[BC] The FCC bends over...AGAIN

[Broadcast List]

Well, the problem is really a non-starter for several reasons:

Technology is marching on.  Verizon is about to bring fiber directly  
into my home via their FIOS service.  Other companies are doing this  
and other similar services around the country.

BPL is SLOW.  It has been surpassed by other services increasing  
their speeds.  Both DSL and cable have multiplied their speeds by a  
factor of four in the last two years.

BPL is EXPENSIVE, both for the customer and for the power company.   
If the power company lowers their prices to be able to compete with  
DSL and cable, they won't make a profit, and we know that they are  
not interested in giving anything away, nor should they.

There are only about a dozen operating systems in the US.  That is  
NOTHING.  One is near my home.  Not only does it tear the heck out of  
anything in MF to HF, but no one is happy with the service.  There  
you go.  Fortunately, they are a fairly small power coop, so no one  
is going to be hurt by them if they roll it out over their entire  
footprint.

Now, don't read this wrong, the power companies really DO want to be  
in the Internet business, and just like the phone companies have  
gotten into "cable" TV, and the cable companies are providing phone  
service, the power companies want to play in those industries as  
well.  Doing it over "short haul" noise on power lines isn't going to  
cut it.

HOWEVER, the power companies have something that the cable companies  
can only dream about, and phone companies come close -- they own  
RIGHT OF WAYS.  The power companies feed nearly every building in the  
country, and surely they feed all but a few homes and offices.  They  
understand fiber nearly as well as the railroads, but the railroads  
don't have nearly the right of way.  Sure, they connect cities, which  
is great for the trunks, but the railroads don't pass nearly enough  
homes and businesses.

SO, what is to prevent the power companies from slinging fiber under  
the power lines?  Nearly nothing.  Expect it to happen.

--chip


On Oct 24, 2007, at 7:47 AM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 28
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:27:17 -0500
> From: "Jerry Mathis" <thebeaver32 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [BC] The FCC bends over...AGAIN
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Message-ID:
> 	<92ab12a60710232127l5112115ud195b98f1ea7cebc at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> This is another obvious indication that the FCC has abandoned its
> technical mission, and now answers only to a political agenda. Shrub
> obviously has friends who want to profit from BPL, and anyone else
> be da**ned. Those darned laws of physics should be repealed. Who
> needs 'em anyway?
>
> Jerry Mathis
>
> On 10/23/07, Dana Puopolo <dpuopolo at usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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 rulesaimed 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