OldTom
@aol.com
| Powell's Folly
rf-engineer is right on!
Michael Powell apparently wants to be a hero. Every time he talks about BPL he brings up the potential for service to rural areas.
Except no BPL proponent says that rural service is economical. In fact, UPLC wrote a paper saying that it's impractical except for distribution from a satellite downlink. Do the math.
Mr. Powell also says that BPL will bring broadband internet service to "underserved areas". I suppose this means places that don't have DSL or cable yet. Does anybody really think that the power companies can beat telcos and cablecos to the punch? The powercos tried a few years ago to dip into the REA (Rural Electrification Administration) pot to finance a fiber buildout. That didn't sell, so they're going another way (BPL).
When I write my comments to NPRM 04-37, I will talk about the following:
1. Every BPL installation must have an identifiable signal signature documented, publicly available, easily decoded. There is ample precedent for this in (for example) FCC station identification requirements on amateur, commercial, and public service licensed spectrum users.
2. Every BPL installation must include rapid automatic shutdown capability (that's already suggested in the NPRM).
3. A BPL operator must shut down its operation in any area where harmful interference is reported, and do so within 15 minutes (not weeks or months, as is the current practice with power company noise complaints, documented in FCC correspondence). Interference to public service or to amateur-in-public-service-mode is intolerable and must not be allowed to continue.
4. What we've seen so far in field tests is that (a) some BPL systems create lots of HF noise (Maryland and New York), (b) some BPL systems create little or no HF noise (Washington state). This suggests to me that (a) the current Part 15 limits are inadequate to protect HF, or (b) somebody who is field testing is falsely certifying Part 15 compliance, or (c) somebody is careless with the installation. I suspect that (a) is the closest to the truth.
5. The FCC states in the NPRM that it believes (incorrectly) that Part 15 is doing its job, because there are tons of Part 15 devices out there and there are very few complaints. But the FCC itself, in its literature and on its Web site, discourages complaints ("Take it to the manufacturer"). My microwave oven interferes (harmfully) with the AM radio that I listen to across the house. But do you think Panasonic (the oven maker) is interested? Nope. Maybe it's time to flood the FCC with complaints about Part 15 devices that interfere with licensed services (including AM broadcast).
One thing is certain. Comments to FCC 04-37 that say "I don't like it so don't do it" will be ignored. We need to argue with the NPR's points that are arguable, and do it with the clearest words (and cited references) possible.
Here we go! |
·
