[CS-FSLUG] Flaws in BPL

[Fred A. Miller]

I must admit, this is probably the best written piece about BPL and why we
should all oppose it.  especially if you are a HAM operator or just a SW
Listener. 


http://tinyurl.com/a7r4o

NewsForge
The Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source
http://internet.newsforge.com/

Title           Flawed BPL is no broadband panacea
Date            2005.05.17 15:01
Author          Joe Barr
Topic           
http://internet.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/16/2040240

Broadband over power lines has been in the news again recently. At one time 
BPL
was seen as the best way to bring affordable Internet access to poor and rural
America: an answer to the technology gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Now, thanks primarily to boosters like Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, 
Powell's
successor at the FCC, it's back for another go at the broadband access market.
But BPL remains a flawed and controversial technology. Proponents in Texas are
pushing a pro-BPL bill past confused legislators in Austin at the same time
their counterparts in Washington, D.C., are considering a measure to rescind
"BPL-friendly" rule changes made at the FCC last fall.

If you listen to the marketing that surrounds BPL, you can understand why it 
has
supporters. Proponents say that BPL will finally bring broadband access to the
poor, the underserved, and to rural areas. They also suggest that BPL will
enhance the coming "smart grid" technology which someday will replace our
antiquated power systems. The third BPL talking point is that once the
technology is flourishing, consumers will benefit from increased competition 
in
the marketplace. Lastly, BPL proponents admit that there is a possibility of
interference being generated, but that it will be minor and mainly affect only
amateur radio operators who live within close proximity to a BPL-equipped 
power
line. Unfortunately, three of the four talking points are untrue, and the 
fourth
is far from certain.

The reality behind the talking points

There are two basic types of BPL: Access BPL and In-house BPL. Access BPL
carries broadband traffic into homes or buildings over existing power lines.
In-house BPL -- like the popular X10 home automation product line -- works
entirely within the framework of the home or building's internal electrical
system. All the buzz in the news these days is about Access BPL.

Access BPL is a "last mile" technology. That means that broadband traffic is
carried by other means -- optical fiber, for example -- all the way from the 
ISP
to the neighborhood being served. At that point, broadband traffic is 
"injected"
into the power lines that serve the neighborhood.

Once the broadband traffic has been injected into a power line, all that a
customer needs to access the Internet is a BPL modem connected to any 
available
electrical outlet served by that power line. From the ISP to the injection
point, there is nothing new or unique. From the modem to the routers, 
computers,
and LANs in the house or business connected to BPL, there is nothing new. BPL
only exists on that "last mile" of the power line, between the injection point
and the BPL modem. (Mostly -- one BPL provider is working on a hybrid 
solution,
using BPL on medium voltage lines, then using wireless 802.11 communications
between the power lines and consumers.)

For a more detailed technical explanation, see the paper entitled "Technical
Considerations for Broadband Powerline (BPL) Communication," by Robert G. 
Olsen.

Remember the first of the three BPL talking points, the one about bringing
affordable Internet access to America's poor and rural areas? It's not true.
Perhaps it was at one time, during its infancy, while BPL was still on the
drawing board. That was before experimenters learned that transformers can eat
the broadband traffic at points between the power plant and its final
destination. Now that we know the signal has to carried by other means in 
order
to get it into the neighborhoods being served, a large chunk of the original
cost savings have disappeared, and it's clear that the BPL is no panacea for 
the
digital divide.

That conclusion doesn't come just from those opposing BPL, but from within the
industry as well. Karen George, market research director for Primen, a 
Colorado
subsidiary of the utility industry's Electric Power Research Institute, told 
the
San Diego Union-Tribune last December that while the actual costs for adding 
BPL
to existing power grids are still unknown, rural deployments will cost more 
than
urban. That means the same demographics that drive the existing broadband
delivery systems apply to BPL as well: optimal profits will come from 
operations
in the areas with the highest population density, and lower profits -- or 
losses
-- will come from operations outside those areas.

Smart grid technology? Nobody even knows for sure just what that phrase means
just yet, other than that our existing power infrastructure is not it. Simple
meter reading and control communications are handled by BPL on frequencies 
where
it doesn't cause interference with the HF or VHF bands, so if that's your
definition of a smart grid, relax. It's here today, and Access BPL for the
Internet is not required for its operation. But visionary smart grid 
technology
is a phenomenon whose birth date still lies on the far side of the event
horizon. Driven by the catastrophic Blackout of 2003, "smart grid" has emerged
as a collective, curative buzzword.

But even if it were real and available today, there is nothing intrinsic to
Access BPL that would allow it to carry data any faster or more reliably 
between
different points of the grid than existing broadband carriers.

There is some merit to the BPL lobby's third talking point: increased
competition among broadband providers would be good for consumers. The only
catch to this one is that BPL must first prove to be at least as fast, at 
least
as reliable, and at least as cost-efficient as existing broadband carriers. If
and when that happens, we can all celebrate, because everyone except 
monopolies
know that competition is a good thing for consumers. The problem is that BPL 
is
a long way from being faster, more reliable, or cheaper than conventional
broadband access.

But the real killer in BPL -- its fatal flaw -- is the interference it causes.
This interference is not, as former FCC chairman Michael Powell and other BPL
cheerleaders have claimed, minor. Nor is it just a "possible risk." It is a
certainty.

When a signal is injected onto a long, unshielded wire at radio frequencies,
that wire becomes an antenna, and it radiates the signal. A power line is a
long, unshielded wire. When broadband traffic is injected onto a power line,
that signal is broadcast. It interferes directly with radio communications
operating at or near the same frequencies the power company uses. I say
frequencies, because BPL today uses multiple carrier frequencies to try to 
raise
its level of reliability.

The HF frequency spectrum -- from 3MHz to 30MHz -- and the VHF spectrum - 
30MHz
to 80MHz -- are the two that would suffer the most interference from Access 
BPL.
These spectrums are used by thousands of public safety agencies: police
departments, fire departments, and emergency medical services. They are also
used by the military, by government entities at all levels, by ships and 
planes,
and by many other licensed users. The communications of all of these critical
functions would be subjected to the interference generated by Access BPL.

BPL performance

There are three problems with Access BPL from a technical perspective: harmful
interference, slow speed, and poor reliability. Vendors have tried BPL pilots
all over the country -- unsuccessfully. Companies like AT&T and Nortel 
Networks
tried BPL and gave up on it for one reason or another. Other pilots have shut
down in the face of complaints of interference. In Texas, TXU shut down its
pilot near DFW following complaints from the American Radio Relay League 
(ARRL).
Similar complaints were filed in Iowa, leading Alliant Energy to end its pilot
months ahead of its announced schedule. Both firms say there were reasons for
the shutdowns other than the issue of interference.

When a power line becomes a radio antenna, it does more than just broadcast 
the
broadband traffic; it also receives radio transmissions. The internal "noise"
from those signals appears to cause additional problems for BPL's performance.
Tests conducted by amateur radio operators, voluntarily working with customers
at BPL pilot sites, have shown that mobile radio transmissions made while 
parked
in the street near a BPL power line -- and using as little as 5 watts of power
-- impede the flow of data from the Internet to the home.

According to Ed Hare, the ARRL Laboratory Manager, "The testing of
susceptibility done by amateurs did show that as little as 5 watts of power 
had
an impact on the systems tested, but there is no way of knowing whether this
would occur on all BPL systems. ARRL has offered to BPL manufacturers and
electric utilities to do more thorough testing of this problem, but so far, 
this
is not something that they want to look at closely. Until that more thorough
testing happens, the unencouraging results seen so far will have to serve as 
the
red flag that BPL may not work well near licensed radio transmitters."

Carol Arneson and Robert Herbst, both senior managers at business consulting
firm Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP, recently wrote a study on BPL entitled
"Broadband Over Powerline: A midterm grade." The grades they awarded are as
follows:

    * A in Politics
    * B in Self-Promotion
    * D in Technical Performance
    * D in Business Model Demonstration
    * D in Market Identification
    * F in Pilot to Implementation Transition 

Giving equal weight to each category, BPL earned a D+ overall. The study notes
that the interference issue has largely been ignored in pilots, and that data
rates have slipped from early projections of 100Mbps to as low as 10Mbps. They
stop short of declaring the technology dead, saying "there is interest and
potential niche applications." But they also warn that BPL technologies today
are not investment-grade.

Next: BPL legislation stumbles in Texas

It appears that at least one large power conglomerate in Texas agrees with the
Broadband over Powerline report's assessment. It's sometimes difficult to 
follow
the BPL action in Texas, even if you have a program. Public committee hearings
on SB 1748 were reportedly orchestrated in such a way that concerned citizens
who came to Austin from around the state were not able to testify. Even if you
did manage to testify, it appears that the committee misrepresented who was 
for
or against the bill. One person who testified on behalf of EFF-Austin claims
that her position was misrepresented in the committee's final report. Stranger
still, TXU -- the firm reported to have been cozying up to the committee
chairman and at least one other member of the committee -- was listed as 
having
testified against it.

Senator Troy Fraser is chairman of the Texas Senate's Business and Commerce
committee. He is also the author of SB 1748, "An act entitled relating to the
development and provision of broadband over electric delivery systems and the
development of enhanced electric delivery systems." Senator Ken Armbrister is
also a member of that committee. TXU is conglomerate of electric power related
holdings.

TXU recently made it possible for Fraser and Armbrister to attend the Masters
golf tournament in Augusta, Ga., by providing them with passes to the event.
Since that coziness was made public, Fraser has said he wrote a check to TXU 
to
cover the face value of the passes, which was $300 per day. Of course, street
prices for the tickets were much higher, with two-day badges reportedly going
for $1,750. And dinner for all his guests the night before the opening day of
the tournament was picked up by TXU lobbyist Mark Malone, as was a meeting at
the sponsor's tent the next day.

Something happened to the bill along the way, and it didn't make it out of
committee without two significant changes. Originally, it allowed electric
companies to charge existing customers for their investment in BPL, relieving
the companies of shouldering any risk in their venture. That wording was 
removed
from the bill. The second change was the addition of the following section:
"Sec. 43.152. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW. BPL operators are required to 
comply
with all applicable federal laws, including laws protecting licensed spectrum
users from interference by BPL systems."

Those changes are why TXU ended up speaking against it. TXU has since assured 
me
that it is still behind BPL in general, just not the version of the bill that
came out of committee. Apparently either TXU doesn't have enough confidence in
BPL to risk investing its own money in it, or else it feels there is no cure 
for
those interference blues -- or both.

When I noticed that EFF-Austin's Adina Levin on the final committee report as
speaking in favor of the bill, I queried her as to why EFF-Austin was 
supporting
Access BPL. She replied:

    I didn't sign the testimony card FOR the bill -- if the record says so, 
they
misread the card. I did not get a chance to see the committee substitute 
before
testifying.

    EFF-Austin and SaveMuniWireless aren't in favor of BPL or any specific
broadband technology. We're in favor of multiple options to increase access to
broadband. We're in favor of enabling cities and towns to make choices that 
are
right for the area. And we're against a state ban on the ability of cities and
towns to support broadband access.

    At the hearing, a representative of a power company testified to the
problems in a recent pilot that did not deliver commercial-quality results
because broadband performance was inconsistent. If this pilot and other pilots
continue not to deliver good results, then BPL won't gain traction in the
market. 

Next: Clearly interference

In order to learn more about the interference generated by Access BPL, and the
techniques being used to try to mitigate that interference, I spoke with Ed
Hare, the ARRL Laboratory Manager. Hare has visited 10 different BPL pilot
installations to gain firsthand experience with issues of interference. I 
wanted
to learn how BPL providers could tune their systems in order to avoid
interfering with critical communications. Hare began by giving a little
background information on how most BPL systems work:

    The exact mechanism can vary from system to system, but for the most part
what they are doing with these systems is some form of multiple-carrier
transmission, where they are sending information on a power line on multiple
carriers spread across the frequency range, with the expectation that at least
some of them will get to the other end in reasonably strong signal levels, so
they can properly demodulate the signal and get all of the digital data that's
been sent. 

Then Hare proceeded to describe the most commonly used method of mitigation of
the resulting interference, called "notching."

    To protect licensed users, what they usually do is to turn off the 
carriers
in the spectrum they are trying to protect. So, for example, they didn't have
carriers operating in any of the amateur bands, then in theory, if those 
signals
were protected enough, they could operate without interfering with that
particular part of the spectrum.

    In our experience in a number of different BPL systems, BPL that starts 
off
at the FCC limits, with a typical 30db of notching, has not done enough to 
fully
protect that spectrum. In the notched spectrum, we can still hear BPL signals 
at
levels that might be 10, 20, or more times stronger than other signals that 
are
on the band. In the amateur radio service, for example, if we're trying to
communicate with a station that is not extremely strong, those BPL signals 
would
cover up many of the signals on the band. 

Hare's description of the cause of the interference -- using the same
frequencies for carriers to transmit BPL data that others are using -- and the
apparently ineffectual job at undoing that interference using the notching
technique, paints a far different picture of BPL interference than the one
provided by the BPL lobby, or by the FCC, for that matter. I asked Hare about
that disparity. He said, "The FCC has stated that the likelihood of 
interference
from BPL is very low, or words to that effect. We've looked at their own test
data, and the ARRL does not believe that their own test data supports that
statement."

The raw data from those test results (available as a large PDF file on the 
ARRL
site) -- as measured by the FCC itself -- clearly shows levels of harmful
interference in the HF band generated by BPL pilot tests. When the FCC was 
asked
to comment on the apparent discrepancy between its own tests and its Rule and
Order, spokesperson Bruce Romano said, "Those issues are under 
reconsideration."

On the same day that I spoke with Ed Hare, the U.K.'s Office of Communications
(OFCOM) telecommunications regulatory agency released the results of a 
recently
completed study it did on a BPL pilot in Scotland. According to the ARRL's BPL
news page, OFCOM:

    ... concluded that Amperion BPL equipment deployed in a field trial in
Scotland "as tested is not and cannot be FCC Part 15 compliant above 30 MHz."
Ofcom today released a study, "Amperion PLT Measurements in Crieff," which
summarizes measurements it took at the site in Scotland. PLT is another term 
for
BPL. Ofcom's investigation also demonstrated the limitations of Amperion's
"notching" capabilities to mitigate interference to radio reception. ARRL CEO
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, says Ofcom's study reflects what the League and others have
known all along about BPL. 

To date, the only real success that BPL has achieved in mitigating 
interference
has come in getting the FCC to relax its rules on the harmful interference it
does generate. And now that relaxation of the rules is coming under close
scrutiny. Michael Ross, a Representative from Arkansas, has introduced a
resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives calling for a "full and 
complete
analysis" of the radio interference created by Access BPL with an eye towards
undoing last October's rule changes.

Conclusion

After having spent some considerable time researching this story, I'm left
primarily with a sense of deja vu. BPL today is like the very worst of the dot
com era: mythological, deliberately misstated, and majorly overhyped 
technology
that is being used in ways it was never designed to be in the first place.

The FCC's role in the BPL soap opera has been less than stellar. I asked Dave
Sumner, ARRL's CEO and Secretary, if the FCC stance on BPL seemed out of the
ordinary, based on his dealings with them over the years. He replied:

    Yes, it does. Historically the FCC has a reasonably good record of basing
its decisions on sound technical analysis. However, Chairman Powell was
cheerleading for BPL before the facts were in and continued to do so even 
after
there was clear evidence that radio interference would be a major problem. Now
that he has left the FCC we're hopeful that more sober leadership will 
recognize
the need for reconsideration. 

If you find it hard to believe that Michael Powell, the FCC, and the BPL lobby
have been less than honest about the amount and severity of radio interference
generated by BPL, all you have to do is to look and listen: here, here, or 
here.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am both a newly licensed amateur radio
operator and a member of the ARRL.
Links

   1. "Technical Considerations for Broadband Powerline (BPL) Communication," 
-
http://www.pserc.org/ecow/get/publicatio/2005public/olsen_bpl_paper_feb2005.pdf
   2. "San Diego Union-Tribune last December" -
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041213/news_lz1b13power.html
   3. "AT&T" - http://home.comcast.net/~cvarc/attdissolve.html
   4. "Nortel Networks" -
http://news.com.com/Is+broadband+set+to+make+power+lines+sing/2100-1034_3-5163739.html
   5. "TXU" - http://www.txucorp.com/about/default.aspx
   6. "complaints" - http://www.eham.net/articles/10662
   7. "ARRL" - http://www.arrl.org/
   8. "end its pilot" - http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/28/2/
   9. "study on BPL" -
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/cced/documents/10_Broadband%20Over%20Power-Line%20a%20Mid-Term%20Grade.pdf
  10. "EFF-Austin" - http://www.eff-austin.org/
  11. "Troy Fraser" - http://www.fraser.senate.state.tx.us/
  12. "Ken Armbrister" -
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist18/dist18.htm
  13. "made public" -
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/news_24069bb7e19af08600fe.html
  14. "PDF file" - http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/FCC_reports.pdf
  15. "study" - http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/technology/cet/powerline/
  16. "ARRL's BPL news page" - http://www.arrl.bpl/
  17. "a resolution" - http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/28/3/?nc=1
  18. "here" - http://www.io.com/~nielw/BPL/
  19. "here" - http://ve3hls.tripod.com/noise/utilities.html
  20. "here" - http://www.vk1od.net/bpl/QueanbeyanBplTrial.htm

Click Here
© Copyright 2005 - NewsForge, All Rights Reserved

printed from NewsForge, Flawed BPL is no broadband panacea on 2005-05-23
19:13:32

-- 
             "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!"
 Brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security
and the Patriot Act(s) numerous Presidential Directives, etc.