If Only the FCC Would Do It's Job Correctly... (Score 5, Insightful)

I was happy to see this article paid some attention to the technical hurdles - namely interference - that BPL poses. Though I'm a little upset to see in the article that, "experts say these issues have been worked out and that interference is no longer a problem." This is simply not true. I'd love to know who their experts are.

As a radio hobbyist and student in electrical engineering, I feel this potential is really more of a certainty - its fundamental to the technology. It's not just a little kink to be worked out. That said, I certainly see nothing wrong with broadband over power lines (BPL) being given a chance to succeed or fail on its own merits, under sensible and objective oversight by the Federal Communications Commission. Unfortunately, the Commission is falling down on the job. The FCC has allowed BPL to operate under Part 15 of the FCC rules. These are the rules you often see printed on the back of remote controls, calculators or digital alarm clocks. They say simply that the device can't be used if it causes interference, and that it is afforded no protection from interference from other devices.

The big difference between an alarm clock and BPL should be pretty obvious. Small electronics are very low power, localized, and operate intermittently. Most of them shouldn't be emitting radio waves at all. BPL, on the other hand, works by injecting a strong radio signal into power lines (read: antennas). It operates over a wide area, with high power, 24 hours a day. Part 15 was never designed to deal with a system like this. Cable TV, for example, is governed by a very strict and specific set of regulations to ensure non-interference.

For Part 15 to work, there really needs to be a pretty reasonable expectation that devices don't pose any real risk before they're released into the wild. Such an expectation might be established through field tests or studies. Several such studies have been conducted, but since the outcomes weren't too favorable, the Commission has largely ignored them, and has contented itself by simply amending Part 15 to require that BPL operators have the capability to apply "mitigation techniques" to reduce, but not eliminate, interference after the fact.

But if those don't provide an adequate solution, then what? I don't think for a second that a BPL provider, with millions of dollars riding on its service, will just shut down its operations as the rules would seem to require. More likely, responses would range somewhere from outright denial of the problem, to definitional arguments over what constitutes "harmful interference." Such arguments could drag on for years. In fact, this is already happening in Manassas, VA and has been for some time.

This sort of deploy first, clean up the mess later strategy is a ridiculous way to allow an industry to operate. The rationalization seems to be that BPL is just too "exciting" a technology to be hindered with the gravity of sound technical analysis, and that it must be deployed even if it means compromising the Commission's obligation to protect licensed spectrum users from interference. But an effective Commission can't let catchy marketing monopolize its judgment.