FCC Dealt Setback In BPL Push

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."

The FCC Should Be Abolished

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:The FCC Should Be Abolished

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.

As a ham radio operator, you should be knowledgeable enough to realize that the entire radio spectrum would be unusable trash without regulation. Our hobby would be dead. Most of our equipment goes up to 50, 100, maybe 200 watts (if you have a really expensive rig) tops. How in the hell would you get your signal heard above all of the companies using huge swaths of the spectrum at high wattages simply because that's the only way they can be heard? Should all ham radio operators have to go out and spend thousands of dollars on many-kilowatt linear amplifiers just to penetrate the noise?

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.

No...

You're setting up a straw man - that is NOT what the OP said.

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).

I don't agree

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.)

Re:

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:

What do Luxemburg, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands do?

Mostly let the EU run things.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

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.

Re:The FCC Should Be Abolished

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...)

!Data

My father in law lives in west bumfuck, farmland. They tried for years to get BPL working there. But the sad fact of reality is that powerlines just arent up to the task. His community sunk massive funds into that project and they only ever managed to serve like 10 customers. And it was slow. And they all left for some type of LoS wi-fi. (I know not the underlying tech that went in, but its several towers at the tops of hills, and he himself had to install a 4 story tower in his yard.) They have all been very pleased with their wi-fi. And it was much cheaper than the powerline nonsense.

Beyond Amateur Radio ops

BPL's interference can have detrimental effects well beyond the ham bands. They can take out local emergency comms if BPL interferance is high enough. For a visual example of whats going on here, check out this video [youtube.com]. It shows plainly the kind of interference BPL can cause.

Re:Beyond Amateur Radio ops

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."

Re:

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:

Also, one of my neighbours is a ham. He and many other hams use their radios to aid emergency services when normal communication lines are down. In the recent San Diego fires he relayed calls for the fire department in the area, since their systems couldn't handle the load. If BPL interferes with Ham radio, it interferes with emergency services.

Re:

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

The Radio Quiet Zone still exists, but the observatory works effectively these days with local hams to make sure they can communicate and that there will be working repeaters, etc. when the next emergency comes up.

Re:Frequency Questions

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?).

Unfortunately, its a losing battle

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:

....is just one of a thousand different devices..

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

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.

Good decision by the Court

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

This is actually a good thing. The FCC was trying to push a technology that does not work well, interferes with others, and costs much more than some other ways of getting connectivity. Even if the Amateur bands can be notched out, the other frequencies suffer. There are a lot of other communications in the range of frequencies that BPL wipes out. The FCC needs to rethink their stance and pay attention to the laws of physics. If BPL is allowed to exist I believe there will be a time in the future we will regret the down side of this technology. In the places it is being used now there are a number of interference problems that keep different services either off the air, or make the use of that spectrum damn near impossible. There is also another side to the story. Licensed equipment transmitting in close proximity to a BPL system can shut down the BPL connection. The bottom line is BPL should never have been adopted. There are better, more effective and less costly ways of getting connectivity without polluting the HF spectrum.

Re:

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

Perhaps we should scrap those antiquated rules...
after all, we don't provide hitching posts and water troughs outside public buildings anymore, do we?

Are you even aware of the multitude of amateur radio digital modes that are in use these days? Saying ham radio is "twentieth century" makes as much sense as saying that automobiles are "twentieth century" — both have evolved considerably over time.

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.

Re:Ham Radio is *so* twentieth century

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

Re:

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.