ARRL

ARRL General Bulletin ARLB009 (2005)

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB009
ARLB009 League files opposition to BPL reconsideration petitions

ZCZC AG09
QST de W1AW  
ARRL Bulletin 9  ARLB009
From ARRL Headquarters  
Newington CT  March 24, 2005
To all radio amateurs 

SB QST ARL ARLB009
ARLB009 League files opposition to BPL reconsideration petitions

The ARRL has filed an Opposition to three petitions for
reconsideration in the broadband over power line (BPL) proceeding,
ET Docket 04-37. The League's filing targets points raised in
reconsideration petitions from Current Technologies LLC, the United
Power Line Council (UPLC) and Amperion Inc. Each seeks
reconsideration of certain aspects of the Report and Order (R&O) the
FCC adopted last October, spelling out new Part 15 rules to govern
BPL deployment. In its Opposition, the ARRL says the FCC should not
eliminate its requirement that BPL providers give 30 days' advance
notice of service initiation, as Current, UPLC and Amperion have
requested.

''Grant of the petitioners' request to eliminate the 30-day advance
notice requirement would not only be antithetical to the
Commission's goal of providing competitive, affordable and efficient
broadband access;'' the ARRL said, ''it would also eliminate even
the most minimal means for Amateur Radio licensees to be able to
identify and contact the source of harmful BPL interference when it
occurs.''

Keeping the 30-day notification period in place, the ARRL argued,
offers radio amateurs a chance to determine baseline ambient noise
levels ahead of a BPL deployment and to be able to identify
interference when it occurs and the extent to which the HF and
low-VHF operating environment is degraded.

The ARRL also took issue with requests by Current and UPLC either to
extend the transition period for certification of BPL equipment
made, marketed or installed on or after July 7, 2006, or to drop it
altogether. Either approach, the League contended, ''is tantamount
to an abdication of any requirement to implement any of the
admittedly inadequate interference mitigation requirements in the
Report and Order at all.''

As the rule is written, the League's Opposition points out, ''no BPL
system placed in operation ever has to come into compliance with the
interference requirements.'' The ARRL maintains that the FCC erred
in its R&O by permitting the installation and operation of
non-compliant equipment after the R&O's effective date.

The League Opposition also commented that the FCC ''has not adopted
any rules that will protect licensees in the Amateur Service from
interference from BPL systems.''

In its own Petition for Reconsideration in February, the ARRL asked
the FCC to ''reconsider, rescind and restudy'' the October BPL R&O,
calling the FCC's action to permit BPL ''a gross policy mistake.''
NNNN
/EX