[EIDXA] FCC Set to End Our Right to Listen to Foreign Broadcasts

Thu May 27 15:48:55 EDT 2004

FCC Set to End Our Right to Listen to Foreign Broadcasts . . . and More
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Gloria R. Lalumia
...Shortwave radio is in many ways the last of our untarnished resources. As
Americans, we have always been taught and told that it is our freedom that
makes us strong and separates us from everybody else. When it comes to news
and information, our desire to have the freedom to choose from a wide array
of media and media channels is no different.
Shortwave radio represents a cost-effective and easily accessible means for
all Americans to get global news straight from the source, a claim that no
other technology can make. If this access was denied or impeded in any way,
and Americans left with less media choices or channels, then our right to
freedom of the press would be unfairly and unacceptably compromised...
--Eton/Grundig Corporation statement on FCC's Broadband-Over-Powerline
Policy, November 14, 20031
* * *
The Bush Administration's love of all things that pollute is about to take
it's toll on the radio spectrum as the FCC is poised to open the floodgates
of broadband transmission via existing power lines. And although I, as a
shortwave radio listener, am fearful of losing my access to foreign
broadcasts, the ramifications of broadband-over-powerline extend into many
other areas of the radio spectrum and communications industries.
What is BPL?
BPL is a technology that allows the transmission of "broadband over power
lines." However, the problem is not just in the overhead power lines. If a
home user plugs into a BPL modem, then that home can become a source of BPL
interference radiation spreading throughout the neighborhood. At this point
it seems likely that the system will cause interference that it will destroy
the SW bands, ham bands, mobile, emergency bands, and AM radio. DSL lines
have already been affected in test areas. There is concern that even
military and aircraft communications will be subject to crippling
interference.
Once billed as a way to reach inaccessible areas, the fear now is that
companies will quickly roll out the technology in big cities within one to
two years. President Bush, in a speech on April 21, declared his intent to
"clear the underbrush of regulation" and push BPL ahead quickly with BPL
across the country by 2007 (excerpt below) 2. The BPL industry is already
looking for taxpayer subsidies. (See article #4, below, report on the May
19, 2004 hearing of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications & the Internet.)
Anything in the bands from 2mhz to 80mhz can be affected. Supposedly,
companies are able to "notch out" certain bands but this assertion has been
questioned. Home filters, if any are effective, have not been mandated. The
National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Commerce
Department (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/) has issued a report with warnings
about BPL. BPL has been shut down in Japan, UK, Switzerland, Austria,
Netherlands, and other countries. But not here in the USA because BPL is
viewed, in many circles, as a payoff to the electric power transmission
industry.
The Political Stage
In a February 24, 2004 article at Zdnet.com/AnchorDesk, a leading
technology/business site, Executive Editor David Coursey states:
"Since last we visited the issue of transmitting the Internet over power
lines (the big electric company kind, not the wires in your walls), the
Federal Communications Commission, lapdog to the monied interests, has
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the second step in making
broadband over power lines (BPL) a reality.
In a rare moment of governmental clarity, an NPRM is precisely what it seems
to be: Advance notice of how the FCC is going to give zillionaires what they
want at the expense of us ordinary folks."3
Out in the land of the "ordinary folks" Steve Waldee, retired broadcast
consultant, AM-FM transmitter engineer, and audio specialist and a shortwave
listener since the early 1950's, offers excellent, easy-to-understand
explanations of the impact of BPL as well as insight into the imprecise
language of the FCC proposal which offers very little assurance of
protection. As for the politics of the situation, he writes in a May 21,
2004 addendum to his page "Our 'Take' on BPL: Broadband Internet over
Powerlines" (http://www.home.earthlink.net/~srw-swling/bpl.htm):
"Just found out that Quest has told the FCC that BPL will disrupt DSL
service over phone lines in some installations where power service runs near
telephone drops. Yet, the FCC has blithely ignored this in favor of BPL.
That makes me smell a BIG RAT. If the goal of the Bush Administration is
'universal broadband' then why deploy a service that would actually cause a
deterioration of reliability in EXISTING broadband?"
Why indeed??? And what about AM radio and all those Clear Channel stations?
Why is the electrical power transmission industry the most favored of all by
the Bush Administration? Is this Enron revisited?
The Current Battle
As mentioned above, Quest has already filed complaints about BPL affecting
their underground DSL.
Ham operators been fighting via their organization, the ARRL (American Radio
Relay League). Their specific concerns extend beyond interference. They also
fear that if BPL companies demand more frequencies for transmission, the FCC
will take them from the ham frequencies. Another fear is that ham operators,
operating within their legal limits, will interfere with BPL users, and that
the hams will be the ones to lose. The BPL industry and FCC claim that no
hams have been bothered in the various test areas. But the ARRL has found
that in these small, selected test areas, NO hams actually lived in the
affected areas!
Shortwave listeners will have the toughest time. While the ARRL has
mentioned shortwave at times, they are focused on their own concerns. Since
shortwave is by nature "free to the masses" without any central
organization, they have no lobbying clout. The FCC proposals stipulate that
the burden of proving that BPL is causing a problem is on the
complainant...so, guess who wins if a shortwave listener suddenly turns on
his/her radio and no longer can listen to the BBC?
Polluting the World's Radio Communications
Both Coursey and Waldee discuss the impact of BPL in the United States on
world radio communications. BPL can disrupt foreign broadcasts all over the
globe. Coursey in his AnchorDesk piece writes:
"WHY SHOULD YOU CARE about all this? Because BPL could have a negative
impact on the entire world of radio communication. Remember what I said
earlier about the radio waves flying off into space? Even the low-power
signals BPL would employ can, under the right conditions, travel around the
globe. That means BPL systems in the United States could cause interference
in places far removed from whatever benefit BPL is supposed to provide.
Interference is pollution and, once it starts, can prove impossible to stop.
If not properly managed, BPL has the potential to ruin large portions of the
shortwave radio spectrum. Like old-growth forests, radio spectrum is
precious and for much the same reason: They just aren't making any more of
it. What we have needs to be wisely managed for the greatest public benefit.
BPL needs to be watched carefully to make sure a technology we don't really
need -- isn't there enough broadband out there already? -- doesn't cause
problems we'll never be able to resolve."
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
* * *
Key Information
The ARRL web page devoted to BPL is crammed with information and news
stories about BPL. Explore this whole page---industry links, reports, tests,
and news stories about the test areas here in the US. This page will offer
the reader a clear understanding of the ramifications of BPL.
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc
* *
This page also has a section of Audio examples of the type of interference
BPL causes from the US and overseas tests. I've included one easy to use
link to audio studies in Japan (uses RealPlayer). The samples are taken from
tests run in apartments and houses. Listening to these audio examples are
truly "ear-opening."
http://www.jarl.or.jp/English/0-2.htm
* *
The NTIA (National Telecommunications & Information Administration, Dept. of
Commerce) and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications & the Internet
The NTIA is the President's principal advisor on telecom and information
policy. Its warnings about BLP are apparently being ignored, which is par
for the course.
The last day for comment is June 1.
Direct Link to FCC comment page on BPL
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1008700826|04-37|Broadband%2BOver%2BPower%2BLine%2B(BPL)&Send=Continue
REPORT on the May 19, 2004 hearing from AARL4
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/05/20/1/
BPL Industry Official Disputes NTIA Report in Congressional Hearing
Excerpt:
"Responding to a question from New Hampshire Republican Charles Bass,
Birnbaum said the BPL industry would be pleased if Congress could provide
tax or financial incentives, especially for improving the power grid. He
said utilities have not explored the broadband market in the past because
some companies had bad experiences and the technology was not feasible five
years ago.
Birnbaum suggested, too, that while utilities are slow to act, they will
begin to deploy BPL systems over the next year or two. The biggest issue, he
said, is the incentive for utilities to invest in broadband technology."
* *
Members, Subcommittee on Telecommunications & the Internet
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/subcommittees/Telecommunications_and_the_Internet_Members.htm
Fred Upton, Michigan
Chairman
Michael Bilirakis, Florida
Cliff Stearns, Florida, Vice Chairman
Paul E. Gillmor, Ohio
Christopher Cox, California
Nathan Deal, Georgia
Ed Whitfield, Kentucky
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming
John Shimkus, Illinois
Heather Wilson, New Mexico
Charles "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi
Vito Fossella, New York
Steve Buyer, Indiana
Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire
Mary Bono, California
Greg Walden, Oregon (his is a ham operator; may be a good contact)
Lee Terry, Nebraska
Joe Barton, Texas (Ex Officio)
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts, Ranking Member
Albert R. Wynn, Maryland
Karen McCarthy, Missouri
Michael F. Doyle, Pennsylvania
Jim Davis, Florida
Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas
Rick Boucher, Virginia
Edolphus Towns, New York
Bart Gordon, Tennessee
Peter Deutsch, Florida
Bobby L. Rush, Illinois
Anna G. Eshoo, California
Bart Stupak, Michigan
Eliot L. Engel, New York
John D. Dingell, Michigan (Ex Officio)
* * *
CITED ARTICLES
1 Comments on the Federal Communications Commission's
Broadband-Over-Powerline Policy, Etón Corporation, November 14, 2003
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:4SSgByu12bQJ:www.grundigradio.com/bpl/FCCBPLcomments.pdf%2Bshortwave%2BBPL&hl=en/t_blank
This is the html version of the file
http://www.grundigradio.com/bpl/FCCBPLcomments.pdf
Etón Corporation
Comments on the Federal Communications Commission's
Broadband-Over-Powerline Policy
November 14, 2003
Recently the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began the process of
changing the regulations that govern radio frequency interference. These
changes are aimed at paving the way for the FCC to introduce a new
technology known as broadband-over-powerline (BPL).
According to the FCC, BPL would bring broadband to "previously unserved
communities" and be the catalyst for a "robustly competitive and diversified
marketplace" that would lead to a "broadband Nirvana" in America.* While its
proposal may be well intentioned, the FCC's support of this emerging
technology threatens the existence of an established technology - Shortwave
radio. Shortwave radio technology, though not as cutting-edge and as
commercialized as BPL, is important to America because it represents our
most basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
BPL technology is based on using 2-80 MHz of the radio frequency spectrum to
transmit data over existing powerlines. According to the latest research
done by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the American Radio
Relay League (ARRL), BPL threatens to create so much "noise" in this
frequency range that Shortwave radio, the original operator in this
frequency spectrum, would be effectively drowned out. Without any proposed
plans or remedies by the FCC to safeguard Shortwave broadcasting, BPL poses
a real and imminent threat to this
medium.
To the majority of Americans who have never listened to worldband radio, the
loss of Shortwave may appear to be acceptable compared to the benefits of
faster and expanded internet services.
But to Shortwave enthusiasts and radio users, Shortwave is indispensable for
its ability to transmit international broadcasts from around the world. On
the surface, this may appear to be only marginally valuable in this day and
age of 24/7 news channels on television and internet access. Upon closer
inspection however, Shortwave is markedly different from those other mediums
and especially significant for its ability to broadcast news and information
directly from other countries at no cost or low cost. As Americans, we have
become accustomed to receiving our news in pre-packaged sound bites,
selected and served by the mainstream media, biased opinions and
perspectives mixed in. Shortwave allows its listeners to hear and its
broadcasters to report news and information with a clarity and transparency
unmatched by most domestic media.
Shortwave radio is in many ways the last of our untarnished resources. As
Americans, we have always been taught and told that it is our freedom that
makes us strong and separates us from everybody else. When it comes to news
and information, our desire to have the freedom to choose from a wide array
of media and media channels is no different.
Shortwave radio represents a cost-effective and easily accessible means for
all Americans to get global news straight from the source, a claim that no
other technology can make. If this access was denied or impeded in any way,
and Americans left with less media choices or channels, then our right to
freedom of the press would be unfairly and unacceptably compromised.
The FCC recently voted to allow media conglomerates the ability to increase
their holdings in television stations and newspapers, another signal that
fewer and fewer companies will end up controlling more and more of what we
hear, see, and read. Ironically post 9/11, global news is more salient than
ever. In today's political climate, Americans are seeking international
news, culture, and perspectives like never before in efforts to better
understand the rest of the world.
We need more media choices to quench our thirst for information, not less.
Shortwave is not just another vehicle, but arguably one of the best vehicles
to bring the perspectives of foreign countries and cultures into our homes
easily and inexpensively. At a time when the FCC seems content on letting
BPL eclipse Shortwave, its value and significance is brighter than ever.
In fact, Shortwave's value reaches beyond America's shores to touch nearly
every country in the world. Without a spectrum to operate from, even
outbound American Shortwave programming that is currently accessible to
millions and millions around the globe will be eerily silent. In short
order, the global exchange of thoughts and ideas, the underlying premise of
both radio and our right to free speech, will be brought to a screeching
halt. To see the potential damage this can have on the world, we only need
to study history. In 1989, the Velvet Revolution paved the way for democracy
as Communism fell in Czechoslovakia when Václav Havel was elected as
President. Havel, a long-standing and outspoken critic of Communism, cited
Voice of Free Europe, a Shortwave institution, as one of his sources of
strength and inspiration during his struggle for democracy. Though it may be
hyperbole to attribute the demise of Communism in Eastern Europe to radio,
it is clear that its reach is broad, and its influences deep. It would be a
potential foreign policy failure for the United States if Shortwave radio
disappeared. If the elixir of Shortwave could help just one country or even
one community, then Shortwave's existence would
be justified by helping bring hope and inspiration, and under the right
circumstances, even democracy.
What the FCC is proposing with BPL is not so much poor technology as it is
poorly planned technology. In its current form, the social costs of BPL
exceed its social benefits. Ubiquitous broadband is a noble goal that FCC
should have in its sights on. The issue here is to find a way to apply this
technology somewhere or somehow that does not impact Shortwave radio. Isn't
there bandwidth somewhere else in the radio frequency spectrum for BPL to
occupy? Since 1994, the FCC has auctioned and sold off hundreds of
frequencies for billions of dollars.
Granted, the United States government has generated significant revenue from
these sales, but money cannot buy freedom. It is perplexing that the FCC,
the landowner of the airwaves, cannot find a plot of frequency for BPL
without encroaching the boundaries of Shortwave.
The FCC's BPL proposal threatens to set this country down a slippery slope
where new technology displaces existing technology without regard for its
impacts on citizens and society. The FCC needs to find a way to promote BPL
while preserving the freedoms of Americans.
Technology should be a tool for society to improve the lives of its people.
If and when this promise is broken, then that technology needs to be
reevaluated, rethought, or reapplied until it works properly.
* "Reaching Broadband Nirvana", Kathleen Q. Abernathy, FCC Commissioner,
United PowerLine Council Annual Conference, September 22, 2003,
(http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-239079A1.doc)
2 Excerpt from Bush's April 21, 2004 speech
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040426-6.html
President Unveils Tech Initiatives for Energy, Health Care, Internet
Remarks by the President at American Association of Community Colleges
Annual Convention
Minneapolis Convention Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota
.....
The third goal is to make sure that we have access to the information that
is transforming our economy through broadband technology. I'm talking about
broadband technology in every part of our country. I was the governor of
Texas for a while. I remember talking about access to information and there
was always a group of people saying, that's fine, big cities get it but
rural people don't. I'm talking about broadband technology to every corner
of our country by the year 2007 with competition shortly thereafter.
(Applause.)
Educators understand the great value of broadband technology. I mean, the -- 
I'm not surprised that people involved in the community college system, when
you mention broadband technology nod their heads. It's the flow of
information and the flow of knowledge which will help transform America and
keep us on the leading edge of change. And we've got to make sure that flow
is strong and modern and vibrant. And by the way, we've got to make sure
that there's competition for your -- for your demand. We need more than just
one provider available for not only community colleges but also for
consumers. In our society, the more providers there are, the better the
quality will be and the better the pricing mechanism will be.
Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte is using broadband to
conduct classes for students all across their state. You know, one of the
interesting opportunities for the community college system is to provide
education opportunities for people who work out of their home, for example.
And the expansion of broadband technology will mean education literally will
head into the living rooms of students. That will even make the system more
flexible and more available and more affordable.
Same with health care. Again, if you're from a state where there's a lot of
rural people, there's nothing better than to be able to transfer information
quickly from a rural doc to a hospital for analysis in order to save lives.
It's happening all around our country. The ability to send an x-ray image in
seven seconds and have a response back in ten minutes with a preliminary
analysis oftentimes will save lives. But you hear us talk about making sure
health care is accessible and affordable. One way to do so is to hook up
communities and homes to broadband. It's going to be a really good way for
us to make sure the health care system works better and the education system
works better. And it also is going to be an important way to make sure that
we're an innovative society.
Now, the use of broadband has tripled since 2000 from 7 million subscriber
lines to 24 million. That's good. But that's way short of the goal for 2007.
And so -- by the way, we rank 10th amongst the industrialized world in
broadband technology and its availability. That's not good enough for
America. Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned. (Applause.)
Broadband technology must be affordable. In order to make sure it gets
spread to all corners of the country, it must be affordable. We must not tax
broadband access. If you want broadband access throughout the society,
Congress must ban taxes on access. (Applause.)
Secondly, a proper role for the government is to clear regulatory hurdles so
those who are going to make investments do so. Broadband is going to spread
because it's going to make sense for private sector companies to spread it
so long as the regulatory burden is reduced -- in other words, so long as
policy at the government level encourages people to invest, not discourages
investment.
And so here are some smart things to do: One, increase access to federal
land for fiberoptic cables and transmission towers. That makes sense. As
you're trying to get broadband spread throughout the company, make sure it's
easy to build across federal lands. One sure way to hold things up is that
the federal lands say, you can't build on us. So how is some guy in remote
Wyoming going to get any broadband technology? Regulatory policy has got to
be wise and smart as we encourage the spread of this important technology.
There needs to be technical standards to make possible new broadband
technologies, such as the use of high-speed communication directly over
power lines. Power lines were for electricity; power lines can be used for
broadband technology. So the technical standards need to be changed to
encourage that.
And we need to open up more federally controlled wireless spectrum to
auction in free public use, to make wireless broadband more accessible,
reliable, and affordable. Listen, one of the technologies that's coming is
wireless. And if you're living out in -- I should -- I was going to say
Crawford, Texas, but it's not -- maybe not nearly as remote. (Laughter.) How
about Terlingua, Texas? There's not a lot of wires out there. But wireless
technology is going to change all that so long as government policy makes
sense.
And we're going to continue to support the Federal Communications
Commission. Michael Powell -- Chairman Michael Powell, under his leadership,
his decision to eliminate burdensome regulations on new broadband networks
availability to homes. In other words, clearing out the underbrush of
regulation, and we'll get the spread of broadband technology, and America
will be better for it. (Applause.) ....
3 Why Broadband Over Power Lines Is a Bad Idea
By David Coursey: Executive Editor, AnchorDesk
Thursday, February 26, 2004
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-7298-5123406.html
Since last we visited the issue of transmitting the Internet over power
lines (the big electric company kind, not the wires in your walls), the
Federal Communications Commission, lapdog to the monied interests, has
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the second step in making
broadband over power lines (BPL) a reality.
In a rare moment of governmental clarity, an NPRM is precisely what it seems
to be: Advance notice of how the FCC is going to give zillionaires what they
want at the expense of us ordinary folks. The NPRM follows a Notice of
Inquiry that was issued last April and generated more than 5,000 comments,
many from angry ham radio operators.
HERE'S THE DEAL: BPL is a technology that uses radio waves, transmitted over
power lines, to provide broadband Internet or other data connectivity. The
problem with BPL is simple physics: Radio waves like to fly off into space.
When they do, interference results. In order to get broadband speeds, BPL
uses a large number of frequencies, some of which are capable of traveling
literally around the world even on the small transmitter power that BPL
systems use.
BPL would operate as an unlicensed radio service under Part 15 of the FCC's
rules. This is the same section that allows most of the unlicensed devices
used in home and business. All of these devices are supposed to operate in
such a way that they don't interfere with licensed radio services.
Among the leaders in the fight against BPL is the amateur radio community.
Ham radio operators, including myself, see BPL as a potentially huge source
of communications-disrupting interference. The hams have found an ally in
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the
Commerce Department agency charged with coordinating the federal
government's own radio systems.
The NTIA has warned the FCC that, unless it's carefully regulated, BPL could
cause significant interference to government users of shortwave radio
frequencies. The NTIA is conducting its own BPL study, though it has not yet
been released. Another study, by ARRL, the national organization for amateur
radio, is also due to be released in the next few weeks to months.
WHY SHOULD YOU CARE about all this? Because BPL could have a negative impact
on the entire world of radio communication. Remember what I said earlier
about the radio waves flying off into space? Even the low-power signals BPL
would employ can, under the right conditions, travel around the globe. That
means BPL systems in the United States could cause interference in places
far removed from whatever benefit BPL is supposed to provide.
Interference is pollution and, once it starts, can prove impossible to stop.
If not properly managed, BPL has the potential to ruin large portions of the
shortwave radio spectrum. Like old-growth forests, radio spectrum is
precious and for much the same reason: They just aren't making any more of
it. What we have needs to be wisely managed for the greatest public benefit.
BPL needs to be watched carefully to make sure a technology we don't really
need--isn't there enough broadband out there already?--doesn't cause
problems we'll never be able to resolve.
If you're interested in this issue, please read some of the documents
available and make your feelings known to the FCC.

4 BPL Industry Official Disputes NTIA Report in Congressional Hearing
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/05/20/1/
NEWINGTON, CT, May 20, 2004--A BPL industry witness told a House
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet hearing May 19 that the
extensive National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
broadband over power line interference study draws "generalized
conclusions," some of which are inaccurate. Jay Birnbaum, vice president and
general counsel of BPL provider Current Communications Group LLC was among
those answering lawmakers' questions during the hearing, "Competition in the
Communications Marketplace: How Convergence Is Blurring the Lines Between
Voice, Video, and Data Services." ARRL CEO David Sumner said he found it
"interesting" that a BPL spokesperson would try to downplay the significance
of the NTIA's findings.
"Clearly, the report has the BPL industry worried--as well it should,"
Sumner said. "Anyone who gets past the introduction and actually reads the
body of the NTIA study can only conclude that NTIA's findings are
devastating to the case for BPL."
Among other observations, the NTIA acknowledged that BPL signals
"unintentionally radiate" from power lines, but said there's "substantial
disagreement as to the strength of the emissions and their potential for
causing interference to licensed radio systems."
Rep Greg Walden, W7EQI (R-OR).
The subcommittee members questioning Birnbaum included Oregon Republican
Greg Walden, W7EQI, one of two amateur licensees in the US House. Walden
asked Birnbaum to address the BPL interference issues that the NTIA report
and the amateur community have raised.
Birnbaum responded that he thinks interference concerns about BPL are
unfounded and that the FCC agrees. BPL emissions from power lines, he
asserted, are at very low levels and dissipate very quickly with distance.
Current Technologies is field testing a BPL system in Potomac, Maryland, and
has a 50-50 partnership with Cinergy to deploy a full-blown BPL system in
the Cincinnati area. The Maryland system employs the HomePlug Alliance
standard, which notches all HF amateur bands except 60 meters. It uses
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) technology.
The ARRL documented a visit to the Potomac test area on its Web site. The
Potomac site is identified as "Trial Area #1" under "Video showing results
of ARRL testing in MD, VA, PA and NY." BPL interference heard outside
amateur bands at the Potomac site sounds like severe, irregular pulse-type
noise.
Walden also questioned Birnbaum regarding how far away BPL interference
might be detected. Birnbaum indicated that while there's disagreement on the
issue, it's "literally undetectable" tens of meters away. He said FCC and
NTIA engineers have found signal levels too low to measure. He also told
Walden that a lot of complaints about BPL are based on outdated data and
technology. Walden said he just wants the interference addressed
technically--"especially driving under power lines."
The NTIA, which conducted measurements at three different BPL field trial
sites, said that while radiated power "decreased with increasing distance,"
the decay was not always predictable. At one measurement location with a
number of BPL devices, the NTIA said, "appreciable BPL signal levels (ie, at
least 5 dB higher than ambient noise) were observed beyond 500 meters from
the nearest BPL-energized power lines."
A BPL "extractor" on a power line in the Raleigh, North Carolina, area,
where Progress Energy and Amperion have partnered to field test a BPL
system.
The NTIA study further calculated that interference "is likely" to mobile
stations in areas extending to 30 meters and to fixed stations in areas
extending to 55 meters from a single BPL device and the power lines to which
it's connected. Interference to systems with "low to moderate desired signal
levels," such as those common in ham radio, is likely within areas extending
to 75 meters for mobiles and 460 meters for fixed stations, the NTIA study
said.
Responding to a question from New Hampshire Republican Charles Bass,
Birnbaum said the BPL industry would be pleased if Congress could provide
tax or financial incentives, especially for improving the power grid. He
said utilities have not explored the broadband market in the past because
some companies had bad experiences and the technology was not feasible five
years ago.
Birnbaum suggested, too, that while utilities are slow to act, they will
begin to deploy BPL systems over the next year or two. The biggest issue, he
said, is the incentive for utilities to invest in broadband technology.
* * *
Gloria Lalumia is the author of World Media Watch, exclusively available on
BuzzFlash.com.
Copyright 2004, Gloria R. Lalumia
BACK TO TOP
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the
timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or
guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when
they are brought to our attention.

INTERVIEWSMAUREEN FARRELLP.M. CARPENTERMEDIA WATCHDAILY BUZZ
ERIC HARRISONTHOMAS BURNSSTEVEN C. DAYKIRK ANDERSONANGRY LIBERAL
EDITORIALSPERSPECTIVESANALYSISCONTRIBUTORSMAILBAG
HEADLINESALERTSAUDIOABOUTFAQ
SEARCH BUZZFLASHHEADLINE ARCHIVESEMAIL BUZZFLASH
HELP KEEP BUZZFLASH BUZZ'N!