Subject: [NEXTEL-1] NPRM-In the Matter of Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:38:02 -0500

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power
Line Systems

Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement
guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems

ET Docket No. 03-104

ET Docket No. 04-37

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

Adopted:  February 12, 2004 Released: February 23, 2004

COMMENT DATE: [45 days from publication in Federal Register]
REPLY COMMENT DATE: [75 days from publication in Federal Register]

By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Martin, and
Adelstein issuing
           separate statements; Commissioner Copps approving in part and
dissenting
           in part and issuing a separate statement.

Table of Contents

          Para. No.

I.   INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………....……1

II.  BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………..…....2

III. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………………….30

IV. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………...48

V.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS…………………………………………………………….……....49

VI. ORDERING CLAUSES…………………………………………………………………………59

APPENDIX A: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX B: PROPOSED RULES

APPENDIX C: PROPOSED MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES

I.   INTRODUCTION
1. By this action, we are proposing to amend Part 15 of our rules to
adopt new requirements and measurement guidelines for a new type of
carrier current system that provides access to broadband services using
electric utility companies’ power lines.   Because power lines reach
virtually every home and community in the country, we believe that these
new systems, known as Access broadband over power line or Access BPL,
could play an important role in providing additional competition in the
offering of broadband services to the American home and consumers, and
in bringing Internet and high-speed broadband access to rural and
underserved areas.  At the same time, we are cognizant that the
possibility of widespread operation of Access BPL raises interference
concerns and that we must protect licensed radio services from any
harmful interference that might occur.  In this regard, we are proposing
to require that BPL systems and devices incorporate capabilities to
mitigate harmful interference should it occur.  We are also proposing to
adopt administrative requirements to aid in the identification and
resolution of harmful interference from Access BPL systems.  Finally, we
are proposing to clarify certain measurement guidelines for all types of
carrier current systems that use electric wiring and electrical outlets
within homes and buildings to transfer information between computers and
other electronic devices.  With these proposals, we take an important
step towards promoting the deployment of new broadband networks that are
expected to enhance the economic, educational and social well-being of
all Americans.  Specifically, we believe that the proposed changes will
remove regulatory uncertainties and facilitate the introduction and use
of this promising new technology.
II.  BACKGROUND
Description of BPL

2. Traditionally, various low-power, unlicensed devices or systems have
used the alternating current (AC) power lines to carry information by
coupling radio frequency (RF) energy to the AC electrical wiring.
These unlicensed devices include AM radio systems on school campuses and
devices intended for the home, such as intercom systems and remote
controls for electrical appliances and lamps.   Until recently, carrier
current devices have operated generally on frequencies below 2 MHz with
relatively limited communications capabilities.  Because of the inherent
impedance and attenuation variations of power lines and noise from
devices such as dimmer switches, motorized electrical appliances, and
computers switching on and off, reliable high-speed communications over
power lines have been difficult to achieve.  However, the availability
of faster digital processing capabilities and the development of
sophisticated modulation schemes have produced new designs that can
overcome these technical obstacles.  These new designs have led to the
development of new BPL systems that use spread spectrum or multiple
carrier techniques and that incorporate adaptive algorithms to counter
the noise in the line.
3. The new low-power, unlicensed BPL systems couple RF energy onto the
existing electric power lines to provide high-speed communications
capabilities.  BPL systems may operate either inside a building
(“In-House BPL”) or over utility poles and medium voltage electric power
lines (“Access BPL”).  In-House BPL systems use the electrical outlets
available within a building to transfer information between computers
and between other home electronic devices, eliminating the need to
install new wires between devices.  Using this technology, consumers can
readily implement home networks.   Access BPL systems can be used to
provide high speed Internet and other broadband services to homes and
businesses.  In addition, electric utility companies can use Access BPL
systems to monitor, and thereby more effectively manage, their electric
power distribution operations.  Given that Access BPL capability can be
made available in conjunction with the delivery of electric power, it
may provide an effective means for “last-mile” delivery of broadband
services and may offer a competitive alternative to digital subscriber
line (DSL), cable modem services and other high-speed Internet
technologies.
4. As mentioned above, these new low-power Access BPL systems carry
high-speed data and voice signals outdoors over the medium voltage line
from a point where there is a connection to a telecommunications
network.  This point of connection may be at a power substation or at an
intermediate point between substations, depending on the network
topology.  Within a residential neighborhood, most Access
implementations employ a coupler or bridge circuit module at the
low-voltage transformer to enable the transfer of high-frequency digital
signals across the distribution transformer.   The high-speed
communication signals are then brought into the home over the exterior
service power cable from the coupler/bridge, either directly, or via an
Access BPL adaptor module.  Some Access BPL implementations use the
medium voltage lines to bring the BPL signals to neighborhoods and
employ a wireless link between a transceiver mounted on the power pole
and a companion transceiver located inside the end user’s premises to
complete the connection.   Typically, the medium voltage lines are
carried overhead on transmission poles or tower mountings; however, in
some locations they are enclosed in underground conduits and only the
distribution transformers are mounted above ground on a pad, inside a
metal housing.
5. Most Access BPL systems today operate on frequencies up to 50 MHz
with very low power signals spread over a broad range of frequencies.
These frequencies are also used by licensed radio services that must be
protected from harmful interference as BPL systems operate on an
unlicensed basis under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules.  In the radio
spectrum below 50 MHz, incumbent authorized operations include fixed,
land mobile, aeronautical mobile, maritime mobile, radiolocation,
broadcast radio, amateur radio terrestrial and satellite, and
radio-astronomy.  Users of this spectrum also include, for example,
public safety and Federal government agencies.

Existing Part 15 Rules for BPL

6. Carrier current devices, including BPL equipment, are subject to the
Commission’s existing Part 15 rules for low-power, unlicensed equipment
that operates on a non-interference basis.    At the present time, the
Part 15 rules provide specific radiated and conducted emission limits
for carrier current systems operating below 30 MHz.   The radiated
emission limits apply from 9 kHz and vary with frequency.   There is no
limit on conducted emissions for carrier current systems that contain
their fundamental emission within the standard AM broadcast band of 535
to 1705 kHz and are intended to be received using standard AM broadcast
receivers.   All other carrier current systems operating below 30 MHz
are subject to a conducted emission limit only within the AM broadcast
band.  Carrier current devices that do not operate at frequencies below
30 MHz are subject to the general conducted limits below 30 MHz.
Notice of Inquiry
7. In April 2003, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry) on
BPL technologies and systems.   The Inquiry was issued to solicit
comments to assist the Commission in reviewing its Part 15 rules to
facilitate the deployment of Access BPL while ensuring that licensed
services continue to be protected.  In the Inquiry, the Commission
encouraged continued deployment of Access BPL systems that comply with
the existing rules.
8. In the Inquiry, the Commission asked for comments on the
characteristics of BPL technology, the status of deployment of BPL and
any standards work related to BPL.   The Commission also asked for
comments on the probable interference environment and propagation
patterns of BPL and the mitigation techniques used by BPL to avoid
interference.   The Commission further asked whether it would be
possible to develop a standardized measurement method for testing BPL,
and if so, how to develop it.  It requested input on whether there are
any international standards that should be investigated for possible
adoption in order to facilitate the development of BPL products for a
global marketplace.   In addition, the Commission sought comments on
issues related to the authorization of BPL and the types of components
of Access BPL that would be subject to equipment authorization.
Finally, the Commission sought input on whether power line carrier
systems currently deployed by the utility companies to control and
monitor the electrical system would be replaced in the future with the
new high speed BPL equipment and on any associated issues with the
coexistence of the older control systems with the new BPL systems.
9. Over five thousand comments and replies were received in response to
the Inquiry.  In general, the commenting parties addressed: 1) the
potential benefits of Access BPL systems; 2) the potential for harmful
interference from Access BPL to licensed services; and, 3) measurement
procedures for evaluating emissions from Access BPL systems.
10. Benefits of Access BPL.  A number of parties express interest in BPL
and suggest that BPL could offer a number of significant benefits in the
delivery of broadband services to homes and businesses.  A number of BPL
proponents submit that this technology could increase the availability
of broadband and improve the competitiveness of the broadband services
market.  For example, Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy) states that Access BPL
could facilitate the “ubiquitous availability of broadband services” and
“bring valuable new services to consumers, stimulate economic activity,
improve national productivity, and advance economic opportunity for the
American public.”   Southern LINC., Southern Telecom Inc., and Southern
Company Services, Inc. (Southern) states that the ubiquitous nature of
BPL creates the opportunity for providing new and innovative services
“to virtually any location served with electric outlets.”   Southern
further states that while broadband access appears to be increasing
nationally, significant areas of the country today still lack any type
of broadband access or any competition among broadband service
providers.   The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) states that BPL holds great promise as a new
source of innovation and competition in the broadband marketplace.  It
submits that Access BPL has the potential to open new avenues of
Internet access, to enable new and expanded services for utility
companies, and to create a new platform for further advances in
communications technology.
11. BPL proponents also argue that Access BPL will improve the
competitiveness of the market for broadband services.  Current
Technologies, LLC (Current Technologies) states that BPL offers the
“long-sought third wire” (along with telephone and cable) for last-mile
delivery of broadband communications services to residences and small
businesses.   The United Power Line Council (UPLC) similarly states that
BPL offers a unique opportunity in the broadband marketplace and that
there is widespread interest in BPL among utilities.   It further
submits that in areas already served by other broadband providers, BPL
will increase competition, which in turn will bring better service and
lower prices.
12. A number of parties also state that the ubiquitous nature of the
electric power grid will make it possible for Access BPL systems to
bring broadband services to rural and other underserved locations.  The
American Public Power Association (APPA), for example, states that
seventy five percent of its members serve communities with populations
less than 10,000, many of which do not have access to broadband.
Current Technologies states that technical and economic considerations
limit the deployment of cable and DSL.  It submits that Access BPL is
not constrained by these considerations and can deliver “broadband to
many of those unserved by other broadband technologies” and “bring the
advantages of the Internet to the people who need them most.”   These
parties also submit the availability of Access BPL will make it possible
for those persons who currently do not have access to broadband to
better participate and compete in the Information Age.   The Office of
the People’s Counsel, District of Columbia (OPC DC) supports our efforts
to facilitate deployment of BPL because it has the potential to improve
the District of Columbia’s telecommunications landscape for consumers by
providing a solution to the “digital divide” that currently exists in
the District of Columbia and to increase the number of broadband service
providers in the District.   The Alliance for Public Technology (APT)
states that BPL may help accelerate the deployment of advanced services
and bring the new and enhanced applications to all Americans.  APT urges
that the FCC use its full authority under Section 706 to remove barriers
and create incentives for industry’s rapid deployment of advanced
services, such as BPL.
13.  BPL proponents also state that Access BPL technology will offer
benefits to improve the provision of electric power service and advance
homeland security. Several commenting utility companies point out that
BPL will improve safety and efficiency of power distribution in the
United States.    They indicate that Access BPL technology could be used
to assist the utility companies by adding intelligent networking
capabilities to the electric grid, thereby improving efficiency in
activities such as energy management, power outage notification and
automated meter reading.   For example, Southern, Progress Energy, Inc.
(Progress Energy), and UPLC state that Access BPL would allow electric
utilities to better monitor and control electric system operations and
thereby improve the reliability of their service and reduce costs to its
customers.   PowerWAN, Inc. (PowerWAN) states that under the Mission
Essential Voluntary Assets (MEVA) guidelines, utilities are responsible
for ensuring secure infrastructure power for federal facilities,
including military bases, and state, city and local government.  It
believes that Access BPL would enhance security and enable other
security applications such as video surveillance consistent with the
MEVA guidelines.
14. Interference Concerns.  There is significant disagreement among the
commenting parties regarding the interference potential of Access BPL.
A number of parties contend that Access BPL poses the potential for new
interference to a variety of radio services.   Amateur operators and
amateur organizations in general are opposed to Access BPL and advocate
emission limits that are lower than the existing Part 15 limits.   For
example, the National Association for Amateur Radio, also known as the
American Radio Relay League, Incorporated (ARRL), expresses concern that
Access BPL, if not appropriately restricted, will cause interference to
amateur operations.  ARRL states that amateurs use very sensitive
receivers and high gain outdoor antennas that could be located in close
proximity to electric power lines.  ARRL submits that 53% of amateur
respondents to a survey it conducted indicated that they deploy outdoor
antennas located less than 30 meters from overhead power lines and that
the current Part 15 limits are not sufficient to protect against
interference in this situation.   In this regard, ARRL submits analyses
that it argues show serious degradation of amateur communications when,
for example, an amateur antenna is located 30 m from an overhead power
line containing a single BPL device operating at the Part 15 limits.
15. ARRL also contends that entire communities will be affected by
radiated BPL emissions.   ARRL contends that in an Access BPL system,
the power lines would act as an efficient antenna covering an entire
city, causing widespread interference to amateur operations.   ARRL also
conducted tests of radio reception using a mobile radio in residential
test areas for Access BPL and submitted audio recordings of radio
interference that it attributed to BPL.  Based on these analytical and
experimental results, ARRL contends that the potential interference from
Access BPL would be so severe as to warrant its exclusion from all bands
allocated for amateur use.   ARRL also states that today power line
noise is the single most frequently identified source of High Frequency
(HF) interference to licensed amateur operations.   ARRL further raises
concerns that high-powered amateur operations could interfere with
Access BPL.   A large number of individual amateur operators filed
comments raising similar concerns.  For example, Mickey D. Cox, an
amateur operator, “strongly urge[s] the Commission to very carefully
assess the electromagnetic interference (EMI) potential of BPL before
large-scale deployment of the technology.  This assessment, which should
involve all stakeholders, must determine whether viable technical
solutions can be found that reduce EMI to acceptable levels and at what
cost.”   Other amateur operators, such as Lee McVey, suggest “that the
Commission deny the proposed adoption of Access BPL in favor of a more
practical, reliable and universally deployable fiber optic alternative…”

16. While NTIA recognizes the potential benefits of Access BPL, it also
states that the Commission must ensure that other communications
services, especially Federal Government operations, are adequately
protected from unacceptable interference.  It states that the Federal
Government has extensive operations that potentially could be affected
by BPL systems.  It notes that there are over 18,000 Federal Government
frequency assignments in the 1.7-80 MHz spectrum range.  NTIA also
indicates that it has initiated modeling, analysis and measurement
efforts in order to develop means for accommodating BPL technologies
while precluding unacceptable interference to Federal Government
systems.   Similarly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
supportive of our national goals of extensively deployed broadband
facilities and of a more robust electrical utility infrastructure and
states that it appreciates that BPL could be a major factor in achieving
these objectives.  FEMA indicates, however, that it has become aware
that certain distinct approaches to BPL may have the potential to cause
interference to its high frequency radio emergency communications system
although it has not concluded at this time that there is a material
interference problem or that all of the distinct technological
approaches to BPL pose a risk of interference.  FEMA states that it
expects that there may be ways to provide the public with the benefits
of BPL without compromising emergency communications.   The National
Academy of Sciences, through the National Research Council's Committee
on Radio Frequencies (CORF), indicates its concern regarding BPL
emissions into the bands allocated to the Radio Astronomy Service
(RAS).  It urges that, at the very least, the level of protection
currently provided under Part 15 in RAS bands should be maintained.
17. Commenting parties representing other services also raise potential
interference concerns.  The North American Shortwave Association (NASWA)
recommends that “all BPL signals be confined to the 30 to 47 MHz region
of the spectrum to minimize interference to international broadcast
services.”   Verizon Telephone Companies (Verizon), Qwest Communications
International, Inc. (Qwest) and Sprint Corporation (Sprint) express
concern that BPL operations could interfere with voice and data services
(i.e. VDSL and ADSL2+) on twisted pair telephone cables located on the
same utility poles as the BPL systems.   The Aeronautical Radio Inc.
(ARINC) states that Access BPL could “exacerbate interference” to its HF
communications and that “the FCC should not take actions that would
result in any increase in the noise floor in the HF radio spectrum,
because any noise increase would inevitably diminish the ability of
aviation to maintain communications with aircraft operating over oceans
and in remote areas of the world.”
18. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) agrees that BPL
providers could potentially provide the public with a ubiquitous third
broadband pipe to compete with cable modem, DSL and other technologies,
but believes that it is important to ensure that there is no
interference to already well-established services.   Similarly, the
Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) is optimistic that the development
of broadband service using existing electrical lines holds promise for
providing additional resources to members of the public that are
currently underserved or may be unable to secure access to that
technology because of geographic or other limitations.  However, it
urges the Commission to “…balance the potential benefits of this
service, and increased competition among incumbent access providers,
with the need to thoroughly test this service offering to ensure that no
interference or other damage will result to existing incumbent services,
particularly wireless public safety communications.”  In addition, the
Region 21 Frequency Advisory Committee of the Association of Public
Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO Region 21)
expresses concern about BPL interference to public safety
communications.
19. The Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI) supports the
development of BPL technology and states that BPL has the potential to
increase broadband access and competition.  However, it states that BPL
systems must not interfere with hearing aids, telecommunications
equipment, and visual signaling technology commonly used by the deaf and
hearing-impaired.
20. On the other hand, BPL equipment manufacturers and service providers
state that Access BPL does not pose an unacceptable risk of increased
interference to licensed radio services.   They note that there have
been no complaints of interference from BPL and that the existing Part
15 rules adequately protect incumbent spectrum users.   The BPL industry
in general believes that Part 15 rules are not only adequate to protect
other users of the spectrum,  but that higher emission limits are
warranted in the 30-50 MHz band.   Some parties propose higher emission
limits especially at frequencies above 200 MHz.   Parties advocating
higher power argue that operation of Access BPL under power levels
higher than currently allowed in Part 15 would enable utility companies
to serve more homes, thereby bringing broadband access to a greater
number of people.
21. Southern indicates that it is unaware of any reported cases of
harmful interference from use of its Access BPL technology.   The
HomePlug Powerline Alliance (HomePlug) states that its member companies
have widely deployed In-Home BPL equipment in the consumer market over
the last 2 years and there have not been complaints of interference.
HomePlug contends that joint testing by the ARRL and HomePlug has
demonstrated a very low probability of interference between its devices
and amateur radio use.   The In-House BPL industry advocates no change
to Part 15.
22. A number of BPL proponents argue that the technical assumptions used
by opponents of Access BPL to predict interference are incorrect.  They
dispute claims that the electric power lines will act like an efficient
antenna and that signals from Access BPL devices will aggregate to raise
the noise floor.   Southern states that there is a high degree of
variability in the ability of power lines to radiate BPL signals and
that signals on power lines will tend to cancel each other out.    It
argues that its research to date would suggest that a BPL signal
injection point can appear like a point-source radiator, with the power
line having characteristics somewhere between a waveguide and an
antenna.   Thus, Southern contends that ARRL erred in depicting the
power line as an efficient antenna for a single, discrete frequency.
23. Current Technologies submits that its data indicate that BPL
emissions drop off very rapidly away from the BPL source and that
emissions fall off in point-source fashion.   Ameren Energy
Communications Inc. (AEC) states that the notion that the power lines
will act as efficient antennas and pollute their surroundings with
harmful interference is not supported by scientific measurements.   AEC
asserts that because of impedance mismatch in real-world power lines, a
single power line is expected to be a rather inefficient radiator.
24. Current Technologies states that aggregation of BPL signals is
unlikely since in its system only two BPL devices in the same area can
operate simultaneously, and even those two devices would operate on
different frequencies, so they cannot affect the same receiver.
Main.Net Communications Ltd. (Main.Net) similarly indicates that in its
technology only one unit is transmitting on any given frequency at any
given time in any given area.   AEC also states that its BPL
implementation does not lead to noise aggregation because its systems
are broken into several cells and within a single cell, modems cannot
transmit signals simultaneously.  It argues that therefore only a single
RF source will exist within the cell and no combined radiated emissions
from multiple sources can occur.   Main.Net further indicates that it
has successfully implemented its technology in trials and commercial
operations in over 60 locations in 25 countries throughout the world.
25. In response to CORF’s concerns with BPL emissions, BPL proponents
submit that their systems would comply with the current Part 15
requirements.  Southern states that emissions from its system are
compliant with Part 15 requirements and, in fact, tend to be in the
noise floor.   Southern also points out that its Access BPL devices do
not even operate in three out of the seven frequency bands allocated for
RAS as Access BPL operate only on frequencies below 50 MHz.
26. Finally, Ambient Corporation (Ambient) states that it is possible to
avoid interference to nearby transceivers using the inherent frequency
agile characteristics of advanced Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (OFDM) technology.   Ambient states that if a sub-band is
being used by a nearby transceiver, the BPL modem transmitter can be
programmed to avoid transmitting on that sub-band, or “notch” it out.
27. BPL Equipment Authorization and Measurement Procedures.  In the
Inquiry, we requested comment on authorization and compliance
measurements for BPL equipment.   Under section 302 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission carries out its
responsibilities by establishing technical regulations for transmitters
and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing harmful
interference to radio services, and by administering an equipment
authorization program to ensure that devices reaching the market comply
with the technical requirements.   The equipment authorization program
specifies several procedures for demonstrating equipment compliance.
Currently, equipment operating as carrier current systems, such as power
line intercom systems, lamp remote controls, low speed power line
telephone adaptors, as well as Access BPL, are subject to the
verification procedure under our equipment authorization program.
28. There is a general consensus that all components of an Access BPL
system should be part of the equipment authorization process.   With the
exception of parties representing amateur interests, most commenting
parties recommend retaining the verification procedure for Access BPL
equipment authorization as it is currently applied to both BPL and
traditional narrow-band carrier current systems.  These parties contend
that Access BPL is sold only to utilities and service providers and only
qualified utility line personnel will install the units on the power
lines.   Amateurs argue that Access BPL equipment should be subject to
the more stringent certification process.
29. A number of parties advocate deleting conducted emissions
measurements,  and retaining the existing radiated measurements for
Access BPL.   Most parties also recommend that emission measurement of
Access BPL be conducted on location, i.e., in-situ.  Several parties
advocate development of a standardized measurement procedure by an
industry technical committee.   HomePlug and other In-House BPL
proponents recommend retaining the existing radiated emissions
measurement and favor in-situ testing, and are not against a laboratory
test method but do not want it to be the only method.

III.  DISCUSSION

30. As indicated in the Notice of Inquiry and supported by the
responsive comments, we believe that Access BPL offers the promise of a
new method for delivery of broadband services to residential,
institutional, and commercial users.  Because power lines reach
virtually every home, school, and business in the United States, Access
BPL technology could play an important role in providing high-speed
Internet and broadband services to rural and remote areas of the
country.   Thus, significant areas of the country still lack broadband
access and many others lack competition for such services, and we
believe that Access BPL could serve as a means to reach those areas.
Since Access BPL uses the same power lines that carry electricity
virtually everywhere, much of the infrastructure needed to operate this
technology is already in place, so that major savings in deployment
costs and capital may be realized in its deployment.  Access BPL could
also serve to provide new competition to existing broadband services,
such as cable and DSL.  In addition, Access BPL may allow electric
utilities to improve the safety and efficiency of the electric power
distribution system and also further our national homeland security by
protecting this vital element of the U.S. critical infrastructure.
Moreover, Access BPL is being developed worldwide, and encouraging the
deployment of the technology in the United States will support
globalization of products and services, promote continued U.S.
leadership in broadband technology, and bring important benefits to the
American public.
31. We recognize the significant concerns of existing radio users
regarding the potential for harmful interference from Access BPL
operations.  After careful consideration, however, we believe that these
interference concerns can be adequately addressed.  We believe that
Access BPL systems can operate successfully under the non-interference
requirements of the Part 15 rules.  Under these rules, operators of
Access BPL systems will be responsible for eliminating any harmful
interference that may occur.   Furthermore, we believe that the current
Part 15 emission limits for carrier current systems in conjunction with
certain additional requirements specific to Access BPL operations will
be adequate to ensure that existing radio operations are protected
against harmful interference from such operations. We therefore are
proposing changes to our Part 15 rules that we believe will facilitate
the deployment of Access BPL technology while protecting licensed users
of the spectrum.  Specifically, we are proposing to: 1) define Access
BPL for purposes of our rules; 2) maintain the existing Part 15 emission
limits for Access BPL; 3) require that Access BPL devices employ
adaptive interference mitigation techniques; 4) require that Access BPL
providers maintain a database of installation locations and technical
information; and 5) adopt specific measurement guidelines for both
Access BPL and other carrier current systems to ensure that measurements
are made in a consistent manner and provide for repeatable results in
determining compliance with our rules.  These proposals are discussed
more fully below.

Definition of Access BPL

32. We propose to define Access BPL as a carrier current system
operating on any electric power transmission lines owned, operated or
controlled by an electrical power provider, as follows:
Access Broadband over power line (Access BPL):  A carrier current system
that transmits radio frequency energy by conduction over electric power
lines owned, operated, or controlled by an electric service provider.
The electric power lines may be aerial (overhead) or underground.
We believe that this definition is consistent with the concept of Access
BPL and the current and planned deployment of this technology.  We
request comment on this definition of Access BPL.  Interested parties
are invited to submit suggestions for alternative definitions.  Such
submissions should include a complete description of what would be
included in the definition of Access BPL and why.  We also request
comment on whether there are entities that plan to own/operate Access
BPL over the electric power lines but would not be electrical power
providers or a subsidiary of the incumbent electric power provider.

Access BPL Emission Limits

33. As indicated above, the commenting parties strongly disagree on the
interference potential of Access BPL.   Existing spectrum users are
concerned that emissions from Access BPL systems and devices could
adversely affect their operations.  BPL proponents, on the other hand,
suggest that any impact from Access BPL would be minimal and some argue
that emission levels higher than the current Part 15 limits would be
acceptable and allow more cost-effective system implementations.  At
this time, we believe that we should proceed cautiously.  We recognize
that unlicensed operations in the HF band presents a number of unique
challenges given the propagation characteristics of this range of
frequencies and the diversity of licensed users.  Accordingly, in order
to better ensure protection of existing radio services, we are proposing
to continue to apply the existing Part 15 emission limits for carrier
current systems to Access BPL systems.  While we agree that there is
some potential for Access BPL to cause harmful interference to radio
services, we also tentatively conclude that the likelihood of such
harmful interference is low under the current limits and that where such
interference does occur, there are remedies that the Access BPL operator
can employ to eliminate such interference.  On balance, we believe that
the benefits of Access BPL for bringing broadband services to the public
are sufficiently important and significant as to outweigh the potential
for increased harmful interference that may arise.  Furthermore, as
indicated above, we are proposing to subject Access BPL operations to
the existing Part 15 radiated emission limits for carrier current
systems.   In addition, as discussed in the next section herein, we are
proposing that Access BPL devices include technical capabilities and
administrative procedures to ensure that the potential for harmful
interference is minimized and that any instances of harmful interference
are quickly resolved.
34. While we appreciate the interference concerns raised by existing
radio users, we note that Access BPL will operate in compliance with the
current Part 15 rules that limit emissions from unlicensed carrier
current systems to very low power levels in comparison to licensed radio
operations.  We believe that the current Part 15 levels will limit the
harmful interference potential of Access BPL devices to relatively short
distances around these devices.   In this regard, we note that hundreds
of kinds of unlicensed devices are successfully operating under the
current Part 15 limits without causing harmful interference to licensed
operations.  Furthermore, all unlicensed devices operating under Part 15
are subject to the condition that they not cause harmful interference
and that they cease operation if they do cause such interference.
35. We recognize that amateur operations are likely to present a
difficult challenge in the deployment of Access BPL in cases where
amateurs use high gain outdoor antennas that are located near power
lines.  In considering this interference potential, we note that ARRL
acknowledges that noise from power lines, absent any Access BPL signals,
already presents a significant problem for amateur communications.   We
therefore would expect that, in practice, many amateurs already orient
their antennas to minimize the reception of emissions from nearby
electric power lines.  Further, we note that many Access BPL
technologies have the capability to avoid using specific frequencies, if
necessary, to avoid interference.  This would permit Access BPL devices
to avoid the use  of amateur frequencies when in close proximity to
amateur outdoor antennas.
36. We also disagree with ARRL and others that suggest that interference
caused to amateur and other radio operations by Access BPL systems
complying with our Part 15 limits will be widespread.  Although we agree
with ARRL that Access BPL on overhead lines is not a traditional
point-source emitter, we do not believe that Access BPL devices will
cause the power lines to act as countless miles of transmission lines
all radiating RF energy along their full length.  Rather, the primary
source of emissions will be the individual couplers, repeaters and other
devices and, to a lesser extent, the power line immediately adjacent
thereto.  Regarding the cumulative interference effect of Access BPL
across wide geographic areas, data submitted by Access BPL proponents,
such as AEC and Current Technologies, show that radiation would be the
highest in the vicinity of an Access BPL emissions source.   In
addition, as indicated above, Current Technologies, Main.Net and other
Access BPL equipment manufacturers state that in their implementations
only a limited number of devices transmit simultaneously on the same
frequency in the same geographic area and that there is no cumulative
effect from multiple Access BPL devices transmitting at the same time in
the same area.   Nevertheless, to ensure that any effect of the power
line is taken into consideration when testing for compliance with our
Part 15 rules, we are proposing to modify the measurement procedures for
Access BPL systems, as set forth in Appendix C, to specify that emission
measurements be made at several specific distances from the Access BPL
equipment source, and that measurements be taken parallel to the power
line to find the maximum emissions from the BPL system.  We seek comment
on our proposed measurement guidelines.
37. With regard to potential interference to the non-amateur radio
services, such as public safety, maritime and other operations, we
believe that the risk of harmful interference from Access BPL operations
is low.  In general, we believe that a properly designed and operated
BPL system will pose little interference hazard to non-amateur services
such as aeronautical, maritime and public safety.  However, we recognize
in our analysis that public safety systems merit particular attention
because of the often critical nature of their communications.  In
analyzing the potential for harmful interference to public safety
systems we took into account the fact that low-level Part 15 signals
from Access BPL devices attenuate rapidly as the distance from the
device increases; and that most public safety systems are designed so
that mobile and portable units receive a signal level significantly
above the noise floor.  From an interference analysis standpoint, this
latter characteristic distinguishes public safety systems from amateur
radio stations using high-sensitivity receivers to receive signals from
transmitters often thousands of miles away.  However, it is foreseeable
that under certain rare circumstances a public safety unit could: (a)
operate in close proximity to an Access BPL device; (b) be tuned to a
frequency radiated by the Access BPL device; and (c) be receiving a weak
signal from a distant, or obstructed, public safety base station.  In
general, potential harmful interference under these conditions would be
limited to public safety units operating on systems using low-band VHF
channels (25-50 MHz).   Therefore, it appears that the interference
protections we propose herein -- and the strict “no interference”
restriction inherent in the Part 15 rules -- will be adequate to
foreclose such rare instances of harmful interference to public safety
systems.  While we tentatively conclude that the measures proposed
herein are adequate, we request comment on whether any additional
measures are needed to protect particular operations, such as public
safety.  For example, should we require Access BPL system to coordinate
with public safety agencies that use the HF band for state-wide public
safety communications?
38. Accordingly, we are proposing to maintain the existing Part 15
radiated emission limits for Access BPL systems and devices.  In
addition, we are proposing to exempt Access BPL systems from the
existing conducted emission limits of Section 15.107(c).   Because
Access BPL systems are installed on power lines that can carry 1,000
volts to 40,000 volts, conducted emission measurements are very
difficult to measure, and present safety hazards in connecting test
equipment to these lines.   We do not believe that this exemption would
have any impact on interference potential since Access BPL would still
be required to comply with our radiated emissions rules.  We seek
comment on these proposals.  We further seek comment on whether Access
BPL would in some instances operate in the AM broadcast band (from 535
to 1705 kHz), and whether specific conducted requirements are needed in
such situations.
Access BPL Operational Requirements
39. Notwithstanding compliance with the Part 15 emission limits, we wish
to emphasize that Access BPL would also operate under our Part 15
non-interference conditions.  Thus, operations must cease if harmful
interference to licensed services is caused.  Given that there is
significant investment in the deployment of the service, we agree with
several commenters that Access BPL providers would have a strong
incentive to exercise the utmost caution in installing their systems to
avoid harmful interference and ensure uninterrupted service to their
customers.   In addition, given the typical attachment of BPL products
to medium voltage lines and the possible use of BPL systems to control
and monitor the electrical system, we believe that Access BPL systems
likely will be managed on a more controlled basis as compared to other
typical Part 15 operations.
40. To further address the interference concerns raised in the Inquiry,
we are proposing certain additional technical and administrative
requirements for Access BPL.  First, we are proposing to require that
Access BPL systems and devices incorporate capabilities that would allow
the operator to modify system performance to mitigate or avoid harmful
interference to radio services.  Such adaptive interference mitigation
techniques would include, for example, the capability to reduce power
levels on a dynamic or remote controlled basis, and the ability to
include or exclude specific operating frequencies or bands.  This
capability would allow operators to avoid localized and site-specific
harmful interference.
41. We believe that this requirement is reasonable and practicable for
Access BPL operators and equipment manufacturers to implement.  We
observe that a number of Access BPL devices currently employ OFDM
modulation techniques, which facilitate the ability to dynamically
select the specific frequencies used to provide service and to avoid use
of specific frequencies where operation might result in harmful
interference.  In this regard, we note that PowerWAN states that
“notching” of specific frequency is technically feasible.   Ambient
indicates that its equipment will be able to notch out individual
frequencies “on the fly,” in response to short term changes in the RF
environment.   Main.Net states that it already has the capability to
remotely control the operating frequencies and power of their
installations.
42. Second, we propose to require that Access BPL devices incorporate a
shut-down feature that would deactivate units found to cause harmful
interference, and thereby allow speedy implementation of interference
mitigation measures.  It is our understanding that most Access BPL
devices already possess this capability.  We seek comment on these
proposals and invite suggestions for alternative approaches.  In
particular, we request comment on whether we should have specific
requirements regarding the above mitigation approaches.  For example,
should we require that each Access BPL device be capable of operating
across a minimum range frequencies and have the capability to remotely
exclude a specific percentage of frequencies within this range.  We also
seek comment on the cost and effectiveness of these or alternative
approaches.  To the extent possible, we encourage potential BPL
providers and BPL equipment manufacturers to work with amateurs and
other existing licensed services to develop such appropriate mitigation
requirements.  We seek comment on the appropriate period of time that we
should allow for BPL systems to come into compliance with any new
requirements that we may adopt pursuant to this rule making proceeding.
We further seek comment on whether Access BPL systems currently deployed
should be required to be brought into compliance with the new rules, and
if so, what period of time should be afforded for them to come into
compliance.
43. Finally, we propose to subject Access BPL systems to a notification
requirement similar to the notification requirements in our rules for
power line carrier (PLC) systems.   Under this requirement, an Access
BPL system operator would submit information on its system to an
industry-operated entity.  The objective of the proposed notification
would be to establish a publicly accessible database for Access BPL
information to ensure that the location of Access BPL systems and their
operating characteristics are identified if harmful interference occurs
and to facilitate interference mitigation and avoidance measures. We
propose that this notification includes information on the location of
the installation, the type of modulation used and the frequency bands of
operation.  We seek input on these proposals.  We also request comment
and suggestions on the appropriate industry-operated entity that we
should select to receive the notifications and maintain the Access BPL
data base.  We also seek comment on other approaches for making this
information available.  For example, would it more reasonable to allow
each Access BPL operator to maintain a database of its own rather than
require a more centralized data base?. Commenting parties are requested
to submit information on the benefits of such approaches.  We further
seek input on any resulting burdens that the proposed notification
requirement may place on entities operating Access BPL systems, and any
impact of a notification system on the availability of customer data as
well as how any concerns regarding the proprietary nature of that data
can be addressed.
Equipment Authorization and Measurement Guidelines

44. Equipment Authorization.  We propose to retain the Verification
procedure for Access BPL.  Consistent with the objective that our
regulatory requirements keep pace with technology development, we
recognize that we must balance administrative burdens and the need to
ensure compliance with our rules.  We agree with commenting parties such
as Phonex Broadband Corporation (Phonex) and UPLC that the authorization
procedure for BPL should be the same as for all unintentional radiators,
including traditional types of carrier current systems.   Low-speed
carrier current systems, which for a number of years have been operating
inside buildings, have rarely been a source of harmful interference to
radio communications, and the use of the verification procedure has been
adequate to ensure that such systems comply with the rules.  We seek
comment on this proposal.
45. Access BPL Measurement Guidelines.  Because Access BPL is a new
implementation of carrier current techniques, as discussed, supra, there
are no existing measurement guidelines for this type of equipment.  We
tentatively propose that Access BPL systems, including all BPL
electronic devices, e.g., couplers, injectors, extractors, repeaters,
boosters, concentrators installed on the electric utility overhead or
underground medium voltage lines etc., be measured in-situ to
demonstrate compliance with our Part 15 rules, at a minimum of three
overhead and three underground representative locations, using the
measurement guidelines in Appendix C.  Consistent with existing FCC
measurement procedures, measurements below 30 MHz must be performed with
a magnetic loop antenna, while those above 30 MHz are performed using an
electric field sensing antenna.  For Access BPL in underground
installations, the proposed guidelines employ the common principle of
measuring radiated fields along a number of radials at a specified
distance from the periphery of the pad-mounted above-ground transformer
where the Access BPL equipment is located, to find the maximum
emissions.  For Access BPL installed on overhead lines, in order to take
into account the effect of the long power line associated with the
Access BPL equipment, our proposed guidelines specify measurements at
fixed horizontal distances from the power line where the Access BPL
source is installed.  Thus, rather than finding the maximum emissions
across a number of radials, - as currently performed for other Part 15
emitters - the receive antenna is moved down-line, parallel to the power
line, starting from the Access BPL equipment location, to find the
maximum emissions.  Down-line distances used in this sequence of
measurements are specified in terms of wavelength of the Access BPL
mid-band frequency.  We seek comment on these guidelines.
46. In addition, we specifically solicit comments on the height of
receive antennas used for radiated emissions measurements for Access BPL
systems operating on overhead power lines and on the possible use of
correction factors to account for antenna height.  The proposed
guidelines in Appendix C recommend a fixed loop antenna height at 1
meter and scanning the height of electric field sensing antennas from 1
to 4 meters.  While these recommendations correspond to standard
practice for other types of devices (especially when measured on a test
site), these heights may not capture the maximum emissions from an
overhead power line.  In Appendix C, we address this issue by specifying
that distance extrapolation for emission measurements on overhead lines
be based on slant-range distance from the Access BPL location on the
pole to the measuring antenna, rather than on horizontal distance.
However, this technique does not account for field strength reductions
caused by ground effects.  We seek comment on the following:
(a) Is it necessary to require that emission measurements be conducted
at antenna heights greater than those proposed in Appendix C?
(b) Is it practical and safe to make in-situ emission measurements at
antenna heights up to the height of an overhead medium voltage power
line (typically 11 meters) when operating 10 meters from the power
line?  As an alternative to requiring higher antenna heights, should we
specify that measurements that are performed at heights significantly
lower than the power line be subjected to a correction factor to
estimate the maximum field strength that would have been observed at a
higher measurement height?  How should such a correction factor be
determined?
47. Measurement Guidelines for Other Carrier Current Systems.  In the
Inquiry, the Commission observed that the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), International Special Committee on Radio Interference
(CISPR) Subcommittee I on Interference Relating To Multimedia Equipment,
Working Group 3 on Emission from Information Technology Equipment is
developing conducted emission limits for new BPL technologies.  We note
however that this international work on a standardized measurement
method for In-House BPL is still under way, including work on the
definition of a line impedance stabilization network (LISN),  associated
injection methods, and conducted emission limits for systems using the
power line port as a communication port.   We tentatively propose in the
interim, pending the completion of such work, to retain the
three-installation radiated emissions method for In-House BPL and
traditional CCS, using the measurement guidelines in Appendix C, which
clarify principles used regarding in-situ test buildings, device
installation location within a building, measurement distances from the
building, measurement of emissions from overhead power feed lines to the
building, and device operation.  We seek comment on the measurement
guidelines of Appendix C for In-House BPL and CCS.
IV.  CONCLUSION
48. In conclusion, we believe that Access BPL has the potential to offer
a number of significant benefits, such as 1) increasing the availability
of broadband services to homes and businesses; 2) improving the
competitiveness of the broadband services market; 3) improving the
quality and reliability of electric power delivery; and, 4) advancing
homeland security.  We believe that our proposals contained herein to
adopt new Part 15 technical and administrative rules for Access BPL will
help promote and foster the development of this new technology with its
concomitant benefits while at the same time ensuring that existing
licensed operations are protected from harmful interference.  We further
believe that our proposed measurement guidelines for Access BPL and CCS
will ensure that emission measurements for determining the compliance of
these systems with FCC requirements are made in a consistent manner, and
with repeatable results.  We request comments on these conclusions and
on all aspects of the proposals contained herein.

V.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

49. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document.
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A.  Written public comments are
requested on the IRFA.  These comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this Notice of Proposed
Rule Making.  Comments must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

50. This Notice contains a proposed information collection subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).  As part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to
comment on the information collections contained in this Notice, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on
this Notice.
51. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be
submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room
1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC  20554, or via the Internet
to [email-masked] and to Kristy L. Lalonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room
10236, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC  20503 or via the Internet to
Kristy L. [email-masked].
A. Ex Parte Rules -  Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding.
52. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding.  Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission's rules.  See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.2306(a).
A. Comments
53. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
before [45 days from date of publication in the Federal Register] and
reply comments on or before [75 days from date of publication in the
Federal Register]. Comments may be filed using the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS"),
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html, or by filing paper copies.  See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg.
23,121 (1998).
54. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.  Generally,
only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple
docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding,
however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to
each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  In
completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number.  Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail.  To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to [email-masked], and should include the
following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail
address.”  A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.  Parties
who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of
each filing.   If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional
copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
55. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal
Service mail).  The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will
receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110,
Washington, D.C. 20002.  The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m.  All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber
bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering
the building.  Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express
Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20554.  All filings must be addressed to the
Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
56. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette.  Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Microsoft Word or
compatible software.  The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
letter and should be submitted in “read only” mode.  The diskette should
be clearly labeled with the commenter’s name, proceeding (including the
lead docket number, type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of
submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette.  The
label should also include the following phrase "Disk Copy – Not an
Original."  Each diskette should contain only party’s pleading,
preferably in a single electronic file.  In addition, commenters must
send diskette copies to the Commission’s copy contractor, Natek, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554.
57. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette
and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting
Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-2555, or via e-mail to
[email-masked].  This Notice can also be downloaded at
http://www.fcc.gov/oet.
B. Contact Person
58. For further information concerning this rule making proceeding
contact Anh Wride at (202) 418-0577, [email-masked].

       VI.  ORDERING CLAUSES

59. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301,
302(a), 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309,
316, 332, 334, and 336, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making is hereby
adopted.
60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

 Marlene H. Dortch
 Secretary
 APPENDIX A:  INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended,  the
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (“NPRM”).  Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments provided in paragraph 53 of the
NPRM.  The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).   In addition, the NPRM and IFRA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.
A number of parties are currently operating Access BPL under our Part 15
rules.  Access BPL systems are new types of carrier current system that
operate on an unlicensed basis under Part 15.  Access BPL systems use
existing electrical power lines as a transmission medium to provide
high-speed communications capabilities by coupling RF energy onto the
power line.  Because power lines reach virtually every community in the
country, we believe that Access BPL could play an important role in
providing additional competition in the offering of broadband
infrastructure to the American home and consumers. In addition, BPL
could bring Internet and high-speed broadband access to rural and
underserved areas, which often are difficult to serve due to the high
costs associated with upgrading existing infrastructure and
interconnecting communication nodes with new technologies.  We propose
to amend Part 15 of our rules to adopt new requirements and measurement
guidelines for Access broadband over power line (BPL).  Specifically, we
propose new Part 15 requirements for Access BPL to promote its growth
while continuing to protect licensed spectrum users.  We further propose
to adopt new measurement guidelines for Access BPL, both in aerial
(overhead) and underground configurations. For In-House BPL and
traditional CCS, we propose to clarify the measurement guidelines to
ensure that measurements are made in a consistent manner and provide for
repeatable results in determining compliance with our rules.  These
actions will remove regulatory uncertainties, promote the deployment of
BPL to bring the necessary competition in the provisioning of broadband
applications to the American public as well as new high speed broadband
access to underserved areas of the country, while ensuring that licensed
users continue to be protected from harmful interference.
B. Legal Basis.
This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301, 302(a), 303, 307,
309, 316, 332, 334, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 316,
332, 334, and 336.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.   The RFA defines the term
“small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,”
“small organization,” and “small business concern” under Section 3 of
the Small Business Act.    Under the Small Business Act, a “small
business concern” is one that:  (1) is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and (3) meets may
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).

A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small
organizations.   The term "small governmental jurisdiction" is defined
as "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty
thousand."   As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental
jurisdictions in the United States.  This number includes 39,044
counties, municipal governments, and townships, of which 27,546 have
populations of fewer than 50,000 and 11,498 counties, municipal
governments, and townships have populations of 50,000 or more.  Thus, we
estimate that the number of small governmental jurisdictions is
approximately 75,955 or fewer.

The proposed rules pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed communications
devices.  The appropriate small business size standard is that which the
SBA has established for radio and television broadcasting and wireless
communications equipment manufacturing.  This category encompasses
entities that primarily manufacture radio, television, and wireless
communications equipment.   Under this standard, firms are considered
small if they have 750 or fewer employees.   Census Bureau data for 1997
indicate that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215
establishments  in this category.   Of those, there were 1,150 that had
employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to
999.  The percentage of wireless equipment manufacturers in this
category is approximately 61.35%,  so the Commission estimates that the
number of wireless equipment manufacturers with employment under 500 was
actually closer to 706, with and additional 23 establishments having
employment of between 500 and 999.  Given the above, the Commission
estimates that the great majority of wireless communications equipment
manufacturers are small businesses.  We do not believe this action would
have a negative impact on small entities that manufacture unlicensed BPL
devices.  Indeed, we believe the actions should benefit small entities
because it should make available increased business opportunities to
small entities.  We request comment on these assessments.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other
Compliance Requirements.
 Part 15 carrier current devices are already required to be authorized
under the verification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and
importation.  The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated
with the equipment authorization procedures would not be changed by the
proposals contained in this Notice.

 We propose to adopt new requirements for Access BPL to ensure
protection of licensed spectrum users from harmful interference.  These
requirements include the proposed technical requirement for adaptive
interference mitigation capabilities and the proposed notification of
Access BPL systems in a database similar to the one required for
existing Power Line Carrier systems.  Although these proposals do
somewhat increase the reporting and record keeping requirements for
Access BPL systems, the benefit of ensuring protection to critical
systems operated by law enforcement groups, government users and
emergency operations outweighs this small cost that will permit the
growth of Access BPL in the shared spectrum.

E. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
and Significant Alternatives Considered.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

 In this Notice, we have maintained the existing Part 15 emission
limits, which are applicable to all Part 15 devices, including BPL.  We
have also maintained the Verification method for equipment authorization
of BPL, which is the least burdensome equipment authorization procedure,
wherein the manufacturer conducts his own testing and retains the
compliant test data in his file.  We have proposed to adopt new
measurement guidelines for BPL and existing carrier current systems, to
assist manufacturers and testing entities to follow clearer and more
precise measurement procedures in the testing of BPL and CCS.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules.
None.

 APPENDIX B:  PROPOSED RULES
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 C.F.R. part 15 as follows:
PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

     AUTHORITY:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.

2. Section 15.3 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (ff) to
read as follows:

§15.3 Definitions.
 ******
 (ff)  Access Broadband over power line (Access BPL):  A carrier current
system that transmits radio frequency energy by conduction over electric
power lines owned, operated, or controlled by an electric service
provider.  The electric power lines may be aerial (overhead) or
underground.

*****

3. Section 15.107 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (e) to
read as follows:

*****
 (e)  The limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall
not apply to Access BPL systems.

*****

4. Section 15.109 is proposed to be amended by modifying paragraph (e);
adding paragraphs (f) and (g); and re-designating paragraphs (f), (g)
and (h) as (h), (i) and (j), to read as follows:

Section 15.109  Radiated emission limits.

*****
 (e)  Carrier current systems, including BPL systems, used as
unintentional radiators or other unintentional radiators that are
designed to conduct their radio frequency emissions via connecting wires
or cables and that operate in the frequency range of 9 kHz to 30 MHz,
including devices that deliver the radio frequency energy to
transducers, such as ultrasonic devices not covered under Part 18 of
this Chapter, shall comply with the radiated emission limits for
intentional radiators provided in Section 15.209 for the frequency range
of 9 kHz to 30 MHz.  As an alternative, carrier current systems used as
unintentional radiators and operating in the frequency range of 525 kHz
to 1705 kHz may comply with the radiated emission limits provided in
Section 15.221(a).  At frequencies above 30 MHz, the limits in paragraph
(a), (b) or (i) of this Section, as appropriate, continue to apply.  For
all BPL systems, the requirements of this paragraph and paragraph (a) of
this section shall also apply to the emissions from all low-voltage
lines from the distribution transformer to all in-building wiring.

 (f)  Access BPL systems shall incorporate adaptive interference
mitigation techniques such as dynamic or remote reduction in power and
adjustment in operating frequencies, in order for Access BPL
installations to avoid site-specific, localized use of the same spectrum
by licensed services.  Access BPL systems shall incorporate a shut-down
feature to deactivate units found to cause harmful interference.

 (g)  )  Entities operating Access Broadband over Power Line systems
shall supply to a Federal Communications Commission/National
Telecommunications and Information Administration recognized
industry-operated entity, information on all existing, changes to
existing and proposed Access BPL systems for inclusion in a data base.
Such information shall include the installation locations, frequency
bands of operation, and type of modulation used.  No notification to the
FCC is required.

******

 APPENDIX C:  PROPOSED MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES
 This appendix is intended to provide general guidance for compliance
measurements of Broadband over power line (BPL) devices and carrier
current systems (CCS).  For BPL systems, the measurement principles are
based on the Commission’s current understanding of BPL technology.
Modifications may be necessary as measurement experience is gained.

1. General Measurement Principles for Access BPL, In-House BPL and CCS

1) Testing shall be performed with the BPL system power settings set at
the maximum level used by the EUT.

2) Testing shall be performed using the maximum RF injection duty factor
(burst rate). Test modes or test software may be used for uplink and
downlink transmissions.

3) Measurements should be made at a test site where the ambient signal
level is 6 dB below the applicable limit. (See ANSI C63.4-2001, section
5.1.2 for alternatives, if this test condition cannot be achieved.)

4) The data communications burst rate shall be at least 20 Hz as
specified in the note at the end of Section 15.35(a) for Quasi-Peak
measurements. Otherwise, measurements shall be made using a peak
detector.

5) For frequencies above 30 MHz, an electric field sensing antenna, such
as a biconical antenna is used.  The signal shall be maximized for
antenna heights from 1 to 4 meters, for both horizontal and vertical
polarizations, in accordance to ANSI C63.4-2001 procedures.

6) For frequencies below 30 MHz, an active or passive magnetic loop is
used.  The magnetic loop antenna should be at 1 meter height with its
plane oriented vertically and the emission maximized by rotating the
antenna 180 degrees about its vertical axis.  When using active magnetic
loops, care should be taken to prevent ambient signals from overloading
the spectrum analyzer or antenna pre-amplifier.

7) The six highest radiated emissions relative to the limit and
independent of antenna polarization shall be reported as stated in ANSI
C63.4-2001, section 10.1.8.2.

2. Access BPL Measurement Principles

a. Test Environment

1) The Equipment Under Test (EUT) includes all BPL electronic devices
e.g., couplers, injectors, extractors, repeaters, boosters,
concentrators, and electric utility overhead or underground medium
voltage lines.

2) In-situ testing shall be performed on three typical installations for
overhead line(s) and three typical installations for underground
line(s).

b. Radiated Emissions Measurement Principles for Overhead Line
Installations

1) Measurements should normally be performed at a horizontal separation
distance of 10 meters from the overhead line.  If necessary, due to
ambient emissions, measurements may be performed a distance of 3 meters.

2) Testing shall be performed at distances of 0, ¼, ½, ¾, and 1
wavelength down the line from the BPL injection point on the power
line.  Wavelength spacing is based on the mid-band frequency used by the
EUT.  In addition, if the mid-band frequency exceeds the lowest
frequency injected onto the power line by more than a factor of two,
testing shall be extended in steps of ½ wavelength of the mid-band
frequency until the distance equals or exceeds ½ wavelength of the
lowest frequency injected.   (For example, if the device injects
frequencies from 3 to 27 MHz, the wavelength corresponding to the
mid-band frequency of 15 MHz is 20 meters, and wavelength corresponding
to the lowest injected frequency is 100 meters.  Measurements are to be
performed at 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 meters down line—corresponding to zero
to one wavelength at the mid-band frequency.  Because the mid-band
frequency exceeds the minimum frequency by more than a factor of two,
additional measurements are required at 10-meter intervals until the
distance down-line from the injection point equals or exceeds ½ of 100
meters.  Thus, additional measurement points are required at 30, 40, and
50 meters down line from the injection point.)

3) Testing shall be repeated for each Access BPL component (injector,
extractor, repeater, booster, concentrator, etc.)

4) The distance correction for the overhead-line measurements shall be
based on the slant range distance, which is the line-of-sight distance
from the measurement antenna to the overhead line.  Slant range distance
corrections are to be made in accordance with Section 15.31(f) of the
Rules.

Note:  In cases where pole mounted low-voltage boosters are used (i.e.,
Home-Plug and modem boosters), apply the overhead-line procedures as
stated above along the low-voltage lines.

c. Radiated Emissions Measurement Principles for Underground Line
Installations

1) Measurements should normally be performed at a separation distance of
10 meters from the in-ground power transformer that contains the BPL
device(s). If necessary, due to ambient emissions, measurements may be
performed a distance of 3 meters.  Distance corrections are to be made
in accordance with Section 15.31(f) of the Rules.

2) Measurements shall be made at positions around the perimeter of the
in-ground power transformer where the maximum emissions occur.  ANSI
C63.4-2001, section 8.1, specifies a minimum of 16 radial angles
surrounding the EUT (In-ground transformer that contains the BPL
device(s)).  If directional radiation patterns are suspected, additional
azimuth angles shall be examined.

d. Conducted Emissions Measurement Principles

1)  Conducted emissions testing is not required for Access BPL.

3. In-House BPL and Carrier Current Systems Measurement Principles

1) In-House BPL devices are typically composite devices consisting of
two equipment classes (Carrier current system and personal computer
peripheral (Class B)).  While carrier current systems require
Verification,  personal computer peripherals require Declaration of
Conformity (DoC) or Certification, as specified in Section 15.101 of the
Rules.  Appropriate tests to determine compliance with these
requirements shall be performed.

2) In-situ testing is required for testing of the carrier current system
functions of the In-House BPL device.

3) If applicable, the device shall also be tested in a laboratory
environment, as a computer peripheral, for both radiated and conducted
emissions tests per the measurement procedures in C63.4-2001.

a. Test Environment and Radiated Emissions Measurement Principles for
In-Situ Testing

1) The Equipment under Test (EUT) includes In-House BPL modems used to
transmit and receive carrier BPL signals on low-voltage lines,
associated computer interface devices, building wiring, and overhead or
underground lines that connect to the electric utilities.

2) In-situ testing shall be performed with the EUT installed in a
building on an outside wall on the ground floor or first floor.  Testing
shall be performed on three typical installations.  The three
installations shall include a combination of buildings with
overhead-line(s) and underground line(s).  The buildings shall not have
aluminum or other metal siding, or shielded wiring (e.g.: wiring
installed through conduit, or BX electric cable).

3) Measurements shall be made at positions around the building perimeter
where the maximum emissions occur.  ANSI C63.4-2001, section 8.1,
specifies a minimum of 16 radial angles surrounding the EUT (building
perimeter).  If directional radiation patterns are suspected, additional
azimuth angles shall be examined.

4) Measurements should normally be performed at a separation distance of
10 meters from the building perimeter. If necessary, due to ambient
emissions, measurements may be performed a distance of 3 meters.
Distance corrections are to be made in accordance with Section 15.31(f)
of the Rules.

b. Additional Measurement Principles for In-Situ Testing With Overhead
Lines

1) In addition to testing radials around the building, testing shall be
performed opposite the overhead line; ¼ wavelength, ½ wavelength, 1
wavelength, and 1 ¼ wavelength down the line from the building
connection. Wavelength spacing is based on the mid-band frequency used
by the EUT.

2) Measurements should normally be performed at a horizontal separation
distance of 10 meters from the overhead line.  If necessary, due to
ambient emissions, measurements may be performed a distance of 3 meters.

3) The distance correction for the overhead-line measurements shall be
based on the slant range distance, which is the line-of-sight distance
from the measurement antenna to the overhead line.  Slant range distance
corrections are to be made in accordance with Section 15.31(f) of the
Rules.

c. Measurement Principles for Testing as a Computer Peripheral

1) The data rate shall be set at the maximum rate used by the EUT.  Test
modes or test software may be used to simulate data traffic.

2) For In-House BPL devices operating as unintentional radiators below
30 MHz, the conducted emissions shall be measured in the 535 – 1705 kHz
band as specified in Section 15.107(c).  For In-House BPL devices
operating as unintentional radiators above 30 MHz, the conducted
emissions shall be measured as specified in Section 15.107(a).
Conducted emissions measurements shall be performed in accordance with
ANSI C63.4-2001 (Section 7 and Annex E).

4) For In-House BPL devices operating as unintentional radiators either
below 30 MHz or above 30 MHz, the radiated emissions limits of Section
15.109(a) apply. The radiated emissions from the computer peripheral
shall be measured at an Open Area Test Site (OATS) in accordance with
the measurement procedures in C63.4-2001 (Section 8 and Annex E)

  STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL

Re: Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104;  Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurements for Access Broadband over Power Line; ET
Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Another broadband pipe is coming closer to reality.  Despite increasing
access to broadband services, significant areas of the country still
lack any type of broadband access or competition among broadband service
providers. The NPRM we adopt today takes an important step towards
promoting the deployment of a promising new technology – Broadband over
Power Line or BPL.  I have witnessed first-hand the potential of BPL to
provide a new platform for the deployment of high-speed access operating
under the Commission’s existing Part 15 rules.  Even today almost a
dozen companies are conducting field tests around the country.  BPL is
currently being studied and deployed in a number of these communities,
including in our own backyard in Manassas, Virginia.

Companies have struggled for years to make BPL a success and I am struck
by the recent advancements and hurdles that have been overcome to
provide enhanced services, more choices, and lower prices for our
Nation’s consumers.

BPL technology could also improve the provision and management of
electric power systems, homeland security, and protect vital elements of
our Nation’s critical infrastructure.  Moreover, BPL is being developed
worldwide, and encouraging the deployment of the technology in the U.S.
will promote continued U.S. leadership in broadband technology, and
bring important benefits to the American public.

I am confident that the proposals we adopt today balance the potential
benefits of BPL services and give careful consideration of the potential
interference from BPL operations by establishing new requirements that
will help minimize harmful interference that may occur and guidelines
for measurement of radio frequency (RF) emissions from carrier current
systems.

 I am optimistic and welcome the day when every electrical outlet will
have the potential to offer high-speed broadband and a plethora of
high-tech applications to all Americans.

 STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY

Re:  Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket  No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power
Line Systems; ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on broadband over power line systems
(BPL) is an important step forward in promoting the Commission’s goal of
facilitating the deployment of broadband services to all Americans.
Moving toward commercial deployment of BPL systems also will further our
goal of developing robust facilities-based competition.  I want
consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, such
as cable, DSL, wireless, satellite, and to the extent possible, power
line.  We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development
of BPL technology is a step in the right direction.

One of the key issues in this proceeding is the potential for harmful
interference by BPL systems to licensed spectrum users.  Based on the
record, it is appropriate that we are proceeding cautiously.  I support
our tentative conclusion to craft technical rules that minimize the
potential for harmful interference to existing licensees and also ensure
that any instances of interference are quickly resolved.  I look forward
to reviewing the comments on these technical proposals and am hopeful
that we will be able to develop rules that protect existing licensees
from harmful interference, while enabling a promising new technology to
move forward.
 STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
DISSENTING IN PART AND APPROVING IN PART

Re: Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 regarding new
requirements and measurement guidelines for Access Broadband over Power
Line Systems; ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Last month I was lucky enough to join Commissioner Adelstein at a
demonstration of powerline broadband, and I’ve been watching the
technology develop over the time I’ve been at the Commission with much
interest.  Today this technology is just being deployed.  Tomorrow I
hope it will substantially increase broadband competition.  Today
companies plan to deploy it in urban and suburban communities.  But I
hope power lines will someday, sooner rather than later, deliver
broadband to rural America as well.  So we are at the beginning, and we
all have high hopes.

Because of this, I strongly support the technical inquiries and
proposals we make today.  We need to set the technological rules of the
game early and transparently, so that the entrepreneurs in this industry
can make investments with confidence.  As regards interference, I
believe we make another step in that direction today, so I’m happy to
support the technical side of our item.

Today’s item dodges some of the hardest questions, however.  For the
same reasons it is important to provide certainty for industry and
consumers as concerns interference, it is important to provide certainty
on the policy implications that we will surely face as powerline
broadband expands.  These questions are hard and uncomfortable ones.
But we should never shy away from asking the hard questions.  Avoiding
questions today only makes it harder for a future Commission to move
ahead once architectures are in place and investments are being made.

So I would tackle now issues such as CALEA, universal service,
disabilities access, E911, pole attachments, competition protections,
and, critically here, how to handle the potential for
cross-subsidization between regulated power businesses and unregulated
communications businesses.  Is it right to allow electricity rate payers
to pay higher bills every month to subsidize an electric company’s foray
into broadband?

Some will argue that we don’t know enough about what this technology
will look like yet.  Or that we shouldn’t regulate an infant technology
out of existence.  Or that we shouldn’t saddle a new technology with
long-standing policy objectives.  I disagree.  Just because these policy
goals are long standing doesn’t mean that they are out of date.  Public
safety, rural service, competition, and disabilities access never go out
of date.  These are the same things complicating our ability to move
ahead on the VOIP issues that we discussed earlier today.

  STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN

Re:  Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband Over Power
Line Systems; ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

 I am pleased to support this item, which opens a rulemaking on issues
related to  Broadband over Power Line (BPL) systems.  BPL systems use
existing electric power lines to provide high-speed communications.
Because power lines are ubiquitous – reaching virtually every community
and every home – BPL systems have the potential to become a last-mile
solution throughout the United States.  As such, they would not only
provide competition to cable broadband and DSL, they could bring
Internet access and high-speed broadband to rural and isolated areas,
which have been difficult to serve because of the high infrastructure
costs of reaching those areas.  BPL systems also serve an important
homeland security function, providing a redundant data network.

 In this proceeding, we are considering how to facilitate deployment of
BPL while ensuring that existing users are protected against
interference.  Most importantly, NTIA and FEMA have raised concerns
about interference to Government operations, including some emergency
communications.  In addition, many amateur operators fear that they will
experience unacceptable interference from BPL systems.  I take these
concerns very seriously.  I am optimistic, however, that we can craft
rules that will fully address these concerns and still allow BPL to
flourish.  I thus look forward to receiving comments in this proceeding.

 STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

Re:   Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104;  Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power
Line Systems; ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rule Making

I recently had the opportunity to visit the demonstration of a Broadband
over Power Line (BPL) system and was impressed by its potential.  I
believe that the Commission must do what it can to extend the benefits
of the latest broadband technologies – such as broadband over power line
– to all Americans, no matter where they live.  I support our
consideration of proposed changes to certain of our Part 15 rules to
promote future BPL deployments.  This is an important look at the
technical issues and challenges posed by BPL.  And I am encouraged by
some of the proposals set forth in the NPRM to ensure that BPL systems
do not cause harmful interference to existing services.

I have outlined an approach to spectrum management that promotes
continued industry development and recognizes the unique traits of the
electromagnetic radio spectrum as a national resource.  It also reflects
my belief that, in dealing with spectrum, the Commission has a
responsibility to establish ground rules for issues such as interference
and availability.  Though power line broadband may not fall within the
traditional scope of spectrum management, BPL systems use existing
electrical power lines as a transmission medium to provide
communications by coupling RF energy onto the power line.

While we must be mindful of harmful interference, we cannot let
unsupported claims stand in the way of such an innovation as BPL
systems.  Provided that the engineering bears out, I believe that we
need to push the boundaries to accommodate new technologies.  A little
noticed provision of the Communications Act, Section 157, reads that
“[i]t shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the
provision of new technologies and services to the public.”  I am fully
committed to that mission to promote new technologies, and to provide a
framework for innovation so they can succeed.  In order to do so, we
must first resolve the technical interference issues addressed in this
NPRM.

 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-29A1.doc

--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/