[Fists] A backup plan if BPL fizzles?

[Cheryl W. Ring]

Larry,

Details were on the CW reflector, but haven't made it to FISTS reflector
yet!North American Shortwave Association
Before the
Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement guidelines
for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems
)
)
)
)
ET Docket No. 04-37

COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING (NPRM) May 3, 2004

The North American Shortwave Association (NASWA) represents the interests of
people in the United States who rely on free access to international news
and cultural
programming via shortwave radio broadcasts.

NASWA UNDERSTANDS FCC OBJECTIVES NASWA understands the FCC's desire to allow
market forces to provide price competition to broadband services like BPL,
DSL and broadband cable TV. NASWA also understands that the FCC recognizes
its obligations under existing regulations to protect licensed services from
harmful interference by Part 15 devices and systems such as BPL.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS
The FCC is required to observe the rights of other nations to broadcast
without interference to listeners in the United States on frequencies
allocated by the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) exclusively for this purpose. The United
States is a member of
the ITU, an international organization within the United Nations system. The
USA is a
signatory to the most recent International Radio Regulations convention. ITU
Radio Regulation 4.11
reads: "Member States recognize that among frequencies which have
long-distance propagation characteristics, those in the bands between 5 and
30 MHz are particularly useful for long-distance communications; they agree
to make every possible effort to reserve these bands for such
communications. Whenever frequencies in these bands are used for short-range
or medium-distance communications, the minimum power necessary shall be
employed." North American Shortwave Association 2
ITU Radio Regulation 15.12 reads, "Administrations shall take all
practicable and necessary steps to ensure that the operation of electrical
apparatus or installations
of any kind, including power and telecommunication distribution networks,
but excluding equipment
used for industrial, scientific and medical applications, does not cause
harmful
interference to a
radiocommunication service and, in particular, to a radionavigation or any
other safety service
operating in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations." ITU
regulations allocate certain frequency bands between 5.9 and 26.1 megahertz
for the exclusive use of international broadcasters. Early testing by the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the
American Radio Relay League (ARRL) has shown some BPL systems will interfere
with international broadcast transmissions. The ITU regulations require the
FCC to prevent harmful interference from Part 15 devices and systems, not
just "mitigate" interference. (Mitigate: vt 1. to cause to become less harsh
or hostile; 2. to make less severe or painful. -- Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary.) NASWA supports the NTIA position that international
broadcasting must be protected from harmful BPL interference. The USA
expects other countries, targeted by Voice of America (VOA), Radio Marti,
and other Radio Free (insert name of target) services, will protect such
broadcasts from interference. The USA is obliged to provide reciprocal
protection. NTIA recognizes this need as evidenced by this excerpt from
their BPL Phase 1 study report, (Appendix C, Para. C.2.6): "While the
intended receivers of the VOA's transmissions generally are abroad, there
are numerous broadcasting receivers owned and operated by foreign citizens
and government personnel in the United States that could be susceptible to
BPL interference because of proximity to power lines. Protecting other
administrations' broadcasting is critical because of reciprocity.

The current ITU-R B-03, Seasonal Broadcasting Schedule, shows multiple
administrations
broadcasting to the United States for every timeframe within a 24- hour
period.10 "The 18 bands allocated to the Federal Government for broadcasting
service in the HF portion of the spectrum are listed in Table C-11. Because
of frequency reuse capabilities inherent in HF broadcasting, one should
expect that broadcast receivers located in the United States are tuned
within these bands." "10 Broadcasting Board of Governors Response to NTIA
Memo, Questionnaire Regarding Equipment and Operations in the 1.7-80 MHz
Frequency Range, November 7, 2003." North American Shortwave Association 3
Table C-11:

Frequency Bands Allocated to the Federal Government for Broadcasting Service
in the 1.7-80 MHz Band Frequency (kHz)     BW         (kHz) Frequency (kHz)
BW (kHz) Frequency (kHz) BW (kHz)
5900-5950             50 11650-12050 400 15600-15800 200 5950-6200 250
12050-12100 50 17480-17550 70 7300-7350 50 13570-13600 30 17550-17900 350
9400-9500 100 13600-13800 200 18900-19020 120 9500-9900 400 13800-13870 70
21450-21850 400 11600-11650 50 15100-15600 500 25670-26100 430 Total
Bandwidth (BW) = 3,720 kHz

THE FCC PROPOSAL IS IMPRACTICAL In its NPRM the FCC acknowledges that the
present Part 15 emission limits will often be inadequate to protect
listeners to the International Broadcast Service from BPL interference. The
FCC's expectation of interference is supported by test evidence submitted by
the NTIA and ARRL in filings in this and the NOI Docket 03-104 proceeding.
Instead of addressing the interference issue directly by adopting either of
NASWA's previous recommendations in response to the NOI Docket 03-104, the
FCC proposes a complex and, what NASWA considers to be, impractical
procedure to hopefully minimize the impact of the interference. (NASWA
previously
recommended that Part 15 radiation limits be tightened to avoid interference
to the International
Broadcast Service or BPL transmissions be relocated to frequencies outside
the HF range.) The
FCC's failure to address the root problem will eventually result in the
failure of BPL as a viable
competitor for DSL and cable TV broadband. That is not what NASWA, the BPL
industry, nor the
FCC desire.

The FCC's proposed procedure is impractical for the following reasons: . The
FCC proposes to impose on the victim the burden of identifying, reporting,
proving and following up on complaints of interference. In this case the
victim is the largely nontechnical international broadcast listener. In
theory, once notified, the BPL service provider must quickly activate
dynamic frequency agility in order to move the energy to a frequency

North American Shortwave Association 4

that does not cause interference to the entity that complained. Of course
the energy may
now be interfering with another user of the HF spectrum who will then
complain. An
endless feedback loop could thus be formed. Each complaint will result in a
change to the
energy-density spectrum and each change could result in a new complaint. .
As a class, international broadcast listeners are not technically astute.
Most listeners know
only how to pull up the whip antenna on their radio, activate the "on"
switch, select the
frequency they want to listen to, and adjust the volume. Unlike amateur
radio or
professional operators, who are required to demonstrate a certain level of
technical
competency in order to obtain an FCC license or employment, international
broadcast
listeners are not licensed (nor should they be) and cannot be expected to
know the
interference they are receiving has the identifying signature of a BPL
signal. If such
technically naïve persons are able to figure out to whom to complain, it is
inevitable that
their complaints will often be in error. The result will be skepticism,
disbelief, and denial
by the BPL industry. The cost to investigate erroneous interference reports
will be borne
by either the BPL industry or the FCC or both. The burden of proof will be
on the unskilled
listener to demonstrate to the BPL provider or the FCC enforcement function
that the
interference claim is valid. To expect unskilled listeners to prove that BPL
is the cause of
their interference problem is unreasonable and makes the FCC proposal
impractical. A
better solution must be found.

 International broadcasters change frequencies as a function of time of
day, season of the
year, and time within the eleven-year solar sunspot cycle. If the FCC
insists on
implementing its proposed approach, BPL providers will incur significant
costs as they
react to these changes in real time. If BPL is ever to become a viable
alternative to cable
and DSL broadband access, operating costs must be minimized. The FCC's
proposal has
the opposite effect. To be effective, the FCC's proposed rules must require
BPL operators
to incur increased costs by mandating near-real-time response to
interference complaints
and a staff standing by the telephone to receive and act upon such
complaints.
North American Shortwave Association 5

 If the FCC insists on implementing its proposed approach, the FCC must
mandate a specific
response time for interference complaints to be resolved. In the NPRM the
FCC proposes
no particular response time for the BPL provider to react. Any interference
to international
broadcasting is illegal under both international radio regulations and the
FCC's own Part 15
regulations. The BPL provider could delay its response indefinitely as they
tell the victim
that the problem is being investigated or that the interference is not
coming from their BPL
signals. The response time should be as fast as possible. Ten minutes is
suggested as a
reasonable time delay for correction of a problem. If the problem is not
corrected within
the specified time, the BPL service must cease operation, as required by the
FCC Part 15
regulations, until the problem can be corrected or a third party arbitrator
can make a
responsibility determination.

 If the FCC insists on implementing its proposed approach, fines must be
prescribed in the
FCC Part 15 regulations to enforce timely response to interference
complaints. NASWA
suggests fines up to $10,000 per day per complaint not resolved within the
prescribed time
limit would be sufficient incentive to the BPL industry to respond in a
timely way. This
suggested fine amount is consistent with fines levied upon licensed services
that violate
FCC regulations.

 If the FCC insists on implementing its proposed approach, the FCC must
mandate that
industry "customer service" representatives and technicians be on duty 24
hours per day
and 7 days per week to take interference complaints and be able to quickly
activate
frequency agile technology to eliminate the interference. . BPL industry
"customer service" representatives must be fluent in major foreign languages
as many who rely on international radio broadcasts in the USA are not fluent
in English.

The cost to the BPL providers of such overhead and the general lack of
foreign language
fluency in the USA labor pool makes the FCC's proposed procedure
impractical.

 The FCC does not propose any third party entity to arbitrate disputes. If
the FCC insists on
implementing its proposed approach, it is likely that the enforcement
function of the FCC
North American Shortwave Association 6
will become that de facto arbitrator. The FCC will become burdened with such
complaints
when BPL systems proliferate and BPL providers, themselves overloaded with
complaints,
fail to respond in a timely manner. The additional burden on the FCC
enforcement function
will raise the cost to the taxpayer and possibly raise FCC user fees to the
BPL industry as
the cost of enforcement is transferred to the industry that is causing the
added expense.
Such disputes will make implementation of the proposed procedure burdensome
to all
concerned, impractical and expensive. . Many international broadcast
listeners are tourists, foreign students or immigrants to this
country with limited English language ability. These people use short-wave
radios to keep
in touch with events in their country of origin by listening to foreign
broadcasts in their
native language. These victims of BPL interference cannot be expected to arm
themselves
with knowledge about BPL interference signatures, industry data base(s),
identities of local
BPL providers, where to call to register a complaint, or to whom to appeal
when no action
results from their complaint. NASWA believes that is asking too much of
people who are
not proficient in BPL technology, the English language, or FCC procedures. .
The FCC has elected not to standardize the modulation format for BPL
transmission. The
spectral signature of BPL interference will be different for each type of
modulation. There
will likely be as many interference signatures as there are BPL equipment
standards. Even
if international broadcast listeners could be reached with instructive
material to teach them
what BPL interference sounds like, the many different BPL interference
signatures will
make it impossible to conduct such training on anything other than a local
level. It is likely
that power companies or third party BPL service providers will not be
particularly
interested in conducting such training for the general public in their
service areas.
 Many international broadcast listeners use portable receivers when
traveling around the
USA. Such listeners cannot be expected to know the contact information for
reporting BPL
interference in each area they travel through. The proposed procedure is
impractical.
North American Shortwave Association 7
CAN BPL BROADBAND ACCESS REPLACE INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING? Some may argue
that the broadband access provided by wide deployment of BPL will allow
listeners to access overseas media via the Internet so they will not need
international broadcasting
to provide a link. Today, access to foreign broadcasts is free for the price
of a portable short-wave
radio selling in the neighborhood of $100 or less. The suggestion that
students or immigrants,
often living at or near the poverty level, should be forced to subscribe to
an Internet service to
receive programming they now get for free is unfair and discriminates
against many of the poorest
people in our society. The suggestion that tourists need to lug a computer
with them to listen to the
news in their native language is also unrealistic. Some listeners prefer to
listen to international
broadcasts while traveling in their cars. There is presently no way to
access such broadcasts via
broadband services including BPL from a moving automobile. THE BEST SOLUTION
In view of the impracticality of the procedure proposed by the FCC in the
NPRM, NASWA
suggests that the FCC withdraw the subject NPRM, revisit the issue, and
address the actual
problem. The problem is that current Part 15 radiation limits are
insufficient to prevent BPL
interference to duly authorized international broadcasters operating on
ITU-protected frequencies
between 5.9 and 26.1 MHz on receivers of a type normally used and marketed
in the USA for inhome
or mobile reception.
There are two possible technical solutions. One possible solution is for the
FCC to mandate that
BPL systems permanently suppress the use of all frequencies that are
allocated by the ITU for
international broadcasting. Because every user of the HF spectrum will
likely request similar
protection, few frequencies would remain below 30 MHz for use by BPL
services.
The second possible solution, and the one which NASWA prefers, would be to
confine BPL
emissions to frequencies above 30 MHz with appropriate notches in the
spectrum to protect
specific local public safety and broadcast allocations. Entire bands
covering aeronautical,
amateur radio, space research, marine, government, industrial, and radio
astronomy allocations
must also be protected with broadband notches. For example, in a given area
only about half the
North American Shortwave Association 8
VHF television channels are occupied at most. In the 1940's when the current

VHF allocation
table was devised, TV sets had poor adjacent channel selectivity. Thus many
VHF TV channels
lie vacant, a waste of precious spectrum. Modern TVs must reject adjacent
channel signals in
order to be compatible with cable TV systems that use all VHF channels.
Modern TVs are
tolerant of BPL signals radiating on these vacant channels. Five vacant 6
MHz channels, out of
the 12 VHF channels available, would allow a BPL provider a bandwidth of 30
MHz and largely
obviate the need to use any HF frequencies. Even in the crowded Washington
DC - Baltimore,
Los Angeles, or New York City TV markets, channels 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are
available for BPL.
That is 30 MHz of wasted available bandwidth that could be used for
interference-free BPL
signals.
Unlike HF users, who change frequencies often, frequencies of VHF services
are stable over
time. Because VHF allocations do not shift with time of day, season of the
year, or state of the
eleven-year solar sunspot cycle, there would be no need for the BPL provider
to establish a
costly system of dealing with interference complaints in near-real time.
Once notches are
established for a specific local area, there should be little need to change
them for years. BPL
providers could then avoid most of the cost of dedicating personnel to
operating dynamic,
frequency-agile systems in real time in response to telephone complaints and
international
broadcaster frequency changes. By minimizing operating costs the BPL
industry will be more
likely to achieve the FCC's desired result by becoming economically viable
competitors to
broadband cable and DSL services. Respectfully submitted,
Richard A. D'Angelo
Executive Director
North American Shortwave Association 45 Wildflower Road
Levittown, PA 19057
_______________________________________________ Cw mailing list
Cw at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Makoski" <Makos327 at worldnet.att.net>
To: "Flying Pigs" <fpqrp-l at fpqrp.com>; "FISTS" <fists at mailman.qth.net>;
<cw at mailman.qth.net>; ""New" QRP-L" <qrp-l at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 6:48 PM
Subject: [Fists] A backup plan if BPL fizzles?


I saw this little interesting article.  No details; but it leads to
speculation as to just how the "BPL flack rate" might be progressing.

http://www.local6.com/technology/3304653/detail.html

73 de Larry W2LJ - Vivat Morse! © ®

W2LJ at arrl.net
http://www.qsl.net/w2lj

ARRL Lifemember  QRP ARCI #4488     NJQRP #47
FISTS #1469  QRP-L #778   FP #612  QRPp-I #759
ARS #1528,  AmQRP, CQC #746

K1 #1647  -  K2 #4090  for QRP
Icom IC-751A for QRO
Butternut HF9V and G5RV antennas


_______________________________________________
Fists mailing list
Fists at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists