Slashdot Log In
FCC Dealt Setback In BPL Push
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 24, 2008 06:58 PM
from the i-can't-hear-you-now dept.
from the i-can't-hear-you-now dept.
SonicSpike writes in with word that an appeals court has dealt a setback to the FCC's plans to encourage broadband over power lines. The court ruled that the FCC erred when it withheld parts of the studies it had used in arriving at its position on BPL. The court did not rule that the FCC's decision was incorrect or that it should be revisited. According to the article, about 5,000 people nationwide subscribe to BPL in 35 pilot projects. We've been discussing BPL for years. "...a federal appeals court has sided in part with amateur radio operators who challenged rules designed to speed the nascent Internet service's rollout. When setting rules for BPL operators nearly two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission said it was trying to encourage deployment of a 'third pipe' to compete with cable and DSL services, while establishing limits aimed at protecting public safety, maritime, radio-astronomy, aeronautical navigation, and amateur radio operators from harmful interference. The American Radio Relay League, which represents amateur... radio operators, however, promptly sued the agency, contending that the FCC's approach was insufficient to ward off interference with its radios and inconsistent with its previous rules. On Friday, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued a ruling (PDF) that took issue with the way the FCC arrived at its rules."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Broadband Over Power Lines vs. Radio Relayers 147 comments
amaiman writes "Recently, broadband Internet access has been increasing around the country. These broadband signals, while providing Internet access to remote communities that would normally not be able to receive broadband, are causing enormous interference to the radio spectrum. This article details some of the problems, and a video available on the American Radio Relay League's (ARRL) site shows exactly how much interference the broadband power lines can cause. Detailed information is also available on the ARRL site."
[+]
Web Access Over Power Lines 456 comments
anaesthetica writes "The CSMonitor is reporting that power companies may now be able to break into the internet provider market, giving consumers a third option, outside of telephone and cable companies. From the article, "Broadband over Power Lines (BPL), with investments from big-name companies including Google and IBM, is beginning to move beyond small trial projects to deploying systems for large communities." Earthlink may offer BPL as soon as next year. Apparently, a major source of opposition to BPL is operators of ham radios."
[+]
Hardware: FCC's Duplicity On BPL Revealed 97 comments
eldavojohn writes "Ars has a summary of the curious events surrounding the death of broadband over power lines (BPL). We've discussed BPL's trials and advances here many times. The Federal Communications Commission's go-ahead was halted last year by a federal court, after a suit by the American Radio Relay League over claims of unacceptable radio interference from BPL. The DC Court of Appeals judge noted, 'There is little doubt that the [FCC] deliberately attempted to exclude from the record evidence adverse to its position.' The ARRL's FOIA request to obtain non-redacted documents finally bore fruit under the Obama administrations more open FOIA guidelines. The ARRL's preliminary analysis of the released documents point out a few critical areas where the FCC redacted data that is clearly adverse to the claims of BPL proponents. By rights, this ought to lay BPL to rest once and for all." A story at Broadband Reports notes that BPL is dying on its own, as most of the vendors who had been testing it "have since moved on to promote smart electrical grid functionality."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:3, Insightful)
No where in the US Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate communications. If the federal government wants to regulate communications they should've proposed an amendment to the States
And yes I am ham radio operator and the OP.
Re: (Score:2)
Commerce clause + necessary and proper clause?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The necessary and proper clause is NOT a grant of extra power. It simply means that Congress is authorized to do what is necessary and proper:
"Congress shall have power... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States,"
And regulating communications is NOT listed in Article 1 Section 8 last time I checked.
Commerce clause means "to make commerce regular" among the St
Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:5, Insightful)
No where in the US Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate communications. If the federal government wants to regulate communications they should've proposed an amendment to the States
And yes I am ham radio operator and the OP.
And if you think amateur radio would be bad off, cell phones wouldn't even exist. Cell phones put out a puny 5 watts at max; there's no way you'd ever get through the noise with that.
C'mon, think. The government is necessary for some purposes. Regulating and protecting a public resource like the radio spectrum is one of them.
Parent
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
Federal regulation is, quite simply, unconstitutional. It is not a power granted by the Constitution.
State regulation of spectrum would be workable, and as proof I point to Europe where countries are the comparable in size to US States.
And yes, I too am a ham (extra class).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Those countries abide by the same treaty the US abides by. This international treaty calls for national goverments to regulate their radio emmissions in accordance with the agreed to spectrum allocation. By approving the treaty the US senate elevated thisrequirement to the "supreme law of the land" to quote the constitution's verbage on treaties. With a treaty in place, and with the comerce clause in hand, Congress was well with in the constitution when they created the FCC.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The courts' opinion is the ONLY opinion that matters in deciding the constitutionality of a law. Why do you believe differently?
I don't agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Commerce Clause doesn't have to stretch very far to cover radio communication that can go worldwide; that is, radio communication clearly influences interstate commerce, so I think the Constitution grants Congress the power to make law about it fair and square.
I think you're wrong on the facts as well as the law. The only reason to let each state make its own regulations (assuming its not required by the Constitution, vide supra) is if they are going to regulate differently, because, e.g., the citizens of state X have different needs than citizens of state Y, or because X believes it has a better idea than Y and we want to let them all try their individual plans out, to see which is best (the "50 laboratories of democracy" concept).
But even if that could be argued to make some kind of sense for VHF and UHF, it makes no sense at all for HF and AM, where signals easily cross many states. The states could not, in practise, make different regulations for those parts of the spectrum without chaos resulting. So if the state must, as a practical matter, all regulate in the same way, what's the point? Why not just have the Feds do it? Why have 50 wasteful duplicative efforts that must reach the same result?
(And since we're signing our bona fides here, I have an Extra ticket, too.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So around New York which state agency would regulate? New York? Pennsylvania? New Jersey? Would they have to have agreements? What if it broke down? Hell, even CT and DE could get in on some of that action if the transceivers were big enough! What about satellite bands? Do I now need to clear my signal with 50 different regulatory agencies?
Re: (Score:2)
You really should study the issue so you have some knowledge before commenting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly let the EU run things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'l tell you what they do--they follow the guidelines of the ITU.
Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed, we need regulation. Back in the 1970's I had a nice Bearcat Citizen's Band radio with an antenna on a mast and linear amplifier to run right at the legal limit. Back then, these waves were similar to the local Internet chat room of today except you likely knew the folks you were talking to in real life, assisting drivers with directions, etc. Plus we all used snazzy handles just like on the Internet today.
Starting in probably 79, a lot of people started using linear amps that were so powerful, you could pick their signal up from 30+ miles away and it would drown out channels above and below the one you'd be monitoring. These people were so ungodly annoying because you would not be able to respond to them, as they are out of range of probably 90% of the people who were getting their signal, and causing general mayhem for folks trying to hold down a conversation miles away.
If it hadn't been for the above, I probably never would have cared or understood, but just knowing how annoying random people can be with radio technology when enforcement is weak, makes me like the idea of reasonable regulations. If anything interferes with current radio infrastructure, it needs to go back to the drawing board until something is improved. It only takes five minutes with a portable scanner to see how many non-data, critical services are managed via radio and it's reasonable to suggest that any change to those would be far more expensive to society than not running Internet over power lines unless they are reasonably shielded.
Parent
Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished (Score:5, Insightful)
Heres the thing... the FCC is also responsible for the coordination of how the radio spectrum is used. Some of the coordination activities are international.
For example, if I was to require some spectrum use in the 460 MHz region, the FCC would be responsible for issuing out a few frequencies (as well as transmission power limits) for my use in my area. If I was close to Canada or Mexico, the FCC would have to coordinate with those governments, if necessary.
Now, I didn't think states could draft up internatonal treaties, as would be required to coordinate radio frequencies between a commercial user here in a city in the US and either the Mexican or Canidian governments.
I think the big reason for having a federal level agency for coordination and regulation of communications is that radio is international, and subject to international laws. I don't think it would be workable if each state had to ratify international treaties, let alone ratify laws for domestic radio purposes (example: radio operator in IL can transmit to radio operator in KS...)
Parent
!Data (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My parents live in east bumfuck, farmland while one of my brothers lives in south bumfuck, farmland and at both houses they have DSL. Satellite has been an option for a while now. Cell phone networks as well. Both are getting faster and cheaper as infrastructure is built up and competition sets in.
BPL is a dead end. With the interference it produces along with the expense it just doesn't make sense.
Beyond Amateur Radio ops (Score:5, Informative)
Frequency Questions (Score:2)
Good video, thanks. Why aren't they using frequency hopping to mitigate interference?
Also, why does BPL need to interfere on this frequency band? Isn't this tunable?
Re: (Score:2)
That is not as easy as you think with HF especially mobile because your antenna is cut to be used on a narrow range of frequencies. For example on 40m (about 7 megacycles) when I operated HF mobile, I would get about 100kc bandwidth at 2:1 SWR (7.050 - 7.150). Frequency hopping would not work at all for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I wasn't clear in my question (or didn't understand your answer). To be more precise: why don't the BPL operators use frequency hopping so they're not stepping on the Ham guys' range so drastically?
Re:Frequency Questions (Score:4, Informative)
He answered your question rather effectively.
BPL uses a modulated carrier around 6 meter (~50 MHz). Our amateur licensed transmitters can transmit from 50MHz to 54MHz. And as we learn with radio, a transmitter is also a weak receiver and vice versa. I know that BPL uses a carrier in that band, but I am unsure of the exact frequency allocation.
Because they use that carrier, the whole power grid turns into an antenna. That prevents us from using much of 6m. Along with that, if we use a linear amp (say 1kW) to poke out of the interference zone, which we are legally allowed to do, we inject our signal back in the power lines eliminating the broadband in BPL.
And as a note, 6m is known to do atmospheric bounce for thousands of miles. I was at one Field day where we used a 1 watt transmitter and contacted someone in Rio de Janerio (sp?).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
He answered your question rather effectively.
BPL uses a modulated carrier around 6 meter
Help me out then, because I must be really missing the concept. Isn't the point of frequency hopping spread spectrum that there is no carrier wave? Wouldn't eliminating the carrier wave greatly reduce the interference problem?
I'm not disagreeing with your explanation of how BPL works at all or what the HAM issue is - I'm wondering why it needs to be designed that way in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I didnt answer this either, but I know it intuitively from working on this stuff.
We have simplex (talking on 1 channel). That is what BPL uses, as it stays in 1 spot on the frequency chart. X watts is emnated at this frequency. That means that specific frequency is essentially blasted out. Why? Modern receivers can receive signals as low as a nanowatt, along with major noise reduction equipment and finely tuned band-pass filters.
0000/\0000
___/--\___
Is what it looks like. One swath is cut out. Now, if
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think it's tunable. They try to "notch out" the ham and other frequencies so as not to interfere. Not clear if it's working. The whole electric line becomes an antenna.
I live in one the three "deploying" areas on this map: http://www.bpl.coop/deploymentmap.php [bpl.coop] and I can tell you the thing is so many years behind schedule that the local power company (co-op actually) has removed all updates from its website. Previously it said it was deployed at one substation so far, which would mean a few hundred
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironically, radio interference played a role in the biggest natural disaster in this area (I am replying to my own post). In 1969 the largest hurricane in US history [wikipedia.org] jumped 800 miles inland and killed 157 people here in the mountains. Emergency response was hampered by a radio silence zone established to protect the Green Bank National Radio Astronomy Observatory several counties away in West Virginia.
Re:Frequency Questions (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops (Score:5, Funny)
I usually don't read YouTube comments because they tend to be racist, trollish, or just plain inflammatory in general. But the first one underneath the video is priceless:
"I think the most disturbing part of this entire video is that every vehicle shown in motion is driving on the wrong side of the road. BPL seems like a minor issue in comparison."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How would it interfere with emergency services?
BPL carriers are in the 10-30 MHz range, and public safety is typically in the 800 MHz band.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, its a losing battle (Score:3)
BPL is just one of a thousand different devices that pollute the HF and VHF spectrum. Computers, laptops, touchlamps, plasma TV's (are the worst). Just about any device that uses high speed digital circuitry or switch mode power supplies. In computers, spread spectrum clocks are used to get pass FCC emission requirements, but if you live in a dense neighborhood where people leave their computers on 24/7, that doesn't help much.
Re: (Score:2)
BPL is just one of a thousand different devices that pollute the HF and VHF spectrum. Computers, laptops, touchlamps, plasma TV's (are the worst).
BPL is the only one that has a huge ass antenna to radiate the RFI with (ie the lines themselves). I can deal with all of the other things you have mentioned. They are either easy to shield if they are mine or they belong to a neighbor and are too far away and sometimes they're even in a stucco house where the wire mesh for the stucco blocks out most anything from getting to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except totally different. The longstanding regulations that govern the shared radio spectrum have been based on solid understandings of the nature of radio propagation. This new, radically different approach by the FCC, essentially ramming BPL into the radio service while ignoring the consequences and research (including their own) is a new, brief innovation.
I just doesn't work with the rest of the radio services. Only the tech-impaired politico lawy
FCC sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps if they would get off their ass and do something about the non-competition in the market they wouldn't be having to go out of their way to find poor solutions.
Competition between classes isn't competition.
They did mandate new proceedings (Score:2)
The court did mandate that the FCC conduct a new comment period, with the entire content of the studies they relied on entered into the record, and that they either explain their total rejection of one interference measurement parameter that they solicited comments on, or ellse adopt a different one and explain that. ...de K5ZC
Good decision by the Court (Score:4, Insightful)
This was a good decision by the US Appeals Court. I'm an amateur radio operator myself (there's over 700,000 of us in the United States alone), and it wouldn't make any sense to severely degrade our performance for the benefit of only 5,000 people. Remember, amateur radio isn't merely a hobby: it's been proven useful time and time again in severe emergencies when the communications infrastructure goes down and no one else can get a signal through.
And even if you make the argument that the number of BPL customers will go above 700,000 at some point in the future, it's still not worth it. There's only one radio spectrum, but there's a large variety of ways to get data into households, the rest of which do not pollute the radio spectrum. There's simply no excuse for trying to send data along entirely unshielded power lines. They weren't designed for this purpose and they leak RF like mad. You want to get people access to broadband? Send the data through shielded cables — oh wait, that's what we already do for millions of people!
BPL is bad news (Score:4, Informative)
CQ CQ CQ (Score:2)
CQ CQ CQ, N3XMQ anyone out there? How copy?
Re: (Score:2)
N3XMQ DE KC9JEF slashdot QRM K
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be SK?
Re: (Score:2)
No, SK is for sign off. I was passing the channel back to you or another ham :)
Power fluctuations bad ? (Score:2)
IANAEE, so please if any of you are, I hope you can enlighten me here.
I'm just guessing, but BPL would require some sort of low-power modulation on the circuit, right ? Wouldn't that potentially cause added strain on electrical components ? I'm basing this on the vicious damage caused by DC ripples to computer equipment... my limited electrical knowledge tells me the broadband signal would appear as voltage noise to anything plugged on the same circuit, which means more wasted current, thus more heat. Gi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't scrap the laws of physics. And amateur radio operators were the first hackers. Wait until you're in a flood, a hurricane, or another natural disaster.
Or the next time you try to watch TV, listen to a radio, you'll use technology that hams invented, tested, retested, and helped put towards commercial use for your convenience.
Hams are hackers..... and were, far before your great grandfather was born.
Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we should scrap those antiquated rules...
after all, we don't provide hitching posts and water troughs outside public buildings anymore, do we?
Just be thankful for us ham radio operators. Someday your ass might be saved in an emergency by a ham who is capable of getting a signal through when the communications infrastructure goes down. The Internet is a great thing, I'll grant you, but when power goes out across an entire region (like it did with the Northeast blackouts a few years ago), you're not going to get any net connectivity and you're not going to get any cell connectivity either. The only people who will be able to relay vital emergency messages will be ham radio operators working off of battery backups or generators.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century (Score:4, Informative)
The point is that the FCC withheld evidence that contradicted their decision, something the ARRL caught them on. Judge Rogers said,
"It would appear to be a fairly obvious propositioon that studies upon which an agency relies in promulgating a rule must be made available during the rulemaking in order to afford interested persons meaningful notice and an opportunity for comment."
Another judge, David Tatel, wrote,
"In this very case the Commission redacted individual lines from certain pages on which it otherwise relied...there is little doubt that the Commission deliberately attempted to exclude from the record evidence adverse to its position."
Amateur radio may not enjoy the popularity it once did, but it still works when your precious ethernet is buried in mud and the cell phones are down (e.g. Katrina) and is an essential cog in rescue operations when your average laptop is utterly useless. And BPL, by the way, is deader than amateur radio. Dallas just threw in the towel. There isn't much left.
KZ7B
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
73 mother fucker.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Spun the dial on a shortwave radio lately?
The vast bulk of traffic that takes place on it is commercial and military, not ham.
It's just that hams, having the technical savvy, were the first to raise a stink about it.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, the ham bands are *not* covered by the average shortwave radio. Little wonder you don't see much traffic on it.