ARRL Files Objection to Ambient's BPL Experimental Authorization Renewal:

On July 25, the ARRL filed an Informal Objection to Ambient Corporation's request for a renewal of their nationwide experimental authorization that allows them to operate broadband over power line (BPL) operations anywhere in the country they choose. Ambient has been operating its BPL equipment under experimental authorizations for more than five years, an unusual amount of time for an experimental authorization. An Informal Objection is the procedure dictated by the FCC's Part 5 rules protesting the renewal of an experimental authorization. Currently, Ambient operates a BPL system in Briarcliff Manor in Westchester County, New York. Other installations have apparently been shut down by Ambient.

Ambient has been using experimental authorization WD2XEQ, issued in 2005, and its predecessor WB9XQT, issued on June 24, 2002. WB9XQT covered the BPL operation in Briarcliff Manor. It was replaced by WD2XEQ on July 28, 2003, a two-year authorization that was twice extended, most recently through August 1, 2007.

The ARRL states in its Objection that "since the issuance of the first experimental authorization, rules have been enacted for the regular Part 15 operation of BPL systems and there is nothing that has been filed by Ambient which could justify the continuation of experimental operation of this system rather than operation pursuant to the Commission's rules governing virtually all other BPL systems."

The ARRL filed complaints against Ambient and its BPL operation in Briarcliff Manor on October 12, 2004; December 17, 2004; January 7, 2005; March 17, 2005; January 6, 2006; March 29, 2006 and May 31, 2007. The Objection said that each complaint reported "ongoing, harmful interference caused by the unlawful operation of Ambient's BPL project at Briarcliff Manor in violation of the terms of the experimental authorization." These complaints, supported both by documentation by amateurs as well as tests made by ARRL staff, concluded that "this facility was, and now still is, causing harmful interference to Amateur Radio stations. As such, it is in violation of the terms of the experimental authorization."

The terms of Ambient's experimental authorization require that if "any interference" results from its operation, the holder of the authorization will be subject to immediate shutdown. The ARRL stipulates that harmful interference has repeatedly occurred, and such interference has even been witnessed and verified by a member of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau staff, yet the FCC has failed to take any action against Ambient in response to any of these complaints. The ARRL continued: "[i]t would be unconscionable for the Commission to further renew this experimental authorization in the face of these unresolved complaints of interference."

The ARRL does praise the FCC in the Objection, however, for "finally, after years of inaction, commencing an enforcement proceeding" against Ambient's operation in New York (Enforcement Bureau file number EB-06-SE-083). This proceeding is still under investigation, "making renewal of this experimental authorization completely inappropriate."

The Objection further states that the FCC's rules provide that "an experimental authorization will not be granted for a period longer than that which is required for completion of the experimental project." There is nothing offered in Ambient's pending renewal application that would justify the extension of the experimental authorization beyond the five years that it has been authorized to operate. Ambient's extension application offers "no justification whatsoever" for a sixth or seventh year of experimental BPL operation.

By mandating that Ambient operate in accordance with the with the "long-ago-enacted BPL rules rather than allowing it to hide behind an experimental authorization," Ambient would at least be subject to the FCC's regulatory plan for BPL, "however inadequate that plan is in terms of interference avoidance," the ARRL said in its Objection. If forced to comply with the Part 15 rules, as other BPL systems must do, "perhaps at least some of the abundance of unresolved and unaddressed interference problems caused by Ambient would be reduced."

ARRL's Objection included a copy of a July 13, 2007 letter from the Chairman of the Public Safety and Security Committee of the Westchester County Board of Legislators, William E. Burton. In the letter, Burton identifies a number of ongoing concerns related to the interference potential of the Briarcliff Manor BPL system. He goes on to say he is concerned...to have recently learned that Ambient may be planning to request a renewal of its experimental program without making vitally important improvements in its technology...[and] there is no assurance that Ambient may not 'turn up the power' and again exceed emissions levels causing interference again after a license renewal."

Burton noted that at a committee meeting held March 5, 2007, "the representative from [Ambient BPL system sponsor] Consolidated Edison agreed to work with the ARRL to resolve the communications interference problems. That cooperation has yet to take place."

Burton's letter continued: "I am thus requesting that the FCC not renew the experimental Briarcliff Manor BPL license until my concerns about harmful interference are adequately addressed....The Commission should require that Consolidated Edison and Ambient cooperate with the ARRL and its BPL technical experts forthwith....By not renewing the Ambient experimental license until all these concerns are addressed, the FCC can make it clear that complaints concerning harmful interference are taken seriously."

The ARRL summed up the Objection by "respectfully requesting that the Commission deny or dismiss" Ambient's pending application for renewal or extension of its experimental authorization for Briarcliff Manor "and in other locations in the United States where it may be operating BPL systems."

The ARRL's Informal Objection can be read in its entirety on the ARRL Web site http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/Ambient_Informal_Objection2007july25.pdf

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 26, No. 31 August 3, 2007

Member Comments: