ARRL Seeks Timely Resolution of BPL Interference Complaints

Sumner said the ARRL, in its petition for reconsideration of the FCC’s rules, sought changes to ensure that BPL operators were obliged to correct interference promptly. The FCC didn’t put time limits on resolution of interference complaints because it believed that the parties would act in good faith to settle interference issues, Bruce Franca, deputy chief of the Office of Engineering & Technology, has said. Sumner accused the BPL operator in Manassas of failing to resolve the “very serious technical issues” in a timely fashion.

Sumner said the ARRL was also pursuing “additional means” to get the FCC to do a “better job of drawing the line between the more benign BPL technologies and the ones that clearly have an excessive potential for interference such as the Main.net system in Manassas.” Asked if it wouldn’t be easier to informally settle issues with the BPL operator, he said ham operators haven’t found a BPL operator that can deal with interference complaints effectively. It’s possible to reduce, but not eliminate, interference by “notching” --changing frequencies -- he said. And weeks after notching is done, “you discover that the notches [have] disappeared,” he added: “They make operational changes that affect the interference generated on a day-to-day basis. It should be obvious to anyone that this is not a viable approach to delivering broadband service.”

Getting BPL operators to resolve interference within a time limit is “worth discussing,” said Brett Kilbourne, regulatory dir. of the United Power Line Council (UPLC). “The question is whether there is a problem that justifies imposing penalties.” The ARRL hasn’t raised the issue with the industry, he added. Sumner said the ARRL was awaiting Commission action on its Manassas complaint. He said the League has been told that the Enforcement Bureau is taking over responsibility for BPL interference complaints from the OET. The FCC didn’t return calls for confirmation. “We are hopeful that the Enforcement Bureau will do the job,” said Sumner.

In a separate complaint with the FCC, the ARRL took “strong exception” to the “limitations” imposed on access to the industry’s BPL interference resolution website. The FCC designated the United Telecom Council (UTC) as administrator of the database aimed at helping those affected by radio interference from BPL operations reach the operators involved and seek remedies. The UTC limits a user’s monthly searches, Sumner said, adding that the restriction is “inappropriate” and the database “fails to meet the letter or spirit” of the FCC’s BPL rules. The site requires a user to enter a zip code before gaining access, he said, and that’s “clearly contrary to the requirement that the database be available to the public.”

Kilbourne said the database is “fully compliant” with the FCC rules. The limitations are “reasonable,” he said, and are designed to protect the database from massive traffic that can take it down. The use of zip codes is a requirement for both public and industry access, he said. It was put in place for “legitimate reasons,” including keeping information from competitors. The limitation wouldn’t get in the way of resolving interference issues, he added.

The ARRL, which is operating a Motorola LV BPL system at its Newington, Conn., hq said it’s seeking administrative access to the BPL database. Sumner said the ARRL is operating the system to investigate the “interference environment” for the Motorola system. Initial testing bear out ARRL’s belief that the Motorola’s system is the most “benign” in terms of potential interference, he said. The UTC can provide administrative access to the database, said Kilbourne: “It’s interesting that they are a BPL operator.”