Click here for the updated
ARRL North Texas Section web page:
Click here for the new map link web page
for North Texas Amateurs:
Pictures of BPL system construction in Dallas County, February, 2007 - Click here:
Update: June, 2007
What the Texas BPL Law does, and does not do - - -
The public should have a right to know the truth about the Texas BPL Law that was enacted in 2005.
Question: Does the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC) have authority to take enforcement action against amateur radio operators?
Answer: No.
The Texas BPL Law does not regulate amateurs.
Neither does the PUC.
Amateurs have worked hard to see that the hobby is treated seriously by State Representatives and State Senators, and our other elected public officials. We do not want our reputation, and consequently our investment in amateur equipment, to be hurt. The working relationship that leaders of efforts for amateur radio have with these State officials has been in development, behind the scenes, for a period of years. Communication to them with inappropriate rumors that have no foundation in the Law might damage that relationship, and make it more difficult for amateurs to have cooperation with their offices in the future.
Not one enforcement action against a licensed amateur has ever proceeded at the Texas Public Utilities Commission, in the history of the agency, or the history of this State.
To help clear the air, and explain it, I should start from the beginning and explain what this new, 2005 State Law does, and does not do, about BPL.
First, a fundamental difference in the regulation of amateurs and the regulation of BPL and other FCC "Part 15 devices" is that amateurs have FCC licenses, and call signs. BPL operators do not have FCC licenses. They do not have call signs.
It has long been settled that amateurs have certain rights to transmit over the airwaves, as provided in the Federal law.
There was much news coverage, as the BPL law proceeded through the 2005 Texas Legislative Session, and subsequent Special Sessions of the Legislature called by the Governor. As this proceeded, there were amendments intended to protect amateur radio from BPL interference. At that time, amateurs in Texas were faced with a choice - - either live with a BPL law proposed by the industry lobby, or get the bill amended to protect our investments. Without the BPL industry initiatives, we would have preferred to leave the State Law free of any mention of the issue of radio interference - - but they insisted on including it. With this the bill was amended twice as it proceeded through the process, with provisions to protect FCC licensed amateur radio operators and other users of the spectrum.
The Texas BPL law, as finally passed, includes this Section:
"Sec. 43.152. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW. BPL operators shall comply with all applicable federal laws, including those protecting licensed spectrum users from interference by BPL systems. The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Federal Communications Commission or Public Utilities Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected."
Note the statement in the law that says "BPL operators shall comply ..." It does not say that FCC licensed amateurs or any other FCC licensee is required to comply. It continues "... with all applicable federal laws, including those protecting licensed spectrum users from interference by BPL systems." Again, there is nothing for amateurs or other FCC licensees to comply with. The opposite arrangement is in place here - - as this requires a BPL system to comply with laws protecting licensed spectrum users from interference. The next sentence uses the term "radio frequency device." As used in this bill, that term refers to devices used by BPL operators, not FCC licensed spectrum users such as amateurs. (The context of that sentence did not change to make this apply to anything else.) The right of the FCC licensees to transmit over the air is long settled in the federal law, and BPL operators are required to comply.
So suppose a BPL system operator made a mistake and filed a complaint with the Texas Public Utilities Commission against an amateur. Not only would the complaint be dismissed, it, in itself, would be evidence that the BPL operator was not complying with the Federal law. The BPL operator's compliance with the Federal law is required in the first sentence, above. It is long settled in the Federal law that licensed amateurs have rights to transmit over the airwaves.
Update: 1-30-2007
A new BPL system is under construction in the City of Dallas. It appears to be focused on the function of remote meter reading. Click here:
Update: 7-12-2006
We are expecting a new BPL pilot to be constructed in the city of Weatherford. This is the home of the Texas House sponsor of the pro-BPL legislation, Rep. Phil King. The ARRL North Texas Section is prepared - - in the event there is any harmful interference. When ARRL has more information, it will be posted here and at:
Update: 3-21-2006
From time to time, the Federal Communications Commission holds public hearings outside the Washington Beltway.
In February, 2006, it held an "Open Meeting" at a recreation center in Tarrant County, Texas, on the subject of an "Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming."
At first glance, this topic would not appear to involve Amateur Radio. However, those of us who have been following the BPL issue that has been before the Texas Legislature know that it directly concerns amateurs. This is because of the BPL industry's representations to our local lawmakers that they intend to use power line technology to deliver video signals to homes. Such an arrangement would allow BPL investors to compete with new digital video to home delivery that is expected to be offered by DSL providers, including AT&T (formerly SBC). The history of radio interference by BPL systems to amateurs and other licensed users of spectrum is well known.
The FCC has posted audio files of the proceedings on the Internet. It has also posted copies of testimony by those who were invited to speak before them. The information provided at this "open meeting" was prepared and scripted in advance. Only the persons who were invited in advance to make oral presentations were allowed to do so. The event was quite unlike the hearings conducted by the Texas Legislature, where anyone may appear, sign a witness card, and be provided time to address a proposal.
There were no witnesses making presentations for or against BPL at the FCC meeting. The oral presentations that were made on other subjects have been reduced to writing and are available on the FCC's web page. Other remarks of the Commissioners, however, refer to a demonstration of BPL in the City of Dallas that they attended the day before. These remarks are not included in the text files. The Commissioners used this "open meeting" as an opportunity to repeatedly praise BPL.
The Dallas BPL presentation was not announced to the public in advance. Yet after the Commissioners' trip to North Texas was completed, they posted color photographs of the BPL demonstration on the FCC web page. The top of the page labels this "Photos from the Open Commission Meeting, Keller, Texas, February 10, 2006."
I learned later that the BPL demonstration was conducted at a house at 2311 Barberry Drive, Dallas, Texas 75211. This is near Interstate 30 and Hampton Road. It was reportedly leased by Current Communications.
On entering the zip code, 75211, in the BPL database on the Internet (as well as 75212 - - which is immediately next to it) I received a message "No BPL operations Found in Your Area."
This means one of two things: Either what the FCC was shown in Dallas was not BPL, with signals actually being distributed by power lines to the home, or an event where the FCC Commissioners had no difficulty finding the BPL demonstration, but the location was not entered in the public data base.
With this I quickly filed comments in the pending FCC proceeding. I wanted to use this opportunity to get attention to the ARRL's filings that are before the Commission - - particularly on the urgent issue of BPL interference taking place in Virginia.
I think it would only be fair for the FCC Commissioners, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to see what happens when radio transmitters and receivers that are licensed by the Commission are present at the same location as the BPL. It is my experience that uninitiated staff members of Legislators in Austin became convinced that "BPL works," on being shown similar demonstrations that did not offer an opportunity for the operation or presence of two-way radio equipment at the same location. It is also unfortunate that none of the current FCC Commissioners have any FCC licenses - - not even so much as a Novice license, much less a commercial General Radiotelephone license.
Commissioner Copps did mention the need to 'flesh out the record' with public comments. I appreciate that, and did take the opportunity to file brief comments - - see the URL, below.
Here are the links to the documents:
Meeting notice:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263645A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263645A1.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/presentations/2006/021006/photos021006-3.html
http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/presentations/2006/021006/photos021006.html
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518328062
1-8-2006
During the 2005 Legislative Session, and the subsequent Special Sessions called by the Governor, I used this web page to inform fellow Amateur Radio operators, and the public, about the issue of BPL - Broadband Over Power Lines.
This helped to organize our participation, to see that elected public officials were presented with our facts and views on this issue, and not just the input of the heavily financed BPL lobby. After all, Texas law provides that when a public utility elects to lobby the Legislature, the lobbying expenses go into the rate base that is paid by the public - - and included in our monthly utility bills. Those with opposing facts or viewpoints are not financed in this way.
We are left to depend on a practical arrangement that is set out in the Texas Constitution - - that elected public officials will do their job to consider all the facts and represent the public interest with their decisions (or else they won't be re-elected).
We found that the current Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, and the current Lieutenant Governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, had made up their minds to support BPL long before the efforts to enact a special BPL law in Texas were announced, and before the bill(s) to enact such a law were filed as a public record. Other states do not have these laws. The Texas Legislature became the first in the nation to consider such a proposal - - at the state level.
Efforts to contact these offices with important information in opposition, were met with comments like the ones I heard from the Lt. Governor's staff, that 'this bill has a lot of support.' We were not allowed an opportunity to meet with Mr. Perry or Mr. Dewhurst - - in spite of Mr. Dewhurst's appearance at the 2002 Hamcom convention in Arlington, during the time he was a candidate for this office. A number of citizens who attempted to contact these offices with concerns did not receive any response, at all.
Not all the members of the Legislature treated this important issue this way. With this, the bill was amended. The BPL lobbyists were also forced to make some representations to our elected officials about RF interference. One member of the Texas House (the representative of my home district) was successful with an important amendment to the bill, while sincere efforts of two other members (other districts) were voted down. Amateur radio operators appreciate the time and attention that these State Representatives gave to these urgent issues. We will be visiting with them again as the activation of BPL proceeds.
In order to organize the information I have presented on the Internet, I have now divided it into two pages. This web page will continue with current information. The information from the 2005 Legislative Sessions is now archived, and titled:
After the BPL & Telecom bill was signed by Governor Rick Perry, new announcements were made about construction of BPL in North Texas. This will reportedly involve coverage of 2,000,000 homes.
Here are links to news articles that resulted:
http://news.com.com/Texas+to+get+broadband+over+its+power+lines/2100-1014_3-5995234.html?tag=nl.
http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/200512190100PR_NEWS_USPR_____NYM051.htm
http://www.iampowered.com/archives/2005/12/20/broadband_over_the_power_grid.php
http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2005/12/19/broadband_over_.html.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-12-19-texas-bpl_x.htm.
http://www.currentgroup.com/news/releases/12-19-05_TXU_MORE.html.
http://news.com.com/Google+invests+in+power-line+broadband/2100-1036_3-5777917.html?tag=nl.
As this proceeds, amateur radio operators will insist that the State Law, as amended, is enforced. We will insist that the Federal Law and FCC Rules on Part 15 devices are enforced. BPL investors will be held responsible for successful performance that carries out the representations that they made to members of the Texas Legislature, and to us.
The conduct of the pro-BPL lobby, and certain elected public officials who they wined and dined during the Legislative Session, has energized these amateurs to be specially vigilant in protecting the rights established in the Federal Law. It is this Federal law that sets out the arrangement for our FCC licenses. BPL operations do not have FCC licenses, or call signs.
The ARRL North Texas Section is prepared.
As the ARRL has published, "BPL systems that continue to operate without immediately resolving harmful interference are operating illegally." That statement is included in comments about systems where the proponents aggressively lobbied elected public officials, in opposition to the views of FCC licensed amateurs. We will consider these statements when decisions are made about the submission of new complaint(s) to the FCC, and to the Texas Public Utilities Commission. Either agency has the statutory authority to shut down an interfering BPL system in Texas.
According to the ARRL data base, BPL operations in Houston have not been successful. There are "unresolved complaints of harmful interference." Click here: http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html#TX_Houston
The ARRL BPL data base is here: http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html
If these BPL systems are operated as their spokesmen represented, and do not cause interference, no complaints will be filed.
When the Chairman of the House Regulated Industries Committee, Rep. Phil King, discussed the BPL bill he sponsored on the floor of the Texas House, he stated his understanding that the interference issue had been resolved.
If that is the truth, BPL investors will have nothing to worry about. Amateurs will be able to continue to operate their FCC licensed stations, and nothing will change. Weak signals received from "DXpeditions" will continue. So will all their other FCC licensed communications - - including those on the 60 meter band.
We will also be able to continue to receive short wave broadcasts, without interference or interruption. Most "HF" transceivers made for the amateur bands incorporate general coverage receivers for reception of these broadcasts, and other important services, such as transmissions from WWV - the Federal Government's atomic clock, and MARS - the Military Affiliate Radio System. This equipment has been advertised in QST for as long as I can remember. The ability of citizens to be free to receive transmissions like these establish a foundation of personal freedom, and the distinction between a free country, and an "iron curtain" country. We prefer not to live in an "iron curtain" country. As amended, the new Texas BPL law covers interference to these services, as well as Amateur Radio.*
Yet it appears there are some BPL operators who expect to leave interfering equipment in place, while exhibiting a willingness to respond that is limited to denying that the interference exists.
Amateurs will continue to be prepared, and to remember the representations that caused the House Committee Chairman to state his support for the BPL bill.
On December 28, the ARRL web page published this article:
ARRL has also recently taken this position, in asking the FCC for relief: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/18/101/.
* ARRL offers an excellent book on short wave listening - - Passport to World Band Radio, Edition 2006, by International Broadcasting Services, Ltd.
Other challenges
There are other challenges to investment in BPL systems that proponents and stockholders of publicly traded utilities should consider.
These challenges are in addition to the requirement of the new state law, that will force a BPL operator to shut down an interfering system.
BPL experiment at W1AW
