Following is the text of an e-mail sent to my friend Skip,
W5GAI, from Bob Logan, NZ5A. Bob works for Austin Energy
and has some interesting comments regarding BPL.
----------------------------------
This is terrific news!
Texas and Austin could lead the nation in anti-BPL
legislation.
Folks who understand the technology and how to create
legislation might want to
collaborate with ARRL on this.
Skip W5GAI
"Logan, Bob" wrote:
> I am Manager of Contract Management at Austin Energy.
Part of my
> responsibility now---and my total responsibility for six
years prior to
> 2003---is to develop, negotiate, recommend for award, and
manage pole and
> tower attachment contracts for telecommunications. I
thought it might be
> useful to give an insider's view of BPL from an
implementation standpoint
> and, from it, to suggest a course of action for Austin
hams. The FCC has
> less to do with final telecommunications policy here than
you might think.
>
> * Any company wishing to implement BPL over Austin
Energy wires will
> have to come through my office to get a contract and
through the
> Telecommunications and Regulatory Affairs (TARA) Office to
get a franchise
> agreement. To get a franchise agreement, they have to be
certified as a
> public telecommunications carrier by the Public Utility
Commission and then
> pass muster through a City Council vote. If they are a
B2B carrier only,
> they have to get a "master license" from TARA and a
contract with Austin
> Energy. The only step bypassed is the PUC certification.
The actions
> described here are viewed by some as obstacles to finally
getting BPL over
> our wires, although we try very hard not to be
bureaucratic for the simple
> sake of doing so.
>
> * Remember that it is broadband interference we are
talking about. As
> such, the interference looks to be a problem not just for
hams but for a
> number of other entities as well. For example, the 32
attaching companies
> the City now has under contract through my office to
deliver cable
> television, high-speed data, telephony, and information
services such as
> Internet will not rest easy if their service delivery is
affected by
> interference. It will not sit well with Time Warner, SBC,
Grande
> Communications, AT&T, MCI, and the remaining companies.
These fellows have
> much deeper pockets than a little start-up company, and
they will go after
> them legally and politically. I had a breakfast meeting
this morning with
> one of the Big Three here in Austin on this very issue.
It also will be a
> problem for schools, hospitals, nursing homes, government
institutions and
> for emergency responders such as fire, police, EMS, and
Street and Bridge
> departments. For Austin Energy, it was be an area of
intense concern since
> we have over 2300 miles of lines dedicated to internal
controls over vital
> functions such as the Energy Control Center and energy
dispatch. An
> internal technical group here is responsible for
intra-departmental
> communications over these lines and they are looking at it
with jaundiced
> eye. We also have an initiative to install wireless meter
readers
> throughout the City, which could be interfered with. Each
entity will have
> its say, and some are expert lobbyists. So these could be
obstacles for any
> BPL company to overcome.
>
> * The State of Texas is exempt from FCC regulation
regarding
> telecommunications policy. It was a states rights issue
in the early 80s
> when Reagan started to decentralize federal control. We
are one of the few
> states that actually opted out of mandatory FCC regulatory
control when it
> came up for vote. Rather, the legislature adopted FCC
rules as
> "guidelines". That is the actual word in the law. Here,
the state
> legislature reserves the right to develop, pass, and force
> telecommunications regulations and law. The legislature
satisfied the
> Federal constraint of due diligence by affirming that the
public remedy was,
> first, to elected City Councils such as we have here in
Austin and, second,
> to the Public Utility Commission, which is appointed by
elected legislators.
> It puts its own twist in things because it has the right
to do so. The two
> laws from the last legislature that mandated the first
sweeping changes in
> telecommunications policy since 1986 were Senate Bill 7
and House Bill
> 77---both written by primarily Bell and, to some extent,
Time Warner
> lobbyists. The companies have a lot more influence than a
start-up company
> or an untested but large entrant to the field. And they
both provide
> services over wires and wireless attachments at great
investment. Neither
> will be favorable to leaving stranded assets behind should
BPL overtake
> them. They will oppose BPL on commercial grounds at
least. They are
> obstacles too.
>
> * The City of Austin is chartered as a home-rule
city by the State.
> Part of its charter says that the City reserves to itself
any rights not
> pre-empted by the State. Thus, it can take a general law
like HB 77 and
> codify it into City Code describing how it wants to manage
specific
> parameters and controls for telecommunications policy.
The result is two
> ordinances called Chapter 18-7 (wire attachments) and
Chapter 18-8 (wireless
> communications devices) in the City Code. Any contract I
let has to conform
> with the requirements. There is no provision for BPL.
Any change to
> parameters and controls promulgated by the ordinances has
to go to Council
> for a public vote, no more frequently than every two years
from filing. Of
> all City departments, the ordinances, particularly Chapter
18-7, give only
> Austin Energy the authority to manage pole attachment and
wireless
> communications for public use. We can delegate it to
other City departments
> but so far they do not want it. In fact, I just concluded
an
> interdepartmental agreement with a major enterprise
department that allows
> Austin Energy to manage their telecommunications
contracts. The process of
> getting a change in the ordinances and especially of
getting it all the way
> through a 4-3 Council vote is itself an obstacle. Most
assuredly, Time
> Warner, Bell, and Grande will oppose strongly any attempt
by a company to
> put a $50,000 device in a line as their lone investment
and steal customers
> away from a plant that cost them upwards of $500-600
million for starters
> and a billion dollars fine-tuned. Third, to get a project
implemented in an
> asset-sharing contact with a City department is also
subject to many
> controls peculiar to the specific department. The
ordinances, particularly,
> Chapter 18-7, specifically prohibits departments from
letting contracts that
> endanger the public safety and welfare or harm a
department's fiduciary duty
> to provide core business services.
>
> That Austin and the State have a municipal and state power
to write its own
> laws and ordinances regarding telecommunications suggests
that substantial
> action could be taken which might be more effective than
simply lodging
> complaints with the FCC. Locally, an umbrella
organization representing the
> local ham community could take a position in writing and
start to make the
> City's elected officials first aware of it and then City
management. The
> organization could re-write or modify the language in the
ordinances and
> brief that to City Attorney's Office. It could move on to
TARA to discuss
> franchise agreement provisions and then to a tailored
presentation to
> specific City departments with telecommunications
interests after that.
> Finally, it could move to form an alliance with the bigger
> telecommunications company with local presence. It will
take time and
> should be done systematically. Whatever you may think of
City government
> (and I created most of the jokes), , Council members and
City management do
> listen to small, persistent groups with detailed, specific
proposals that
> are more technical than political. As for a state effort,
I'm sure the ARRL
> knows State level much better than I do and has an
organization in place to
> deal with it, so I won't suggest an action plan there.
>
> I think it is not too early to start. I have been
approached by six
> companies since October about doing a BPL test on our
lines, and one has
> been fairly aggressive. They have been forwarded to
various offices in an
> attempt to help them find exactly the right person to talk
to.
>
> Bob, NZ5A
----------- Wes Attaway (N5WA) -----------
2048 Pepper Ridge, Shreveport, LA 71115
(318)797-4972(office) 864-9883(pager)
-- Computer Forensics and Data Recovery --
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|