 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
By David Sumner, K1ZZ
ARRL Chief Executive Officer
January 1, 2005
Editor's note: Typically, only ARRL members get to read the "It Seems to Us ..." editorials that run each month in QST. We're posting this editorial that appears in the January, 2005 issue of QST in the hope that both ARRL members and nonmembers might appreciate it and find it informative.
You've probably heard the term "No harm, no foul." It appears to date back about 50 years to a policy that was intended to reduce interruptions in basketball games by instructing referees to ignore minor infractions that did not affect the flow of the game. As often happens with sports phrases, it has become part of the language.
When it comes to interference to most radiocommunication services caused by Broadband over Power Line (BPL) spectrum pollution leaking from unshielded power lines, the FCC is taking "No harm, no foul" to a new level. In fact, the FCC has no intention of acting as a referee if it can possibly avoid it.
Never mind that international regulations, domestic law, and the FCC's own rules mandate protection for licensed services from unlicensed generators of radio frequency energy. Never mind that study after study shows that BPL systems operated at the FCC limits will cause harmful interference hundreds of feet from the power lines. To date, BPL system operators who have been unable to keep their systems even within those limits have been allowed to continue operating with impunity.
The FCC clearly is not interested in preventing BPL interference in advance other than in the case of aeronautical communications and a couple of other narrow exceptions. Even public safety communications are not protected. BPL system operators will have 24 hours to respond to (not necessarily to resolve) a public safety complaint. The trial lawyers should already be lining up to take the first case of an avoidable fatality resulting from BPL preventing an emergency response vehicle from hearing its dispatcher.
But our purpose this month is not to whine about the FCC's shortsightedness. Our purpose is to make the best of the situation until relief comes either in the form of a successful petition for reconsideration or a successful challenge in a federal Court of Appeals.
The FCC has decided, for better or worse, that resolving BPL interference will be a complaint-driven process. This means that if we as radio amateurs or shortwave listeners encounter harmful interference from BPL, we must file a complaint! If we don't complain, as far as the FCC is concerned the interference doesn't exist. Even worse, if we don't complain then the BPL operator will falsely claim that its system doesn't cause interference.
Radio amateurs who are located in the limited areas where BPL is already deployed are on the front lines of this battle. If you are one, the rest of us are counting on you. In some areas--Iowa, North Carolina, and Arizona immediately come to mind--teams of local amateurs have done an extraordinary job of documenting the harmful interference as well as the BPL operators' inept and unsuccessful attempts to resolve it. In other places, individual amateurs have stepped into the breach. The Rochester (Minnesota) Amateur Radio Club has been able to work cooperatively with Rochester Public Utilities in their evaluation of BPL and has documented interference to as well as interference from BPL. There are other examples of good local effort--but there are others where amateurs have done too little or have been willing to settle for too little in the way of interference elimination.
So, what should you do if you think you're being interfered with by a BPL system? It's best if you can work as part of a team of local amateurs, but you can also be effective as an "army of one."
The first step is to verify that the source is really BPL. There is a wealth of information at the ARRL Web site, www.arrl.org/bpl, to help you make this determination. If there is any doubt, contact Ed Hare, W1RFI, at ARRL Headquarters: w1rfi@arrl.org. A direct link to guidance on how to report BPL interference is at www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/complaints.html
Once you know that BPL is the source, contact the BPL system operator. Usually that will be your local power company, although they may refer you to another company that is operating the system on their lines. Eventually there will be a publicly accessible database with contact information.
The FCC says, "We expect both parties to cooperate to determine a mutually acceptable schedule to diagnose and resolve the interference complaint...." Note the term "mutually acceptable." When you file your complaint you should ask for a commitment that the interference will be eliminated by a certain date that is reasonable to you. If the system operator is unwilling to do so, point out to them that the FCC requires them to adhere to a schedule that you find acceptable. Also, don't settle for anything less than complete elimination of harmful interference on all amateur bands.
The FCC goes on:
Any complaints of interference that are not resolved in accordance with the mutually agreed schedule may be filed with the Commission along with the particulars of the interference case. Upon receipt of the interference complaint, the Commission will investigate the complaint and take action against the Access BPL operator if it is found to be causing harmful interference. If, on the other hand the Commission uses its resources to investigate an interference complaint that is found to be frivolous, the Commission will impose appropriate sanctions for abuse of its administrative process.
We're not happy with the FCC's reference to "frivolous" complaints, which appears to have no other purpose than to discourage the filing of any and all complaints. What constitutes a "frivolous" complaint?
Given that several BPL system operators have told less than the whole truth, either deliberately or from ignorance, the FCC should be more concerned about the conduct of these unlicensed operators--who have no rights whatsoever under the Communications Act--than about the conduct of its licensees who have a proven record of responsible behavior.
