U.S. Representative Mike Ross (D-AR) has introduced
House Resolution 230, a bill "To express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Communications Commission should reconsider and revise rules governing broadband over power line systems based on a comprehensive evaluation of the interference potential of those systems to public safety services and other licensed radio services." Access the text of House Resolution 230 by clicking
here.
Representative Ross' bill would express the sense of the House of Representatives that—
"(1) the FCC should reconsider and review the rules adopted pursuant to its October 28, 2004, action in the broadband over power line proceeding, which could disrupt public safety radio systems;
"(2) the FCC should conduct a full and complete radio wave interference analysis involving field studies and broadband over power line test demonstration systems, to determine the actual, measured effect of broadband over power line on public safety systems, and a comprehensive interference analysis, with the participation of public safety agencies and organizations, and other interested parties; and
"(3) the FCC should allow extensive public review and comment on this study, and the results of the study, and a summary of the public comment thereon should be published before broadband over power line systems are deployed pursuant to rules finally adopted in the FCC's ET Docket No. 04-37."
Congressman Mike Ross has provided the following answers to a set of questions submitted to him by
Broadband over Power Line World concerning various aspects of House Resolution 230:
1. What prompted you to introduce House Resolution 230?
I am one of two Members of Congress who is a licensed amateur radio operator; therefore, I am concerned about the potential interference that may occur with broadband over power lines (BPL). Based on my own knowledge of the unique nature of the high frequency (HF) radio spectrum, I was concerned about evidence submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that I believe demonstrates the need to postpone any rules regarding BPL deployment.
2. What would it do?
The House Resolution would put the chamber on record supporting a more careful study by the FCC of the radio interference issue, especially as it relates to public safety communication, and reconsideration of the adequacy of the rules in light of this study.
3. How significant a problem do you believe broadband over power line radio frequency interference to be?
The problem is very significant, and is proportional to the extent of deployment of BPL using the medium voltage (MV) power lines. Broadband energy cannot be put on these lines without causing interference to radio receivers using the same frequencies.
4. How much potential for disrupting public safety communications does BPL have?
The potential is very great, if the same frequencies are used. Public safety services in many states and locales use frequencies in the 30-50 MHz range. The SHARES network uses frequencies in the HF (2-18 MHz) range. Federal government agencies, including those responsible for public safety, use frequencies throughout the 2-80 MHz range.
5. What's the potential of BPL for disrupting aviation operations?
The potential is so great that National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) successfully argued for Access BPL on medium voltage lines to be prohibited in the HF frequency bands used by commercial aeronautical communications. I am concerned that there is no similar protection for other aeronautical communications, including military.
6. Has it caused problems already or is the problem still a theoretical one?
BPL is causing problems today, and has been doing so for more than a year. Fortunately, commercial deployment so far is extremely limited.
7. What about BPL RFI and amateur radio operations?
Radio amateurs are certainly the largest group that has been calling attention to the problem. As I mentioned previously, I am a licensed radio amateur myself.
8. How much input on this have you had from public safety agencies, aviation authorities, and amateur radio operators?
I have heard mostly from amateur radio operators. Their concerns led me to look more closely at the issue from the public safety perspective. I have learned since that there is significant cause for concern and that those impacted in the public safety community are becoming more active.
9. Has the FCC studied this issue enough?
No. That's the whole point of the Resolution.
10. Has the FCC been fair and balanced in its treatment of BPL so far, or do you think they're biased for or against the deployment of BPL and that that bias has affected their actions in this area?
Former Chairman Michael Powell was promoting BPL long before the FCC had studied the interference issue. I do not want to say he was biased. However, I am hopeful that Chairman Martin will be more balanced in his approach.
11. What exactly do you want them to do?
I want them to do what they should have done in the first place: Complete an in-depth study of the interference issue and develop radiation limits that will protect radio services. The existing limits are much too high, and were never intended to apply to a system like BPL.
12. Do you want all BPL deployment to be shutdown pending the FCC's study and public comment?
No. However, any BPL systems deployed now should be made to conform to future limits, and the substantial number of interference complaints now pending at the FCC with respect to BPL test locations should be addressed without further delay.
13. How binding on the FCC would H. Resolution 230 be if it passes?
The Resolution expresses the sense of the House and is not binding. However, I would hope the FCC would take the interference issue to heart, whether or not the Resolution is adopted.
14. What are the politics of passing it? How many co-sponsors are on board now? What is the timeline for hearings, committee action, and floor action on the resolution?
Resolutions of this sort will generate cosponsors and general support within the House of Representatives. We have just introduced it and are now reaching out to other colleagues to cosponsor it. We do not anticipate any hearings, however our first session in this Congress is scheduled to end in October 2005. The resolution continues through the 2nd session if it is not already passed. In addition, as Congress begins to consider comprehensive telecommunications legislation, I would like this issue discussed and considered.
15. What are the politics of this issue? Who and what groups seem to be on which side of the question of BPL deployment vs. non-interference with existing communications services?
Radio users are understandably concerned about interference from BPL. BPL companies are understandably interested in being able to sell their products. I hope the BPL companies will realize that it's in their interest to treat the interference issue as a technical and engineering challenge, not as a political issue.
16. Why, in your view, is it important that this resolution be passed?
Our public safety community deserves this support and there are nearly 700,000 licensed radio operators who can be impacted unless something is done.
