[PPRAANet] PPRAA comments to the FCC on Broadband over Power Line (BPL)

[Al Penney]

Hello Everyone,

I have just finished sending the PPRAA's comments on BPL to the FCC.  The
file was successfully accepted, but hasn't yet appeared on the FCC web page.
I expect it will take at least a few hours, so I'll check it later.  If you
want to look at it or other comments, the FCC docket number is 04-37.

Below please find the text of the letter that was sent.  Note that some
paragraphs address specific questions asked by the FCC in the NPRM, so they
look like they popped up out of nowhere.  Don't worry - the FCC will
understand!  Thanks to everyone who provided feedback.  Individuals can
still submit comments - feel free to use this letter for ideas when you
draft your own.

73
Al VO1NO / W0
President, PPRAA




Comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commission in the matter of
Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems, ET
Docket No.03-104, and Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and
measurement guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems, ET
Docket No. 04-37.

The Pikes Peak Radio Amateur Association (PPRAA) is the largest Amateur
Radio association in the city of Colorado Springs, Colorado.  Its 213
members include engineers, scientists, technicians, active duty and retired
military, and many others from a variety of backgrounds.  We are united in
our concern for the Radio Frequency spectrum however, and the threat posed
to it by the introduction of Access Broadband over Power Line (BPL) without
adequate guidelines, restrictions and conditions.  By a unanimous vote at
the April meeting of the PPRAA, the membership authorized the Executive to
make our apprehensions known to the FCC.

Chief among our concerns is the perceived bias towards BPL and its
proponents as demonstrated by the FCC Chairman and his Commissioners.  Their
comments have sometimes made us wonder if they are not lobbyists for the BPL
industry instead of public servants charged with managing and protecting an
invaluable natural resource.  The very tone of the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM) seems to indicate unabashed support for BPL. It claims that
there is �significant disagreement among the commenting parties regarding
the interference potential of Access BPL�.   In fact, all licensed users of
the affected spectrum � shortwave broadcasters, aeronautical radio users,
public service organizations, FEMA, NTIA and Amateur Radio operators to name
a few � are unanimous in their concern that BPL has a strong potential to
cause interference.  Only the BPL equipment manufacturers and service
providers deny that interference is possible � hardly an unbiased group!  On
behalf of all licensed users of the High Frequency (HF) and Very High
Frequency (VHF) spectrum, we urge Chairman Powell and the Commissioners to
exercise objectivity in their duties with respect to BPL.

Claims by the BPL industry that it does not cause interference are patently
untrue.  Trials and studies conducted by both governmental and private
agencies in the USA, Japan, United Kingdom, Austria and other countries have
demonstrated without doubt that BPL does indeed interfere with licensed
users of the affected spectrum.  In fact, Austria terminated a pilot BPL
trial because the Ministry of Traffic determined that interference in the HF
spectrum could not be reduced to acceptable levels.  Finland has declined to
authorize BPL until interference and security problems can be resolved.  For
the BPL industry to suggest that power lines will not radiate in the HF and
VHF spectrum ignores the realities of physics.  The NTIA�s report on BPL
states that �inherently unbalanced systems such as power lines� will not act
as true balanced transmission lines�.  Power lines can and do make efficient
antennas in this part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

We are also concerned by assertions by both the BPL industry and the FCC
that BPL will bring broadband services to rural parts of the country.
Anyone who has examined the economics of the situation will realize that
this is a false promise.  BPL is not a low-cost option, and will likely not
be able to succeed outside heavily populated areas.  Claims to the otherwise
are misleading and unfair to rural America.

We are encouraged that the FCC has recognized that Access BPL service
providers will be responsible to resolve interference, but ask how this will
be enforced.  Power companies already have a poor record of resolving power
line interference caused by electrostatic discharge.  Why should we believe
that they would be more responsive and effective in solving problems in a
field in which they have little expertise and experience?  Indeed, the
statement that Amateur Radio operators must currently �orient their antennas
to minimize the reception of emissions from nearby power lines� is an
admission that power companies are already unable to adequately maintain
existing systems.

While the NPRM states that �operations must cease if harmful interference to
licensed services is caused�, who determines what is and is not �harmful�
interference?  What is the definition of interference � the FCC currently
has several.  What proof must licensed users provide that they are being
interfered with?  Will this require them to obtain expensive test equipment,
and if so, who will pay for that?  Will the FCC have to come to the site to
take measurements?  What is the time frame for the BPL provider to cease
interfering with the licensed service?  A process that takes weeks or months
will be of little help to the Amateur Radio operator trying to copy a
distress call from a sailboat in the South Pacific.

The NPRM states that �Given that there is a significant investment in the
deployment of the service� Access BPL providers would have a strong
incentive to exercise the utmost caution in installing their systems to
avoid harmful interference and ensure uninterrupted service to their
customers�.  While in a perfect world this might be true, in reality, the
more a company has invested in BPL, the less likely it will be inclined to
correct faults that might interfere with its service.  The utility companies
have had a �significant investment� in the power grid for years, but it
often takes months if not years for action to be taken in power line
interference cases, even with the intervention of the FCC.

An example will better illustrate this point.  If a BPL company has 10,000
customers, each paying $30.00 a month, then this represents $300,000.00 of
revenue per month, or 3.6 million dollars a year.  This is a lot of
incentive for the company to drag its feet on any issue that might
inconvenience its customers.  Already, the Progress Energy Corporation in
Raleigh has indicated that it believes itself to be in compliance with the
rules, and refuses to mitigate interference to Amateur Radio operators.
This has included harmful interference to mobile stations located several
hundred yards from BPL sources, hardly a promising start.

The NPRM does not address the issue of interference to BPL systems at all.
While Part 15 requires that unlicensed users must accept interference caused
by licensed users, we are not convinced that this is adequate protection.
Given that the general population is unaware of the provisions of Part 15,
and the unfortunate reality that the justice system is technically
uninformed, we are deeply concerned that unlicensed users will sue licensed
users of the affected spectrum.  Even if the licensed user eventually
prevails � and that is by no means a foregone conclusion in view of the
sometimes-incomprehensible decisions rendered daily by courts in America �
who will compensate him/her for legal fees, stress, inconvenience, and any
losses caused by having to shut down temporarily?  This is a very serious
omission in the NPRM, and must be addressed.

While public service, aeronautical and maritime communication services are
supposed to be designed such that mobile and portable units receive signal
levels significantly above the noise floor, this is often not the case.
Reception in built up areas, for example, is often degraded by signal
blockage by buildings.  Interference by BPL systems, much more likely in
congested areas, will only exacerbate the problem.  The NTIA report on BPL
reported �significant increases in the noise floor due to interference�, and
�a ten-fold increase in total receiver noise power� due to BPL.  The effect
of BPL on portable and mobile stations involved in emergency situations must
therefore be evaluated.  The Austrian Red Cross reported that during an
exercise in May 2003, communications were �massively disturbed� by BPL, with
interference levels �exceeding the limit by a factor of 10,000�.  In light
of this, the impact of BPL interference to emergency services such as ARES
(Amateur Radio Emergency Services), RACES (Radio Amateur Civil Emergency
Service) and MARS (Military Affiliate Radio System) must be fully
investigated.

We welcome the Commission�s approach to �proceed cautiously� with respect to
emission levels, but must point out that current emission levels may already
be too high. The FCC limits on electric field strength of unintentional
radiators are significantly above those of European nations � almost 80 dB
higher than those of the United Kingdom and NATO. As well, the methods used
by the FCC to measure field intensity are deficient.  The NTIA has
determined that �current ad hoc measurement techniques used in Part 15
compliance tests may significantly underestimate the peak field strength
generated by BPL systems�.  The current measurement guidelines must
therefore serve as a starting point only.  More accurate methods of
measuring field intensity must be found, and we caution the Commission not
to resist any tightening of emission limits that might become necessary.

The NPRM does not consider the possibility of sky wave propagation of BPL
signals, and of the overall impact of many BPL sources.  Amateur Radio
operators routinely communicate over thousands of miles using power levels
specified in Part 15.  A British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) study
concluded that the cumulative effect of sky wave propagation of BPL systems
on aircraft and distant ground-based receivers �may not be negligible�, and
recommends further study.  The NTIA has observed that �aggregate emissions
from a composite system are expected to be above those generated by a single
device�.  Even without ionospheric propagation, aircraft receivers may face
serious interference.  The NTIA report indicates that aircraft at an
altitude of 6 to 12 km may experience interference at a range of more than
50 km from the source.

We recommend that the BPL database be centralized to permit easy access and
searching by the general public.  An organization independent of the BPL
industry but funded by it must be set up to maintain this database.  It
would be subject to FCC control.

The NPRM contains no detailed conditions for the  �adaptive interference
mitigation techniques�.  The vague language in the NPRM provides huge
opportunities for abuse by the BPL providers.  If the BPL industry is so
confident that it will not cause interference, then it should have no
objections to specific requirements to mitigate interference.  As licensed
users in the affected spectrum, we insist that the process be available
24/7, and performed immediately upon receipt of a complaint of interference.
Even then, mobile and aeronautical stations will not be able to take
advantage of these techniques, so further testing of interference to these
systems must be performed and emission levels strictly controlled as
necessitated by the tests.

Currently deployed BPL systems should be brought into compliance with the
regulations in the shortest time possible.

We insist that small entities be required to meet the same standards and
requirements as larger BPL interests.  As pointed out in Appendix A to the
NPRM, in 1992 there were 275,801 small entities in the USA.  This must
encompass a large percentage of the nation�s population.  Easing the
standards for small entities would adversely affect a great number of
licensed users of the affected spectrum.

We insist that BPL systems must be tested for compliance with the rules by
an independent laboratory prior to initiation of service.  This testing must
include not just the individual components, but also the overall system as
it would be deployed in service.

To ensure that BPL subscribers are aware of the possibility of interference
to the system by licensed users, we insist that BPL marketers must be
required to give clear notice to consumers that licensed radio services have
priority, and that the delivery of BPL services therefore cannot be
guaranteed.  Receipt of this notice must be acknowledged in writing prior to
the signing of any contract for BPL service.

Finally, we insist that there be severe penalties for non-compliance with
these rules.

While we would have preferred that the FCC had banned BPL altogether as an
unacceptable threat to a precious natural resource, we recognize the
requirement for widespread broadband access throughout the nation.  We do
not believe that BPL will fill that requirement in the rural areas, but
realize that the FCC is reluctant to pick winners and losers.  The proposed
conditions as outlined in the NPRM are a mildly positive first step, but
only a first step � much �fleshing out� remains to be done.  Be advised that
the members of the Pikes Peak Radio Amateur Association remain resolute in
their determination to prevent pollution of the HF and low VHF spectrum by
BPL systems.


Alphonse Penney				Dennis Major
VO1NO / W0					N0ABC
President					Vice-President

Joanie VerDuft				John Hasling
KC0GMI					K0AAI
Secretary					Treasurer