Ham Radio Operators Expect Legal Tangle Over FCC’s BPL Rules
Amateur radio operators are bracing for a legal showdown with the FCC over its broadband over power line (BPL) rules, despite filing a petition for reconsideration calling for rescission of the BPL order. “That’s our expectation,” said David Sumner, CEO of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). The league doesn’t expect reconsideration to bring dramatic changes to the FCC’s rules, adopted last Oct., he said. Sumner said the FCC’s rules didn’t “go far enough” to protect radio communications services from BPL interference.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Sumner told us the legal challenge would likely be on 2 grounds. One was a “procedural error” by former Chmn. Powell -- attending a BPL demonstration in Manassas, Va., days before the Commission adopted its order. That violated the FCC’s sunshine rules, he said. The ARRL also says the FCC lacks authority to allow “an operation [BPL] that represents such a significant potential source of radio interference.” Sec. 301 of the Communications Act bars the FCC from authorizing unlicensed operations on BPL-type devices, he said.
ARRL believes a legal challenge is almost certain, Sumner said, because the FCC doesn’t usually change its mind in the “face of new evidence.” The agency generally sticks with its original order, claiming it struck the best balance in its report and order, he said, and “we are not going to upset that balance by anything we do on reconsideration.” The changing of the guard at the Commission could bring relief for ham operators, Sumner said. Powell, self-described as a cheerleader for BPL, had for “some inexplicable reason parroted unsupported industry claims” on BPL, Sumner said. “His departure certainly gives us hope that the remaining commissioners and any new commissioners will take a more measured approach.”
Sumner accused the FCC of failing to redress ham operators’ interference complaints. For instance, he said that while the agency investigated interference complaints in Briarcliff Manor in N.Y., its staff was “looking at the wrong places.” The FCC staff didn’t contact the original complainant or visit all sites where the league said interference was occurring, he added. Neither did the Commission give ARRL a chance to demonstrate its interference claims: “They just go up and do their own observations and measurements, and conclude that there is not significant interference.” The Briarcliff complaint didn’t turn up the feared interference, said Bruce Franca, deputy chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering & Technology (CD March 7 p6). In the few instances in which the industry fixed interference, the systems had to be shut down, Sumner said. The ARRL, which steps in only when ham operators don’t get satisfaction from local BPL operators, filed complaints about operations in Tex. last week, he said, and more are expected in the coming weeks.
Sumner said would-be BPL investors must worry about legal obstacles facing BPL because interference is “illegal.” It’s banned by the international radio regulations of the ITU, which the U.S. must observe as a treaty obligation, and also by the Communications Act. “If interference results, it has to be fixed and there is no option. This is a risk that any investor needs to take into consideration.”