[TowerTalk] Fw: BPL threat to HF and AM radio

[Roger Borowski]

Subject: BPL threat to HF and AM radio



This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite
of the numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet
data over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum), the
FCC seems disposed to encourage it anyway. -------------------

From: 
Amateur Radio Station N0JAA <N0JAA at aol.com>
4:00 PM

Subject: 
[ARLI] FCC Commissioner's Comments Concerning BPL
To: 
bvarc at clarc.org, clarc at clarc.org, ARLI at topica.com


The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all
for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big
industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.

This is from today's FCC Digest.

Paul, N0JAA

----------------------


Reaching Broadband Nirvana 
United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner
Kathleen Q. Abernathy 
September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery) 


Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very
excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I 
have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It
is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this 
important juncture for BPL. 

As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number
of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to
facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I
also fundamentally believe that the FCC can best promote consumer
welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed 
regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these
key goals. It will not only bring broadband to previously unserved
communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the
home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will
eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I
want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based
providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline, 
wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and
diversified marketplace is something I would call broadband Nirvana.
We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL
technology is a major step forward. 

While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace
that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is:
What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking
with my Nirvana metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the
path to enlightenment? 

I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is
tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that
comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services.
After all, regulatory parity and a level playing field are
intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge
mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology
platforms are established. Many of our regulations are premised on
the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we
must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve
their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become
unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services
that need room to breathe. 

The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to
wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other 
platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available,
that will further undermine the justification for regulating 
incumbent LECs broadband services as if they were the only available
offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect
that we will eliminate many existing rules and substantially modify
others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will
remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market. 

Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of
new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many 
competition-related regulations, other types of regulation may well
remain necessary. For example, the FCC must implement public policy
goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition.
Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are
examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals
generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent
permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to
prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to
protect consumers where market failures are identified. Although, as
I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing
heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services
when the were introduced, it was also right to adopt strict
interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their
costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that,
while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we
should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular
governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to
share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few
questions if we have time.