Technical Topics, December 2004
FCC Publishes BPL Report and Order
That thud you just heard was the other shoe dropping. An anonymous wag once said, “The devil is in the details.” After reviewing the FCC’s Report and Order on BPL, it is clear that the devil is alive and well and living at the FCC.
NASWA, individual shortwave listeners and radio amateurs for that matter had most of their BPL comments ignored or rejected by the FCC. About the best thing that can be said is that the FCC did acknowledge international broadcasting as a licensed service and at least did read NASWA’s comments. On a positive note, the FCC will move ahead with a national database of BPL operators with interference complaint contact points by telephone and e-mail. BPL operators are required to notch certain frequencies to mitigate harmful interference and as a last resort to shut down equipment causing interference. Beyond that there is little good news.
The FCC acknowledged NASWA’s request for protection of shortwave broadcasting along with many others requesting similar protection. FCC says in their report, “Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) and the Boeing Company (Boeing) request that Access BPL not be permitted to operate in the frequency bands that are used by the aeronautical radio service. The North American Short Wave Association (NASWA) requests that we protect international broadcasting services in the 5.9–26.1 MHz frequency range. Shipcom LLC (Shipcom), which operates several Maritime Public Coast (MPC) stations on frequencies in the 2–25 MHz range, submits that its facilities would be especially susceptible to BPL interference because the receiving antennas of its stations are mounted very high. To avoid such interference, it requests that we establish BPL-free zones around MPC stations. Bell South Corporation (Bell South) and Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon) are concerned that Access BPL could cause harmful interference with telephone network and DSL services because power lines are parallel to telephone wires, which are also unshielded, and so could receive harmful interference. Alan Dixon is concerned the BPL could cause harmful interference to Citizen’s Band (CB) radio service on 27 MHz frequencies.”
“The Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV) urges the Commission to limit Access BPL to frequencies below 50 MHz, and avoid operations in the low VHF TV band. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) is concerned that BPL operations could cause harmful interference to low VHF band DTV stations (channels 2–6) because the service threshold for those channels is just 28 dBµ, or 25.1 µV/m. It therefore submits that low band VHF DTV stations will not be able to serve viewers if Access BPL is allowed to operate on frequencies up to 80 MHz, and that even limiting BPL to a maximum of 50 MHz might not be satisfactory because of the likely generation of harmonics in BPL equipment. SBE further submits that BPL operations could interfere with Broadcast Auxiliary service (BAS) remote pickup stations and low power auxiliary stations operating on frequencies between 25.85 and 26.48 MHz. In addition, SBE expresses concern that BPL operations could adversely affect Emergency Alert System (EAS) transmissions by AM radio stations at 535 to 1705 kHz, by EAS Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations on frequencies between 2–20 MHz, and by low band VHF EAS stations in the 39.48 MHz (California) and 44.43 MHz (Illinois) bands. The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council’s Committee on Radio Frequency (NAS/CORF) submits that radio astronomy allocations in the HF and low VHF regions need to be protected from Access BPL operations.”
NASWA made the case that international radio regulations required the FCC to protect international broadcasts from harmful interference. International Radio Regulations have defined harmful interference and the FCC has adopted that definition into its own regulations (47CFR2.1), “Harmful Interference: Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radio communication service operating in accordance with these [international] Radio Regulations.” The FCC has literally applied this definition in reacting to all these requests for protection. If your shortwave reception is just noisy and not fun to listen to, the FCC will likely reject any interference complaint if it does not “seriously degrade” or “interrupt” reception. The FCC reserves to itself the right to determine what is harmful.
Only public safety and radio astronomy services will receive specific frequency or geographic exclusion zone protection. Even amateur radio will not receive any specific protection although the ARRL and many radio amateurs pointed out in their comments that hams often provide the only surviving form of communication in the aftermath of disasters. In response to the ARRL’s arguments, the FCC said, “We similarly do not find that amateur radio frequencies warrant the special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international aeronautical and maritime safety operations. We note that in many instances amateur frequencies are used for routine communications and hobby activities. While we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing emergency communications, we believe that the general Part 15 provisions and the specific provisions being adopted herein for Access BPL operations are sufficient to protect these amateur operations.” Thus it is clear that NASWA has no chance of convincing the FCC that international broadcast frequencies should be afforded special protection.
NASWA never requested protection of frequencies not used to target North America. It was clear from the beginning that DXing Nibi-Nibi on tropical band frequencies was a hobby largely without redeeming social value at least in the eyes of the FCC. In view of the Commission’s reluctance to even protect major broadcasters targeting North America, it is obvious requesting such protection for the tropical band domestic broadcasters would have been a waste of time.
NASWA attempted in its comments to point out to the FCC that while the process they have devised for mitigating interference could possibly work for government and commercial licensees, it was too complex to expect casual shortwave listeners to identify BPL interference, access the national data base, and make contact with appropriate BPL personnel and then negotiate mitigation of their interference. The FCC dismissed those comments with the unfounded assertion that their mitigation procedure will work. This assertion allows the FCC to charge ahead with plans for deployment. If it is later proven that NASWA was right, it will be too late to do anything about it.
NASWA member Tracy Wood suggested in his own FCC comments that some means of identifying BPL signals must be built into BPL transmitters, “Anthony Good, Boeing, and Tracy K. Wood recommend that we require Access BPL devices to incorporate ‘marker beacons’ that carry identifying data for use in tracing interference. Boeing states that absent such markers, there is no way for aeronautical operators to identify the source of Access BPL signals.” The FCC then said, “We also decline to adopt a rule requiring transmission of identification codes. As NTIA states, such codes could increase the potential for interference from Access BPL operations. We also do not believe that it would be practicable for ARINC or any other operator to identify an Access BPL system as the source of interference and contact its operator on a real time basis to resolve the interference. As NTIA indicates in its letter of September 24, 2004, no practical method has been identified for Access BPL systems to transmit an identifying code. We believe that the Access BPL notification requirements, as described below, will provide sufficient information to locate and mitigate interference.” Nice try Tracy and thanks for your effort.
Recognizing that shortwave listeners and shortwave broadcasters often change frequencies as hourly, daily and seasonal variations in the ionosphere cause propagation shifts, NASWA requested the FCC to require quick response to interference complaints. Ten minutes was suggested as a reasonable response time. NASWA also made a case for the fact that shortwave listeners were often not fluent in the English language. They listen to shortwave radio to hear programs in their native language. NASWA requested that contact operators be fluent in all major languages to facilitate such persons reporting interference. The FCC chose to only mandate response times of less than 24 hours to public safety communicators. They refused to impose any multilingual requirement on BPL contact points.
The FCC said, “ARRL, ARINC and others assert that Access BPL operators should be required to provide points of contact fluent in all major languages that are reachable 24 hours a day/seven days a week in order to allow parties using international broadcast services to report interference complaints.”
One BPL proponent objected, “Southern, in its reply comments, objects to a requirement to have multilingual employees so that BPL operators could address interference complaints from non-English speaking shortwave radio listeners. It states that such a requirement is unreasonable and would place it and other BPL providers at a disadvantage to other communications service providers.”
The FCC again weighed in on the side of the BPL providers, “We therefore are adopting rules that will require the BPL industry to establish within 180 days from publication of this item in the Federal Register a centralized publicly accessible Access BPL notification database.”
That’s the good news. The FCC went on, “We also are not requiring Access BPL operators to have multi-lingual contact persons. We believe that requiring both telephone and e-mail contact information is sufficient to address interference inquiries. We are also not requiring that telephone contact positions be staffed 24 hours per day and seven days a week. We believe that our emission requirements and other mitigation rules will ensure that interference is generally avoided. We believe that telephone contact staffing during normal business hours is sufficient and also note that e-mail would generally allow interference reports to be filed at any time.”
“We expect both parties to cooperate to determine a mutually acceptable schedule to diagnose and resolve the interference complaint, recognizing that the Access BPL operator may have to prioritize any complaints of interference that it receives (e.g. from a public safety agency). With regard to public safety operations, however, we will require that the BPL operator respond to complaints of harmful interference from public safety users within 24 hours; the BPL provider shall be required to immediately cease the operations causing the public safety complaint if it fails to respond to such complaint within 24 hours. Any complaints of interference that are not resolved in accordance with the mutually agreed schedule may be filed with the Commission along with the particulars of the interference case. Upon receipt of the interference complaint, the Commission will investigate the complaint and take action against the Access BPL operator if it is found to be causing harmful interference. If, on the other hand the Commission uses its resources to investigate an interference complaint that is found to be frivolous, the Commission will impose appropriate sanctions for abuse of its administrative process.”
I have seen an Internet posting by one active shortwave listener that implied he would just overload the system with spurious interference complaints. I hope he does not try it. As noted above, the FCC may impose fines for abuse of the system. Secondly, if shortwave listeners get a reputation as whackos whose reports cannot be trusted, we will soon all lose any credibility as our complaints are shuffled to the bottom of the FCC’s “to-do” box.
In its reply comments NASWA noted that nearly all of those who commented had requested special protection for their service. NASWA suggested that the FCC adopt an approach that would satisfy most of the responders by forcing BPL to use vacant VHF TV channels. NASWA noted that in every market there are such vacant channels available as a result of the 1945 allocations. NASWA noted that modern TV receivers have much less susceptibility to adjacent channel interference than the 1945 designs. The FCC did not take NASWA’s suggestion but did comment in response to a couple of broadcaster comments requesting that BPL not be allowed on TV channels 2 through 6. The FCC said, “We do not believe that Access BPL presents a serious threat of interference to broadcast television service on channels 2 to 6. We note that in many instances all low VHF TV channels are not used within a particular area and those not in use for television service could be used for Access BPL operations without causing harmful interference to TV reception. In this regard, we also note that the effective Part 15 limit for Access BPL is more stringent for frequencies above 30 MHz than it is for frequencies below 30 MHz and that propagation losses are also more significant higher in the spectrum. We therefore do not find that special protections for broadcast television service are warranted.”
Where do we go from here? As noted last month, the Communications Act mandates the FCC to encourage the deployment of new broadband technology. The Act places the burden of proof on objectors to new technology to show the new technology would not be in the public interest. Maybe a case could be made that such proof was offered and ignored by the Commission. NASWA could file a petition for reconsideration. Such a petition would be a precursor to taking the FCC to court. Even such a petition would cost money because electronic filing is not permitted. In view of the low win probability further petitions or legal action by NASWA are not warranted. I do not have the energy and NASWA does not have the money to pursue this battle through the court system. Maybe ARRL will and if so I encourage you to support them.
Our best approach will likely be to refine technical methods to minimize power line coupling. Active antennas positioned to minimize BPL pickup may become the norm. Operating your radio on battery power, isolated from the electric mains may also help. Phasing techniques used by broadcast band DXers might also be adaptable. Sample a nice strong BPL signal; attenuate it and phase shift it; then couple it into your receiver with just the right phase and amplitude to cancel the BPL signal received by your antenna. That might work. I say it “might work” because the radiation from the power line will cause a smearing of the signal arrival time of the BPL signal at your antenna. Deeps nulls may, therefore, not be possible. It seems like such techniques are the only answers short of moving to Nibi-Nibi. Stay tuned.