Order Code RL32421
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Broadband over Powerlines:
Regulatory and Policy Issues
June 4, 2004
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Telecommunications and Internet Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Broadband over Powerlines:
Regulatory and Related Issues
Summary
Congress has expressed significant interest in increasing the availability of
broadband services throughout the nation, both in expanding the geographic
availability of such services, as well as expanding the service choices available to
consumers. Both President Bush and Senator John Kerry have discussed universal
broadband deployment in their presidential campaigns.
The telephone, cable, satellite industries, and more recently the electric utilities,
all provide broadband services to consumers. Driven by the growth of the Internet
and the increasing demand for broadband services, electric utilities began exploring
ways to turn a previously internal communications capability into a commercially
viable, consumer service — Broadband over Powerlines (BPL). BPL has the
potential to play a significant role in increasing the competitive landscape of the
communications industry but also has the potential to extend the reach of broadband
to a greater number of Americans. BPL, like any technology, has its advantages and
disadvantages. On the positive side, (1) BPL is less expensive to deploy than the
cable and telephone companies’ broadband offerings, (2) it does not require upgrades
to the actual electric grid, and (3) it is not limited by certain technical constraints of
its competitors. However, some parties have expressed concern about BPL’s effect
on licensed radio spectrum.
The key stakeholders in this issue are the BPL industry, amateur radio operators,
and various government entities. On opposite ends of the debate are the BPL industry
and amateur radio users. In favor of providing a framework within which to provide
this service is the BPL industry; in opposition are the amateur radio users. These
users are extremely concerned about the potential negative impact — specifically,
interference — on their frequencies by BPL emissions. Affected government entities
express similar concerns, but also express support for BPL because they contend that
BPL may contribute to a more secure and better-managed electric transmission and
distribution network. Finally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is
writing the rules governing the technical deployment of BPL and must consider a
number of broader policy issues.
The FCC has been investigating BPL since 2003. In February 2004, it released
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comments on BPL
deployment. Reply comments are due June 22, 2004. Also, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration released a study on April 29,
2004, that with some reservations supports the FCC’s position that BPL can be
deployed without harming government frequencies.
The NPRM process has raised issues that Congress may wish to consider: (1)
industry and societal issues, such as the impact of BPL on competition in broadband
services, and the impact of BPL in reaching unserved/underserved populations; (2)
regulatory and industry governance issues, such as how the regulatory classification
of BPL might affect other FCC regulations and proceedings; and (3) technical issues,
such as how BPL should be implemented to minimize interference with other
services and how BPL technology may have an impact on reliability and security
goals. This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Regulatory and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Federal Communications Commission Notice of Inquiry and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Potential Benefits of BPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FCC Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
National Telecommunications and Information Administration Report . . . . 9
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Industry Competition and Societal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Regulatory and Industry-Governance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Technical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Interference with other licensed services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Service reliability and security issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Reports and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Broadband over Powerlines:
Regulatory and Policy Issues
Background
Congress has expressed significant, ongoing interest in increasing the
availability of broadband1 services throughout the nation, both in expanding the
geographic availability of such services (e.g., into rural as well as more urban areas),
as well as expanding the service choices available to consumers (e.g, promoting
additional service options at reasonable prices). Additionally, both President Bush
and Senator John Kerry, the expected Democratic presidential nominee, have
included universal broadband deployment as part of their economic recovery plans.2

The telephone, cable, and satellite industries, and more recently the electric
utilities, all provide broadband services to consumers. Electric utilities have long
had the ability to send communications over their powerlines through what is called
powerline communications (PLC) technology, but that capability was used primarily
to maintain the operability of the power grid — remote monitoring of the grid and
other management functions. It was not offered as a commercial product because of
technical limitations and regulatory limitations under the Public Utility Holding
Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA).3 Specifically, regarding regulatory limitations,
1 The FCC currently defines “broadband” as a service or facility with an upstream
(customer-to-provider) and downstream (provider-to-customer) transmission speed of more
than 200 kilobits per second (kbps); it uses the term “high-speed” to describe services and
facilities with over 200 kbps capability in at least one direction. Broadband is also different
from narrowband modem service in that it is “always on,” meaning there is no need to dial
up. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability
to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such
Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket
No. 98-146), Report, February 6, 2002. This document is available online at
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-33A1.pdf]. For further
information about broadband and broadband deployment, see CRS Issue Brief IB10045,
Broadband Internet Access: Background and Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G.
Kruger.
2 President Bush specifically mentioned promoting Broadband over Powerlines, the subject
of this paper, in a campaign speech at the Annual Convention of the Association of
Community Colleges. President Unveils Tech Initiatives for Energy, Health Care, Internet.
Remarks by the President at American Association of Community Colleges Annual
Convention, Minneapolis Convention Center, April 26, 2004.
3 Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935, 49 Stat. 803, (1935), 15 U.S.C.
Sect. 79, et seq. PUHCA also addresses issues such as cross-subsidization, the subsidization
of competitive services with profits from regulated services, which could become an issue
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
PUHCA prohibited electric utilities from entering the retail telecommunications
market without all of their operations, including the telecommunications component,
being regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under PUHCA.
However, in 1996, driven by the elimination under the Telecommunications Act of
the PUHCA limitations4 and the increasing demand for broadband services, electric
utilities began exploring ways to turn PLC into a commercially viable, consumer
service — Broadband over Powerlines (BPL).5
Many electric companies are now in the process of upgrading their transmission
and distribution systems to provide BPL.6 This technology has the potential to play
a significant role in increasing the competitive landscape of the electric utility and
telecommunications industry, as well as making broadband available to more
3 (...continued)
as BPL is deployed more widely. Cross-subsidization within the electric industry, however,
is not an issue for the FCC and is beyond the scope of this report. For a detailed description
of PUHCA, see CRS Issue Brief IB10006, Electricity: The Road Toward Restructuring, by
Amy Abel and Larry Parker.
4 In 1996, the FCC adopted regulations to implement new Section 34(a)(1) of PUHCA.
Under new Section 34, registered public utility holding companies may enter the
telecommunications industry without prior Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
approval by acquiring or maintaining an interest in an “exempt telecommunications
company” (ETC). Also, exempt public utility holding companies, by owning or acquiring
an interest in an ETC, may now acquire a “safe harbor” from potential SEC regulation under
PUHCA Section 3(a). In the Matter of Implementation of Section 34(a)(1) of the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (GC Docket No. 96-10), Report and Order as added
by Section 103 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, September 12, 1996. The Report
and Order is available online at [http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/other_adjud/
Archive/99etc.html].
5 Two types of BPL exist — “In-house” BPL and “Access” BPL. In-house BPL uses “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 provides “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.” Carrier Current
Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems (ET Docket 03-104) and
Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for
Access Broadband over Power Line Systems (ET Docket 04-37), Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), February 23, 2004, para. 3. The NPRM is available online at
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-29A1.pdf]. This report
addresses only Access BPL and so uses the term “BPL” to mean “Access BPL.” A summary
of this NPRM can be found at Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 52, March 17, 2004, pp.
12612-12618. Hereafter cited as “NPRM.”
6 See Potential Interference from Broadband over Powerline Systems to Federal
Government Radio Communications at 1.7-80MHz, Phase 1 Study, Volume I, Section 9.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration Report 04-413 (NTIA
Report), April 2004. This report is available online at [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
fccfilings/2004/bpl/ FinalReport Adobe/NTIA_BPL_Report_04-413_Volume_I.pdf]. This
report contains an in-depth overview of the technologies and network topologies used to
provide BPL with accompanying diagrams.

---

CRS-3
Americans than ever before. BPL, like any technology, has its advantages and
disadvantages. For example, BPL, in general, is less expensive to deploy than the
cable and telephone companies’ broadband offerings because it does not require
upgrades to the actual electric grid and is not limited by certain technical constraints
of its competitors. Specifically, the telephone companies’ broadband service, digital
subscriber line (DSL), is limited to consumers within 18,000 feet of a central office
unless expensive remote equipment is placed close to the customer. Cable
companies, while not limited by the same distance restrictions as the telephone
companies, still must upgrade their cable plant as well as the equipment at their
“head end”7 to provide cable modem service. Finally, Internet service delivered via
satellite is still primarily a downstream-only service, with a dial-up connection
required to send data to the Internet. However, critics of BPL have expressed
concern that it will interfere with licensed radio spectrum such as amateur radio,
government, and emergency response frequencies.
Companies both in the United States and abroad have pilot tested BPL and many
are now deploying it commercially. For example, Manassas, VA, became the first
U.S. community with a commercial BPL offering.8 The pilot test, according to the
city and its partners, was extremely popular with the test market and was considered
to have been a success; the service is now being offered to the city’s 35,000 residents.
However, in Manassas as well as in other areas where BPL is being deployed, there
have been some concerns and difficulties. For example, amateur radio operators
have stated their concern that BPL will interfere with their radio signals.9 Efforts are
being made by industry and government to address these concerns while still
continuing BPL deployment.
In addition to providing new choices for consumers and increased competition
in the broadband market, BPL can provide other benefits, both to the electric utilities
and to others. As tests and commercial deployments continue, the electric utilities
can capitalize on their existing relationships with consumers and the ubiquity of their
networks. Also, BPL can be sold either as a retail service under the electric utility’s
brand or as a wholesale service to third-party ISPs, offering smaller broadband
7 The head end is “the cable television company’s local facility that originates and
communicates cable modem and cable TV services to its subscribers. The cable company’s
head-end includes the [equipment used to provide] high-speed Internet access to cable
subscribers. ISP Glossary. Available online at [http://isp.webopedia.com/TERM/C/
cable_headend.html].
8 A thorough overview of the Manassas project is available from the American Public Power
Association. This document is available online at [http://www.appanet.org/
LegislativeRegulatory/ Broadband/news/Manassas9222003.pdf].
9 The American Radio Relay League commissioned a report on BPL interference that was
submitted to the FCC as part of ARRL’s comments in the BPL proceeding. This report is
critical of BPL deployment and its effects on amateur radio frequencies. BPL Trial Systems
Electromagnetic Emission Tests, Metavox, Inc. March 20, 2004. Available online at
[ h t t p : / / w w w . a r r l . o r g / a n n o u n c e / r e g u l a t o r y / e t 0 4 - 3 7 / A R R L _ 0 4 - 3 7
_Comments_Exhibit_A.pdf]

---

CRS-4
providers another wire to the customer — and electric utilities have expressed
interest in providing such open access on a wholesale basis.10
Concerns among electric utilities and investors about BPL deployment do
remain, however. Although the pilot tests have been successful, the viability of
large-scale commercial implementation remains unproven. Also, while name
recognition will help the electric utilities as they roll out their service, there is also
concern that they may have an unfair competitive advantage over smaller, less
established providers. In this case, however, this may not be a significant concern
because of the size of the established broadband providers, the telephone and cable
companies.11 Finally, although BPL is likely to be deployed further out into rural
areas than either cable or DSL, it remains to be seen if BPL is as economical to
deploy in those areas as policymakers and rural consumers hope.
Congress may wish to monitor how the FCC implements the rules that will
guide BPL development and deployment, as well as monitor more general issues
surrounding BPL, such as industry and societal issues, regulatory and industry
governance issues, and technical issues. These final three items are discussed in
detail at the end of this report (see “Issues for Congress,” page 10).
Stakeholders
In addition to marketplace competitors and consumers, the key stakeholders in
this issue are the BPL industry, amateur radio operators (represented primarily by he
Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL)), and various government entities.
In favor of providing a framework within which to provide this service is the
BPL industry: the electric power companies, Internet service providers (ISPs), BPL
equipment manufacturers, BPL system solutions companies (such as Main.net), and
the trade associations representing those companies. Trade associations involved
include the Edison Electric Institute, the Powerline Communications Association
(PLCA), the PLC Forum, United Power Line Council (UPLC), and the United
Telecom Council (UTC).12 These groups have a financial stake in bringing BPL
successfully to market and are eager to enter the broadband business.
10 “Broadband Over Powerlines,” Angel M. Cartagena, Jr., Electric Perspectives,
March/April 2004. This article is available online at [http://www.eei.org/magazine/
editorial_content/nonav_stories/ 2004-03-01- Broadband.htm].
11 “The first wave of BPL roll-outs doesn’t pose much of a threat to the Comcasts and
Verizons of the industry, which boast millions of customers and have been selling high-
speed access since the late ‘90s. Some 22 million U.S. households already subscribe to a
broadband service, according to Forrester Research analyst Jed Kolko, making it one of the
biggest hits of the digital age.” Maryanne Murray Buechner, “Power Play: Electric grids
May Become the Next Providers of Broadband Internet Access,” Time, May 3, 2004.
A v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t [ h t t p : / / w w w . t i m e . c o m / t i m e / i n s i d e b i z / a r t i c l e /
0,9171,1101040503-629395,00.html].
12 website addresses for these groups are listed at the end of this report.

---

CRS-5
Amateur radio users are opposed to BPL deployment because they are
concerned about the potential negative impact — specifically, interference — on
amateur radio frequencies by BPL emissions. These users are not persuaded that
BPL can be deployed without such interference and, to varying degrees, remain
uncertain that changing the technical requirements for the way BPL will be deployed
can ameliorate such problems.
In addition to the abovementioned groups, several government entities have an
interest in how BPL is deployed. Specifically, local and regional emergency
responders, the Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(now part of the Department of Homeland Security), and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the Department
of Commerce have expressed both concern and support for BPL. Although these
groups express concerns similar to those of ARRL — namely that BPL could
potentially interfere with emergency communications and steps need to be taken to
ensure noninterference — they also express support for BPL because they believe it
will contribute to a more secure and better-managed electric transmission and
distribution network.13 The NTIA expresses support for BPL because of its potential
to further close the “digital divide,”14 one of its major goals. (Specific viewpoints of
these parties are provided in “Federal Communications Commission Notice of
Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” page 6.)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the largest role in how
BPL will be deployed. It not only is the regulatory agency that is writing the rules
governing BPL, it also has a statutory obligation under Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and
timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.”15 The
FCC, therefore, will have a significant impact on how the market for BPL service
develops and is likely to be guided to some extent in writing the rules by its charge
under Section 706.
Regulatory and Other Activities
The FCC has been investigating BPL since 2003, asking for formal comments
concerning societal and technical issues related to BPL. NTIA also conducted a
study, released on April 27, 2004, on potential interference by BPL to government
frequencies used for emergency response, defense, and homeland security.
13 See supra note 5.
14 The “digital divide” refers to the “gap between those who can effectively use new
information and communication tools, such as the Internet, and those who cannot.” While
a consensus does not exist on the extent of the divide (and whether the divide is growing or
narrowing), there is general agreement that some degree of divide exists. The Digital Divide
Network, Digital Divide Basics. Available online at [http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/
content/sections/index.cfm?key=2].
15 See Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
(1996).

---

CRS-6
Federal Communications Commission Notice of Inquiry and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In April 2003, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI),16 Inquiry Regarding
Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Powerline Systems,17 to gather
comments concerning whether it should amend its Part 15 Rules18 “to facilitate the
deployment of Access BPL while ensuring that licensed services continue to be
protected.”19 The FCC specifically asked for comments “on the characteristics of
BPL technology, the status of deployment of BPL, and any standards work related to
BPL.20 Commenters were also asked to provide information on the likelihood or
potential for interference to frequencies used by amateur radio operators and local
and national emergency responders, how such interference might be measured
accurately, and mitigation techniques available to protect against such interference.
The FCC received over five thousand initial and reply comments in response to
its NOI during July and August 2003. These comments were discussed at length in
the FCC’s February 2004 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Carrier Current
Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems and Amendment of Part 15
Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband
over Power Line Systems.21 Comments in response to this NPRM were due on May
3, 2004; reply comments are due on June 22, 2004.22
In the NPRM, the FCC proposed rules that would govern BPL operations and
provided an overview of the comments received in response to the NOI. The NPRM
was crafted focusing on technical interference questions that could be addressed
through the agency’s existing Part 15 Rules. The FCC chose not to address larger
policy issues in the NPRM, such as the proper regulatory classification of BPL or
how the BPL proceeding might affect other FCC proceedings, specifically those on
16 A Notice of Inquiry “is the earliest step in the FCC’s process and typically asks questions
in an effort to gather enough information to make informed proposals on a given topic.” A
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is “a request for comment on specific proposals made by
the Commission. After the FCC reviews the comments filed in response to an NPRM, it can
issue a Report and Order adopting new rules.” FCC Fact Sheet, available online at
[http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/ Common_Carrier/Factsheets/ispfact.html].
17 Inquiry Regarding Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Powerline
Systems, Notice of Inquiry (NOI), ET Docket 03-104, 18 FCC Rcd 8498 (2003). A
summary of this NOI can be found Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 100, May 23, 2003, pp.
28182-28186. This document is available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-100A1.pdf].
18 47 C.F.R. Section 15. The FCC’s Part 15 Rules are discussed on page 9 of this report.
19 NOI, para. 2.
20 NOI, paras. 15 and 17.
21 See supra note 4.
22 The original reply comment deadline was June 1, 2004; however, a number of parties
requested an extension to allow more time to review NTIA’s BPL Report, see supra note
6. The Order granting an extension is available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1552A1.pdf].

---

CRS-7
the classification of services based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or implementation
of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).23
Comments to the NOI, as discussed in the NPRM, focused on three areas: the
potential benefits of BPL, the potential harmful interference from BPL to other
licensed systems, and appropriate procedures to measure emissions from BPL
systems. Based on the comments, the FCC made a number of proposals for further
comment. Each of these four items is discussed below.
Potential Benefits of BPL. According to most commenters, BPL would
complement other broadband access methods and further increase penetration of
broadband services to previously unserved and underserved populations. As noted
by Cinergy, a BPL equipment manufacturer, “BPL could facilitate the ubiquitous
availability of broadband services . . . bring valuable new services to consumers,
[and] stimulate economic activity.”24 Other commenters, including the American
Public Power Association, the Alliance for Public Technology, and the NTIA noted
that BPL would not only make broadband available to a greater number of
consumers, it would also serve Congress’ goal of increasing competition in
broadband service.25 Finally, commenters noted that BPL had the potential to
“improve the provision of electric power service and advance homeland security
[goals].”26
Potential Harmful Interference from BPL to Other Licensed
Systems. Comments regarding the potential of BPL to disrupt licensed radio
services (e.g., amateur, public safety, and emergency response frequencies)27 fell into
one of three categories.
! Electric utilities, ISPs, BPL equipment manufacturers, BPL system
solutions companies, and the trade associations representing those
companies stated that the threat from BPL could be mitigated and
interference problems could be dealt with as they arose.
23 VoIP and CALEA are the subjects of two open proceedings at the FCC, Joint Petition for
Rulemaking to Resolve Various Outstanding Issues Concerning the Implementation of the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, RM-10865, March 10, 2004 (FBI
Joint Petition), and In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
WC Docket 04-36, March 10, 2004, respectively. Information on these issues can be found
on the VOIP and CALEA pages at the FCC website at [http://www.fcc.gov/voip/] and
[http://www.fcc.gov/calea/]. The FBI Joint Petition is available online at
[http://www.askcalea.net/docs/ 20040310.calea.jper.pdf]. Further information on CALEA
can be found online at [http://www.askcalea.net].
24 NOI, para 10.
25 NPRM, paras. 10 and 12.
26 NPRM, para. 13.
27 See NPRM, paras. 14-26. Commenters included the American Radio Relay League, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the National Research
Council (through its Committee on Radio Frequencies, or CORF), the North American Short
Wave Radio Association, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

---

CRS-8
! Government-sector users, while expressing serious concern for the
potential for harm, also expressed confidence in the FCC to assess
such threats and employ techniques and procedures to mitigate them.
! Amateur radio users, represented by ARRL and others, opposed BPL
deployment, even at emissions levels less than current FCC rules
permit. ARRL has written to members of Congress to ask that they
negate any FCC rules that would allow widespread deployment of
BPL because of this concern.28
BPL Equipment Approval and Procedures to Measure Emissions
from BPL Systems. Most commenting parties agreed that the FCC should retain
its current system of equipment authorization. They asserted that such authorizations
would be adequate “since BPL is sold only to utilities and service providers and that
only qualified utility line personnel will install the equipment on the powerlines.”29
FCC Proposals. After considering the comments to the NOI, the FCC
proposed that it take the following actions:
! Require that BPL systems and devices incorporate capabilities to
mitigate harmful interference should it occur.
! Adopt administrative requirements to aid in the identification and
resolution of harmful interference from Access BPL systems.
! 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.30
The FCC stated that:
28 The letter was sent by the National Antenna Consortium, North American Shortwave
Association, and the Amherst Alliance to Sen. John McCain, Rep. William J. (Billy) Tauzin,
Sen. Ernest Hollings, and Rep. John Dingell. These are the respective Chairmen and
ranking Democrats on the Senate and House Committees which have jurisdiction over the
FCC. Rep. Tauzin has since been replaced as chairman of the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce by Rep. Joe Barton. Also contacted were Sen. Conrad Burns, Rep. Fred
Upton, Rep. Michael Bilirakis and Rep. Edward Markey, who lead the relevant
Subcommittees. The letter is available online at [http://www.antenna-consortium.org/
PR_3groups.htm]. The National Antenna Consortium is an advocacy group for current and
aspiring owners and users of antennas and/or communications towers, [http://www.antenna-
consortium.org]; the North American Shortwave Association is an international group of
shortwave broadcasters and listeners, [http://www.anarc.org/naswa], and the Amherst
Alliance is a citizens advocacy group for Low Power FM, Low Power AM and other media
reforms, [http://www.amherstalliance.org].
29 NPRM, para. 28.
30 NPRM, para. 1.

---

CRS-9
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.31
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Report
On April 27, 2004, the NTIA released Phase 1 of a study on the potential for
BPL to interfere with radio frequencies used by Government users for homeland
security, defense, and emergency response.32 In that report, initiated by NTIA in
response to the FCC’s NOI, the NTIA described federal government usage of the 1.7-
80 MHz spectrum, identified associated interference concerns, and outlined the
studies it planned to conduct to address those concerns. The report (1) contains
findings on interference risks to radio reception in the immediate vicinity of overhead
power lines used by BPL systems (Access BPL only); (2) suggests means for
reducing these risks, and (3) identifies techniques for mitigating interference should
it occur.33
One of the most important findings of the report was that existing Part 15
compliance measurement procedures for BPL tended to significantly underestimate
BPL peak field strength.34 Such underestimation increases the risk of interference.
According the report, as currently applied to BPL systems, Part 15 measurement
guidelines do not address the unique characteristics of BPL emissions. Overall, the
report concludes that BPL could interfere with licensed radio spectrum, even though
under the current Part 15 testing parameters, emission levels would be within the
limits. Therefore, it was recommended that the compliance measurement procedures
be refined.
31 Ibid. For a full discussion of the FCC’s proposal, see NPRM, paras. 30-48.
32 See supra note 6. Phase 2 of NTIA’s study will evaluate the effectiveness of its Phase 1
recommendations and address potential interference via ionospheric propagation of BPL
emissions from mature large-scale deployments of BPL networks. The ARRL requested that
the FCC extend the NPRM comment deadline until June 13, 2004 (the deadline is currently
June 1, 2004) to accommodate the delayed release of this report. The ARRL stated it would
like to have 60 days to review the NTIA study prior to submitting comments. The FCC
denied the request. See Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems (ET Docket 03-104) and Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and
Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems (ET Docket 04-
37), Order Denying Extension of Time, DA 04- 1175, April 30, 2004.
33 NTIA Report, pp. 5-7.
34 The FCC’s Part 15 Rules govern the operation of unlicenced radiofrequency devices, for
example, cordless phones, computers, wireless baby monitors, and garage door openers. As
a general condition of operation, Part 15 devices may not cause harmful interference to
authorized radio services and must accept any interference that they receive. The Part 15
rules have allowed the development of new unlicenced devices while protecting authorized
users of the radio spectrum from harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. Section 15.

---

CRS-10
The NTIA stated, however, that refining the compliance measurement
procedures should not impede deployment of BPL because the technology can
reportedly be deployed within a more narrow range of frequencies that will not cause
interference.35 For these reasons, the NTIA did not recommend that the FCC relax
Part 15 field strength limits for BPL systems. Instead, NTIA recommended new
measurement provisions derived from existing guidelines, including using
measurement antenna heights near the height of power lines; measuring at a uniform
distance of ten meters from the BPL device and power lines; and measuring using
a calibrated rod antenna or a loop antenna in connection with appropriate factors
relating magnetic and electric field strength levels at frequencies below 30 MHz.36
Overall, NTIA supported the continued development and deployment of BPL
and suggested several means by which BPL interference could be prevented or
eliminated. For example, mandatory registration of certain aspects of BPL systems
would give radio operators the information needed to advise BPL operators of any
anticipated interference problems or suspected actual interference. NTIA also
recommended that BPL developers consider, for example, routinely using the
minimum output power needed from each BPL device; avoiding locally used radio
frequencies; using filters and terminations to extinguish BPL signals on power lines
where they are not needed; and carefully selecting BPL signal frequencies to decrease
radiation.37
Issues for Congress
Issues for potential Congressional attention and action may be divided into three
categories:
! Industry and societal issues, such as the impact of BPL on
competition in broadband services, and the potential for BPL to
reach previously unserved and underserved populations;
! Larger regulatory and industry governance issues, such as how the
regulatory classification of BPL might affect other FCC regulations
and proceedings (e.g., the appropriate regulatory classification of IP-
based services and law enforcement’s CALEA petition) and electric
utility regulations (e.g., reliability mandates, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations, and Public Utility
Holding Company Act (PUHCA) exemptions);38 and
! Technical issues, such as how BPL should be implemented to
minimize interference with other services (e.g., amateur radio
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Although electric utility entry into telecommunications is addressed in the 1996 Act,
issues dealing primarily with electric utility regulation are beyond the scope of this report.
For more information on those issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10006, “Electricity: The Road
Toward Restructuring,” by Amy Abel and Larry Parker.

---

CRS-11
frequencies) and what effect BPL technology may have on reliability
and security of the transmission and distribution systems and
homeland security goals (i.e., BPL may provide benefits as well as
potential problems).
Each issue is discussed below.
Industry Competition and Societal Issues
Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress has sought
to increase both competition between broadband service providers, as well as the
availability and adoption of broadband services.39 Although the current competitive
environment for broadband service could be considered fairly robust, with significant
competition between cable and DSL providers, both policymakers and consumers
alike would likely welcome a third wide-spread, facilities-based option for receiving
that service (satellite broadband service is not widely available as it usually requires
a dial-up “uplink” to the Internet). BPL could provide that opportunity for the “third
wire” to the home.
While further increasing consumer choice is a goal of both Congress and the
FCC, there are still consumers who have no options or perhaps only one option for
receiving broadband service.40 Some of those consumers are likely part of those
populations that are traditionally underserved, (e.g., rural residents, low-income
consumers) and for them, BPL may also provide at least a partial solution. BPL, not
being limited, technically, by distance and not requiring upgrades to the electric lines
themselves, is significantly easier to deploy to what might be considered by cable and
DSL providers to be “undesirable” areas. Of course, cost and potential profitability
39 As mentioned above, the FCC has a mandate under Section 706 of the 1996 Act to
promote broadband deployment.
40 According to a Pew Internet Project report issued in April 2004, “Availability can figure
into broadband adoption in two ways. First, the physical infrastructure to provide
broadband is an obvious prerequisite to having service. Second, the availability of multiple
providers may matter, as the existence of some competition in the market may be conducive
to adoption among consumers.
“With respect to broadband infrastructure, 77% of Americans say they live in an area
in which broadband is available, 8% said they do not live in an area where broadband is
available, and 15% say they do not know. This compares with 71% of Americans who said
in October 2002 that broadband is available where they live, 12% who said it was not
available, and 17% who did not know. Of those who live in a place where they say
broadband is not available, 54% say they would like to get it, higher than the 40% average
for dial-up users.
“When asked whether there is more than one broadband provider in their area, 61%
of those who have broadband or know it is available said multiple providers serve their area.
One in six (17%) said one provider serves their area and 22% did not know. Broadband
users who lived in areas with multiple service providers said they paid $38.50 per month for
service, while those who said they had one option for service paid an average of $42.80 per
month.” Pew Internet Project, Broadband Penetration on the Upswing: 55% of Adult
Internet Users Have Broadband at Home or Work, April 19, 2004. Available online at
[http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Broadband04.DataMemo.pdf].

---

CRS-12
are still issues in those areas and there will always be areas where deployment is
simply not realistic either technologically or economically, or both.
Congress may wish to monitor how the FCC balances ensuring that BPL, as a
new technology, is given every opportunity to reach the market, while also ensuring
that it is not given an unfair regulatory advantage over other similar services. For
example, FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy stated in a recent speech that she
would like to employ what she calls her “nascent services doctrine” with respect to
BPL, meaning she would like to allow BPL to develop and be deployed with a
minimum of regulatory oversight.41 On the other hand, FCC Commissioner Michael
Copps stated in his press release that accompanied the BPL NPRM that he believed
the Commission was remiss in “dodging” what he saw as the “hardest questions”:
. . .[while] 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.42
In the coming months, the electric utilities will roll out their commercial BPL
offerings. As this deployment takes place, the FCC’s role in ensuring that the
utilities are given incentives for wide BPL deployment, while also considering
additional policy questions that arise, will be watched to assess the success of both
the FCC and of BPL.
Regulatory and Industry-Governance Issues
Broadband over powerlines is just the latest in a growing list of technologies
and services that challenge the current structure of the FCC and the statutory and
regulatory “stove pipes” required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While
BPL is a technology for the delivery of the Internet, it challenges traditional and
embedded thinking and paradigms about telecommunications and information
services because it does not fit neatly into an existing category of service. If
Congress decides to revisit the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which it appears
poised to do, it may consider the impact that such new technologies are having on the
41 See, The Nascent Services Doctrine, Remarks of FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q.
Abernathy, Federal Communications Bar Association, New York Chapter, July 11, 2002,
as prepared for delivery. Available online at [http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Abernathy/
2002/spkqa217.html].
42 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
03-104) and Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement
guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems (ET Docket 04-37).

---

CRS-13
way lawmakers and regulators have traditionally looked at underlying transmission
technologies.43
With respect to IP-enabled services that would be provided over BPL, the one
with the most legal and regulatory impact may be IP-based voice service — called
Voice over Internet Protocol or VoIP. VoIP is different from traditional telephone
service in that it does not employ a single, dedicated path between the calling parties
(called circuit switching). Instead, VoIP “translates” analog voice into digital
“packets” and transmits those packets along multiple paths (called packet switching)
and reassembles the packets at the receiving end.44 This is the same format, or
protocol, used to transmit email, instant messages, video, and other data via the
Internet. Thus, voice is no longer a separate service — voice data looks just like
every other kind of data.
Until now, VoIP has been provided by companies that are in one way or another
“communications providers,” whether that be voice, data, or video communication.
However, electricity companies have not generally been in the business of providing
resale communications. Law enforcement and public safety officials are already
concerned about how VoIP, as well as other IP-enabled services, will affect their
ability to perform wiretaps under CALEA and respond to emergency calls (E911).45
This blurring of lines between voice and other types of data has raised other
questions, as well, such as state versus federal jurisdiction over such calls,
intercarrier compensation for call termination on the public switched network, and
universal service. These issues may become even more complex with the entry of
electric utilities into the communications business since they will be offering IP-
enabled services, both directly to the consumer as well as to third-party vendors (i.e.,
Internet service providers). As the market develops a tension may develop over
whether these new entrants should be required to adhere to existing requirements, or
perhaps how existing requirements should be changed to better reflect the current
technological and competitive environment.
43 During April and May 2004, the Senate and the House held four hearings on issues related
to the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation has held three hearings on the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and related issues: Telecommunications Policy Review: Lessons Learned from
the Telecom Act of 1996 (April 27, 2004), Telecommunications Policy: A Look Ahead (April
28, 2004), and Telecommunications Policy Review: A View from Industry (May 12, 2004).
The Chairman’s remarks and witness statements are available online at
[http://commerce.senate.gov]. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held one hearing on this issue on May
19, 2004, Competition in the Communications Marketplace: How Convergence Is Blurring
the Lines Between Voice, Video, and Data Services. These hearings were viewed as
informational, fact-finding efforts to set the groundwork for a reexamination of the 1996 Act
during the 109th Congress.
44 The packets, once delivered, may be converted back into an analog signal or left in digital
form depending on the receiving party’s terminal equipment (i.e, a telephone, a computer,
etc.).
45 FBI Joint Petition. See supra note 20.

---

CRS-14
Technical Issues
After considering the comments submitted in the NOI, the FCC decided to focus
on technical issues in its NPRM. These issues include how BPL should be
implemented to minimize interference with other services (e.g., amateur radio
frequencies) and what effect BPL technology may have on reliability and security of
the transmission and distribution systems (i.e., BPL may provide benefits as well as
potentially cause problems). While the FCC determines the technical standards
under which BPL will be deployed, those standards will very likely have an impact
on the previous two categories of issues and, therefore, Congress may have an
interest in monitoring the development of these technical issues as well.
Interference with other licensed services. As discussed above, some
commenters in the BPL proceeding have expressed varying degrees of concern over
the potential of BPL to disrupt licensed radio services, including amateur, public
safety, and emergency response frequencies.46 While the concern from government
and emergency responders was tempered by a trust in the FCC to ensure any
interference would be addressed immediately, opposition from amateur radio users,
represented primarily by ARRL, was resolute. The ARRL has already written to
several members of Congress asking that if the FCC approves changes to the Part 15
Rules allowing BPL, that Congress intervene and overturn the rules.47 Members may
wish to monitor the status of the rulemaking proceeding so that they may be aware
of FCC activity.
Service reliability and security issues. Commenting parties to the NOI
stated that BPL upgrades by the electric utilities have the potential to enhance the
security and reliability of the transmission and distribution networks. For example,
BPL technology can provide electricity outage detection, home energy management,
distribution transformer overload analysis, demand side management, supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) data transmission, safety checks for isolated
circuits, power quality monitoring, phase loss detection, line testing, and outage
localization, among other things.48 However, while the first four functions simply
46 NPRM, paras. 14-26. Commenters included the American Radio Relay League, the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the National Research
Council (through its Committee on Radio Frequencies, or CORF), the North American Short
Wave Radio Association, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
47 See supra note 27.
48 NOI, Comments of PPL Telecom, LLC, section IV. Available online at
[http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/070803_40.pdf]. SCADA systems provide the
command and control functions for some critical infrastructures such as the electric,
telecommunications, gas, and nuclear industries. SCADA is “a computer system for
gathering and analyzing real time data. A SCADA system gathers information, such as
where a leak on a pipeline has occurred, transfers the information back to a central site,
alerting the home station that the leak has occurred, carrying out necessary analysis and
control, such as determining if the leak is critical, and displaying the information in a logical
and organized fashion. SCADA systems can be relatively simple, such as one that monitors
(continued...)

---

CRS-15
provide additional operational monitoring and control abilities, the fact that enhanced
data may be supplied to the SCADA system via BPL could be of concern to electric
utility companies and homeland/infrastructure security officials. The FCC did not
mention any comments raising such concerns in its NPRM. However, some parties
not participating in the NOI/NPRM process have expressed concern that BPL would
make the transmission and distribution system vulnerable to individuals or groups
trying to steal or corrupt consumers’ Internet data or the utilities’ monitoring data, or
even to terrorists trying to cause a large-scale disruption of the nation’s electricity
supply.49 If sensitive operational information, as well as consumers’ personal data,
is being sent over the lines the physical security of those lines and the integrity of the
data on them become a serious concern. Although BPL may offer significant social
and competitive benefits, the possible negative impact that BPL may have on
reliability and security may be a more important factor in BPL deployment.
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Issue Brief IB10045, Broadband Internet Access: Background and Issues, by
Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G. Kruger.
CRS Issue Brief IB10006, Electricity: The Road Toward Restructuring, by Amy Abel
and Larry Parker.
Websites
American Public Power Association, [http://www.appanet.org]
American Radio Relay League, [http://www.arrl.org]
Edison Electric Institute, [http://www.eei.org]
Federal Communications Commission, [http://www.fcc.gov/]
! FCC NOI: [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-03-100A1.pdf]
48 (...continued)
environmental conditions of a small office building, or incredibly complex, such as a system
that monitors all the activity in a nuclear power plant or the activity of a municipal water
system.” Webopedia: Online Computer Directory for Computer and Internet Terms and
Definitions, [http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/SCADA.html].
49 For an article and discussion highlighting these concerns, see David Coursey, Why
Broadband over Powerlines is a Bad Idea, ZDNet, February 27, 2004. Available online at
[http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-7298_16-5123406.html]. See especially
[http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/5208-6118-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=322&messageI
D=8603&start=151] for a discussion of alleged BPL vulnerabilities.

---

CRS-16
! FCC NPRM: [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-04-29A1.pdf]
National Telecommunicat i ons and Information Administration,
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/]
! NTIA BPL Report: [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome
/fccfilings/2004/ bpl/index.html]
Powerline Communications Association, [http://www.plca.net]
PLC Forum, [http://www.plcforum.org]
United Power Line Council, [http://www.uplc.org]
United Telecom Council, [http://www.utc.org]
Other Reports and Documents
“Broadband Over Powerlines,” Angel M. Cartagena, Jr., Electric Perspectives,
March/April 2004, [http://www.eei.org/magazine/editorial_content/nonav_stories/
2004-03-01- Broadband.htm]
“The Final Connection,” Brett Kilbourne, Electric Perspectives, July/August 2001,
[http://www.eei.org/magazine/editorial_content/nonav_stories/2001-07-01-connec
tion.htm]

---