BPL field test failure - New York

[Linnea]

from arrl.org newsletter:

==>ARRL CALLS INTERFERENCE TO ATTENTION OF BPL TRIAL COMMUNITY'S MAYOR

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, has written Penn Yan, New York, Mayor Doug
Marchionda Jr to call the mayor's attention to documented radio
interference from the town's small BPL field trial. He accompanied his
April 1 e-mail with a report from ARRL member Dave Hallidy, K2DH, who
visited Penn Yan after a recent Wall Street Journal article suggested that
BPL interference issues in Penn Yan had been resolved.

"I understand that your village is considering entering into a long-term
agreement with a firm to offer BPL service," Sumner wrote Marchionda.
"Please be aware that a large-scale deployment of BPL is bound to cause
harmful interference to radio communications across a wide area."

According to news accounts, the Western New York community of about 5200
residents will consider approval of a 10-year agreement with Data Ventures
(DVI) to offer BPL service in Penn Yan. The village reportedly would get
10 percent of the generated revenue.

In his March 23 article "In This Power Play, High-Wire Act Riles Ham-Radio
Fans," Wall Street Journal reporter Ken Brown described a "firestorm" of
protest from amateurs when Penn Yan approved the BPL test plan.

Hallidy said he found during his visit that BPL noise "appears to start in
earnest around the bottom of the 17 meter band (18 MHz) and continues
upwards." He said that once he tuned above 18 MHz, there were no
frequencies where the BPL noise was not observed. "The signals were pretty
uniform from 18 to 30 MHz," he said.

Sumner told Marchionda that DVI cannot guarantee reliable service delivery
via BPL because FCC Part 15 rules stipulate that its operation "is subject
to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that
interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an
authorized radio station." Sumner noted that newly proposed FCC rules
would impose additional requirements on BPL systems to better address
interference problems that arise.

The sort of interference Hallidy described in his report suggests "severe
interference on a broad range of radio frequencies" in violation of FCC
rules--specifically §15.5(b)--and a complaint has been filed with the FCC,
Sumner noted.

Sumner offered to demonstrate to Marchionda the extent of the BPL
interference in Penn Yan before the community proceeds any further with
its BPL plans and "to explain why a full-scale deployment is not possible
within the FCC rules." Such a demonstration, Sumner concluded, would
provide Penn Yan with "a factual basis" to make its decision on BPL.

==>ARRL SAYS "INTERFERENCE TEMPERATURE" CONCEPT "HIGHLY PREMATURE"

The ARRL says the FCC's proposed "interference temperature" concept is
"highly premature and should not go forward" at this time. In a Notice of
Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket 03-237 last
November, the FCC sought comment on the interference temperature
metric--or model--"for quantifying and managing interference." The FCC
initially wants to implement the concept in two microwave bands. It
asserts that the new metric "could represent a fundamental paradigm shift"
in its spectrum management approach by using a standard that takes into
account "the cumulative effects of all undesired RF energy" at a given
instant. The FCC suggests the interference temperature limit for a band
"would serve as an upper bound or 'cap' on the potential RF energy that
could be introduced into the band." The ARRL contends, however, that the
FCC doesn't have enough information to put such a model into place, and it
should not try to take a shortcut.

"It is now rushing to judgment on a proposal to permit broadband over
unshielded power line systems in the high frequency and low-band VHF
spectrum," ARRL commented, "without first carefully studying the ability
of sensitive and geographically proximate fixed and especially mobile
radio systems to tolerate such interference." Instead of determining what
a proper post-BPL RF environment should be, the League noted, the FCC has
suggested that amateurs orient their antennas away from the interference
source.

"There can be no shortcuts in a conceptual shift to management of the RF
environment without disenfranchising incumbent licensees, which themselves
provide valuable and sometimes indispensable services," the ARRL said.
"Whether by overlay or underlay of additional users, the Commission has
stumbled repeatedly by attempting shortcuts in the process."

The ARRL said the FCC should preserve the interference temperature concept
as a "holistic method" of dynamic RF spectrum management--the
determination of compatibility in sharing of allocations. "However, the
concept is not yet mature, and there are no shortcuts in the preparations
necessary to implement it."

The ARRL says localized noise studies in various bands are a prerequisite
to putting an interference temperature metric into place, along with a
"comprehensive evaluation of the differences in receiver sensitivities and
emission modes" across various services and bands. The League has been
conducting noise studies in different geographic environments, and it
proposed objective, formal studies to provide a basis for an interference
temperature metric in the future.

The ARRL says it's also necessary to create a new management paradigm for
unlicensed services, accompanied by "substantial change" in their
regulation. Otherwise, the League said, management of the RF environment
will be impossible.

An interference temperature metric also would not be appropriate for the
HF spectrum as well as certain other bands, including those used for radio
astronomy, the ARRL commented. The variability of HF skywave propagation
and the extreme sensitivity of certain amateur and all radio astronomy
receivers coupled with very small signal levels make calculating an
interference temperature metric "impractical for these bands," the League
added.

For the short term, the League said, other methods of improving spectrum
efficiency, such as dynamic frequency selection by cognitive radios in
certain bands, might have greater potential than adopting an interference
temperature metric.

* * * *
The ARRL Letter also is available to all, free of charge, from these
sources:

* ARRLWeb <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/>. (NOTE: The ARRL Letter will
be posted each Friday when it is distributed via e-mail.)

[Boomer Geezer]

from arrl.org newsletter:

==>ARRL CALLS INTERFERENCE TO ATTENTION OF BPL TRIAL COMMUNITY'S MAYOR

<snip>
Sumner told Marchionda that DVI cannot guarantee reliable service delivery via BPL because FCC Part 15 rules stipulate that its operation "is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station." Sumner noted that newly proposed FCC rules
would impose additional requirements on BPL systems to better address interference problems that arise.

The sort of interference Hallidy described in his report suggests "severe interference on a broad range of radio frequencies" in violation of FCC rules--specifically §15.5(b)--and a complaint has been filed with the FCC, Sumner noted.

Thanks for posting this! I saw it come across the electrons but was rather busy here the last few days.

Kind of hoisting the FCC up on their own petard, but has this every stopped $$ interests before?

We can moan and groan as much as we want, and I have sent mail, called, and e-mailed, but until it gets to the point where BPL is unleased in a LARGE community, and they actually see what will happen to the emergency (and other) communications infrastructure, I think they will turn a jaundiced eye on all these "amateurs" making noise.

I could say much more, but my language might get me banned so I'll leave it at that. It's infuriating.

[Burt Gummer]

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fccfil ... index.html