[CW] BPL, why worry?

[Ken Brown]

Hi all,

Just a few comments about BPL. Someone has suggested a "wait and see" 
attitude towards BPL. It has been suggested that BPL really can be made 
to work without producing devastating interference on the HF bands. It 
has also been implied that broadband internet access for the masses may 
be more important than HF communications for a few hundred thousand hams.

I would like to point out a few  reasons why users of the HF spectrum, 
both licensed and others who either just receive, or may operate 
"traditional" narrowband part 15 devices, are concerned and should do 
everthing they can to oppose widespread deployment of BPL. First of all 
BPL is already legal. If it can work in it's present form without 
causing significant interference, why is the BPL industry lobbying for 
relaxation of the part 15 rules? Also tests done by the ARRL and others 
have shown that BPL systems cause absolutely intolerable interference. 
It is my understanding that these tests were conducted using BPL system 
power levels that were not above the present part 15 limits, although 
the way part 15 is written these systems would have to be shut down, 
because of the interference that they cause. I don't believe for a 
minute that the ARRL tests were "doctored". The tests in other countrys 
show similar results, and Japan has made the reasonable decision based 
on their own studies. Additionally amateur radio is not the only 
occupant on the HF spectrum. So it would not be merely a few hundred 
thousand hams making the sacrifice of HF spectrum usability for the sake 
of BPL. Even with part 15 rules intact in their present form, BPL is a 
serious threat to the HF spectrum, because it can be deployed, and only 
after there is a noise complaint it might be shut down. We have all seen 
how interference problems from unintentional radiators are not resolved 
in a timely manner.

We all know too well the typical sequence of events: First the ham who 
can't use one or more HF bands anymore because of the intereference 
tries to figure out where the noise is coming from. The ham uses all of 
his resources to try to figure out what kind of device it might be, and 
where it might be located. After many hours, and ususally many days, the 
ham figures out the source of the noise, sometimes. Sometimes it is just 
too hard. Then he tries to get the owner of the noise source to 
understand his/her responsibility under FCC part 15. Usually the owner 
of the interference producing device denys that it could be their device 
causing a problem (after all it is brand new, high tech, as seen on TV, 
it must be legal) and claims that there must be something wrong with the 
ham's equipment. Finally the ham asks for help from the ARRL and the 
FCC. The ARRL and the FCC typically get a similar response from the 
owner of the offending device. After weeks and months, maybe the owner 
of the interference generating device is finally convinced (sometimes by 
threat of monetary forfeiture to the FCC) that they really need to do 
something.

Imagine having to do all of the above everytime Wal Mart, or the local 
power utility has a sale on the latest BPL "solution" for people who 
want high speed internet.

In my opinion, FCC part 15 regulations need to be changed to really 
protect licensed services from BPL and other unintentional radiators, 
instead of just providing a mechanism for the licensed service to get 
relief after the interence starts.

Ken N6KB