.FLYINGHEAD THE COMPUTING UNPLUGGED INTERVIEW
.TITLE Inside the ARRL’s objection to BPL interference
.AUTHOR David Gewirtz
.OTHER
.SUMMARY When we first began our coverage of Broadband-over-Powerline (BPL), members of the ham radio community who also read Computing Unplugged made sure we understood that there’s actually a controversy here, an important one. As we began to research the topic further, one organization’s name kept coming up over and over: the American Radio Relay League, better known as the ARRL. After some back and forth dialog, Allen Pitts, Media and Public Relations Manager for the ARRL, agreed to be interviewed by Computing Unplugged. What follows is that interview.
.OTHER
When we first began our coverage of Broadband-over-Powerline (BPL), members of the ham radio community who also read Computing Unplugged made sure we understood that there’s actually a controversy here, an important one. As we began to research the topic further, one organization’s name kept coming up over and over: the American Radio Relay League, better known as the ARRL.
This organization is leading the charge against BPL and is providing virtually all the data being quoted by BPL’s various detractors. Although we got an informative letter from the ARRL’s laboratory manager, when we initially attempted to contact the ARRL, our calls and emails were not returned. Eventually, as part of our analysis, we began to wonder what forces drove the ARRL’s campaign. We wondered about the extent of the tests that were being quoted and about the funding behind the $13 million organization.
It’s amazing how, once you question someone’s motivations, suddenly you get a response. Not only did we get email from a lot of pissed off ham radio operators, we also were approached by Allen Pitts, Media and Public Relations Manager for the ARRL. After some back and forth dialog, Allen agreed to be interviewed by Computing Unplugged. What follows is that interview.
.Q David
Please explain the organization and purpose of the ARRL
.A Allen
"ARRL" is an acronym for "American Radio Relay League", a name that refers to the original purpose of the ARRL in the earliest days of radio. Obviously, ham radio has grown tremendously since then. We still use wireless communication, but now the "information" can include voice, images and data. Today, the 150,000-member ARRL is still the only organization in the United States dedicated solely to the avocation of Amateur Radio in all of its many forms.
The four core missions of the ARRL are:
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Public Service: the Amateur Radio Emergency Service, better known as ARES, provides communication support during natural and man-made disasters.
.BULLET Advocacy: The ARRL represents Amateur Radio at the local, state and federal levels.
.BULLET Education: The educational mission of the ARRL is to recruit new people to explore ham radio and to provide books and study guides for Amateur Radio activities such as license exams, mentor programs, school classrooms, instructional materials and training.
.BULLET Membership: we promote fraternalism and a high standard of conduct among Amateur Radio operators. The ARRL provides many direct services to members such as the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator Program, technical supports and a QSL (station verification reports) bureau.
.END_LIST
There would be no Amateur Radio as we know it today were it not for the ARRL.
.Q David
How is it that the ARRL has gotten caught up in the BPL debate?
.A Allen
As the national association and advocate for Amateur Radio, the ARRL has the responsibility to our members of protecting the Amateur Bands against intrusion and interference from other sources.
Through our decades-long, cooperative work with the FCC, communications industry and the International Amateur Radio Union, the ARRL has aided in the identification and elimination of many pirate stations, interference sources, and other spectrum pollutants on the bands.
.Q David
What other organizations and entities are "on your side" in this debate?
.A Allen
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) studies determined that Broadband-over-Powerline creates a "high risk" of radio wave interference, and that harmful interference to public safety mobile radio receivers can be expected at distances of 300 feet from the power line where broadband over power line is in operation, and at distances of up to 1,500 feet from fixed stations, such as VHF police or fire dispatch communications facilities.
Many public safety agencies and support services, including emergency medical services, fire, and law enforcement, have expressed concern because they utilize Low-Band VHF (30-50 MHz). Thirteen states — California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming — use the band for state police operations, while it’s the primary public safety radio band in nine states.
The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials Inc (APCO), and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), urged the FCC to withhold final action in the BPL proceeding for at least a year, pending a "conclusive determination" of BPL’s potential to interfere with public safety and other licensed radio systems operating below 80 MHz. Unfortunately, the FCC has chosen not to heed this advice.
Looking through a list of those that filed comments in the FCC proceedings gives a fair idea of the fact that Amateur Radio is far from alone in its concerns about BPL interference issues.
.Q David
In our initial discussion, you stated that it’s one design of BPL you are protesting. Can you describe that design and state, explicitly, what makes that design inferior.
.A Allen
ARRL’s work to help address interference covers a lot of ground. ARRL’s published information on interference helps Amateur Radio deal with its responsibilities toward other services. It also outlines the various causes and cures of interference for Amateur operators and their neighbors. This work is often done in cooperation with industry. The ARRL and Consumer Electronic Association work together, as outlined in the document, "What to do if you have an electronic interference problem." BPL interference issues are just a part of that work.
In general, BPL needs to operate at or near the maximum FCC emission levels. At these levels, to avoid causing interference, BPL must avoid any spectrum that is in use locally. In residential neighborhoods, this almost always includes Amateur Radio, the Citizens Band and frequencies allocated to international shortwave broadcasting.
BPL designs that do not use spectrum allocated to these licensed radio services can and do avoid interference. To do so, however, they must be filtered sufficiently to have the radio noise from the BPL system be lower than the signals that are used by those radio services.
In the BPL area, as in all others, ARRL works cooperatively with industry at every opportunity. Some BPL designs, such as the Current Technologies system, use HomePlug technology. Long before HomePlug was envisioned as an access-BPL design, ARRL and the HomePlug consoritium worked together to ensure that the HomePlug design would address interference to Amateur Radio responsibly. This work is summarized in a report issued jointly by ARRL and HomePlug. This cooperation between ARRL and HomePlug is continuing as they develop the next generation of technology.
Arguably, the Current Technologies BPL system has been the most successful to date. Ironically, that success is building on work that ARRL helped do. ARRL has also worked with Motorola, responding productively to their request to help them design a BPL system that would consider the needs of radiocommunications users at the early design phases.
Many of the remaining BPL manufacturers are in regular communication with ARRL, to varying degrees. It is not surprising that there is a direct inverse correlation between the degree to which this cooperative communication takes place and the interference problems faced by each of the manufacturers.
ARRL’s work on electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) extends well past BPL, and even past the work with individual manufacturers. ARRL serves on a number of industry committees, including the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) BPL committee (P1775); the IEEE EMC (electromagnetic compatibility) Society’s Standards Development Committee and the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) accredited C63 EMC committee, among several others. ARRL staff have been elected to leadership positions on these industry-wide committees because its commitment to EMC is not a one-issue show.
.Q David
Given the answer to the previous questions, what BPL design do you advocate? Do you agree with Glenn Elmore’s claim that systems like that from his Corridor Systems is a better answer?
.A Allen
In its filings with the FCC in the BPL proceeding, ARRL outlined what is needed to allow BPL to operate without major interference problems. A realistic goal is to see good BPL designs that avoid most interference problems, leaving a manageable number of problems that are practical to address on a case by case basis.
In general, BPL that avoids the use of frequencies below 30 MHz on overhead power lines has been successful. From an Amateur Radio perspective, it is possible to operate below 30 MHz on premise wiring only if the Amateur bands are notched sufficiently to avoid interference. The "HomePlug" systems — Current Technologies, Motorola and early IBEC systems do this. The Corridor Systems design accomplishes the same goals differently.
None of these systems have been involved in major interference problems, showing that what ARRL asked the FCC to write into the rules could have helped the entire industry.
.Q David
You’ve obviously done a great job of communicating to your membership. But I called into question how many hams had actually had experience with BPL problems. Your site shows one specific instance and one specific video that everyone is referencing. Are there others?
.A Allen
I personally have been to Briarcliff Manor in New York a couple times and can state that when the system there was active, it pegged my radio with a static which made listening to anything else impossible. As I moved away from the installation, the interference dropped off but it was a good quarter mile or more before the static decreased enough for me to hear and understand anyone else on the radio.
A listing of some of the interference reports is at http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html.
There are other BPL systems with active interference problems. Some have been addressed successfully; others have not. In some cases, Amateurs have taken the correct step of reporting interference directly to the BPL operator and working with them to help resolve it.
In other cases, very small trials may be causing significant noise, but not across a wide geographic areas. Many of the other sites which were causing problems have already been dismantled or turned off. The "tests" were pronounced "successful", but the companies chose not to pursue it further.
.Q David
Given the answer to the above question, please describe the extent of your tests and determinations that place you in opposition to this design of BPL.
.A Allen
BPL that uses the Amateur bands at the emissions levels permitted by the FCC rules can and does cause interference locally on any spectrum the system uses. If that spectrum is in use by licensed users, this becomes harmful interference as defined by the FCC rules. Under those same rules, harmful interference must be corrected by the operator of the unlicensed device.
ARRL’s testing has ranged from measurements of BPL systems using calibrated test equipment and antennas to assessments of interference. In addition to ARRL staff work, licensed Amateurs in other systems have done similar testing. A good example of this is seen in the tests done by Amateurs in the now-shut-down system in Cedar Rapids.
When this testing shows no interference, as was seen in Cincinnati, OH, the matter is ended. When it shows strong interference to Amateur Radio, ARRL has alerted the BPL operator and the FCC to the problems. When this extends to local Amateur operators experiencing harmful interference, ARRL has supported valid complaints to the BPL operators and FCC.
.Q David
Isn’t it just a matter of ham radio operators needing to get equipment that "works around" interference. New technologies require updating every day. Hams have lost no time in telling us how advanced their gear is. So why can’t they just get better gear?
.A Allen
A good analogy might be found in the noise from a helicopter. If a helicopter flies over your house, it can be noisy, but it really hasn’t disrupted your life. If, however, it parked over your house and remained there forever, it would change the very nature of your world. How would that question sound if a helicopter were going to hover over every neighborhood and the solution proposed was that the owners of the houses needed to improve their technology and add sound insulation to their homes to make the noise livable?
When it comes to noise, although sometimes, technology can make some improvements in a noisy environment, technology cannot eliminate noise. Sooner rather than later, any improvement comes up against well-known noise physics that establishes a direct correlation between noise and information.
.Q David
In a previous article, I asked "where’s the money?" You sent me to your annual report, which shows United Technologies and Microsoft as contributors. Your report also has a line item for "contributions" without a specific breakout. Let’s set this record straight. Do you now or have you ever received contributions from industry segments that either provide Internet access services or represent the cable or DSL industries?
.A Allen
The answer to your question is simple: no.
United Technologies gave us a grant specifically for the training of hundreds of Amateur Radio operators in providing emergency communications in those instances where other systems were not working or overloaded. This training became invaluable in Katrina recovery efforts.
Microsoft is listed because several of their employees are ARRL members and donated to us as a 501c3 and Microsoft has a matching program for employee donations.
You’re really barking up the wrong tree.
.Q David
Ham radio operators are all over the world. What’s your perspective on BPL penetration into countries without any other Internet infrastructure?
.A Allen
The largest population of ham radio people is in Japan, which is also arguably the most computer-using country, and they have chosen to prohibit access BPL and its interference issues.
BPL is being deployed in some countries, and in each of those countries, Amateur operators are experiencing the same problems as we are seeing in the US. The ability of those Amateurs to address their grievances about interference vary from country to country, but in those areas where complaints are permitted, they have occurred.
.BEGIN_KEEP
.Q David
Please summarize the state of BPL as it relates to the FCC and what ARRL intends to do going forward?
.A Allen
We are pleased that BPL issues are now placed within the enforcement division of the FCC and we will continue to document those installations which cause harmful interference to Amateur Radio.
Hams are not against BPL! Hams are not against any technology and often are among the first people to adopt and play with new things. What the hams and the ARRL are opposing is harmful interference to licensed radio services. With some BPL designs in place not causing problems so far, we cannot understand why known spectrum polluters should be tolerated.
.BEGIN_SIDEBAR
.H1 Product availability and resources
For more information on the ARRL, visit http://www.arrl.org.
For a list of interference reports, visit http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/NPRM_hyperlinks.html.
.END_SIDEBAR
.BIO
.END_KEEP
