.FLYINGHEAD LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
.TITLE Could BPL be a clear and present danger to national security?
.AUTHOR Fred Stevens
.SUMMARY We continue our editorial coverage of the broadband over powerline (BPL) controversy with a letter from Fred Stevens, a retired US Army Signal Corps Lieutenant Colonel who’s also an Amateur Radio operator. Fred took issue with some of our coverage of the BPL issue. Given his unique background, we asked him to expand upon his letter (he was quite annoyed with us). This is a worthy read. Fred has some very interesting perspectives. Because of some of the more controversial comments in the article, we’re obliged to state that the opinions of the author are not necessarily that of Computing Unplugged Magazine, the editors, or ZATZ Publishing.
.OTHER
.BEGIN_SIDEBAR
.H1 About this series
We continue our editorial coverage of the broadband over powerline (BPL) controversy with a letter from Fred Stevens, a retired US Army Signal Corps Lieutenant Colonel who’s also an Amateur Radio operator. Fred took issue with some of our coverage of the BPL issue. Given his unique background, we asked him to expand upon his letter (he was quite annoyed with us).
This is a worthy read. Fred has some very interesting perspectives. Because of some of the more controversial comments in the article, we’re obliged to state that the opinions of the author are not necessarily that of Computing Unplugged Magazine, the editors, or ZATZ Publishing.
.END_SIDEBAR
Your latest article, "Why are we giving BPL all this coverage?" (at http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/00001818001.html) of the series on Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) is disappointing, to say the least. As an Amateur Radio operator (first licensed in 1961) and a veteran of the US Army Signal Corps (24 years Active and Reserve, Lieutenant Colonel, two wars), the article made several unfortunate, albeit perhaps unintentional errors of omission, presumptions, and unwarranted innuendoes.
An initial word on the term "Amateur Radio". To most uninitiated persons, the word "amateur" brings to mind the image of "rookie", "beginner", "novice" or "dabbler" in a field of endeavor. Every one of us Amateur Radio operators has had to pass a rigorous exam just for an entry level FCC license and most of us are anything but "tyros", having learned in-depth knowledge of electronics and electrical principles, radiowave propagation, satcom, wireless technology, radio design and operation, regulatory and procedural requirements, and, indeed, computers among other subjects.
.CALLOUT BPL will adversely affect military tactical communications.
Our ranks include many, many professional persons in such related fields as electrical engineering, physics, electronics, broadcasting and broadcast engineering, electronics research and design, military communications, and, of course, computer software and hardware engineering, design, and creation, to name only a few professions.
For this reason, we tend to avoid the unfortunate term "Amateur" which we inherited a century ago and prefer the term "ham", a leftover from 19th century telegraphy. For many of us emergency and high-tech communicators, a better term might be "para-professional" in that we are unpaid for our services, but perform in a very professional manner. There are approximately 675,000 licensed hams in the United States, about 44,000 in Canada, and roughly three million worldwide. For more information, please see http://www.qrz.com/i/census.html? and http://www.iaru.org/statsum00.html.
First and foremost, BPL is a politically driven issue rather than the technical matter it should be; if it were anything else but political, it would have disappeared along with other poorly-conceived and executed technology such as cold fusion, likewise unworkable. The FCC is not currently demonstrating a "desire to protect the radio spectrum" because its ultimate boss in the White House has made it perfectly clear he wants BPL rammed down the throat of the U.S. Public and will not take "No" for an answer.
.CALLOUT BPL is a clear and present danger to the nation’s security in times of disaster and war.
As a result of, and toward this end, he has appointed Yes-men to chair the FCC, the first being Michael Powell and the current being Kevin J. Martin, neither of whom were/are willing to contradict their superior on the compatibility of BPL with other licensed wireless services, at least if they wish to keep their jobs. Very much like many other issues, the President does not take kindly to hearing data and information which are not supportive of his political agenda, no matter how factual they might be.
This position has forced the FCC into violating its own regulations with regard to interference emissions by BPL; considerable technical data has been presented by the ARRL at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/index.html and http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html demonstrating the potential and actual interference of most existing BPL systems.
Similarly, several other Federal agencies such as the NTIA (National Telecommunications & Information Administration) and FEMA with concern about BPL’s deployment have been muzzled by the administration with regard to BPL (see below). However, far worse is the fact that BPL can be made to be interference-free as explained by Bill South N3OH in "Interference: is it the dark underbelly of BPL?" (at http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200607/00001813001.html) through some relatively simple shifts to the gigahertz spectrum and other technological changes, already developed but rejected by the BPL industry leadership.
Adoption of this interference-free BPL technology would solve the interference problems, meet the goals of BPL proponents, and get the American Radio Relay League and us noisy ham protesters off the BPL advocates’ backs and permit us to return to our radios. It is not logical that industry and political leaders have dug in their heels, are ignoring the alternatives, and will not make this change. Politics at work.
Second, while ham radio operators and the ARRL may be the most vocal opponents of BPL, they are certainly not the only licensed services which are opposed to, and will be affected by BPL deployment in the HF and low VHF wireless spectrum. There are dozens or hundreds of other licensed services which are or will be affected by BPL including such diverse agencies, organizations, and fields as the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, taxi cab companies, WalMart clerks, mobile telephone services, ship-to-shore telephone interfaces, trucking and railroad dispatch systems, radio astronomy scientists, and indeed power utilities’ own organic radio systems to name a few, in addition to those emergency services mentioned in the Computing Unplugged article (e.g., police, fire, rescue, medical and other emergency services).
.CALLOUT BPL will interfere with a major drug smuggling detection and interdiction project; this information is classified.
The advantages the ARRL and ham operators have is that we are better organized and know the technical aspects and interference potential of BPL and are not under any politically- nor industry-motivated gag orders. Most other organizations utilizing HF and VHF lack the technical expertise to gather their own data and use it to protest to the FCC, so have let the ARRL assume lead agency status against BPL.
As one high-level Red Cross official told me three years ago, "We don’t know anything about that stuff. You guys take care of it for us.". The article’s coverage also omits reference to government communications within the affected spectrum. The NTIA, which regulates Federal government wireless communications (The FCC regulates non-Federal communications), after initially opposing BPL in its proposed form to the FCC three years ago (see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfilings/2003/bplcomments_08132003.htm) was forced by political (and personal) pressure from the White House to withdraw its opposition, amend its 2003 comments to the FCC, and greatly water down or neutralize its negative findings regarding BPL (see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfilings/2004/BPLComments_06042004.htm).
For example, BPL will adversely affect military tactical communications since the standard FM radios (35 MHz to 75 MHz) used by the Army (and National Guard and Army Reserve) and Marines are well within the BPL spectrum; however, nobody in government is permitted to bring forward this fact. In another area in which I have personal knowledge, BPL will interfere with a major drug smuggling detection and interdiction project; this information is classified, but suffice it to state the operators of this hemisphere-wide project are deeply concerned, but are not permitted to protest for fear of prosecution by US Department of Justice, not to mention loss of their Federal contracts.
Similarly, FEMA initially expressed great concern about BPL’s effects on emergency communications (at http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/24470-1.html), but subsequently was forced to dilute these concerns by its political bosses. The short deadline for this article prevents me from fully documenting the depth to which Federal Agencies have been compelled by the Administration to suppress their opposition to BPL and eliminate or weaken any technical data which they produced or might produce which would demonstrate the interference generated by BPL to government wireless systems.
Third, the article’s whole section on "Follow The Money" is an affront to citizens who have earned their Amateur Radio licenses and to the ARRL as our spokesman. As mentioned earlier, despite the article’s presumption, the FCC is not doing its congressionally mandated job of protecting the radiowave spectrum and its licensees in regards to BPL. To even insinuate the ARRL has an alternative agenda toward promotion of, and funding by DSL and cable broadband providers or any other advocacy group borders on libel.
.CALLOUT The ARRL is about as politically connected and controversial as the average Pollywogs’ Right To Puddles organization.
For almost a century, the ARRL has equitably and non-politically represented ham radio throughout not only the USA but the rest of the world in its promotion of the hobby (an avocation for many/most of us) in all its facets. Its funding is an open book and as a non-profit organization, its financial records are a matter of public record; please see the latest 2005 Annual Report at http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/. The ARRL functions on what is essentially the proverbial shoestring. I am also a long-time Boy Scouting volunteer (53 years) and have seen rural Scout Councils with larger budgets than the ARRL.
Further, the ARRL as may be seen from the most recent Annual Report is not particularly well-endowed for an old organization. Again, my home Scout Council in very rural upstate New York (2,500 youth members in three counties) has a larger endowment than the ARRL. The entire issue of money is a non-issue: we are not into ham radio for its financial advantages and the ARRL isn’t either, any more than the Boy Scouts of America seeks monetary gain at the expense of its principles. While both organizations embark on fund-raising campaigns just to stay alive, the movements do not engage in partisan nor hidden acceptance of funds from advocacy organizations and both are prohibited by law and inclination from partisan politics.
The ARRL has fully documented its concerns regarding BPL as I am sure Ed Hare W1RFI will divulge, but the basic data and related information is at http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/index.html. [We ran a letter from Ed in Computing Unplugged. You can read his "The ARRL on BPL" at http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/00001820001.html. — Ed.]
The ARRL is about as politically connected and controversial as the average Pollywogs’ Right To Puddles organization. While the ARRL does lobby on behalf of ham operators to forward the cause of Amateur Radio, it does not, to my knowledge, have a permanent lobbyist in Washington, D.C. nor does it maintain a lobby office in Washington, D.C., although League officials with other duties travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby with lawmakers (due to BPL, far more frequently these days than in previous times). Most of its lobbying efforts are through individual volunteers and a grassroots effort (more details are at http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports2004/july/grassroots.html), organized primarily to combat BPL.
We have no hidden agenda and certainly are not pushing controversial advocacy causes such as is done by Americans for Tax Reform, Planned Parenthood, Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, and the Sierra Club. When Computing Unplugged is in contact with Ed Hare W1RFI, he can probably advise the magazine on specific details; also, Al Pitts W1AGP <apitts@arrl.org>, the ARRL Media and Public Relations Manager can provide even more details on how the ARRL’s main thrust is toward education and ham radio advancement rather than politics. [An interview with Pitts is in this issue. — Ed.]
This might be a strategic weakness in the ARRL’s business plan: we ham radio operators do not do extensive lobbying and are not politically connected. If we were to do more lobbying and had more political influence, we probably would not now have to worry about BPL and I would not be writing this article. BPL would be history. Further, there are only two junior congressmen who happen to have their ham radio licenses. Their effectiveness on behalf of ham radio is yet untested. The ARRL is certainly not in the same league as the National Rifle Association nor, to mention an extreme, the energy industry, in terms of political influence and lobbying capability.
And, no, I have never personally heard BPL interference on HF nor VHF. I do not need nor wish to do so (I have heard the recordings; it sounds like a continuous lightning static burst on top of whatever might have been underneath). I have not traveled to those locations where it has been installed because, fortunately, such systems are still uncommon and my trails did not cross them. The technical data, documentation, and recordings secured by the ARRL and other non-ARRL data sources (including NTIA before it was suppressed by the White House) demonstrating the interference is solid scientific electrical research information and is more than adequate for me. I have never seen a nuclear detonation either, but just because I have not seen one does not mean that such a detonation does not exist and that the potential dangers of nuclear weapons are exaggerated.
These multi-thousand dollar "old 20th-century technology" ham radio "toys" so casually dismissed in the Computing Unplugged article are, in fact, state-of-the-art solid state micro-processed computer- and menu-driven technologies capable of high-speed multi-tasked operations sophisticated to the degree to make an average desktop PC seem like an abacus and digital TV seem like a Daguerreotype picture.
I reference, as one example PACTOR-III digitally processed communications. I use it for Winlink 2000 email which links with Internet nodes around the world, among other utilizations, so that I have email service in remote locations such as Labrador where the Internet is mostly still at the dialup level. This same technology is used by world-class sailors at sea)in which an SCS PTC-IIex modem outclasses even a T-1 connection by doing it wirelessly over great distances with considerably smaller and less expensive equipment at often greater speeds under the most adverse conditions.
Other hams with far more technical expertise than I can present even more examples of the technology sophistication, advancements, advantages, and superiorities of ham radio equipment. Amateur radio experimenters from Marconi to the present have been in the forefront of communications developments and were, in fact the original innovators of the Internet with the ham radio international packet network predating early ARPANET efforts. Many ARPA members were hams and instead of talking about it, went out and did it on their own. The two networks exchanged each other’s technology developments. I was there, but that’s another war story.
Amateur Radio, of course, predated the Internet by many years with packet’s development starting in the 1960s and 1970s. For some background, please read http://www.ac6v.com/history.htm and http://www2.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html. Antenna technology development (for example, ionic liquid radiators) for the benefit of government, military, and civilian applications is still driven by Amateur Radio experimenters. While there are still many ham operators who prefer to use old antique radio equipment (we call them "boatanchors"), they do so with the same spirit as those who drive 1913 Model T Fords with an appreciation of the skill which went into their development and of their evolutionary history which preceded modern radio communications equipment.
And the article mentioned cellphones and Skype (as an example) VOIP as if they were the modern panacea for communications. Both are available to anyone with adequate service, but both rely on commercial power and compatibility of equipment. No power, no compatibility, no communication. This is especially significant during emergencies when commercial power is the first utility to disappear with the inevitable loss of cellphone, telephone, internet (and VOIP), satellite, commercial broadcast radio, and police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency services which rely on repeaters and dispatchers.
More on emergency services shortly.
As a fulltime RVer (I have solar- and battery-powered satellite Internet connection, have functioned quite well, thank you with ham radio and life’s other functions without commercial power for three years), I can easily state that cellphone coverage in the US is anything but universal. If one travels outside urbanized areas, especially (but not exclusively) west of the Mississippi River (however, my home in rural upstate NY did not have cell coverage), one will find that cellphone coverage is generally restricted to urban areas and limited pockets of populated areas with huge gaps in all states.
Even along the interstate highway system where emphasis has been on cellphone coverage for emergencies, there are thousands of miles of interstate highways where there is no service. BPL will do nothing to enhance nor replace these communications modes since it will not and cannot be deployed to those rural or isolated areas not served by cellphones nor internet; it is simply not cost effective.
No farmer in Iowa who cannot get broadband Internet for VOIP nor has cellphone coverage is going to get wired for BPL by a BPL provider because the provider isn’t about to install tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment for one customer. There is some question whether BPL would even work in such situations due to line attenuation and phasing problems, but again, I leave it to those with more technical expertise than I to explain.
As an aside, having traveled the width and length of most of the lower United States, "lower" and parts of "upper" Canada including Labrador (five east/west continental crossings in three years, 38 States, three Provinces, 87,000 miles), I have yet to find a site in the country, even from the most remote locations in the Adirondacks and Appalachian chain to the Rockies to the Arizona deserts in which at least one 2-meter (144-148 MHz) ham radio repeater (a retransmission mode) cannot be reached; with a direct range of 50 to 150 miles (several hundreds of miles if the repeaters are linked) from a small vehicle-mounted radio. There’s almost always someone at the distant end, a salvation for the numbers of stranded and lonely motorists broken down along the roadsides whom I have assisted over the years when their cellphones showed "no service" (remember, I’m a Scouter and feel obligated to help motorists in distress).
Last, regarding the emergency benefits of Amateur Radio, while the article mentioned it in a favorable light (the most positive thing stated about ham radio), the subject bears reiteration. I think we hams have demonstrated our effectiveness, flexibility, mobility, and essentiality in virtually every hamlet, village, town, city, county, parish, region, state, and the nation as a whole which has experienced natural and non-natural disasters.
We have this capability since we operate independently of commercial power, our equipment is compatible with all common radio modes like SSB (Single Side Band), AM, FM, CW (what most people know as Morse Code), with dozens of digital modes, and with each other. We have a wider selection of frequencies and bands available than any other licensed service. This permits flexibility for distance, natural propagation, and solar conditions (but does not allow for BPL interference across almost our entire long-, medium-, and short-range spectrum).
We know how to use our bands and equipment, and we have complete mobility because we carry everything we need for local, regional, and/or worldwide communications in our briefcases, in our suitcases, on our backs, in our aircraft, in our boats, or in our vehicles and have a tremendous capability for improvisation (we can make antennas from coat hangers).
I was activated for service shortly after 9/11 and served right at Ground Zero in New York City, providing communications for firemen, policemen, rescue workers, Federal and State agencies, the Red Cross, and civilians in the affected area. There were no other modes of communications available.
I was also activated for relief duty in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. Same situation: I was the only means for outside communications for a hospital in Washington Parish until commercial communications modes were brought back online. I have also served during numerous more localized disasters including severe electrical storms, floods, a tornado, a bunch of "lesser" hurricanes, and uncounted power outages.
I would not have been able to perform this public service without many years of training, thousands of hours of practice during drills and exercises, considerable practical experience in actual emergency communications ("emcomm"), and thousands of dollars of investments in expensive and sophisticated Amateur Radio technology. I will continue to provide this service as long as I can continue to train and practice the essential complex techniques and familiarize myself with continually updated equipment and technology required for emergency communications — as long as I can conduct all this training and these exercises without the interference which can be and is caused by BPL.
Emergency communications by not only ham radio operators, but by other emergency organizations should not and must not be relegated to a secondary status by BPL and the FCC. Emergency communications absolutely must be the primary consideration in BPL planning and regulation and it must not be implemented at the expense of licensed wireless services which provide emergency services.
And, as a combat veteran and soldier, I sure as hell am not going to be pushed around by BPL’s proven flawed technology and the politically-motivated and financially-driven bureaucrats and industry proponents who cannot see their hands in front of their faces because their heads are shoved someplace where the sun doesn’t shine. While BPL may be made to work interference free (e.g., using Motorola or similar technology), BPL is not going to work as it is presently proposed, promulgated, deployed, and non-regulated.
In summary, until and unless the current Administration and the FCC understand and acknowledge that BPL is faulty technology, delete it from the political arena, and either remove it from consideration or modify the technology to be interference free, ham radio operators and the ARRL will continue to lead the battle against BPL not only on its own behalf but also for the benefit of the millions of other HF and low VHF spectrum users as well.
.BEGIN_KEEP
BPL as it is presently deployed and planned for the future by its advocates is a clear and present danger to the nation’s security in times of disaster and war and must not continue to be forced upon us by those who serve only their own pecuniary interests and political agendas.
.BEGIN_SIDEBAR
.H1 Product availability and resources
To read "Why are we giving BPL all this coverage?", visit http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/00001818001.html
More more information on the US ham population, visit http://www.qrz.com/i/census.html.
More more information on the worldwide ham population, visit http://www.iaru.org/statsum00.html.
For more information on "Why Amateur Radio Is Concerned about Its Deployment", visit http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/index.html.
For more information on "FCC Part-15 Rules: Unlicensed RF Devices", visit http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html.
To read "Interference: is it the dark underbelly of BPL?", visit http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200607/00001813001.html.
For more information on the NTIA’s initial opposition to BPL, visit http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfilings/2003/bplcomments_08132003.htm.
For more information on the NTIA’s later position on BPL, visit http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfilings/2004/BPLComments_06042004.htm.
For more information on FEMA’s concerns about BPL, visit http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/24470-1.html.
For more information on the ARRL annual report, visit http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport.
For more information on the ARRL’s position on BPL, visit http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/index.html.
For more information on the ARRL’s grassroots lobbying efforts, visit http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports2004/july/grassroots.html.
For more information on the history of Amateur Radio, visit http://www.ac6v.com/history.htm.
For more information on the history of the ARPANET, visit http://www2.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa.html.
.END_SIDEBAR
.BIO Fred Stevens, a retired wildlife biologist and US Army Signal Corps Lieutenant Colonel, now a DisAmVet, is a fulltime RVer currently in northern Arizona and holds FCC Amateur Radio Extra Class License K2FRD and Industry Canada License VO2FS. He participates in local, regional, and state ham radio emcomm exercises, nets, and organizations wherever he travels. An active Boy Scouting Volunteer, he is Editor-Publisher of the international ham radio/Scouting publication, the OCARG EAGLE at http://ocarg.org. His personal homepage is http://homepage.mac.com/k2frd/K2FRD.html. The author may be contacted at hyperlinks within these pages, but if volume is too high, please do not expect a speedy response.
.END_KEEP
