REGULATORS URGE BPL INDUSTRY TO EVOLVE VOLUNTARY CODE OF CONDUCT
State and federal regulators called on power utilities aspiring to provide broadband-over-power line (BPL) services to come up with a voluntary code of conduct on potential regulatory issues such as emissions and affiliate transactions. Failure could mean disparate regulations in the states, they said Tues. at the United Power Line Council (UPLC) annual conference in Washington. Meanwhile, the FCC indicated its BPL inquiry would be completed in the first quarter of next year.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Calling affiliate transactions a key concern for state regulators, Fla. PSC Comr. Charles Davidson said agencies would have to look into possible safeguards to ensure that a regulated utility monopoly didn’t use excess cash flow to fund its BPL affiliate. It would be better for industry to come up with a common code of conduct that protected basic principles and protects consumer interests rather than leave the issue to the regulators, he said, and approaching the regulators for a solution would result in a maze of varying rules in the states. Jack Zinman, senior adviser to the NTIA acting dir., agreed a voluntary code of conduct that met the needs of regulators and policymakers would go a long way in helping BPL providers.
One basic question that state regulators would face when it came to BPL, Davidson said, was whether, given internodal competition among high-speed providers, it would matter if any one of the nodes was a monopoly as the BPL providing utilities would turn out to be. BPL’s competitors were certain to raise the issue of whether it was fair to have a monopoly, he said. As far as he was concerned, as long as there was robust internodal competition, it didn’t matter whether there was a monopoly in one of those nodes, Davidson said: “You [BPL] will be a nascent technology without any market share.” However, regulators would have to consider requests by BPL’s competitors for regulatory restraint on pole attachments or equivalent regulations under the concept of regulatory parity.
Davidson said universal service could be another issue for BPL, although regulators would have to consider whether they should burden emerging technologies with universal service obligations. But there again the question of regulatory parity would arise, he said. However, the key regulatory issue in the states would be how affiliate transactions would be handled. Here the industry had 2 choices, he said: (1) Approach state regulators on a case- by-case basis. (2) Draw up a voluntary code of conduct for the entire industry.
The FCC probably will complete its inquiry into BPL in the first quarter of next year, Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Ed Thomas said. He said the Commission was taking seriously the need to provide regulatory certainty in that area. The fundamental issue for the agency is how to enable BPL while at the same time protect incumbents from interference, Thomas said. While the NTIA recognized BPL’s potential for innovation, it also had concerns about interference issues, Zinman said. Referring to the testing being undertaken by the NTIA at its Institute for Telecom Science, he said federal agencies had more than 18,000 frequency assignments in the 1.7-80 MHz spectrum and interference to them should be addressed. The best outcome would be “peaceful coexistence” between current users of the spectrum and BPL providers, he said.