Editor's note: Typically, only ARRL members get to read the "It Seems to Us ..." editorials that run each month in QST. We're posting this editorial that appears in the July 2004 issue of QST in the hope that both ARRL members and nonmembers might appreciate it and find it informative.

Speaking at the American Association of Community Colleges Annual Convention in Minneapolis on April 26, President George W. Bush said: "There needs to be technical standards to make possible new broadband technologies, such as the use of high-speed communication directly over power lines. Power lines were for electricity; power lines can be used for broadband technology. So the technical standards need to be changed to ­encourage that."

Mr Bush is wrong. Technical standards do not "need to be changed to encourage" Broadband over Power Lines (BPL). Even the self-proclaimed "cheerleaders" for BPL at the FCC realize that the rules already are too lenient when it comes to controlling the potential for BPL to interfere with over-the-air radio­-communication services.

Where did the idea for Mr Bush to promote BPL come from? Not from the experts that he asked for advice on "Building Out Broadband." On December 13, 2002 the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) delivered a report with that title. The PCAST report doesn't even mention BPL; its focus is on wireless broadband.

Everyone is in favor of increasing consumer access and lowering the cost of broadband services. During the past three years the United States has slipped behind other countries, nota­bly those in Scandinavia, in its readiness to take advantage of Internet-based opportunities. In an election year, the administration's desire to be perceived as doing something about that is understandable. But there is growing evidence that BPL is a blind alley.

As radio amateurs, our concern about BPL is that it pollutes the radio spectrum. Were it not for this unfortunate side effect, BPL could be left to succeed or fail on its economic ­merits. We are not opposed to BPL; we are opposed to the interference it causes.

The problem facing BPL proponents is that radiation is unavoidable when you put a radio-frequency signal on an unshielded, unbalanced wire such as a power line. The power lines can't be shielded--a separate shielded cable is much cheaper--and they are inherently unbalanced because the load is changing all the time. So, power lines inherently are an inappropriate medium for broadband signals.

On the day after Mr Bush's speech the ­National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released Phase 1 of its long-awaited study of BPL interference potential. The technical content of the report reflects the high quality we have come to expect from the NTIA. However, somewhere along the line the NTIA apparently received instructions to find a way to make elephants fly. As a result the report suffers from schizophrenia. Directly contradicting the FCC's claims in the BPL Notice of Proposed Rule Making that "the risk of harmful interference from Access BPL operations is low," the NTIA found that interference is "likely" to receivers trying to hear "low to moderate" signal levels extending to 75 meters (about 250 feet) for land vehicles and 460 meters (¹/4 mile) for fixed stations. Land vehicles are nearly always within 250 feet of a power line--and needless to say, most fixed stations are within ¹/4 mile of a power line. Even more remarkably, the NTIA report predicts interference to aircraft reception "within 40 km of the center of the BPL deployment area." For the metrically challenged, that's 25 miles. Yet the NTIA does not take the logical next step of recommending a lower limit for BPL radiation. Instead the Phase 1 study suggests "several means by which BPL interference can be prevented should it occur." These include mandatory registration of certain parameters of planned and deployed BPL systems, frequency agility (notching and/or retuning), and "power reduction for elimination of interference." NTIA also recommends "avoidance of locally used radio frequencies," among other things, to BPL developers.

In a May 17 speech, NTIA Acting Assistant Secretary Michael D. Gallagher said the Phase 1 study "showed that interference risks are high under existing FCC Part 15 rules." However, he also claimed that "solutions exist to all identified BPL technical issues." This is true only if turning BPL systems off, and leaving them off, is counted as a "solution." We doubt that investors in BPL would regard that as a desirable outcome.

In May we said on this page that the important decisions about BPL deployment would be made in corporate boardrooms. On May 21 we were advised by a spokesman for PEPCO, the operator of a test BPL site in Potomac, Maryland, that a corporate decision has been taken not to invest in BPL. If someone were to approach them with a proposal to lease their lines to deliver BPL services, they would listen--but they're not committing any of their own money. We've heard of other power companies and cooperatives that have come to the same conclusion. Of course, such decisions are not heralded to the world by press release.

Manassas, Virginia is an example of a BPL deployment decision gone wrong. Last October the City Council voted unanimously to grant a franchise for BPL service to a company called Prospect Street Broadband LLC. At the time a Manassas official bragged that there was "very little financial risk" to the city. There was talk of as much as $4.5 million in revenue to the City over 10 years--even talk of tax reductions.

Less than six months later, on April 8, the City of Manassas "concluded its relationship with the initial Franchisee by mutual agreement and acquired the interests and equipment of the Franchisee." The franchise is out for rebid. The 77-page bid package makes for interesting reading. It doesn't take an MBA to figure out that operating the system is costing a lot more than it is producing in revenue from 100 paying customers as of the time the bid package was released. Curiously, there is no mention of any of this in the City's comments on the NPRM filed more than three weeks after the cancellation of the initial franchise.

Manassas has elected a new mayor who takes office July 1. We wish him luck finding his way out of the BPL blind alley. He'll need it.

Previous: HDSCS Field Day Brings an Actual Emergency and Congressional Recognition

Next: R&D Authority Assures ARRL on Publicly Funded BPL Project; Interference Continues