OET to Have BPL Draft for Oct. Commission Meeting
The FCC’s Office of Engineering & Technology is “working hard” to complete its broadband over power line (BPL) work for consideration at the Oct. Commission meeting, Deputy Chief Bruce Franca said. At the United Power Line Council’s (UPLC) annual meeting in Arlington, Va., Tues, he said “we are real confident that we are going to have an item for October.” State regulators, however, told utility executives they still had “limited” knowledge of the technology, and said it was up to the industry to educate them so they have a better grip on regulatory issues. They said the BPL task force set up by NARUC would issue its findings in Nov.
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.
Franca said the FCC has received some interference complaints from amateur radio operators, but to BPL’s credit tests conducted by the OET showed that BPL equipment largely complied with the rules and “notching” techniques for avoiding certain frequencies were very efficient. BPL operators and equipment manufacturers have done a good job of eliminating potential interference, he said, adding that the OET considers BPL interference risk very limited.
BPL raises 2 interference issues, said Tom Sullivan, chief of NTIA’s Spectrum Engineering Branch. One is local interference complaints from amateur radio operators at the “neighborhood” level, the other a “large-scale” problem below the 30 MHz band when hundreds of thousands of BPL devices could raise radio noise levels worldwide, he said. The NTIA isn’t “fearful” of interference at the local level because it’s confident BPL operators will fix it when complaints arise. However, the agency will fully address ionospheric interference, he added. Acknowledging the agency differs with the FCC on interference issues and solutions, Sullivan said, however, that “we will fully support whatever rules the FCC comes out with.”
Commissioners from 3 state PSCs said they needed to be better “educated” on BPL. States are looking at “light-touch” regulation for BPL, said N.J. PSC Comr. Connie Hughes. Regulators need hands-on demonstrations from BPL operators to have a better grip on regulatory issues, she said. The difference between federal regulators, such as the FCC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and state counterparts is that the latter are responsible for both energy and telecom issues, she said. They must tackle the “synergies” between BPL and electricity industries as well as cross-technology concerns: “So it’s extremely important that state regulators are at the table.” Security and reliability of networks are among issues state regulators will consider, she added.
The NARUC BPL task force was intended remove any barriers to the industry, not create them, said Mich. PSC Comr. Robert Nelson, who heads NARUC’s telecom committee. The task force is working to get 3 white papers on regulatory, technical and security issues released in Nov., he said. It’s also planning a meeting in Oct. before the broadband summit to fine-tune the white papers, he added. Cross-subsidization and rights-of-way questions are issues the industry can help regulators address up front, he said. Most states have laws to promote broadband deployment, he said, but state regulators are concerned about regulatory parity. Responding to questions about the likely classification of BPL, Nelson said NARUC may weigh in on the issue in the cable modem case pending in the Supreme Court.
Cross-subsidization, pole attachment and Universal Service Fund contributions are some of the BPL state regulatory issues, said N.Y. PSC Comr. Tom Dunleavy. From state regulators’ perspective, state policy for any industry must be stable and “we have to figure out a way to provide certainty” for the BPL industry: “It’s a very easy thing to say but a very difficult thing to do.” With the Supreme Court ruling recently that states may erect barriers to municipal entry into the telecom business, telecom and cable providers are sure to go to state legislatures or PUCs to policy hurdles against municipal utility BPL, said Dick Geltman, gen. counsel of the American Public Power Assn. (APPA). “We have both political and legal problems going forward.” The density of population in rural areas can be a barrier to entry for cooperative electrical utilities, said Tracy Steiner, gen. counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn. However, cooperatives see BPL as a community service rather than a business venture, she added.