ARRL Aims to Dampen California Utility Commissioner's Enthusiasm for BPL:

Citing its accumulated experience in dealing with Broadband over Power Line (BPL) issues, the ARRL has suggested that California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) member Susan P. Kennedy temper her "excessively optimistic" view of the technology. Speaking recently about BPL with Marc Strassman of California Politics Today, Kennedy contended that it's "criminal that California does not have a major BPL pilot project or commercial project under way." Kennedy said she intends to see the CPUC do everything possible to change that. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, wrote Kennedy December 10 to raise the caution flag and offer the League's BPL expertise.

"It has yet to be demonstrated that BPL systems can be deployed without polluting the radio spectrum," Sumner said. "Until this issue is resolved, we respectfully suggest that public statements that paint an excessively optimistic picture of BPL are inadvisable." Even the CPUC acknowledged the BPL interference issue in its reply comments in the FCC's BPL proceeding, ET Docket 04-37, Sumner noted. Citing BPL's status as "a nascent service" and the "significant disagreement" over the level of interference, the CPUC suggested the FCC "ensure that adequate testing is performed and industry standards are developed before any deployment takes place."

Sumner told Kennedy that BPL's interference potential is "not surprising" since it uses unshielded power lines. "The fact that they radiate radio frequency energy is simply a matter of physics," he pointed out. California is home to some 100,000 Amateur Radio licensees--about 14 percent of the nation's total.

This fall, a BPL field trial in Menlo Park, California, where FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell had extolled the technology's virtues earlier this year, was aborted before getting very far off the ground. The demonstration of BPL technology was co-sponsored by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and AT&T, which decided to direct its business energies elsewhere. PG&E said that without a telecommunication partner in the venture, it didn't make sense to continue the trial.

California Politics Today article noted the apparent lack of interest on the part of California utilities in getting involved in BPL. Sumner said there are "a number of good reasons why BPL is not moving forward very fast," including the interference "caused by virtually all BPL systems to nearby radio receivers."

Nonetheless, Kennedy told Strassman that she'd be surprised if California could not get "something substantial" under way in the BPL area by the middle of next year. She suggested she'd like to pave the way for BPL at the state level in much the same way that the FCC has done at the federal level. On October 14, the FCC adopted a Report and Order (R&O) spelling out Part 15 rules specifically aimed at enabling the rollout of BPL technology. At the same time, the new rules impose certain regulatory requirements aimed at mitigating interference.

Sumner said radio amateurs were not alone in their concern. He pointed to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's BPL study, which concluded that interference to low to moderate radio signals was likely from BPL systems 75 meters from land mobile stations and 460 meters from fixed stations. The FCC cited the NTIA's findings in its decision to prohibit BPL systems from using Aeronautical Radio Service frequencies, he said.

"The ARRL is continuing its efforts to persuade the FCC that in order to conform to international agreements and the Communications Act, other radio services must be afforded the same protection," Sumner told Kennedy. "We at the ARRL would be pleased to work with you and your staff to answer any questions you may have," he concluded, directing Kennedy's attention to the BPL information available on the League's Web site http://www.arrl.org/bpl.

The California Politics Today interview is available on the Web http://www.etopiamedia.net/empnn/pages/cpt-emnn/cpt-emnn222-5551212.html .

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 23, No. 49 December 17, 2004

Member Comments: