FCC Releases Redacted BPL Case Studies After ARRL FOIA Request:
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 28, No 18
on
May 8, 2009
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
FCC Releases Redacted BPL Case Studies After ARRL FOIA Request:
Earlier this month, the FCC released the redacted portions of the
studies on which they relied with regard to its Broadband over Powerline
(BPL) rulemaking in 2004 after ARRL filed an Freedom of Information Act
request
http://www.arrl.org/news/files/BPL_FOIA_Request033109.pdf on
March 31 for the studies. In October 2007, the US Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit heard ARRL's case against the
Commission
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/10/25/102/, stating,
among other things, that the FCC not only withheld the internal studies
until it was too late to comment, but had yet to release portions of
studies that may not support its own conclusions regarding BPL. The FCC
claimed that the studies were "internal communications" that it did not
rely upon in reaching its decision to adopt the BPL rules. In its April
2008 ruling, the Court ordered the FCC to release the studies
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/04/25/10064/.
In its decision, the Court agreed with the ARRL that the FCC had failed
to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/ by not fully
disclosing for public comment the staff studies on which it relied and
that "there is no APA precedent allowing an agency to cherry-pick a
study on which it has chosen to rely in part." Writing for the
three-judge panel of Circuit Judges Rogers, Tatel and Kavanaugh, Judge
Rogers summarized in the Court's decision that "The Commission failed to
satisfy the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act ('APA') by redacting studies on which it relied in
promulgating the rule and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for
its choice of the extrapolation factor for measuring Access BPL
emissions." The Court concluded that "no precedent sanctions such a
'hide and seek' application of the APA's notice and comment
requirements."
Judge Tatel agreed with Judge Rogers, saying, "[I]n this very case the
Commission redacted individual lines from certain pages on which it
otherwise relied...there is little doubt that the Commission
deliberately attempted to 'exclude [ ] from the record evidence adverse
to its position'"
After almost a year after the Court's decision, the FCC had done
"literally nothing" about releasing the complete studies
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/03/04/10685/. When President
Obama came into office in January 2009, new Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) guidelines
http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/ were put in place.
Using these new guidelines, the ARRL filed an FOIA request on March 31
for the studies. The FCC responded to the FOIA request and released the
unredacted studies the last week of April.
A look at the unredacted studies show that the FCC knew BPL was not a
point source, but these same studies in redacted form show just the
opposite -- information proving BPL was not a point source was deleted.
In one study concerning Main.net's BPL system, the FCC clearly
disregarded information provided by a BPL provider's Chief Technical
Officer, considering the point -- "[i]f distance scaling were based on
distance to the pole ground wire rather than the nearest part of the BPL
system, measurements would have passed with 1 dB margin at the selected
quasi-peak measurement location" -- as "invalid"
http://www.arrl.org/news/files/Redacted1.pdf.
Another unredacted study from 2003 in Allentown, Pennsylvania, plainly
showed that BPL was not a point source, noting: "NOT A POINT SOURCE.
Emissions exhibit no noticeable decay 230 m down from the coupler." In
the redacted version, this information was deleted, but all other
information, including a graph, was left intact
http://www.arrl.org/news/files/Redacted2.pdf.
A study regarding Access BPL showed the same thing, but all information
had been redacted from the file, leaving just a blank page. The
unredacted study concluded that "The tested overhead PLC devices do not
act as point sources. Emission from line shows virtually no decay 230 m
from coupler. Differential two-wire signal injection affects the
polarization of radiated emissions from overhead devices"
http://www.arrl.org/news/files/Redacted3.pdf.
"Comparing the redacted and unredacted documents will take some time,"
ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said, "but these three
sets of pages...show exactly what prompted Judge Tatel to say what he
did. We are continuing to analyze all the documents and we'll see just
what has been going on."
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 28, No. 18
May 8, 2009
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Releases Redacted BPL Case Studies After ARRL FOIA Reque
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 8, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And people say ARRL doesn't do anything....
Who else would have pushed the issue all the way through the courts?
Good work but it's not over yet.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by NN4RH on May 9, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So the ARRL spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years challenging the FCC in court? And this is the tangible result? Was it worth it?
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by AI4NS on May 9, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If it puts the final nail in the coffin of BPL, yes indeed. Allowing the FCC to do what it did only makes them less credible when it comes to technical matters. If they were willing to do this to a system that affects Amateur radio, as well as other for pay licensed services, what else would they be willing to do? "Hope" is not a technical solution. They hoped this would be an answer for the various government desires, mandates, etc for internet access for all.
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by N9XCR on May 9, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
@NN4RH
These are excellent results. The fight against spectrum pollution from poorly designed BPL systems was about far more than defending the RF spectrum. The results we see here send powerful messages. The FCC and executives that would profit from those poorly designed BPL systems are probably incapable of comprehending what has been demonstrated here. It's a victory for more than just Amateur Radio.
Chris
N9XCR
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by NN4RH on May 9, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>These are excellent results.<<<
How's that?
The BPL regulations today are exactly the same as they were before the ARRL sued the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by NN4RH on May 9, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And in the meantime, BPL has become basically a non-problem for hams. This is in large part due to the efforts Ed Hare working with the BPL companies on the technology. It had nothing to do with the expensive ARRL lawsuit against the FCC.
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by W6EM on May 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ron, you're absolutely correct about Ed Hare being the reason that BPL no longer is a serious issue to amateurs.
However, the rest of the HF and low VHF spectrum besides the military segments is still being slammed where BPL is operated.
BPL is dying from its own underwhelming performance, not from anything else.
As was said earlier, even with the release of the redacted commentary, have the rules been changed? No. Has the FCC completed a review or is it even conducting one of the revisions to Part 15 made to accommodate BPL? Nothing being said about that. At least publicly.
|
| |
|
FCC Releases Redacted BPL Case Studies After ARRL FOIA Reque
|
|
|
by N6KB on May 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The ARRL has done a great job here. Yes Ed Hare's work with the BPL vendors has helped. Without the parallel legal efforts to force the FCC to abide by it's own rules, the vendors would have had little incentive to even talk with Ed. It's not over yet. The next logical step will be to have any rules that were made in absence of the "redacted" data reviewed and where necessary changed. BPL may die on it's own due to competition from the myriad better methods available for data communications, so you could claim ARRLs efforts are a waste. But this is about more than just BPL. There are precedents being set here, that will apply to future proposed forms of spectrum pollution.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Releases Redacted BPL Case Studies After A
|
|
|
by KG4TKC on May 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From N6KB,
"There are precedents being set here, that will apply to future proposed forms of spectrum pollution."
I very much agree. In my opinion this extends well past just the FCC,Amateur Radio,ARRL and BPL. It is about all regulatory agencies being upfront and open about the data,findings etc that are used to create and enforce regulations. It took a court case and then a FOIA to finally get the info public. The Federal Judges used terms like 'cherry-picking' and 'hide-and-seek' to describe the FCC's actions. The FCC stalled for a year before complying with a court order. This is just not what we need when it comes to keeping a watchful eye on the workings of ALL the regulatory agencies. All these agencies are very powerful,and have powerful entities watching and trying to influence them. Can you imagine the money and power of the prescription drug cartel looking over the shoulder of the FDA? As a precedent I think this could someday be bigger than what we members of the ARS realize.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Releases Redacted BPL Case Studies After ARRL FOIA R
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The ARRL has done a great job here. Yes Ed Hare's
> work with the BPL vendors has helped. Without the
> parallel legal efforts to force the FCC to abide by
> it's own rules, the vendors would have had little
> incentive to even talk with Ed. It's not over yet.
The incentive was from a broad combination of factors:
o The regulatory pressures brought about by ARRL's positions during the rulemaking
o The continued regulatory uncertainty brought about by the ARRL court case and partial remand
o The strong pressures brought about by active interference problems and publicity.
The latter may have been the strongest incentive of all, as even to this day, when I read the blogs and comments associated with some of the BPL press articles, I see that the spectre of interference still haunts this industry. It made a MAJOR error in trying to fight interference reports instead of fixing them. In the long run, the industry had to fix them, but only after giving that spectre power it never needed to have.
> The next logical step will be to have any rules
> that were made in absence of the "redacted" data
> reviewed and where necessary changed.
At this point, the successful model for BPL has been shown to work; the next logical step would be for all stakeholders to agree that the successful model should be made into equally successful regulations and standards that everyone can support. If BPL avoids locally used spectrum, it can operate without widespread interference problems. In residential neighborhoods, this includes Amateur Radio, CB, shortwave broacast, WWV, etc.
> BPL may die on it's own due to competition from the
> myriad better methods available for data
> communications, so you could claim ARRLs efforts
> are a waste.
BPL's death, and BPL's overtaking the world, have both been predicted since BPL first came on the scene. Neither have been proven true. BPL is continuing to make inroads for Smart Grid applications, although it is far from the only way to accomplish utility systems, nor is it the best. With government subsidy, BPL is making inroads into rural deployments (Google IBM IBEC BPL). BPL is continuing to grow for in-premise applications, mostly using HomePlug technology, but there are other protocols also being used and sold.
> But this is about more than just BPL. There are
> precedents being set here, that will apply to
> future proposed forms of spectrum pollution.
Allowing noise sources that operate at S9+ levels across tens of MHz of spectrum, operating 24 hours a day, put on overhead power lines and building that system as big as an entire state is WITHOUT precedent, and IMHO, with the systems allowed to operate on the ham bands at that level, and actually doing so, fully warranted the actions ARRL had to take. It was the precedent that motivated me to spend at LOT more time than my job required.
The work isn't done; the good practices must be made into good regulations and industry standards.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on May 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> BPL is dying from its own underwhelming
> performance, not from anything else.
Your proclamation of its death is simply not founded:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IBM+IBEC+BPL&rlz=1R2GGIE_en&aq=f&oq=
Can we tell the hams in the four affected states that they don't need to worry now because you have determined that the systems being installed there are "dead?"
http://cable.tmcnet.com/topics/cable/articles/50840-ibm-ibec-establish-bpl-networks-rural-american-customers.htm
Please do at least a simple Google research before making unfounded proclamations. The "BPL is dead" idea is taking on a life of its own, leading to a complacancy that should not yet exist. It has not been the rousing success the industry promised, but it is still making inroads into rural deployments, Smart Grid and in-premise applications. That is ample reason to continue to work on ensuring that its interference aspects are properly addressed.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seriously, I find the "transition" from Doc 1 to Doc 3 to be totally hysterical. My sides hurt from laughing.
I am trying to turn off the BPL's Obvious Rural Appeal by deploying Wireless Broadband.
Anyone care to help out the movement?
http://twitter.com/rafmanne
http://twitpic.com/photos/rafmanne
http://www.youtube.com/rafmanne
http://picasaweb.google.com/rafwireless
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So the ARRL spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years challenging the FCC in court? And this is the tangible result? Was it worth it?"
If those were MY "spectrum defense" dollars donated to arrl, I would be mighty upset. You would think that arrl would be spending your "spectrum defense" dollars more wisely.
Ed Hare's "scarem" un-calabrated video tape was intended to frieghten hams into donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to arrl's coffers. Not for any technical use. The intended "fools" for that tape were untechnical hams, not technically savvy engineers.
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 12, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NN4RH asks: "So the ARRL spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years challenging the FCC in court?"
I don't know how much they spent.
But if it amounts to a couple hundred thousand spread over several years, that's a pretty good bargain when you consider what legal and engineering time costs.
I mean, it's been how many years since the BPL monster first appeared?
NN4RH: "And this is the tangible result?"
Part of it, yes. Imagine - the *FCC* forced to show,
IN PUBLIC and FOR THE RECORD, where they omitted
important information. That's serious stuff and a
serious victory against BPL.
But it's only a tiny part of the story.
NN4RH: "Was it worth it?"
I sure think so!
----
What would you have the ARRL do against BPL that wasn't done?
Who else in the amateur radio community has spent serious resources to stand up against BPL?
Sure, any engineer who knows the issues
can tell you that BPL is a very bad idea, but how do
you convince non-technical regulatory folks, business
types and an administration-with-an-agenda?
Sure, BPL hasn't grown the way it was predicted to
when it first appeared. From everything I've seen,
a big part of the reason was that the ARRL and others
made such a fuss in so many ways that many of those
considering BPL went with other options. Plus the FCC
turned down critical (and bad) rules changes proposed by BPL folks.
BPL isn't dead by any means, but neither has it been able to grow the way its proponents wanted.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by W6EM on May 13, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RFI:"Please do at least a simple Google research before making unfounded proclamations. The "BPL is dead" idea is taking on a life of its own, leading to a complacancy that should not yet exist. It has not been the rousing success the industry promised, but it is still making inroads into rural deployments, Smart Grid and in-premise applications. That is ample reason to continue to work on ensuring that its interference aspects are properly addressed."
Oh, well, I guess if we diffuse the threat (based upon what ARRL publishes about systems being shuttered and such) that might mean less support for staff attendance and participation in BPL committees.
Yawn.
On the other hand, if its relegated to places and applications where few, if any, amateurs exist, then who cares? It was the urban application that generated the furor where most hams reside.
With the advent of RAF's type of WiMax and the geuine article, rural BPL becomes a costly and slower option.
And, when you couple with that the likelihood of overhead line outages in rural areas being much more frequent and their outage duration much longer than in urban areas, BPL becomes a loser. And, it will die from its own shortcomings. I have to laugh when I think of what will happen when the utility makes a load transfer and switches overhead line sources. Ha.
As to your comments about Smart Grid, that is an in the home deployment of metric and control functions that is connected to the Web. The connection to the web is usually via other platforms, cable or DSL, not ABPL.
I know your work has been important and it did assist in garnering FCC attention. Also, too, was NTIA's and other concerns about the harm to government and air transportation uses of spectrum.
Since this has digressed into a critique, then let's "stack on" the lack of emphasis on the "un-notched" spectrum. International shortwave broadcasting and lowband VHF. Oh, its OK to continue to smear that spectrum so long as the amateur bands, military, and commercial aircraft HF is notched?
BPL will only exist until it tries to enter environments where users of other spectrum will encounter it and complain vociferously. As long as only farm animals, groves of trees and hayfields are its community, I suppose that isn't likely. But, its shortcomings in performance still make it vulnerable to other competitive technologies.
Wave the flag, Ed. Perhaps its time to raise it high once again. Perhaps I'll see you carry it past the web camera at Dayton.
73.
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: Is this what all the fuss was about?
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 13, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
REMEMBER: Contrary to arrl's proclamations that BPL is a "flawed technology" that "won't work", BPL does work. Thus, only economics can kill BPL. Fortunately for us, BPL does not appear to be competitive.
When BPL finally does die, it will be economics, and not any effort of arrl that does it in.
|
| |
|
RE: ONLY ECONOMICS CAN DEFEAT BPL
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on May 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY writes:
"Who else in the amateur radio community has spent serious resources to stand up against BPL".
My friend, arrl cannot kill BPL.
2/3 of hams recognize that arrl lacks meaningful influence.
http://www.eham.net/survey/720
arrl is just a boys club. It can no more defeat billion dollar utilities than it can defeat China.
BPL will succeed or fail based upon economics. Either BPL is competitive in the market or it is not. Right now, it appears that BPL is not competitive. If so, it will continue to fail.
It really is that simple.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
ARRL Seeks to Force FCC to Produce Documents on BPL Complaint Dismissals:
The Case for PEP
PG&E Responds to Amateur Noise Complaints
Former ARRL VE Receives 46 Month License Suspensio
Riley Recants Phonetics Warning
Other News Articles
The New Frontier for School Radio:
New Vice Directors in Central, Roanoke Divisions:
New Amateur Radio Web Site Launches:
Announcing Railroad Depots on the Air:
Rowley Shears, G8KW (SK):
|
