I thought you would be interested in a response from Ed Hare regarding 
the recent FCC R&O.  Ed is correct, of course, but it is still up to 
the FCC.

73,

Wade  W0EJ
(Midwest Division Director, ARRL)

###########################################

Here are some words I offered a member today:

Although ARRL is not pleased with all of the provisions in the rules 
changes, the end result is a LOT better than it started out to be. Back 
when this all started, at the Notice of Inquiry stage, FCC Commissioner 
Abernathy said that she felt that most of the rules restricting BPL 
could be removed. At that time, as now, BPL was legal under FCC rules, 
subject only to a requirement not to exceed the emissions limits (30 
uV/m at 30 m -- typically an S9 noise level), a requirement to do their 
own testing and a requirement not to cause harmful interference. Had 
the FCC done nothing, that is the basis on which BPL could operate 
right now. That would have been the worst possible outcome. This 
rulemaking was not intended to permit BPL, because it was already 
permitted.

The end result is a lot different than Commissioner Abernathy had 
envisioned. Interference is now center stage, and four of the five 
Commissioners recognized this in their statements about BPL. The text 
of their statements are appended. Under these new rules, although the 
emissions limits have not been changed, neither has the unconditional 
requirement that they not cause harmful interference. In fact, the FCC 
has indicated that the rules will contain a step-by-step process to be 
used to resolve interference -- another first.

Not only has the Commission said that interference is important, groups 
like the IEEE BPL committee are also saying that resolving interference 
is important, and ARRL will continue to be part of that process. 
Several systems have shut down, in part due to interference issues, and 
ARRL will continue to be a part of that, too, if systems cause 
interference. The rules are expected to tighten up the testing 
requirements, and instead of allowing manufacturers to do their own 
testing, the FCC will become involved through the much more rigorous 
certification process. That is a major step forward. ARRL and others 
had requested this instead of verification.

No other unlicensed device is required to have the ability to remotely 
program operating frequency and power level (and shut off) built into 
the device. That is a step forward, too. No other unlicensed device is 
required to maintain a public database for interference resolution.

ARRL's work on identifying and reporting interference was very much a 
part of why BPL has new restrictions relating to interference that it 
did not have before. Its work on interference has that issue center 
stage with groups like the IEEE, and ARRL has a seat at that committee 
table. ARRL's analyses of the flawed technical testing done by several 
BPL manufacturers was very much a part of the FCC's decision not to 
allow manufacturers to authorize their own equipment any more. And ARRL 
worked closely with industry groups and other government agencies.

It made a difference, because without it, we would have been where 
Abernathy said she wanted to be, with restrictions removed instead of 
new ones added. The FCC truly believes that it has solved the 
interference issue. At least for amateur radio, if the FCC enforces its 
own rules, we will have to give that an opportunity to work. I disagree 
that this is a good solution, but the FCC could not simply walk away 
from the benefits of BPL, and it is hard to argue with those. By 
putting strict controls on BPL, it believes that it can coexist with 
other services. Amateur Radio may end up protected, at least to some 
extent. Unfortunately, other HF and low VHF spectrum, other than the 
frequencies the government unconditionally protected for itself, will 
not, and things like international shortwave broadcasting will be 
harmed.

The work is just beginning. ARRL helped to convince the FCC to reign in 
BPL from its initial dream of "most restrictions" being lifted. Now, it 
is make or break time for this industry. If they will design their 
systems to not cause interference, ARRL will help them by evaluating 
the systems and providing them information about what level of 
protection is needed. One manufacturer has already taken us up on that 
offer, and we are making plans to get together at one of their sites 
next month to see what they have done right so far. If they don't meet 
the goals, ARRL will continue to press interference complaints through 
the FCC, because is it critical that the FCC enforce its own rules.

So let's not give up. What has been done so far has made a major 
difference, and if anything, the harder work of working with hams, 
utilities, manufacturers and organizations is just beginning. If hams 
walk away now -- and some will -- they are giving up and letting BPL 
have its way.

Those who do walk away are leaving amateur radio at a time when they 
are needed the most. It is too important to me for me to do so, and I 
encourage you to stay with it. Ten years from now, amateur radio will 
still be around. By then, BPL will have been replaced by something even 
better. In the interim, we need to make sure that it is done in a way 
that doesn't make too many of us walk away, because without amateurs, 
amateur radio would be doomed. I will do whatever I can now to ensure 
that amateur radio has a future. I hope that all hams can count on each 
other to do the same.

The FCC and its rules say that when interference occurs, they will act 
swiftly to resolve it. This is a promise ARRL intends to help them 
keep.

----

Commissioner Copps: ------------------------

" I remain concerned with the question of interference to amateur radio 
users. I take the concerns of this community very seriously, and 
believe that the FCC has an obligation to work hard to monitor, 
investigate, and take quick action where appropriate to resolve harmful 
interference. If interference occurs, we must have a system in place to 
resolve it immediately. If an amateur radio user makes a complaint and 
an agreement between the BPL provider and the amateur radio user cannot 
be reached, the FCC should step in and resolve the matter. These cases 
must not take years to resolve."

Commissioner Adelstein: --------------------

"I take seriously our obligation under Section 157 of the 
Communications Act that "[i]t shall be the policy of the United States 
to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the 
public." I am fully committed to that mission to promote new 
technologies, and to provide a framework for innovation so they can 
succeed. In order to do so in this case, though, we must ensure that 
sufficient protections are in place to limit interference concerns.

"Recent Access BPL test deployments have been very useful in developing 
techniques to address interference issues. It is clear that some Access 
BPL systems can co-exist very well with existing licensees in the HF 
and VHF bands. In the limited cases of increased interference, the 
Access BPL operators were able to quickly resolve and address the 
interference problem. Other Access BPL systems, though, have not fared 
so well, and these systems should not be deployed on a commercial basis 
if they will continue to result in harmful interference.

"We have put in place on Access BPL some special rules that are not 
normally required of Part 15 operators. However, I believe that these 
restrictions and requirements, such as adaptive frequency selection, 
remote shut down control, and a publicly available Access BPL database, 
are critical to providing an operational environment that safeguards 
existing licensees from harmful interference. I am also pleased to 
support our specific requirement for Access BPL providers to promptly 
respond to complaints of harmful interference from public safety 
licensees."

Commissioner Abernathy: -------------------

" We believe the new requirements we are imposing will help minimize 
harmful interference that may occur and, to the extent any harmful 
interference does occur, to quickly resolve any issues."

Commissioner Martin: ----------------------

"In this Order, we have attempted to facilitate deployment of BPL while 
ensuring that existing users are protected from harmful interference. 
Working closely with NTIA, we have taken strides to address 
interference concerns of both Government and private users. 
Nevertheless, I recognize that Amateur radio operators still have 
concerns that they will experience interference from BPL systems. In 
addition, broadcasters are concerned that BPL systems will cause 
interference in the low VHF band. I take these concerns - as well as 
the other concerns expressed about BPL systems causing interference - 
very seriously. I am confident that the Commission will continue to 
monitor these concerns and will take steps, where needed, to address 
interference problems going forward."

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06013
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: W1RFI@arrl.org
Web: http://www.arrl.org/tis
Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
    Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
    Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
Member: IEEE SCC-28 RF Safety
Member: Society of Automotive Engineers

 From Wade Walstrom: +++++++++++++++++++++++  Recieved  OCT 15, 2004

Thanks, Larry. Also check out the ARRL Web Site. I have copies of the 
statements from each Commissioner if you don't find them elsewhere.

Certainly a black day for Amateur Radio, but were a few less dark spots 
(hard to say bright spots!). All the commissioners at least gave the 
interference lip service which they were not doing several months ago. 
We can take credit for that. Unfortunately, it was just lip service, at 
best, except Commissioner Copps. To me, he seemed sincere in his 
concern for the affects BPL interference will have on Amateur Radio and 
was the most emphatic in solving those problems.

On the other hand, these words, that you included, I find chilling, 
"The rule changes in the Order establish specific technical and 
administrative requirements for Access BPL equipment and operators to 
ensure that interference does not occur and, should it occur, to 
provide for a timely resolution of that harmful interference without 
disruption of service to Access BPL subscribers."

The message is that if a licensed service causes interference to a BPL 
system, a topic the FCC has not publicly addressed to date - except in 
this statement, the BPL system will not lose!

Keep up the struggle!

73,

Wade W0EJ

From the publication:  "BPL Today"        OCT 15, 2004

FCC makes BPL rule final
---
FERC makes unprecedented appearance at FCC meeting

BPL is official.

FCC today made final its amendments to Part 15 to regulate access BPL 
(as compared with the in home network version) setting limits on 
frequencies and putting in place methods for handling interference with 
radio users.

Fast turnaround on the rulemaking was meant to quickly create the 
regulatory clarity the fledgling industry needs to win investment and 
catch hold.

To that end, the commission created "a minimal regulatory framework for 
BPL," to advance Congress' goal of keeping the rules pro competitive 
and FCC's goal of getting broadband to every American, said Chairman 
Michael Powell.

FERC Chairman Pat Wood was at the meeting with FERC Commissioners Nora 
Brownell and Suedeen Kelly an unprecedented appearance and cooperation 
between commissions that's symbolic of the two worlds that BPL bridges 
and the vital roles the new technology can play in each.

Having a smart grid one with broadband present throughout will help 
power systems operate more efficiently and reliably, said Wood.

He called Brownell FERC's tech guru and added that she and FCC 
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy had talked about "synergies" between 
the two commissions relating to BPL.

BPL's security benefits and added "real reliability" more than offset 
the cost of the upgrade, noted Brownell, and offer broadband revenue at 
no extra charge.

The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) did extensive 
research and worked closely with the National Telecommunications & 
Information Administration (NTIA) to make sure the rules answered the 
latter's concerns, said Powell.

Wood and Brownell joined Powell Tuesday at the Manassas, Va BPL 
deployment to witness the technology in action.

They chatted with one of the residents who was amazed at the easy 
installation just like plugging in any appliance, he said several times 
and Powell made a free VOIP call on the resident's phone.

Powell and Wood released a joint statement that listed the benefits of 
broadband in economic, educational, social, medical and cultural 
welfare to the country.

The benefit of adding BPL as a broadband competitor could be seen in 
how Comcast reacted to the BPL roll out by COMTek in Manassas. It 
dropped its price considerably, noted Powell during the meeting.

The final wording of the rule wasn't released but OET's Bruce Franca 
told BPL Today that 99.9% of the wording has been approved and the 
commissioners just need to sign off on a few minor changes before the 
rule's released.

UPLC's Brett Kilbourne was encouraged by the rule and expects the final 
wording to be a workable compromise.

Kilbourne is UPLC's director of regulatory services and associate 
counsel. The final version refers to bands of exclusion frequencies 
that BPL equipment has to avoid, he noted.

An important change from the proposed version is having equipment 
makers get FCC certification for each BPL device and recertification if 
the design of a device changes.

To date BPL makers had to have test results on file showing compliance 
with FCC interference limits.

The new rules have an administrative procedure for getting 
certification plus a transition period so that equipment in the field 
can keep operating while it gets certified, noted Franca at a press 
briefing after the meeting.

The new rule makes Part 15 "more conservative" to address interference 
issues, Franca added.

When interference occurs it's often with amateur radio operators who 
have charged in many FCC filings that notching doesn't work and that 
even the slightest interference can make it impossible for them to have 
conversations over very faint signals with other users around the 
world.

The commission will use a reasonable definition of what's "harmful," 
noted Franca.

The rule includes a call for an industry maintained database of BPL 
deployments to guide those who get interference to possible sources 
nearby for quick resolution.

In cases where interference isn't resolved, the commission is prepared 
to act quickly according to the new rules.

One source of concern is state notification, UTC CEO Bill Moroney told 
BPL Today, requiring utilities to notify the state PUC before deploying 
BPL.

He's holding judgment until the final wording is released.

If notification is made public, he would expect cable and DSL 
competitors to change their marketing strategies in the target area 
before the BPL could even be deployed.

Those two technologies don't have to report their own movements and 
creating a competitive disadvantage for BPL would be counterproductive, 
he added.

Watch for Monday's issue of BPL Today for the rest of our interview 
with Moroney plus reactions from industry leaders, much more detail on 
the final rule and much more about the historic trip to Manassas.

Here's a tid bit:  Manassas plans to make its traffic stoplights IP 
enabled and, in tandem with IP enabled surveillance cameras at 
intersections monitor traffic flows and manage them by tweaking the 
traffic light patterns. That's just one of countless innovations 
expected once the power wires carry IP.