 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
 Previous: The Amateur Radio Crossword Puzzler |  Next: The K7RA Solar Update |
NEWINGTON, CT, Apr 28, 2006--Saying that broadband over power line (BPL) will bring Internet access to "underserved communities," the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has adopted regulatory guidelines for electric utilities and companies that wish to develop BPL projects in that state. While the Commission's BPL guidelines include a requirement to maintain the safety and reliability of the electric distribution system, the state agency has no jurisdiction over radio frequency interference, which received no mention in the PUC's news release. ARRL Laboratory Manager Ed Hare, W1RFI, points out that the utility industry still must meet another tier of federal regulations that govern permitted BPL signal levels and interference issues.
"Although this action addresses how BPL operators will be responsible to state regulators, it does not address any of the technical problems with BPL in any way," Hare observed. "Utilities will still have to carefully choose BPL vendors with a proven track record of preventing interference complaints."
Benefits vs Uphill Battle
The CPUC said it wants to foster BPL deployment to solve the "last mile" problem of broadband delivery and to increase consumer choice in broadband providers. "BPL has the potential to bring broadband Internet services to communities who do not have broadband service available today from the telephone companies or cable companies," said CPUC President Michael R. Peevey. "BPL can also provide benefits to electric customers by enabling valuable 'smart grid' applications that could improve electric system reliability and support money-saving energy management technologies."
One commissioner suggested that BPL faces an uphill battle. "This is a nascent technology with technological, market, and financial hurdles before it," commented CPUC member John Bohn. "By removing unnecessary regulations from its path, we free BPL entrepreneurs to invest and take the risks they want, while protecting ratepayers from any downside."
Demonstrably Wrong
ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, said that while the League's concern is with BPL interference and not with the viability of BPL in the broadband marketplace, "it's odd to see the California PUC echoing the pro-BPL rhetoric that was coming out of the FCC two years ago and that is so demonstrably wrong today." Sumner points out that BPL has been around for years now, and "after all the hype," the most-recent FCC statistics show no more than about 4000 BPL lines in service in the entire US.
"The California PUC would better serve its citizens by focusing on more capable broadband technologies, such as fiber and wireless, that do not have the potential to disrupt radio communication," Sumner concluded.
Utility Commissioners' Task Force Expresses Reservations
The February 2006 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) "Report of the Broadband over Power Lines Task Force" included reservations about the technology expressed by utilities themselves. "First Energy commented that it is still not clear that BPL technologies live up to their hype," the report noted. Con Edison said the technology still has credibility issues. "Don't tell me what it can do; show me what it can do," the report quotes the utility. PPL and Idacomm called a halt to their BPL activities in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Idaho. NARUC's year-earlier task force report pointed to the unclear regulatory climate for BPL and the costs of its deployment in rural areas as obstacles.
ARRL Staffer Testified on Early Policy Draft
In February 2005, ARRL staff member Dean Straw, N6BV, testified at a CPUC public hearing on an earlier CPUC draft on broadband deployment--including BPL. In his testimony, Straw--an electrical engineer and an ARRL technical editor--decried the fact that a section of the draft policy document dealing with BPL neglected to mention the technology's disadvantages.
He cited interference from BPL to radio receivers, interference to BPL from radio transmitters and a lack of bandwidth for expansion, especially in instances where BPL interference must be mitigated in some fashion.
"We are not opposed to Internet broadband services," Straw maintained on behalf of the Amateur Radio community at large. "We're not categorically opposed to Access BPL, but we are opposed categorically to interference." Straw urged caution against what he called "a wholesale embracing" of BPL on the part of the CPUC.
The policy the CPUC adopted April 27 stemmed from a draft developed by CPUC member Rachelle Chong, a former FCC commissioner.
CPUC's Goals
The CPUC said its action, among other things, would allow
the flexibility of third parties or electric utility affiliates to invest in
and operate BPL systems; require utilities to follow affiliate transaction
rules for transactions between a utility and BPL affiliate to protect against
cross subsidies and other anticompetitive concerns; require companies
installing BPL equipment on utility infrastructure to pay pole attachment fees;
align investor risks and rewards, including ratepayer/shareholder sharing of
any access fees exceeding the pole attachment fees; and exempt certain types of BPL-related transactions from regulatory review.
| Previous: The Amateur Radio Crossword Puzzler | Next: The K7RA Solar Update |
