.FLYINGHEAD LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
.TITLE The broadband over powerline controversy heats up
.AUTHOR David Gewirtz
.SUMMARY Wow! All I can say is "Wow"! We ran what seemed like a perfectly innocuous interview with an expert on what seemed like a perfectly innocuous topic: broadband over powerline (BPL). It seemed like the perfect no-brainer: more broadband, no extra wires, and high-speed Internet to countries with no other infrastructure. Apparently, not everyone agrees.
.FEATURE
Wow! All I can say is "Wow"! We ran what seemed like a perfectly innocuous interview with an expert on what seemed like a perfectly innocuous topic: broadband over powerline (BPL). It seemed like the perfect no-brainer: more broadband, no extra wires, and high-speed Internet to countries with no other infrastructure.
Apparently, not everyone agrees.
I even threw out an olive branch to my red state brethren and managed to find a positive, constructive quote from our President.
In particular, the Amateur Radio operators, you know, those ham radio operators with the weird antennas outside their homes, with strange call signs like K2WTF, these folks were livid! It seems that some of them claim broadband over powerline radiates, causing interference for their radio transmissions.
At first, we were simply prepared to mock the ham operators as being so last century. But then we began to research the FCC filings and discovered a lot of complaints. It’s not only the old guys trying to collect as many postcards from foreign countries as possible. There were also complaints from emergency services responders, claiming the BPL interference interfered with emergency transmissions. And that, if it’s true, could be serious.
We’ve got a lot of letters on this, including one from the head of research for the ARRL, the American Radio Relay League. The ARRL is the national association for Amateur Radio operators. In the next few articles, we’ll cover their side of the story. Then, hopefully, we’ll get more BPL industry input and, if we’re really lucky, some input from the FCC.
We’re still having some difficulty finding an FCC expert to talk to us on this topic, so if you happen to be someone at the FCC or can help put us in touch, please contact me directly at david@ZATZ.com.
For now, let’s kick it off with some of the first letters we received.
.TEASER Tap here to read what readers really think of BPL
.BEGIN_KEEP
.H1 Glen Reid, K5FX
Glen Reid, in Austin Texas, decided to wake us up by impugning our journalistic integrity:
.QUOTE I am hoping that in the future you will excise a little more journalistic objectivity in your writing about BPL.
.QUOTE Your interview with Mr. Gomez of DS2 was about as one sided, in favor of BPL, as I have heard.
.QUOTE Mr. Gomez, understandably, failed mention the serious potential for BPL interference to licensed radio users, including the 600,000 Amateur Radio operators in the U. S.
.QUOTE You, not so understandably did not inquire about! Perhaps you need a little more research in the subject.
.QUOTE Indeed, a number of BPL trials in Cottonwood, AZ, Briar Cliff Manor, NY and Manassas, VA have been the object of numerous interference complaints by Amateur Radio operators. All these systems, I believe, use the DS2 chip set.
.QUOTE To better understand the radio interference problems with BPL I suggest that you contact Mr. Ed Hare, Lab Manager at the American Radio Relay League. Ed has become quite expert in the BPL trashing of the radio spectrum.
.QUOTE Looking forward to a tad more objective look at BPL in your next chapter.
Actually, within a few hours, Ed contacted us. We’ll be running some discussion from him later in this series.
.END_KEEP
.H1 Arthur Whittum, Amateur Radio Extra Class License W1CRO
Arthur Whittum, Amateur Radio Extra Class License W1CRO, gave us much better information:
.QUOTE A friend pointed me to your recent Web page interview with a DS2 representative about a Broadband over PowerLine. It sounded like a two year old article and I was surprised to see that it was in your 200607 issue.
.QUOTE I’m sure you would like to learn more about "BPL" or "PLC" for future articles, and I would like to help. As a marketing representative, he has to put the best face on his product. But there is another face to BPL and it isn’t pretty. And BPL and PLC are not the same, regardless of those who would try to "make it so."
At this point, we had no real idea what he was talking about. Fortunately, he was willing to give us more information, and this got us started looking at the topic:
.QUOTE I was hoping you’d take a few peeks at the Web sites that I provided. The language used by Mr Gomez is almost the same as other BPL proponents have been publishing in press releases for quite some time. So "new and current" may be applied to the DS2 chips, but the basic BPL story-line has not changed — even the cavalier treatment of "existing infrastructure". I don’t think you can go much over 2000 feet without a BPL repeater, and more often the distance is probably much less. So it’s not as cheap as it sounds.
.QUOTE Broadband over PowerLine systems have been installed for "testing" in quite a few areas for at least three years now; sites are as follows (I don’t know how current the chartlet is). In more than a few cases, some test sites closed down in the face of interference complaints from licensed radio spectrum users.
.QUOTE PLC, powerline communications has been around for many years — generally used by power system operators (utilities) for supervisory, command, and data signals. PLC, as we know it in the US, uses RF frequencies at or below 500 kHz; and data rates are generally quite slow by Internet standards. And PLC is used as a BPL descriptor in other countries.
.QUOTE BPL uses radio frequency signals in the high frequency 4-30 MHz shortwave bands and sometimes in the 30-50 MHz bands. As a Manassas area resident, and an amateur radio operator, I had been trying to get the FCC’s attention focused on the Manassas BPL system due to its widespread radiation and disruptive interference with a licensed service (amateur radio) on the high frequency (HF) shortwave radio bands. Complaints from myself, and others to the FCC and others, go back two years. Working with the local BPL franchisee and the City of Manassas appeared to be generating positive results until the franchisee found that he couldn’t fix the problem — at that point cooperation stopped. Complaints submitted after that final meeting in January 2006 (between local amateur radio operators and the franchisee/City of Manassas) finally took effect and the FCC directed action be taken by the franchisee to correct the interference and provide a description of measures to be taken in the event that FCC directed them to shut down (customer notification, etc.).
.QUOTE While I agree that BPL may not be taking the nation by storm, Manassas is not an isolated incident or location. If you look through the ARRL listing of BPL systems you will find some hefty installations — some of them even work properly; that is — they haven’t caused widespread interference on HF radio frequency bands, yet. That is my main concern. The HF shortwave bands are unique — they support world-wide communications without using satellites, fibre optics, CAT-5 cables or plain old telephone service. Interference in those bands, from an unlicensed, incidental radiator like BPL is viewed as a threat by many of us. And, I admit to getting a bit exercised when, in my opinion, a one-sided BPL interview is published.
.QUOTE I hope that helps a bit
Of course, I’m not a ham radio operator (although I did dabble back when I was a kid). I am, however, a huge proponent of broadband anywhere and everywhere I can get it. To be fair, I make my living through broadband, so I am quite biased. I poked the hornets’ nest a bit with the comment "Honestly, though, I believe that ham operators interests must be a lower priority to broadband infrastructure, but everyone’s entitled to an opinion."
Arthur responded with his last set of thoughts on the topic:
.QUOTE We’ll have to agree to disagree.
.QUOTE Licensed users always must have access to the spectrum allotted to them. It’s not "just a ham radio operator" — the FCC took aim and missed. Although they specifically delineated military and aero frequencies in the HF spectrum that must be "notched out" of the BPL signal (whether DSS or OFDM mode), they decided that shortwave listeners, non-federal government agencies, amateur radio operators and others would have to fend for themselves. We all must find the source of the interference, identify it as BPL, track down the company (a little easier now that the FCC-mandated database is active), file complaints, contact the FCC if the franchisee cannot correct the problem, and then wait.
.QUOTE One interesting note: BPL does not require the use of HF radio spectrum to survive, as several companies with relatively clean operations have shown.
.QUOTE Finally, one key consideration was addressed by the FCC in the rules for BPL — (paraphrased) BPL emitters are in the same class with baby monitors and garage door openers ("Part 15" emitters) — that must cause no interference to other sources and must accept all interference from other sources. So legally, they must fix the problems or shut down. Reality doesn’t always match that requirement though.
.H1 What’s it all mean?
Are the interests of hobbyists getting in the way of bringing broadband to developing countries? Or is this really a case of a technology that will interfere with emergency services response?
Stay tuned. In the coming weeks, hopefully, we’ll have more answers.
.BIO
