Broadband over Powerlines: Regulatory and Policy Issues

Broadband over Powerlines:
Regulatory and Policy Issues
Updated May 13, 2008
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Telecommunications and Internet Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



Broadband over Powerlines:
Regulatory and Related Issues
Summary
Congress has expressed significant interest in increasing the availability of
broadband services throughout the nation. Broadband over powerlines (BPL) has the
potential to play a significant role in increasing the competitive landscape of the
communications industry as well as extend the reach of broadband to a greater
number of Americans. BPL, like any technology, has its advantages and
disadvantages. Proponents state that BPL is less expensive to deploy than the cable
and telephone companies’ broadband offerings; it does not require upgrades to the
actual electric grid; and, it is not limited by some technical constraints of its
competitors. However, critics are concerned that BPL interferes with licensed radio
frequencies used for amateur radio, government, and emergency response.
In October 2004 and October 2006, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) adopted a Report and Order (R&O) (FCC 04-245) and a Memorandum
Opinion and Order (MO&O) (FCC 06-113) on BPL issues. In May 2007, the
American Radio Relay League (ARRL) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit to review the FCC’s October 2004 R&O and 2006 MO&O. In its brief,
the ARRL contends, among other things, that the FCC’s actions in adopting rules to
govern unlicensed BPL systems fundamentally alter the longstanding rights of radio
spectrum licensees, including amateur radio operators. In April 2008, the court
remanded the rules to the Commission.
In January 2007, Representative Mike Ross introduced H.R. 462, the Emergency
Amateur Radio Interference Protection Act, which would require the FCC to conduct
a study on the “interference caused by broadband Internet transmission over
powerlines.” The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on February 2, 2007; no
further action has been taken. In June 2007, Senator Mark Pryor introduced S. 1629,
which contains the same study requirements as H.R. 462. That bill was referred to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In August 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3221, the New
Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.
If signed into law, Section 9113(a)(8) would require an assessment by a newly
established Grid Modernization Commission to determine, biannually, the progress
being made toward modernizing the electric system, including an “assessment of
ancillary benefits to other economic sectors or activities beyond the electricity sector,
such as potential broadband service over power lines.”
In October 2007, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) published its Phase II BPL Study Report. The NTIA
concluded that the FCC’s BPL rules, measurement guidelines, and special protection
provisions will limit the interference risks for federal radiocommunication systems.



Contents
Background ......................................................1
Stakeholders ..................................................4
Federal Communications Commission Activity..........................5
Broadband over Powerline Systems Proceeding......................6
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act Proceeding ......9
IP-Enabled Services Proceeding..................................9
Wireless Broadband Task Force Report...........................10
Other Activity
.......................................................10
National Telecommunications and Information Administration Activity.....10
Issues for Congress...............................................12
Industry Competition and Societal Issues..........................12
Regulatory and Industry-Governance Issues........................14
Technical Issues..............................................15
Interference with Other Licensed Services.....................15
Service Reliability and Security Issues........................15
Congressional Action: 110th Congress.................................16
For Additional Reading............................................17
CRS Products................................................17
Websites ....................................................17
Other Reports and Documents...................................18



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).
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 1935 Public Utility Holding
Company Act (PUHCA).2 Specifically, regarding regulatory limitations, 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


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 Report RL33542,
Broadband Internet Access: Background and Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G.
Kruger.
2 Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935, 49 Stat. 803, (1935), 15 U.S.C.
Section 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 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 Report RL32728, Electric Utility Regulatoryth
Reform: Issues for the 109 Congress, by Amy Abel.

limitations3 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).4
Many electric companies are now in the process of upgrading their transmission
and distribution systems to provide BPL.5 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
Americans than ever before. BPL, however, 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


3 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].


4 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 and Amendment of Part 15
Regarding New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over
Power Line Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Dockets 03-104 and 04-37, FCC

04-29, February 23, 2004, para. 3. 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.”
5 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.

“head end”6 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, in 2004, Manassas, VA, began
testing BPL service and became the first U.S. community with a commercial BPL
offering.7 The service is now being used by roughly 1,000 of the 12,500 households
in the Manassas area. 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.8 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
providers another wire to the customer — and electric utilities have expressed
interest in providing such open access on a wholesale basis.9
Concerns among electric utilities and investors about BPL deployment do
remain, however. Although the pilot tests and limited commercial deployments have
thus far proven 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,


6 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 ].
7 A thorough overview of the Manassas project is available from the American Public Power
Association. Available online at [http://www.appanet.org/legislative/index.cfm?
It emNumber=9860].
8 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 : / / www.ar r l .or g/ announce/regulatory/et04-37/ARRL_04-37_Comme nt s_Exhi bi t _
A.pdf].
9 “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].

however, this may not be a significant concern because of the size of the established
broadband providers, the telephone and cable companies.10 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.
The FCC opened a rulemaking proceeding on the technical issues related to BPL
deployment in February 2004 and adopted a Report and Order on the proceeding in
October 2004 (see “Regulatory Activity — Federal Communications Commission,”
page 6). 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 three categories of issues are
discussed in detail at the end of this report (see “Issues for Congress”).
Stakeholders
In addition to marketplace competitors and consumers, the key stakeholders in
this issue are the BPL industry, amateur radio operators (represented primarily by the
American Radio Relay League (ARRL)), and various government entities.
In favor of BPL deployment and the FCC’s rules is the BPL industry: the
electric power companies, Internet service providers (ISP), 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).11 These groups have a financial stake in bringing BPL successfully to market
and are eager to enter the broadband business.
Amateur radio users have expressed opposition to BPL deployment because of
concerns over its potential negative impact — specifically, interference — on
amateur radio frequencies by BPL emissions. Although some of its concerns had
been addressed in the BPL Report and Order, the ARRL remained concerned about
the impact of widespread deployment of these systems.12


10 “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.
Available online at [http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/

0,9171,1101040503-629395,00.html ].


11 Website addresses for these groups are listed at the end of this report.
12 Amateur Radio Relay League, “FCC Acknowledges Interference Potential of BPL as it
Okays Rules to Deploy It.” October 14, 2004. Available online at [http://www.arrl.org/
news/stories/2004/ 10/14/1/?nc=1].

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. Further, because of the
services that can be offered over BPL (e.g., voice over Internet Protocol [VoIP]), the
law enforcement community is also concerned about the regulatory treatment of BPL
— specifically, whether BPL services should be subject to federal wiretap
requirements set forth in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA).
The FCC has the largest role in how BPL will be deployed. It not only is the
regulatory agency that developed 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 maintain a significant
influence on how the market for BPL service develops.
Federal Communications Commission Activity
The FCC has been investigating BPL since 2003 and adopted rules regulating
BPL systems in October 2004; it is also addressing BPL-related issues in its CALEA
and IP-Enabled Services Proceedings.


13 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].
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.digitaldivide.net/articles/
vi ew.php?ArticleID=208].
15 See Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
(1996).

Broadband over Powerline Systems Proceeding
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 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).20
The FCC adopted its Report and Order (R&O or “Order”) in this proceeding in
October 2004.21 Specifically, the Order —
!set forth rules imposing new technical requirements on BPL devices,
such as the capability to avoid using any specific frequency and to
remotely adjust or shut down any unit;
!established “excluded frequency bands” within which BPL must
avoid operating entirely to protect aeronautical and aircraft receivers
communications; and establishes “exclusion zones” in locations
close to sensitive operations, such as coast guard or radio astronomy
stations, within which BPL must avoid operating on certain
frequencies;


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 Federal Communications Commission, Inquiry Regarding Carrier Current Systems,
including Broadband over Powerline Systems, Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket 03-104, FCC

03-100. This document is available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/


attachma tch/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 Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 Regarding
New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line
Systems and Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems, ET
Dockets 04-37 and 03-104, Report and Order, FCC 04-29, adopted February 12, 2004,
released February 23, 2004. Available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachma tch/FCC-04-29A1.pdf].
21 Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 Regarding
New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line
Systems and Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems, ET
Dockets 04-37 and 03-104, Report and Order, FCC 04-245, adopted October 14, 2004,
released October 28, 2004. This document is available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachma tch/FCC-04-245A1.pdf].

!established consultation requirements with public safety agencies,
federal government sensitive stations, and aeronautical stations;
!established a publicly available BPL notification database to
facilitate an organized approach to identification and resolution of
harmful interference ;22
!changed the equipment authorization for BPL systems from
verification to certification;23 and
!improved measurement procedures for all equipment that use RF
energy to communicate over power lines.
After the Order was released, the amateur radio community and the BPL
industry filed a total of 17 petitions for reconsideration. The FCC released a Public
Notice on February 28, 2005, announcing the petitions. Oppositions to petitions
were due on March 23, 2005, and replies to the oppositions were due April 4, 2005.
On August 3, 2006, the FCC adopted a Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O)
in this matter.24 Specifically, the MO&O —
!affirmed its rules regarding emission limits for BPL, including its
determination that the reduction of emissions to 20 dB below the
normal Part 15 emissions limits will constitute adequate interference
protection for mobile operations;
!denied the request by the amateur radio community to prohibit BPL
operations pending further study and to exclude BPL from
frequencies used for amateur radio operations;
!denied the request by the television industry to exclude BPL from
frequencies above 50 MHz;
!affirmed the July 7, 2006 deadline for requiring certification for any
equipment manufactured, imported or installed on BPL systems,
with the proviso that uncertified equipment already in inventory can


22 The database is in operation. FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Public Notice,
ET Docket No. 04-37, announced that the United Telecom Council would serve as the
Access BPL database manager. Access BPL systems were required to comply with the
requirements of Section 15.615 by November 19, 2005. The Public Notice is available
online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2701A1.pdf].
23 Verification is a self-approval process; certification involves an approved third party. See
[http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/ea/procedures.html] for specific information.
24 Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 Regarding
New Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line
Systems and Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems, ET
Dockets 04-37 and 03-104, Report and Order, FCC 06-113, adopted August 6, 2004,
released August 7, 2006. Available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachma tch/FCC-06-113A1.pdf].

be used for replacing defective units or to supplement equipment on
existing systems for one year within areas already in operation;
!affirmed the requirement that information regarding BPL
deployment must be provided in a public database at least 30 days
prior to the deployment of that equipment;
!adopted changes regarding protection of radio astronomy stations by
requiring a new exclusion zone and amending consultation
requirements for these stations;
!adopted changes to provide for continuing protection for
aeronautical stations that are relocated
!denied the request by the aeronautical industry to exclude BPL
operating on low-voltage lines from frequencies reserved for certain
aeronautical operations; and
!denied the request by the gas and petroleum industry to be
considered as public safety entities.
On October 10, 2006, the ARRL notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit that it would appeal certain aspects of both the FCC’s October 2004 R&O and
August 2006 MO&O. The court issued its decision in the matter on April 25, 2008,25
finding that during its rulemaking process, the FCC relied on five scientific studies
that measured BPL devices’ radio emissions, in an attempt to determine interference
risks with other users of the spectrum. Although the agency released those studies
during a public comment process required by federal law, it redacted portions of
them, arguing they were just “internal” communications that didn’t influence its
deliberations. But after reviewing the unredacted studies in private, the majority of
the judges agreed with the ARRL that it was against federal administrative procedure
law to keep those portions under wraps, particularly since they could call the FCC’s
rules into question.
The court also said the FCC had not offered a “reasoned explanation” for why
it rejected ARRL-submitted data that could have influenced its interference estimates
and potentially reshaped its rules. The judges opted to send the rules back to the FCC
with instructions to clarify those points and publicize its studies more fully, although
they did not overturn the rules themselves.
The court did not side entirely with the ARRL on other key points related to the
substance of the rules. For instance, the ARRL had argued that the FCC was
departing from longstanding agency precedent by refusing to require that BPL
operations found to cause “harmful interference” be shut down immediately — the
so-called “cease-operations” rule. The court wasn’t persuaded by that argument,


25 This decision is available online at [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/

200804/06-1343-1112979.pdf].



saying the FCC had explained adequately that there isn’t ample evidence that
“harmful interference” is a real risk.26
Communications Assistance for
Law Enforcement Act Proceeding
On August 5, 2005, the FCC ruled that providers of certain broadband and27
interconnected VoIP services must accommodate law enforcement wiretaps. Such
a definition includes the type of service that would be provided via BPL. The FCC
found that these services can be considered replacements for conventional
telecommunications services currently subject to wiretap rules, including circuit-
switched voice service and dial-up Internet access. As such, the new services are
covered by CALEA, which requires the FCC to preserve the ability of law
enforcement to conduct wiretaps as technology evolves. The rules are limited to
facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers and VoIP providers that
offer services permitting users to receive calls from, and place calls to, the public
switched telephone network.28
IP-Enabled Services Proceeding
On March 10, 2004, the FCC released an NPRM, In the Matter of IP-Enabled
Services.29 This rulemaking, still under consideration at the FCC, will likely affect
BPL in that it will determine how the services that will be offered via BPL will be
regulated. Comments and replies to the NPRM were due May 28 and June 28, 2004,
respectively. On June 3, 2005, the FCC released an order on Enhanced 911 services
over IP-enabled services.30 In this order, the Commission adopted rules requiring
providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to supply
enhanced 911 (E911) capabilities to their customers. The characteristics of
interconnected VoIP services have posed challenges for 911/E911, and threaten to
compromise public safety. Thus, the FCC required providers of interconnected VoIP
service to provide E911 services to all of their customers as a standard feature of the
service, rather than as an optional enhancement. The Commission further required


26 “FCC Dealt Setback in Broadband-over-Powerlines Push,” April 28, 2008, by Ann
Broache, CNET News, available online at [http://www.news.com/

8301-10784_3-9930223-7.html ?tag=bl].


27 The R&O is available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/FCC-05-153A1.pdf]. Although the FCC adopted this rule on August 5, 2005,
the Report and Order was not officially released until September 23, 2005.
28 For additional information about the CALEA proceeding, see Digital Surveillance: The
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, by Patricia Moloney Figliola.
29 In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 04-28, WC
Docket 04-36, adopted February 12, 2004, released March 10, 2004. Available online at
[http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/ edocs _public/attachma tch/FCC-04-28A1.pdf].
30 In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services and E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
Providers, First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Dockets 04-36
and 05-196, FCC 05-116, adopted May 19, 2005, released June 3, 2005. Available online
at [http://www.askcalea.net/archives/docs/20050603_fcc-05-116.pdf].

them to provide E911 from wherever the customer is using the service, whether at
home or away from home. The FCC had no findings regarding whether a VoIP
service that is interconnected with the public switched telephone network should be
classified as a telecommunications service or an information service.
Wireless Broadband Task Force Report
On March 8, 2005, the FCC’s Wireless Broadband Access Task Force released
its report to the Commission containing its findings and recommendations.31 The
report highlights how some BPL providers are using Wi-Fi (i.e., wireless networking)
to complement their service offerings, either employing Wi-Fi access points within
the BPL network to transmit information from one power line to another or to use
wireless networking technologies to reach from utility poles to individual homes.
Comments to the report were due April 22, 2005, and replies were due May 23, 2005.
No further action has been taken at this time.
Other Activity
In December 2005, the UPLC filed a petition for declaratory ruling requesting
that the FCC find that BPL-enabled Internet access service is an information service,
rather than a telecommunications service. In response, in October 2006, the FCC
issued an MO&O affirming the UPLC’s petition, which placed BPL-enabled Internet
access service on an equal regulatory footing with other broadband services, such as32
cable modem service and DSL Internet access service.
National Telecommunications
and Information Administration Activity
In April 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.33 In that report, initiated by NTIA in response to


31 See GN Docket 04-163. The report was written by FCC staff and was not voted on or
approved by the Commission. Therefore, neither the report nor any of its recommendations
necessarily reflect the views of the FCC. Available online at [http://www.fcc.gov/wbatf].
32 Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of United Power Line Council’s
Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over Power Line
Internet Access Service as an Information Service, WC Docket 06-10, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, FCC 06-165, adopted November 3, 2006, released November 7, 2006.
Available online at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-165A1.pdf].
33 Potential Interference from Broadband over Powerline Systems to Federal Government
Radio Communications at 1.7-80MHz, Phase 1 Study, Volume I. 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]. Phase
2 of NTIA’s study will evaluate the effectiveness of its Phase 1 recommendations and
(continued...)

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.34
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.35 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.
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.36 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 10 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.37


33 (...continued)
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. Phase II of the report is
expected sometime late 2005 or early 2006.
34 NTIA Report, pp. 5-7.
35 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.
36 NTIA Report, pp. 5-7.
37 Ibid.

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.38
Issues for Congress
Issues potentially of interest to Congress 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 electric utility regulations (e.g., reliability
mandates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
regulations, and Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA)
ex em pt i ons). 39
!Technical issues, such as 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 and
homeland security goals (i.e., BPL may result in benefits as well as
risks).
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


38 Ibid.
39 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 Report RL32728, Electric Utility Regulatory
Reform: Issues for the 109th Congress, by Amy Abel.

availability and adoption of broadband services.40 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.41 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
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 continue monitoring 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. In the coming months, the electric utilities will roll out their commercial
BPL offerings. As electric utilities deploy their commercial systems, the FCC’s role


40 As mentioned above, the FCC has a mandate under Section 706 of the 1996 Act to
promote broadband deployment.
41 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
[ht t p : / / www.pewi nt ernet .org/ PPF/ r/ 121/ report _di spl a y.asp].

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 current law. While BPL is a technology for the
delivery of Internet service, 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 amend the
country’s current communications laws, it may consider the impact that such new
technologies are having on the way lawmakers and regulators have traditionally
looked at underlying transmission technologies.42
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 (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.43 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 recently, 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. This blurring of lines between voice
and other types of data has already raised issues such as law enforcement’s ability to
conduct wiretaps and state versus federal jurisdiction over such calls (discussed


42 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 Actth
during the 109 Congress.
43 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.).

earlier in this report); intercarrier compensation for call termination on the public
switched network; and universal service. These issues will likely 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.
Technical Issues
The FCC focused on technical issues in its BPL proceedings. These issues have
included how BPL should be implemented to minimize interference with other
services (e.g., amateur radio frequencies) and what effect BPL technology could have
on reliability and security of the transmission and distribution systems (i.e., BPL may
provide benefits as well as potentially create risks). Although the FCC’s regulations
mandate 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. Some stakeholders have
continued to express varying degrees of concern over the potential of BPL to disrupt
licensed radio services, including amateur, public safety, and emergency response
frequencies.44 The FCC continues to address those concerns in its BPL proceedings.
Service Reliability and Security Issues. Other stakeholders stated during
the proceeding 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, and45
outage localization, among other things. However, while the first four functions


44 NPRM, paragraphs 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.
45 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...)

simply 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 address this issue in its rulemaking proceeding. However, some parties that
did not participate in the rulemaking 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.46
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.
Congressional Action: 110th Congress
In January 2007, Representative Mike Ross introduced H.R. 462, the Emergency
Amateur Radio Interference Protection Act.47 This bill would require that within 90
days after the date of enactment, the FCC would be required to conduct “a study of
the interference potential of systems for the transmission of broadband Internet
services over power lines.” The study would examine —
!the variation of field strength of BPL service signals with distance
from overhead power lines, and a technical justification for the use
of any particular distance extrapolation factor;
!the depth of adaptive, or ‘notch’, filtering for attenuating normally
permitted BPL service radiated emission levels that would be
necessary and sufficient to protect the reliability of mobile radio
communications;
!a technical justification for the permitted, radiated emission levels
of BPL signals relative to ambient levels of man-made noise from
other sources; and


45 (...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].
46 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 ].
47 This bill is similar in nature to H.Res. 230 and amendment #25 to H.R. 5252, the
Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, also introduced
by Representative Ross.

!options for new or improved rules related to the transmission of BPL
service that, if implemented, may prevent harmful interference to
public safety and other radio communications systems.
Upon completion, the FCC would be required to submit the study report to the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. This bill was referred to the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce. No further action has been taken.
In June 2007, Senator Mark Pryor introduced S. 1629, which contains the same
study requirements as H.R. 462. That bill was referred to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On August 4, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3221, the New
Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.
If signed into law, Section 9113(a)(8) would require an assessment by a newly
established Grid Modernization Commission to determine, biannually, the progress
being made toward modernizing the electric system, including an “assessment of
ancillary benefits to other economic sectors or activities beyond the electricity sector,
such as potential broadband service over power lines.”
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report RL33542, Broadband Internet Regulation and Access: Background and
Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G. Kruger.
CRS Report RL32728, Electric Utility Regulatory Reform: Issues for the 109th
Congress, by Amy Abel.
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]
!FCC NPRM: [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
FCC-04-29A1.pdf]
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
[ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/]



United Power Line Council, [http://www.uplc.org]
United Telecom Council, [http://www.utc.org]
Other Reports and Documents
“How Broadband over Powerlines Works,” Robert Valdes,
[http://computer.howstuffworks.com/bpl.htm/printable] (undated).