.FLYINGHEAD INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
.TITLE Computing Unplugged passes judgement on BPL
.AUTHOR David Gewirtz
.SUMMARY Is BPL the helpful key to nearly universal high-speed Internet access or a technology that could cripple our critical radio frequency infrastructure? This is the question that Computing Unplugged Magazine set out to answer. This article contains the result of our in-depth analysis.
.FEATURE
Ever since the establishment of the Rural Electrification Administration by Franklin Roosevelt back in May of 1935, America has been served by a nearly universal electrical grid. A new technology, broadband over powerline (BPL), intends to provide high-speed Internet service over that grid, so that everywhere there’s power, there’s also the possibility of high-speed Internet.
But what if, at the flick of a switch, radios stopped working? What if police radios, emergency response radios, fire radios, aircraft communications radios, radios used in commercial communications, and even ham radios just stopped working?
.TEASER Is BPL the helpful key to nearly universal high-speed Internet access or a technology that could cripple our critical radio frequency infrastructure? Tap here to read the results of our multi-month analysis.
This is exactly what opponents of broadband over powerline claim could happen if BPL were allowed to be implemented on a wide-spread basis.
Is it true? Is BPL the helpful key to nearly universal high-speed Internet access or a technology that could cripple our critical radio frequency infrastructure? This is the question that Computing Unplugged Magazine set out to answer. This article contains the result of our in-depth multi-issue analysis.
.H1 Benefits of BPL
The most obvious benefit of BPL is broadband Internet service, delivered into homes without additional wires and infrastructure. While many of us now have access to broadband via cable modem or DSL service, those services are not universally available and often require special wiring in the home.
BPL aims to provide a similar broadband service, deliverable out of any standard electrical socket. For most Americans, this means an alternative to cable and DSL, but for some, it means access to broadband in areas where cable and DSL service are not provided. For those in emerging nations, it means access to broadband service where there is no other communications infrastructure.
For the electric utility companies, providing this broadband service provides an incremental revenue source. There is, however, another benefit to the electric utility companies that could dwarf the potential incremental revenue derived from providing ISP services.
Today, most domestic power meters must be read manually. This involves sending representatives of the utility company out to the meter, paying salaries, managing fleets of vehicles, and absorbing rising gasoline costs to get the meter readers to the meter, plus the additional costs for data entry into the utility’s tracking databases. This process is enormously expensive to the electrical utilities and often fraught with inaccuracy and sometimes with fraud.
While some meters can be read automatically, even those, in many cases, require a technician to physically gain access to the meter to plug a serial data connector into the meter’s faceplate. Some other automated systems transmit data over WiFi, phone lines, and even directly over the powerlines.
BPL would virtually eliminate the costs, inaccuracies, and fraud inherent in reading today’s power meters by providing a TCP/IP network node directly at the customer’s location, along with all the benefits a networked device can offer.
.H2 Computing Unplugged analysis
We believe automated meter reading is the primary driving force behind most utility companies’ desire for BPL implementation, not ISP services. Not all areas served by BPL will have consumer ISP services provided.
Because ISP service may be a lower priority to the electrical utilities and because the utilities have less experience in providing broadband ISP service to customers, Computing Unplugged projects the end-user ISP experience with BPL is likely to be less satisfactory than that with cable or DSL, at least in the first years of deployment.
.H1 Risks of BPL
Those opposed to BPL claim it both generates radio frequency interference with important radio devices and can be interrupted by simple consumer radio products.
Specific claims against BPL deployment include:
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET The Society of Broadcast Engineers argues that BPL operations could adversely affect Emergency Alert System (EAS) transmissions.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET The National Antenna Consortium asserts BPL could interfere with ground-to-air communications, military base communications, and police and fire emergency service communications.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET The International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA), which operates radio call boxes used by the public to call for fire, police, ambulance, road service or other assistance, claims that BPL could provide harmful interference.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Global2Way Acquisition, LLC, which operates a low power communications service for intra/interstate trucking companies on HF frequencies under secondary licenses, has requested the FCC use caution in granting BPL permissions.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET The ARRL (American Radio Relay League), representing ham radio operators who are also involved in emergency response, claims that certain BPL systems provide unacceptable interference with Amateur Radio gear.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a response to a notice of inquiry, stating "By design, BPL systems use radio frequency energy on unshielded, unbalanced transmission lines, resulting in the unavoidable radiation of energy. This unintentional radiation will create harmful interference to licensed radio services throughout the spectrum."
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Even the much-maligned, but absolutely essential FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) has stated it has "grave concerns" about how the technology would affect its National Radio System.
.END_LIST
In the course of our public research into BPL, we’ve published an article by engineer Bill South that claims that consumer radio devices such as baby monitors and garage door openers operate on similar frequencies to BPL, and that use of these devices could interrupt the broadband connection over powerlines.
We also published a letter by Fred Stevens, a retired US Army Signal Corps Lieutenant Colonel who’s also an Amateur Radio operator. The plain-spoken 24-year veteran makes the claim that BPL will adversely affect military tactical communications, that BPL will interfere with a major, classified drug smuggling detection and interdiction project, and that BPL is a clear and present danger to the nation’s security in times of disaster and war.
.H2 Computing Unplugged analysis
We subjected the ARRL to considerable scrutiny in our investigation and while their supporting data is relatively thin (only 46 people are have filed interference reports out of the 150,000 ARRL members), it is also compelling and well documented. Further, if there is even the slightest risk to ground-to-air communications, emergency response communications, and police and fire communications, BPL should come under further scrutiny.
When entities such as FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, and the ARRL all complain about a technology, it’s worth our time to listen and think.
.H1 Countering the risk arguments
As we continued to research this issue, we had the opportunity to interview designers and manufacturers of BPL equipment. Not surprisingly, these individuals felt the BPL detractors’ viewpoints were not completely valid.
Chano Gomez, who represents the company that makes the chips powering many of the BPL deployments, tells us that many of the complaints date back to earlier, first generation technology and that the current second generation technology overcomes many of the reported problems.
Glenn Elmore, the designer of a BPL implementation and a ham operator tells us that some of the ARRL complaints are valid, but that there are alternative designs (his company’s being one, of course) that overcome many of the objections of the original BPL.
Even Allen Pitts, Media and Public Relations Manager for the ARRL (the organization most vocal about the problems of BPL) tells us that the ARRL isn’t against BPL itself, but, rather, dislikes a particular design for BPL that the organization claims provides the most interference.
.H2 Computing Unplugged analysis
It is clear that BPL is a technical feasibility. It is also clear that there are a variety of designs, some of which are more problematic and some of which are less so. Given the risks outlined in the previous section, we believe that, with the proper design, BPL is something that is deployable. Our concern is whether the safe designs are the ones that will be deployed or whether BPL implementations will be determined by the lowest bidder.
.H1 Ham radio and BPL
At the heart of this debate has been a group of people with a lot of heart: the ham radio operators. Through the course of our investigation, we’ve denigrated ham radio as a non-essential hobby of secondary importance to universal broadband. Most of the time, ham radio is a hobby. However, during times of emergency, ham radio is an essential link in a critical chain of response.
Ham radio is also a key element in an empowered citizenry. Virtually every other communications technology available to individual citizens is either short-range or must travel through a variety of gatekeepers. CB radio, for example, is easily available, but only has a few miles of effective range.
Our telephones and Internet connections all travel through switches operated by large companies, regulated by the federal government. You may be able to place a free phone call via Skype, but that call ultimately must travel from your computer, through your ISP’s network, through a variety of other networks, possibly through the NSA’s ECHELON signal monitoring stations, and then through your conversation partner’s ISP, and finally to your conversation partner.
.H2 Computing Unplugged analysis
During times of crisis, telephone and Internet communications may be limited, crippled, or disabled completely. In such a case, the only long distance point-to-point communication that doesn’t travel through a gatekeeper and can’t be arbitrarily shut down is ham radio, in the hands of citizen guardians of our radio spectrum.
There is a worst-case scenario here that we find quite disturbing. As improbable as it seems, there may come a time when governments may wish to restrict individual communication. At this time, it would be possible for governments to "turn off" the Internet and telephone communications. It was not possible for governments to "turn off" ham radio communication — at least, until now.
If BPL were widely deployed in a universal electric grid, and if the BPL deployment design was one that actively disrupted ham radio operation, governments would now have a method to disrupt the one remaining long distance, point-to-point citizen communications mechanism that previously was unstoppable.
It’s a highly unlikely scenario here in the US, but a chilling one nonetheless. In other, more totalitarian countries, it’s far less unlikely.
.H1 Official Computing Unplugged recommendations for BPL
We’ve devoted more editorial space on this topic than any other independent publication. As we complete our extensive coverage, we will have published 12 articles on the topic. In fact, we completely scrapped our summer publishing calendar when ham operators responded to what was a simple interview. They also helped us understand this was, indeed, a very important issue and we’ve been following it ever since.
We approached this topic with absolutely no ties to either side. We are about as objective as any publication is likely to be. The BPL industry has been highly supportive and professional in the face of a firestorm of criticism. Technically expert ham radio operators also provided detailed input and analysis, and we’ve published many of their opinions and analysis in their entirety.
After careful consideration, we find domestic BPL, as currently implemented, an unacceptable risk.
Given that we make our living here at ZATZ Publishing distributing information over broadband, it’s in our best interests to have the universal broadband coverage that BPL promises. However, it is important to consider the ratio between risk and reward. BPL is far from the only method of gaining broadband access. Most Americans can get broadband from their cable companies, through DSL providers, through extended WiFi implementations, and even through so-called 3G cellphone services like EV-DO.
Given that there are many diverse options for broadband, the rewards of BPL are relatively minimal to most Americans. We understand that BPL implementations may reduce the operating costs for electrical utilities, but we don’t see that cost reduction worth the possible risk to our emergency services infrastructure, ground-to-air communication, police and fire response, and, yes, Amateur Radio operators.
We do believe BPL is a technology with promise. However, until all the organizations arrayed against BPL stand behind a reliable, non-interfering design, we believe an uninterrupted radio spectrum is far more important than a single BPL implementation.
.BEGIN_KEEP
We advise Computing Unplugged readers, when faced with the inevitable discussion about BPL implementation in your communities, to share the concerns and conclusions reached in this article.
.BEGIN_SIDEBAR
.H1 Articles in this series
We’ve covered quite a lot of ground in our quest for answers on this tough topic. If you haven’t read them yet, we recommend you read the following articles, which will provide a background for our analysis above.
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Understanding broadband over powerline technology: Our original interview with chip manufacturer Chano Gomez. This is the article that started the debate.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Implementing broadband over powerline: The second half of our original interview with Chano Gomez, this time on implementation issues.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET The broadband over powerline controversy heats up: Letters from our readers about our BPL coverage.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Interference: is it the dark underbelly of BPL?: An analysis of the BPL interference concerns by engineer Bill South.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Why are we giving BPL all this coverage?: In this article, we explain why this issue is important for us all to understand.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET The ARRL on BPL: An unsolicited letter from the ARRL’s laboratory manager, Ed Hare, about BPL concerns.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET An expert’s analysis of BPL: A detailed Q&A with BPL developer Glenn Elmore. Glenn is also a ham operator and gives us a particularly objective and expert analysis on the issue.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Understanding the information rate of BPL and other last-mile pipes: Glenn Elmore provides us some highly technical background information on broadband data rates and BPL.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Could BPL be a clear and present danger to national security?: A letter to the editor by Army Signal Corps veteran Fred Stevens.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Inside the ARRL’s objection to BPL interference: A detailed interview with ARRL public relations guy Allen Pitts, on the ARRL’s objections and concerns.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET A BPL manufacturer responds to all the complaints: Chano Gomez’ final interview, where he bravely takes on all the complaints and concerns we’ve covered.
.END_LIST
.BEGIN_LIST
.BULLET Computing Unplugged passes judgement on BPL: This article.
.END_LIST
.END_SIDEBAR
.BIO
.END_KEEP
