[SCCC] Re: FCC Accepting Comments on Broadband over Power Line Technology

[Dan Bathker]

It is really a *shame* the FCC has so many administrators and legal beagles
while employing so few engineers who understand the implications of such 
dumb proposals as BPL -- agreed, we gotta respond -- and heavily

K6BLG

At 08:45 PM 5/18/2003 -0700, Michael Tope wrote:
>I urge everyone who has any interest in HF communications to
>file comments with the FCC in response to their notice of
>inquiry (NOI) on Broadband Powerline Communications.
>For those who are not familiar with it, BPL is a system whereby
>existing low and medium voltage power transmission lines
>will be used to deliver broadband data services to households.
>The system is seen by many in the telecommunications industry
>as very attractive since it uses existing power line infrastructure
>rather than requiring new fibers, coax, or twisted pairs to be
>strung. The problem with the system is that power transmission
>lines are only really good transmission lines at 60 hertz. At HF
>frequencies where the new system would operate, they start to
>look like pretty good antennas.
>
>Studies by ARRL indicate that If BPL is allowed to deploy in the
>United States under the current FCC part 15 rules, it could easily
>mean S9 + level broadband interference from 2 to 30 MHz in all
>Metropolitan areas where BPL penetration is heavy. The Japanese
>have managed to prevent BPL from being adopted in Japan
>through a concerted effort on the part of JA amateurs. Once this
>genie is out of the bottle, it will be very hard to put it back in. The
>consortium that is behind this technology is backed by a number
>of top U.S. telecom manufacturers and they appear to have the ear
>of the FCC chairman, Michael Powell, a number of the FCC
>commissioners, as well as the NTIA administrator. The BPL industry
>will try to skirt the interference issue as this is its Achilles heal, so
>its important that amateurs make their concerns about interference
>known to the FCC.
>
>If you have any interest at all in HF communications I again urge
>you to file comments in response to the FCC NOI.  BTW there
>is also some indication that BPL proponents are eying lower
>VHF up to about 80 MHz as well, so don't think that this won't
>effect you if your VFO never gets lower than 50 MHz. The filing
>deadline will probably be sometime in mid-June (the exact date
>is 45 days after the NOI is published in the Federal register).
>
>For instruction on how to respond to the NOI, see the last few
>paragraphs of the following article:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/05/08/3/?nc=1
>
>For more information on BPL, check out the following webpage
>from ARRL:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
>
>Ed Hare's report to the IEEE C63 EMC standards group on
>BPL gives a good technical overview of the interference potential:
>
>http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/files/C63NovPLC.pdf
>
>Finally if you have access to IEEE publications, the April issue
>of the IEEE Communications Magazine, has 5 articles on BPL
>technology.
>
>73 de Mike,
>W4EF..................................................................