[BC] The FCC bends over...AGAIN

[Dana Puopolo]

From Cnet:

Broadband-over-power-lines battle goes to court
Posted by Anne Broache 
WASHINGTON--A dispute that could affect the roll-out of broadband over power
lines, which some hope will one day compete with cable and DSL services, went
before a federal appeals court on Tuesday, but no immediate resolution
occurred. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard arguments from
attorneys for the Federal Communications Commission and the American Radio
Relay League, which represents amateur radio operators, about FCC rules aimed
at allowing BPL services to flourish. 

Therein lies the dispute: The FCC says its rules, which date back to 2004,
have struck the right balance between encouraging unlicensed BPL deployment
and protecting existing licensed devices--including those run by public safety
workers, TV broadcasters and amateur radio operators--from harmful
interference on those airwaves. 

 
The ARRL, however, contends the FCC's rules are inconsistent with federal law
and aren't strict enough to prevent BPL signals from disrupting its members'
communications. (The group says it's not just about protecting hobbyists,
either: ham radio operators were widely praised as a valuable source of
information after Hurricane Katrina downed normal communications channels.) 

Specifically, for the first time in decades, the FCC decided against requiring
that operations found to cause "harmful interference" be shut down
immediately--a stance that ignores the "right of the license holder to be free
from interference," Jonathan Frankel, the ARRL's attorney, argued in court
Tuesday. 

The FCC has also withheld portions studies that would "potentially" show BPL
does cause harmful interference to other devices--and ignored reports of tests
the ARRL argues offer "substantial" evidence of interference problems, Frankel
said. 

"We're talking about devices that radiate for football fields in length and
all along power lines," Frankel said of the BPL gadgets. "When you drive down
the street, (an amateur radio operator's) service is interrupted constantly."


Attorney C. Grey Pash, arguing for the FCC, defended the agency's approach. He
said the FCC didn't require the so-called "cease-operations" rule because it
didn't find ample evidence that BPL posed real potential for "harmful"
interference. 

Pash said the studies the FCC relied upon, including one by the U.S. National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, found that so long as the
FCC restricts the strength of the signals emitted by BPL devices--as it did
through its rules--others sharing that spectrum "won't notice a difference" in
the quality of their services. As for the ARRL's allegations the FCC scrubbed
its reports, Pash said the redacted sections were staff opinions referencing
earlier sections of the report, not "a bunch of new information." 

The three-judge panel that heard Tuesday's arguments peppered both attorneys
with questions but didn't signal how it planned to rule. 

BPL: An infant industry 

The outcome of the ARRL's appeal could be significant if it prompts revisions
in the FCC's rules, as the agency says it has sought to keep potentially
innovation-stifling requirements to a minimum. 

To be sure, the commercial BPL industry is still in its infancy. According to
the United Power Line Council, which represents public utility companies
engaged in such projects, there were fewer than a dozen commercial deployments
and about two dozen trials as of this July, mainly concentrated on the East
Coast and in the Midwest. 

The ARRL has always maintained it's not out to kill off BPL services. The
group has suggested one solution to its complaints would be for the FCC to
confine BPL operators to certain frequencies that are less likely to cause
interference with amateur radio operators. 

The FCC, for its part, says that's a needless restriction that would inhibit
the design of BPL services and make them less efficient, reducing their
benefit and raising their costs to the public. But if real-world evidence of
harmful interference arises, the regulators have voiced willingness to
reconsider their rules. 



Hmmmm...restrictions on interference are "needless"...unless you are a pirate
of course!

-D