> Subject: BPL threat to HF and AM radio
>
>
>
> This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many subscribe, but in spite
> of the numerous comments against BPL (transmitting wideband internet
> data over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio spectrum), the
> FCC seems disposed to encourage it anyway. -------------------
>
> From:
> Amateur Radio Station N0JAA <N0JAA@aol.com>
> 4:00 PM
>
> Subject:
> [ARLI] FCC Commissioner's Comments Concerning BPL
> To:
> bvarc@clarc.org, clarc@clarc.org, ARLI@topica.com
>
>
> The following is a transcript from a recent speech given by FCC
> Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy at the United PowerLine
> Council's annual conference regarding BPL. It seems that she is all
> for it. It also seems that BPL is going to become a reality, regardless
> of what ARRL, the military, or anyone else says. As usual, big
> industry wins over everyone else because they have the money.
>
> This is from today's FCC Digest.
>
> Paul, N0JAA
>
> ----------------------
>
>
> Reaching Broadband Nirvana
> United PowerLine Council Annual Conference Remarks of Commissioner
> Kathleen Q. Abernathy
> September 22, 2003 (As prepared for delivery)
>
>
> Thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you. I am very
> excited about broadband-over-powerline technology. I
> have seen it in action, and I believe it has a very bright future. It
> is a real honor to be your keynote speaker at this
> important juncture for BPL.
>
> As a regulator, I am keenly interested in BPL technology for a number
> of reasons. One of my central objectives as an FCC commissioner is to
> facilitate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. I
> also fundamentally believe that the FCC can best promote consumer
> welfare by relying on market forces, rather than heavy-handed
> regulation. The development of BPL networks will serve both of these
> key goals. It will not only bring broadband to previously unserved
> communities, but the introduction of a new broadband pipeline into the
> home will foster the kind of competitive marketplace that will
> eventually enable the Commission to let go of the regulatory reins. I
> want consumers to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based
> providers, including not only cable and DSL, but also powerline,
> wireless, and satellite services. Such a robustly competitive and
> diversified marketplace is something I would call broadband Nirvana.
> We will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL
> technology is a major step forward.
>
> While the long-term objective is a robustly competitive marketplace
> that is free of regulatory distortions, a more immediate question is:
> What should the FCC do to help foster such an environment? Sticking
> with my Nirvana metaphor, I guess the question would be, what is the
> path to enlightenment?
>
> I believe the answer, in short, is regulatory restraint. It is
> tempting for regulators to take every new technology or service that
> comes along and apply the same rules that govern incumbent services.
> After all, regulatory parity and a level playing field are
> intuitively appealing concepts. But I believe that it would be a huge
> mistake to carry forward legacy regulations whenever new technology
> platforms are established. Many of our regulations are premised on
> the absence of competition, and when that rationale is eroded, we
> must not reflexively hold on to regulations that no longer serve
> their intended purpose. In fact, many of our old rules not only become
> unnecessary as markets evolve, but they can be fatal to new services
> that need room to breathe.
>
> The Nascent Services Doctrine applying more stringent regulations to
> wireline providers at a minimum must be reconsidered. As other
> platforms, including BPL and wireless, become more widely available,
> that will further undermine the justification for regulating
> incumbent LECs broadband services as if they were the only available
> offerings. When the Commission completes this rulemaking, I expect
> that we will eliminate many existing rules and substantially modify
> others; the central question is the degree of regulation that will
> remain during the transition to a more robustly competitive market.
>
> Finally, it is important to recognize that although the emergence of
> new platforms like BPL will eliminate the need for many
> competition-related regulations, other types of regulation may well
> remain necessary. For example, the FCC must implement public policy
> goals unrelated to competition, or even at odds with competition.
> Universal service and access for persons with disabilities are
> examples of this kind of regulation. These public policy goals
> generally should be applied to all service providers, to the extent
> permitted by the Communications Act. The FCC also must intervene to
> prevent competitors from imposing externalities on one another and to
> protect consumers where market failures are identified. Although, as
> I have noted, the Commission was right to refrain from imposing
> heavy-handed price and service-quality regulations on PCS services
> when the were introduced, it was also right to adopt strict
> interference rules to prevent competitors from externalizing their
> costs. The same principle will apply to BPL. They key point is that,
> while some degree of regulation is both inevitable and desirable, we
> should ensure that it is narrowly tailored to the particular
> governmental interests at stake. I appreciate the opportunity to
> share these thoughts with you, and I would be happy to answer a few
> questions if we have time.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|