interference–very seriously. I am confident that the Commission will continue to monitor these concerns and will take steps, where needed, to address interference problems going forward.”
Lets hope that his reference to “private users” includes shortwave listeners. We should know once the actual rules are released. It is an ominous sign that Commissioner Martin referred to broadcasters being concerned with interference to “low band VHF”, a probable reference to the NAB’s comments about interference to TV channels 2 through 5. He neglected to mention concerns of domestic shortwave broadcasters and shortwave listeners to foreign broadcasters.
Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, said the interference question made the proceeding a challenging one because it had to accommodate concerns raised by public safety licensees, federal government users and amateur radio operators. “These are important services that we need to protect from harmful interference,” Adelstein said. By implication, in the absence of any comment, shortwave broadcasting is not an important service and thus does not need protection from harmful interference. He further noted that some BPL systems have a higher demonstrated incidence of interference and such systems should not be deployed commercially until they can be demonstrated not to cause harmful interference.
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein said, “It is clear that some Access BPL systems can co-exist very well with existing licensees in the HF and VHF bands. In the limited cases of increased interference, the Access BPL operators were able to quickly resolve and address the interference problem. Other Access BPL systems, though, have not fared so well, and these systems should not be deployed on a commercial basis if they will continue to result in harmful interference. We have put in place on Access BPL some special rules that are not normally required of Part 15 operators. However, I believe that these restrictions and requirements, such as adaptive frequency selection, remote shut down control, and a publicly available Access BPL database, are critical to providing an operational environment that safeguards existing licensees from harmful interference. I am also pleased to support our specific requirement for Access BPL providers to promptly respond to complaints of harmful interference from public safety licensees. Access BPL can work side by side with existing licensees provided that Access BPL operators respond appropriately to harmful interference concerns. I encourage all affected parties to work together in a cooperative manner to address legitimate complaints of harmful interference in a timely manner.”
So there you have it. We have come a long way since April 2003 when the FCC first announced this rule-making process. From an initial position of unbridled enthusiasm for BPL the FCC now acknowledges that some BPL systems and technologies will cause interference to other users of the HF spectrum. The FCC is going to require that each BPL system demonstrate that it complies with Part 15 emission limits. When harmful interference does occur, the FCC is establishing a database to help us get in contact with the BPL provider to resolve the problem. The FCC is also establishing procedures and time limits for the resolution of confirmed cases of harmful interference.
Still to be defined is the exact definition of what constitutes harmful interference. Is a 1 dB loss of signal to noise ratio on a shortwave broadcast harmful? Not very likely! Will a 20 dB reduction in signal to noise ratio be considered harmful? Not if the signal had an 80 dB signal to noise ratio without BPL being on! Exactly what constitutes harmful interference levels will be a subjective judgment on the part of the listener, the BPL provider’s representative, and possibly an FCC arbiter. It will be interesting to see how this works in practice.
The FCC has been less than speedy in reacting to calls by the ARRL to terminate BPL tests that are today causing what amateur radio operators in Cottonwood, Arizona consider to be harmful levels of interference. Now the engineering group at the FCC is in charge. Will the enforcement wing of the FCC be as slow to react to similar complaints when systems become commercially operational? Time will tell.
The situation reminds me of a humorous saying that went around the aerospace industry a couple of decades ago, “All problems are either to far ahead in time to anticipate, or too close in time to head off or do anything about.”
I expect that the rules will be released before the December issue of the NASWA Journal deadline. I hope to be able to quote in the December issue some lines in the report that reflect the FCC’s consideration of NASWA’s filed comments. Until then stay tuned.