Broadband-over-power line (BPL) providers shouldn’t be classified...

that Qwest and Verizon wanted all broadband providers to be treated equally but Qwest was concerned that if BPL providers were considered only as CLECs, they wouldn’t be obliged to make pole attachments available to ILECs. The PSC said that if BPL companies did provide basic local exchange services, they should be classified as CLECs and required to make available poles at reasonable rates, terms and conditions. Referring to concerns raised by some commentators over the potential for cross-subsidization by utilities to provide BPL services resulting in electric ratepayers’ ending up funding the broadband network, the Mich. agency said state commissions should be empowered to deal with such issues “since they have ample authority over both industries (electric and communications) and thus are better qualified to act.” In Mich., the PSC said, facilities-based broadband providers were governed by the Metropolitan Extension Telecom Rights-of-Way Oversight Act and BPL providers would be covered under that statute. It said the Mich. Broadband Development Authority Act had provisions for financing broadband providers and BPL companies could take advantage of the incentives. On interference issues, the PSC said the FCC should rely on extensive field testing by independent parties rather than those of telecom and power industries. The Central States VHF Society (CSVHFS), urging the Commission not to authorize the deployment of BPL, said it agreed with the American Radio Relay League and other commentators that BPL was a major threat to all users of the RF spectrum. “Once BPL is authorized for operational use, we are certain there would be great difficulty monitoring, controlling, enforcing and possibly terminating its use, no matter what it does to the public safety systems, homeland security systems, DoD missile defense systems and intelligence community users,” it said. The Institute of Electronic & Electrical Engineers (IEEE) said that, based on comments submitted to the Commission, Part 15 rules didn’t require any technical rule change to specifically accommodate BPL emissions because commentators for and against BPL described no reports of harmful interference during trials. All comments were based on potential for interference, it said. It also said no changes were needed for equipment certification.