overview

This page considers use of domestic and other power lines for internet traffic.

It covers -

introduction - 'broadband over power line' technologies as a panacea or a second-rank solution making sense of the technologies - access and inhouse BPL status - is BPL an 'also ran' technology that was too late to move from the laboratory to the market? issues - key impediments to uptake, including interference, competition from other technologies, consumer anxieties and indifferent industry support The following pages discuss the uncertain business case for BPL, exploration of broadband powerline communication in Australia, and trials overseas.

introduction

As the name suggests, digital powerline communication (PLC) - or broadband over power lines (BPL), Power Line Telecommunications (PLT) or Power Line Broadband (PLB) - uses existing electrical power grids rather than dedicated telephone wiring or television cable to provide access to the net.

BPL is a label for a group of technologies that have been promoted as a mechanism for freeing consumers from "the tyranny of the telephone company". Enthusiasts have characterised BPL as potentially offering broadband connectivity that is unavailable through existing telephone lines, that drives improvement in the performance of incumbent connectivity providers such as Australia's Telstra and that provides substantial new revenue for utility companies.

Others have forecast use of BPL in bridging digital divides in the Third World, "bringing broadband to isolated village and farms". It is acclaimed because the infrastructure is "already there", so that there is ostensibly no need to deploy fibre, satellite, WiMAX or other new communication infrastructure.

It has however been criticised as technologically problematical, commercially unviable and over-sold.

Technological criticisms centre on interference with existing users of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Although those users are sometimes dismissed as 'ham radio operators' they encompass emergency service agencies, aviators, commercial broadcasters and other entities. RF transmissions are licenced because space in the spectrum is finite. Adoption of BPL in most jurisdictions

accordingly requires permission by telecommunication regulators. That permission often has not been forthcoming, because regulators have not been satisfied during technical trials.

Commercial criticisms centre on the uncertain business case for BPL. Interference problems arguably can be fixed through reengineering the infrastructure, for example by 'notching' urban and rural powerlines and by relying on underground cabling. However, the investment required for that reengineering and for ongoing maintenance erodes the commercial competitiveness of BPL.

Observers have noted poor performance in some trials, with loss of connections and erratic speeds, and consumer anxieties that their personal computer will become a toaster. They have accordingly suggested that utilities, consumers and regulators might get greater value through rollout of fibre or other infrastructure.

The BPL industry has been marketing-driven, with advocates claiming that digital powerline technology has a range of benefits including -

the theoretical potential to "provide every home with a fast internet connection, given that almost all homes are on an electricity supply grid" use of wiring within buildings means that "every power socket is an internet access point". provision of an always-on service with the same characteristics as DSL and cable modem connectivity surveillance - "Monitor your children and people who are in need of regular help from any internet connection" improved "safety and efficiency of the power network", with remote control and monitoring of appliances via power lines. In practice those claims have not been tested on a large scale in a commercial environment. There has probably been more writing about BPL than implementation, particularly because it has been seen as hyped as revolutionary, freedom from telecommunication providers or as a low-cost mechanism for bridging divides in environments with inadequate phone/cable infrastructure ("broadband for everyone").

Assessment of BPL is complicated by confusion over particular technological offerings, the absence of published information about real costs and disinformation from some enthusiasts, who have tended to misrepresent small scale technical trials as large scale commercially viable implementations or who have simply dismissed concerns about interference.

There have been no commercial trials that strongly demonstrate BPL as a business case that is markedly superior to other technologies. Typically utilities in the northern hemisphere either have

not initiated technical trials, have decided on business grounds not to embark on major commercial implementation or have shutterdsmall scale trials.

Some of the more mordant critics have accordingly characterised BPL as an unproven 'faith-based' solution.

making sense of the technologies

BPL essentially takes two forms -

to the household (sometimes labelled as 'longline PLC', 'access BPL' or BPL-to-the-home) within the household ('inhome BPL' or 'in-house PLC' and using standards such as HomePlug). Both involve conversion of digital content to a radio frequency signal that shares the same copper wire used to deliver electricity to commercial/residential buildings and to points within those buildings. That content might be a sound recording, video recording, a web page, email or a telephone call. Accessing the content involves converting the BPL signal, whether on a 'whole of building' or 'socket by socket' basis, back to a format for a personal computer or similar device.

Access BPL - sometimes mooted as an answer to the 'last mile' problem - involves existing grids used by power utilities to deliver electricity from generators to consumers.

Typically digital content is converted to radio frequency transmissions at gateways located at major nodes of the power grid, for example at a power station or a distribution substation. The gateways link the PLC network to conventional high-speed communication links - usually optical fibre - with the internet and public subscriber telephone network. At the edge of the power network (eg individual houses, schools, commercial buildings or office suites) the radio transmissions are filtered by a device for delivery through a conventional local area network (eg the "blue cable" found in many office buildings) that does not reticulate power for airconditioning, toasters, personal computers or other devices.

Inhome BPL - sometimes characterised as powerplug communication - uses the same principles to deliver content via existing electrical wiring within a building.

Proponents argue that the technology means that "every power plug can be an internet access point". A gateway device at a house's perimeter might, for example serve as a bridge between the phone network and the building's internal grid - the fuses, wires and sockets that are used to run the lights, heating and domestic appliances. One or more devices - ideally small, resilient and cheap -

could be plugged into that grid, converting the signal back into the form expected by a conventional phone, a personal computer or a wifi station.

Data about performance outside laboratory environments is contentious. Some tests suggest that data transmission rates with powerline technology might be above most ISDN connections, with for example claims of 6Mbit/s in both directions. Others indicate that performance would be lower.

The Cinergy/Current access BPL trial in Cincinnati for example was promoted as offering 6 megabits per second download but typically has been capable of only 2-4 megabits per second sustained transfer (and sometimes worse).

Residents of older buildings in inhome BPL trials have reported that some existing wiring proves to be inadequate, with vendors accordingly advising that only particular points be used - advice that erodes the attractiveness of "broadband from any power socket".

status

BPL technology has attracted some industry and government attention, in some instances with tangible funding, but essentially has not moved from pilot installations to 'real world' use across a range of households and organisations and with a range of equipment.

Major telecommunication and consumer product manufacturers have been reluctant to make a commitment to production of powerline gear. Certification by standard-setting bodies has been exploratory rather than concerned with day to day implementation. In the marketplace PLC appears to be less competitive than wifi and wimax and thus is attracting less support than those technologies.

Major groups such as Nortel, Siemens, RWE, E.ON and Norweb have not proceeded beyond smallscale trials in Europe. Trials in the US have typically been short-lived and involved under 300 consumers. A 2005 NewsForge item noted that US utilities giant TXU apparently

doesn't have enough confidence in BPL to risk investing its own money in it, or else it feels there is no cure for those interference blues - or both.

In April 2007 Motorola was reported to have suspended development of its Access BPL products.

The German government's 2003 response to the European Commission Working Document On Broad Band Communication Through Power Line similarly commented that

The German Government does not regard a European legal framework which results in general freedom to use PLC as desirable at the present time, because Germany has a lot of negative experience with the compatibility of radio networks and line-bound networks. Initial findings about PLC applications suggest that, despite contrary assurances by the manufacturers, the ceilings in force nationally cannot be adhered to

Overall, like some other technologies, BPL appears likely to be

the technology of the next generation ... and always going to be.

Critics have argued that BPL faces substantial consumer (and regulatory) resistance, is over-sold and under-supported or is a solution looking for a problem.

That is consistent with the basket of potential uses identified on the Powerline Communications Association site - including home automation, surveillance and - of course - gaming.

It is also consistent with problematical claims that internet/phone access will be free because electricity providers will not need to charge, an echo of 1990s claims that by 2000 most telephone companies would not charge for internet access.

Projects include the EU Opera (Open PLC European Research Alliance) initiative, which has concentrated on technical aspects. Two recent outputs are its 2005 Internet Over PLC White Paper (zip) and Reference guide on implementation, installation, management and operation of PLC distribution networks (zip) - rather than in-depth examination of technology + business case. Opera is allied with the PLC Utilities Alliance (PUA), which released a broader White Paper (zip) on BPL in 2004.

issues

BPL advocates face at least five issues -

commercial attractiveness relative to other internet delivery mechanisms interference problems

network performance and maintenance uncertain user support and consumer demand fallout from flawed marketing and advocacy. The first, and arguably most critical, is competition from existing and emerging network technologies that are not encumbered by interference problems and may require a lower investment (upfront and ongoing).

BPL may be technically feasible but is being beaten by wireless alternatives, fibre and even oldfashioned twisted-pair. There is little sign of strong consumer demand. It is unlikely that there will be substantial consumer demand in the absence of perceived major advantages, industry support and greater comfort with 'hot wires'. That is one reason why utilities trialling BPL have typically made a greater investment in fibre or wireless at the same time.

From a technical perspective radio frequency signals over power grids -

are affected by interference from non-communication devices that are on the same network, eg domestic blenders, sanders, milling equipment encounter problems with bandwidth when there are major demands for access at peak periods in a local loop Those performance problems are similar to difficulties explored in our discussion of wireless networking. They are significant because, despite some visions of "plug & play" at any power point (contrasted with "plug & pray" with modems), the technology has definite limitations.

Critics note that domestic filters are vulnerable to lightning strikes or other power surges and that the environment in utility substations is unfriendly (eg high temperatures, dust, substantial electromagnetic noise).

A third issue is indifferent industry support and the absence of major commercial and regulatory champions. Powerline communication is often seen as "out there" or a curiosity, rather than a commercially credible product that is likely to gain the traction of wifi and wimax. There is no consensus about standards; there is disagreement about both technical and commercial feasibility. There is uncertainty about the cost of components, with criticism for example of the more upbeat projections about access BPL equipment costs and maintenance expenses.

Irrespective of network construction, some critics have asked whether power companies have the appetite or mindset for establishing 'back office' functions such as spam control, security, abuse and help desks. Others have responded that some power utilities currently have ISP subsidiaries (eg

CountryEnergy in NSW, which in June 2005 hyped the "first VOIP call made over powerline"), have the resources to acquire an ISP or - as noted below - can outsource operations to a third party.

Figures about the cost of infrastructure for 'to the household' delivery in Australia, North America and Europe are contentious. It has variously been claimed the configuration of power grids in much of Europe means that costs would be somewhat lower than in the US (or instead higher) and that the cost of measures to reduce interference in the EU mean that BPL is not economic. Benefits for utility operators - notably remote telemetry of consumer power usage - might be more cost-effectively achieved through wireless-enabled meters.

One of the few publicly accessible economic analyses is Rahul Tongia's 2003 Promises & False Promises of PowerLine Carrier (PLC) Broadband Communications - A Techno-Economic Analysis (PDF), complemented by Osorio Urza's 2004 Bits of Power: The Involvement of Municipal Electric Utilities in Broadband Services (PDF) and the technical discussion in Broadband Powerline Communications: Network Design (New York: Wiley 2004) by Halid Hrasnica, Abdelfatteh Haidine & Ralf Lehnert. The latter supersedes Klaus Dostert's Power Line Communications (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall 2001).

In Europe there has been increasing concern over interference, with comments that PLC is inconsistent with the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) standard - discussed in our note on digital radio which uses compression to deliver near-FM quality digital sound over existing AM broadcast frequencies. DRM has been recognised by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), the International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) and International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Radio Regulations Board.

Studies in the UK during 2004 suggested that there is significant degradation of DRM signals through interference from access BPL systems. That is consistent with inhouse BPL studies on the continent in 2002 and 2003. Deutsche Telekom advised the European Commission that

The deployment of millions of inhouse PLC modems throughout Europe is a nightmare to any radio operator and to administrations which will have to solve numerous cases of interference. We have measured inhouse PLC modems: interference fieldstrengths up to "NB30 plus 30/40 dB", with the capability of jamming all radio reception in the frequency band between 2 and 30 MHz (sometimes with "notches" to protect some amateur bands, but no protection/notches for the broadcasting bands); the jamming range is estimated about 100 meters

Some studies suggest that that longline BPL can result in short-wave signal mirroring at the ionosphere, affecting reception of civilian shortwave transmissions (including long distance emergency communications) and communication of interest to national security agencies.

It is likely that some technology enhancements such as better and closer repeaters on longlines (eg 'notches' every 100 to 250 metres) will reduce interference problems. However, at least for the moment, those fixes appear distinctly uneconomic. The cost of reducing/removing RF interference problems appears to render access BPL uncompetitive.

One 2006 report (PDF) by Mark Connolly, Pat Cooney & Mati Cleary of the Irish Electricity Supply Board thus commented that

despite significant hype and R&D spending by vendors and certain utilities, Broadband Power Line Technology is nowhere near an appropriate state of development required for commercial mass market rollout.

business case

This page considers questions about the business case for BPL (are powerline technologies commercially viable), BPL as a marketing phenomenon and access to networks.

It covers -

an uncertain business case - is BPL an interesting technology without a sound business case? BPL as a marketing phenomenon - a closer look at the PLC spin cycle The following pages discuss trials and regulatory exploration of broadband powerline communication in Australia, New Zealand and overseas

an uncertain business case?

A 2004 US Electric Power Research Institute report (PDF), in asking 'can BPL consumer services be profitable?', commented that

Making the business case by just selling fast Internet access may be difficult. Bundling of broadband consumer services - and perhaps utility-related applications like direct load control - will likely be needed. ...

However, DSL providers have already started lowering their prices to be more competitive with cable. And as BPL becomes a serious threat, both cable and DSL providers are likely to compete aggressively. Although faced by their own funding limitations and debt, these companies are not likely to be complacent about losing market share. Any company offering BPL in the consumer market and competing only on the basis of price of internet access could find profitability elusive. ...

The strategy of leveraging infrastructure investment for both a consumer communications service and for utility applications has appeal. But it also has considerable risk. Many factors key to the business case - regulations, technology costs, revenue per subscriber, and the advent of alternative technologies - are all areas in which electric utilities have little ability to exert control. This has been reflected in the modest investments seen so far in BPL.

That is consistent with a range of industry studies, such as the 2005 US National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Broadband Over Powerlines report (PDF) and upbeat Powering the Broadband Market in 2005 & Beyond: Views on the Emergence of Broadband Over Power Line Technology (PDF) from US lobbyists the New Millennium Research Council.

There is little doubt that that longline and inhouse BPL can be made to work. One correspondent waspishly commented that internet by carrier pigeon and by bongo drum is also technically feasible.

The major questions are instead whether BPL can be made to work on a large-scale commercial basis in competitive marketplaces and without undue impact on other RF users.

a marketing phenomenon?

It thus unsurprising that some observers have characterised BPL as a marketing phenomenon rather than a technology that will gain global acceptance by domestic and business users in the near future.

That phenomenon features -

upbeat reports from particular solutions vendors (sometimes promoted as commissioned by government agencies)

media releases (often uncritically assimilated by newspapers and magazines) that "accentuate the positive, elide the negative" - major benefits for consumers and utilities, no substantive technological or regulatory concerns, optimistic projections - when trials are launched the absence of detailed public analysis - or even reporting - when trials are curtailed or cease on schedule without subsequent commercial adoption little international comparison, with non-specialist media for example obligingly reporting initial commercial support for some projects in other countries but not reporting that commercial backers withdrew from those projects the 'internet fridge effect', with utilities and manufacturers trying to escape a stodgy image through association with "the technology of tomorrow" what has been cruelly characterised as 'smoke and mirror' business modelling, with projections that assume a very significant reduction in hardware costs in the near future (none of the optimistic forecasts have been substantiated), appear to understate 'real world' deployment and maintenance costs, and inadequately identify ROI from other technologies difficulties for non-specialists in determining what is actually going on, with claims and counterclaims by vendors and advocacy groups (ham radio operators have typically been dismissed as "luddites", although their criticisms of some BPL claims are echoed by a range of government/commercial RF users) and liberal use of bureaucratic weasel words such as "if", "might", "possible" and "may be" in official reports disillusionment over dot-com bubble forecasts that utilities will easily morph into more profitable utilicoms that supply connectivity and services along with the electricity, water, gas or sewerage. Joe Barr of NewsForge succinctly commented that

BPL today is like the very worst of the dot com era: mythological, deliberately misstated, and majorly overhyped technology that is being used in ways it was never designed to be in the first place.

One of the stronger responses to criticisms of BPL came from Austrian power company Linzstrom, which sued a group of radio enthusiasts for publishing criticisms about its activity. Linzstrom lost the case in court and the offending document was mirrored across the world, with the company scoring a People's Choice award in the Austrian civil liberties Big Brother Award 2004.

US promoter Comtek proclaimed in January 2006 that after it "voluntarily adjusted" the network in Manassas (Virginia) there remained no "documented basis for further ham radio operator concerns"

Manassas is the first and also the best full-scale commercial deployment of BPL on a meaningful scale in the United States and we take great pride in the system, which has operated with virtually no hitches to date. In fact, we know of fewer than half a dozen ham radio operator complaints, each of COMTek has gone to truly extraordinary lengths to address. ... The facts are that we have done everything necessary and more! to address any genuine ham radio operator concerns.

In July the FCC ordered Manassas to "take immediate steps to eliminate all excessive emissions" and resolve ongoing concerns. ARRL representative David Sumner commented that

Clearly, the FCC has lost patience with COMTek's reliance on misleading news releases as a substitute for meaningful solutions to the ongoing interference.

Sumner noted a COMTek April 2006 media release that characterised Manassas as "a real success story" with testing supposedly indicating "an almost identical" level of interference whether or not the system was in operation.

operation

This page considers some questions about the operation of access BPL.

It covers -

introduction logistics whose network - 'unbundling the local loop' for access BPL? The following pages discuss trials and regulatory exploration of broadband powerline communication in Australia, New Zealand and overseas.

introduction

Much of the enthusiasm about BPL is predicated on misconceptions that it is a cheap and robust 'plug & play' technology, particularly a technology that will encourage utilities or their partners to provide free connectivity.

Some people thus assume that there will be no substantial investment in hardware (or in network management software and personnel) and that maintenance costs will be lower than those experienced by PSTN or wireless network operators.

One fan thus blithely assured us that

the electricity lines are already there - you don't need to do anything to them. People in Africa and Tasmania will all get the net without having to bend over for the phone company.

Providing connectivity is alas more complicated. Access BPL requires investment in equipment at either end of the power grid, for example as a bridge between the internet backbone and the utility's network. It also requires equipment along the length of that network, with in some instances 'notching' at short intervals.

Much of that equipment operates in hostile environments, for example high temperatures, electromagnetic noise and occasional spikes through lightning strikes. As noted in the preceding page, there are uncertainties about the lifespan of equipment in urban and regional Australia but replacement and ongoing maintenance costs are an issue.

Ken Tipping of the Canadian National Research Research Council commented (PDF)

Technical studies of test links have been carried out in Canada and elsewhere. However, these have been based upon much simpler networks that are envisaged in practice, and over relatively short timescales, which are in general insufficient for the assessment of the effects upon unwanted emissions of component degradation and damage either of the BPL hardware, or more importantly, of insulator degradation, joint corrosion and other problems with the power line infrastructure being used.

Networks of course do not manage themselves. BPL providers accordingly need to address issues such as billing, customer help, traffic management and compliance.

Some utilities have decided that their existing skill sets and customer relationship databases can be used or extended. They have thus sought to position themselves as 'utilicoms', although as we note elsewhere on this site most have become disillusioned with the vision of combining connectivity with provision of gas, electricity, water, heating or sewerage services.

Others, as discussed below, have essentially licensed use of their grid to a partner in the expectation that they can thereby gain a share of revenue without major investment, liability or operational expenditure.

logistics

Most have grappled with logistics challenges in rebuilding existing grids to accommodate connectivity along with the transmission of power. Experience in using the grid for controlling meters appears to have been substantially different from what is required for delivering internet traffic (including voice services).

Utilities have thus highlighted issues such as

the compactness of equipment to be located on poles, within existing substations or in new kerbside sites the amount of equipment to be installed and its cost, of particular interest to utilities and partners that have accepted claims that a new BPL solution is a major leap forward" and competitive ease of installation the ability to readily identify and replace defective equipment (eg a single 'notch' among many on a long line), given concerns about the reliability of service and about labour costs in network maintenance safety for utility employees, contractors and the general public potential degradation of reliable power supply, eg parts of the grid having to be turned off while equipment is replaced high data transfer rates the reliability of equipment, given investment in equipment and potential problems in 'retrieving' equipment that has been placed underground to minimise interference. One US critic commented

People are mistaken in thinking that BPL providers are going to go out of their way to deliver BPL to country folk, as if this is some kind of humanitarian effort to get the country on the 'net. It's not. Companies are in business to make a profit, plain and simple. Being a good corporate citizen in a community makes great press releases, but such efforts stop when the bottom line is affected.

and went on to note

... the upstream Internet network must be backhauled to each BPL feed point via telco facilities such as fiber or copper. So to deploy BPL an up front investment must be made in BPL headend/feed point equipment and repeaters. There's going to be significant recurring costs in backhauling the IP traffic from the numerous BPL feedpoints serving an area. Neither DSL or Cable has this recurring cost or need for multiple network origination points. These costs unique to BPL make it even less attractive

for deployment in rural areas that Cable or DSL as customer densities and revenue potential is lower. While it may be stated by BPL providers that initial metropolitan buildouts are needed to subsidize rural deployments, why would any for-profit company expand into rural areas when it's a losing proposition?

In Australia the CEO of startup Silk indicated in March 2006 that Access BPL was not currently competitive, commenting that it was cheaper to lease Telstra's copper network.

whose network?

Much of the enthusiasm for access BPL among consumers reflects perceptions that a delivery of broadband by their power utility will

provide meaningful competition for incumbent telecommunication operators be cheaper than the incumbent, as the utility has infrastructure in place and supposedly will not charge 'line rental' (or even other fees) efficiencies are so great that utilities can cut charges to consumers while sharing revenue with service providers. That is not necessarily the case. Some observers have accordingly asked 'whose network?'. Should there be a 'must carry' or 'open access' requirement that is similar to unbundling of the PSTN local loop. Others have doubted that utilities will forgo revenue opportunities.

We can broadly identify three models.

In the first, the utility operates as a full service provider. It builds/owns and operates the electricity network. It also serves as a telecommunications provider, becoming a 'utilicom', offering 'last mile' access to the internet and the PSTN. It does not allow competitors to use its network.

In the second model the utility builds/owns the infrastructure, allowing access to that network by one or more service providers and using the connectivity services of those providers.

In the third model, often labelled the 'dark cable' model, the utility licences to a service provider the responsibility for funding and deploying BPL hardware on its electricity network. The service provider is also responsible for connectivity services and has essentially leased a 'right of way'.

Mechanisms for funding upgrade of networks are contentious, with some US consumer advocacy groups for example expressing concern that all customers of a particular utility will be forced to subsidise investment in a service that they do not want.

Australia

This page deals with the framework for powerline communications (BPL) in Australia.

It covers -

introduction - the shape of BPL in Australia regulation - who regulates BPL trials and implementations exploration - community consultation and field trials trials - what is happening expectations - irrational enthusiasm about technologies, markets and outcomes? introduction

Australia has embraced BPL more cautiously than some of its overseas peers, a caution that reflects industry structures, the wariness of regulators about problematical solutions and the lack of resources needed for transforming visions of market demand into commercial reality.

Deregulation and privatisation in Australia has resulted in a mix of telecommunication and electricity providers. Power utilities typically have a regional or state base. Some are government owned, although operating on an increasingly commercial basis. Others are privately owned. Most have dabbled with ISP and voice services. Some have considerable political clout, reminiscent of the era when the Tasmanian HydroElectric Commission was characterised as the 'permanent' government of that state.

The national government in Australia does not claim exclusive powers over energy and surface transport infrastructure. Under the 1901 constitution, however, it does have broad powers regarding telecommunications and the radio frequency spectrum. Those powers encompass commercial and other broadcasting - unsurprising, as spectrum is a shared and scarce resource - along with the operation of traditional telephone services and internet services. Policy responsibility is centred in the Communications, Information Technology & the Arts portfolio.

That portfolio includes the Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA), a specialist agency that is a counterpart of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the UK OFCOM. It resulted from the amalgamation of the former Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) and the Australian Communications Authority. The portfolio also includes the Department of Communications, Information Technology & the Arts (DCITA).

ACMA administers a range of legislation, including the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (RA), the Telecommunications Act 1997 (TA) and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA), discussed in more detail elsewhere on this site.

Aspects of those enactments and subsidiary legislation are directly relevant to BPL activity. The 1992 Radiocommunications Act in particular features provisions regarding offences relating to radio emissions (Part 4.2), conciliation of disputes and administration and enforcement (Part 5), and licensing (Part 3).

regulation

ACMA's objectives derive from the federal government's commitment to

meet international obligations regarding broadcasting and telecommunications, including minimisation of shortwave interference a viable commercial and non-commercial broadcasting regime that recognises the needs and aspirations of the television and radio networks (including community broadcasting), defence and other specialist broadcasters such as marine and onshore emergency service organisations, aviators and non-commercial RF users encourage access by all Australians to telecommunication services, including provision and uptake of broadband connectivity. It thus commented in 2004 that the challenge

is to establish regulatory arrangements that do not unnecessarily inhibit BPL deployments but, at the same time, provide measures to protect radiocommunications services from unacceptable interference.

ACMA has accordingly been proceeding through a consultation process in accord with the legislation (concurrently authorising small scale trials and seeking community comment), examining overseas developments, liaising with other agencies such as DCITA and receiving representations from advocacy bodies.

There has been no specific federal or state/territory government parliamentary inquiry or royal commission into BPL. Powerline technologies featured on the periphery of submissions to wideranging public inquiries about the shape of Australian telecommunications, particularly the adequacy of networks and services outside metropolitan areas.

Regulation is informed by the activities of Australian and overseas electronics and telecommunication standards and regulatory bodies, including the

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) International Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR) European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Institute of Electronics and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), eg its detailed 2004 BPL Report exploration

Given overseas experience it is unsurprisingly that the 2004 report for DCITA on Technology Review of Powerline Communications (PLC) Technologies and their Use in Australia (PDF) concluded that more research is needed.

That document noted that

the key issues for PLC deployment in Australia are establishing the business case for the technology and resolving potential radiocommunications interference issues.

The report commented that

The potential technical impediments to development and implementation of PLC within Australia include signal distance limitations, high temperatures, high humidity, line noise from salt static discharge or transformer discharge, and other line noise interference. All of these issues appear to be manageable.

There are some concerns regarding interference levels produced by PLC, mainly raised by amateur radio users. Various tests and studies indicate that although this issue theoretically does arise, evidence from commercial deployments have not confirmed these concerns. The Australian Radio Frequency Spectrum Allocation Chart shows that current PLC systems do not intrude on protected frequencies. A review of interference levels would be necessary prior to large PLC deployments.

Other significant challenges for PLC development and implementation within Australia include the structure of the electricity industry, uncertainties regarding commercial incentives for electricity distributors, the diversity of participants needed to be aligned for a commercial PLC deployment, lack of PLC standards, commitment of major telecommunications carriers to alternative technologies, the ability for PLC solutions to access high speed backbone networks outside major centres, and relatively low average population densities.

More seriously, the report concludes

In summary, involvement from Australian electricity distributors in PLC has been limited to a small number of basic tests and trials undertaken by only a few organisations. Indications are that, although there is obvious enthusiasm for the benefits that PLC could offer these businesses, there are many uncertainties over the practical deliverables of existing PLC systems and reluctance to invest significantly where the technical and regulatory risks appear to be high. The involvement and coordination required of the various parties (electricity distributors, telecommunication companies, content providers and vendors) would appear to indicate that the progress of PLC deployment in Australia is likely to be slow in the immediate future.

Concerns were highlighted in a 2004 report (PDF) by the Wireless Institute of Australia, consistent with overseas research such as the UK Office of Communications (OFCOM) studies.

In January 2005 the Australian Communications Authority launched an "information portal" giving background information (PDF) about BPL technology, along with details of "interim trials" and regulatory guidelines for testing that technology.

The ACA had also started a comprehensive examination of the communications regulatory issues associated with BPL for delivery of telecommunications services using electrical power wiring and is consulting with interested stakeholders.

A public discussion paper was released in April 2005 and elicited 270 responses, with concerns being expressed by the Wireless Institute of Australia, Defence Department, St Johns Ambulance, broadcasters, police and state emergency service agencies. Those responses indicated that concerns are not restricted to what BPL enthusiasts often dismiss as 'ham operators'.

The acting ACA chair commented that

The challenge for the ACA is to set regulatory arrangements that do not unnecessarily inhibit the adoption of BPL technology but at the same time protect radiocommunications services from harmful interference.

Given the concerns highlighted on the preceding page of this note it is unlikely that most contenders will get beyond (or even to) the trial stage.

The list of frequencies identified by the ACA/ACMA as being of potential concern is broad (from 3kHz to 30MHz), encompassing rural emergency services, police, ambulance, fire, aeronautical and some commercial broadcast parts of the spectrum.

trials

Australian access BPL and inhome BPL trials as of January 2005 have been small scale, for example being restricted to a particular building or a cluster of four houses.

They have apparently concentrated on grid management operations and on broadband to the home, including

Moruya Industrial Estate (October - December 2004) in 1.7 - 23 MHz frequency bands Queanbeyan (November 2004 - March 2005) 1.7 - 23 MHz Newcastle Central Business District (August - November 2004) 1.7 - 80 MHz Hobart Central Business District (April - June 2004) 1.7 - 27 MHz That exploration appears to have resulted in little real enthusiasm within the utility industry or government, in contrast to the US where for example figures in the Federal Communications Commission have uncritically embraced access BPL as "the broadband nirvana". That tagline that is code for the fervent wish for sustained and substantial competition in markets where there is increasing concentration in telecommunication services and the former RBOCs reassemble something that looks like AT&T).

One observer of the Queanbeyan trial stated that

The system in Queanbeyan radiates so strongly that in the street where it is installed it is impossible to hear any radio signals on any frequency used by the system. It is only when you get about 500 metres away that the signal goes down far enough to hear some strong radio signals.

In September 2005 Aurora Energy launched what it characterised as the first "commercial trial" of BPL, discussed in the final page of this note. That trial was abandoned in November 2007, with Aurora commenting that the project was not commercially viable.

expectations

One reader of this site said that

powerline is just like the dot coms: a blank canvas on which people paint their hope and aspirations but without a clear link to reality. It is a case of irrational enthusiasm rather than dot com irrational exuberance.

Expectations about access BPL in particular have been high, with enthusiasts claiming that powerline will uniquely drive economic development, allow SMEs to host online businesses at home, enable advanced telemedicine, revolutionise education and increase social cohesion.

Others have characterised BPL as "freedom from Telstra" - or merely from line rental and other charges, apparently on the assumption that a BPL network operator will not pass on expenses. One writer on the Whirlpool forum said

the important thing is the average person can have an internet home without knowing all the network settings and options. Just sign up with Aurora and you can have the fast internet, Cheap phone calls without Telstra line rentals, new appliances that use internet in home, and other abilities

and that

BPL is more important for a high tech future than other services. Imagine having hospitals fully internet linked for monitoring patients and equipment, or the home user being able to host business internet content from home to the World.

Supposed benefits of BPL in Tasmania were identified as

Internet communications based state. The ability of free Intranet Ease of adding RF access points for those mobile Appliances based on Internet feedback, eg TV, Alarm system, Hospital Equipment Reduces doubling up of infrastructure due to inefficient business and their competition. Eliminate phone line rental costs Reduce RF in the environment from WIFI and other forms of RF communications Tick for businesses wanting to situate in Tasmania Improves business opportunities for Tasmanian's to market to the World by allowing IT business from home or the office. Improves education and social harmony in the community. Those expectations are unsurprising given the unsophistication of much media coverage, confusion about BPL technologies and sometimes disingenuous statements by enthusiasts.

The PLC Forum for example unashamedly proclaims

there are still no cases of proven harmful interference despite tens of thousands of users, hundred of thousands of connected properties, and a number of independent and comprehensive measurement campaigns! Moreover, would any local EMC (electromagnetic compatibility) troubles appear, current features of PLC technologies enable the removing of emission frequencies to avoid such troubles

Questioning about technical and commercial feasibility has encountered attacks that critics are unrepresentative or luddites -

We can not have people "back in the days of pulse dialing systems" lobbying against technology that will bring this country into the 21st century!

I've been amazed how much the ham'ers are tabloid'ing this topic of BPL. This isn't some advertising drive for the Amateur Radio community? No one is yet to come up with a real substantial complaint, yet many are sprouting stories of other non relative experimental trials using different bases and techniques to discredit the current roll out.

Overseas such comments provoked the retort that

In the beginning, there was no interference, then there was some and now it has become "who needs HAM radio?"

After reading claims in some local online fora a researcher for telecommunications guru Paul Budde pithily commented (albeit somewhat differently to reported enthusiasm by Budde himself) that -

Broadband over powerlines (BPL) is a stinker and is going almost nowhere, despite the hype. The dream of those power lines turning into broadband pots of gold seems to have a profound effect on some folks.

overseas

This page considers overseas trials of internet-over-powerline technologies.

It covers -

introduction New Zealand American BPL trials European BPL trials elsewhere introduction

It is clear that internet traffic can be sent over powerlines, whether within an individual building (eg an office or a house) or to multiple urban and rural sites (eg to all households within a city or suburb, to farms and to telemetric devices).

Technical aspects of that communication have been explored in a range of non-commercial trials in Australia and overseas. Such exploration, with research by individual organisations and through projects such as Opera, is likely to continue, although some work appears to involve governmentfunded reinvention of the wheel (or investigation of telemetrics and notions such as the smart home in the guise of inhome BPL) rather than significant extension of existing knowledge.

There have been fewer commercial trials, ie explorations of BPL business models encompassing -

large numbers of users in environments that are representative of 'real world' conditions (eg where buildings/precincts have not been newly rewired) inclusion of hardware maintenance costs inclusion of realistic ISP costs (eg billing system, helpdesk and user set-up charges) inclusion of other connectivity charges (eg fees to operators of other networks for telephone traffic) pricing of equipment at realistic rates (eg addressing criticisms that distortions have been introduced by some equipment developers/venders providing gear on a heavily subsidised basis or at what it might cost in future) measures of customer satisfaction and service comparisons with commercial provision of other technologies, including ADSL over traditional copper phone networks, wireless, cable and fibre-to-the-home inclusion of costs for fixing existing powerlines to address interference problems (ie the cost of hardware and labour involved in its installation) That is of concern, given claims by enthusiasts that BPL is "in use across the world", is "commercially successful" or is "clearly competitive". Essentially, those claims have not been substantiated.

As noted on the preceding page, it is possible to find media releases and (generally naive) media coverage about the initiation of technical trials and forecasts that access BPL will deliver substantial benefits in the near future to both utilities and consumers. Those trials have typically been small scale and short term. As with much exploratory work the conclusion of a technical trial has rarely been marked by a media release or a detailed public report from the individual utility. It is clear from media coverage and from examination of corporate annual reports that many utilities have been disappointed, choosing to curtail a technical trial or not to proceed to a real world commercial exploration.

One example is the Nor.Web joint venture formed by Nortel Networks and British energy company United Utilities in 1997. Technical problems in its access BPL trial in Manchester (UK) - famously involving street lights near the test site acting as antennas for the 2-10 MHz band with interference to the BBC's World Service, Civil Aviation Authority and GCHQ - and the expense of the joint venture led to closure of Nor.Web in 1999. Across the Channel German equipment giant Siemens abandoned the BPL business in 2001.

Proponents of access BPL have thus had difficulty in pointing to a large scale implementation that appears to be commercially viable and that addresses interference concerns.

Enthusiasts have tended to 'spin' some technical exploration as commercial trials or to fudge specific aspects.

Claims about the economics of BPL for example often assume there is no need to address interference concerns and that maintenance of equipment housed in substations will be low. That is unsurprising, given the potential to boost the share price of a utility or a partner, gain favourable media attention or merely justify a particular R&D project. It is however problematical, with Aurora in Tasmania and Country Energy in NSW admitting to concerns about high temperatures; Country Energy commented that it "had had to customise the cabinets enclosing the Mitsubishi hardware to include 24-hour rotating fans as overheating could be a problem".

Others have conflated figures for buildings that could potentially access BPL (for example over 20,000 in the Endesa trial in Barcelona) with substantially lower figures for households/offices that have chosen to use the technology. The Fribourg (Switzerland) trial has thus sometimes been characterised as covering 250,000 households but in fact only a fraction of 1% of that figure subscribed, the federal regulator has criticised consistent breaches of standards and the operator appears to lost substantially. In the US the FCC reported that as of December 2005 there were a mere 5,859 BPL customers across that nation.

Broadband - An Alternative Local Loop ESB Power Line Trial in Tuam, a 2006 report (PDF) by Mark Connolly, Pat Cooney & Mati Cleary of the Irish Electricity Supply Board regarding the 'Tuam' (County Galway) BPL project, commented that

Broadband Power Line has naturally attracted huge political and financial support, particularly in Europe and the US Enormous sums of money have been spent by very capable companies since approximately 1997 trying to perfect this technology Most of these companies have exited the market or no longer exist Despite the significant prize (if or when achieved) of enabling an alternative last mile infrastructure, Broadband Power Line Technology is nowhere near an appropriate state of development required for 'mass market' rollout Additional provisioning issues identified during trial push significant additional cost into an already marginal business case ... despite significant hype and R&D spending by vendors and certain utilities, Broadband Power Line Technology is nowhere near an appropriate state of development required for commercial 'mass market' rollout New Zealand BPL trials

BPL in New Zealand has followed the same trajectory as overseas, with initial hoopla, small-scale trials and little follow-up.

The trial in Auckland by UnitedNetworks and Vector ceased after it "failed to produce commercial results", with Vector commenting that

we haven't been able to get anything commercially viable ... We can't get enough distance and the equipment is a bit expensive.

The Canadian government's 2005 consultation paper on BPL (PDF) comments that

A number of foreign governments including Australia, Austria, China, Finland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland are currently studying BPL technology or have permitted equipment trials. The outcomes have shown mixed results and have led some administrations to ban BPL systems while other administrations have allowed deployment under various conditions. A number of administrations have suspended BPL trials pending international developments

Access BPL trials have included -

American BPL trials

US powerline trials have included -

Iowa (2004) - Alliant trial, abandoned North Carolina (2004) - PECC trial, no further action Penn Yann (2004) - Data Ventures trial, no follow up because "not commercially deployable" Cincinatti (2004) Cinergy - BPL partnership with Current Technologies 2001, test deployment to 100 customers in 2002, 'commercial deployment' in 2004/5 to 5,000 homes LeHigh Valley (2003) - abandoned by PPL as uneconomic Manassas (2003) - municipal system: proprietary technology, predominantly fibre rather than BPL Manassas (2004) - original solution vendor (Prospect Street Broadband) replaced by municipal government, ComsTek announces "first commercial, non-pilot deployment" in US, abandoned 2010

Potomac (2004) - PEPCO trial, 115 households California (2004) - AT&T ends BPL pilot Dallas (2006) - Current abandons trial 2008, sells infrastructure to Oncor Monroeville (2005) - Duquesne Broadband joint venture, WiFi over last mile Briarcliff Manor, New York - Ambient and Consolidated Edison trial (2005) Solvay, New York - New Visions Powerline Communications trial in (2005) Boise - IDACOMM abandons BPL trial California (2005): San Diego Gas & Electric launches BPL pilot Grand Ledge, Michigan (2006) - 'proof of concept' trial by Consumers Energy and Shpigler Group Hauppauge/Commack (2006) - Long Island Power Authority announces plans to test BPL with 105 homes Trials (or announcements that trials will commence if authorised) in Latin America include -

Ecuador (2008): electricity provider Empresa Electrica Quito (EEQ) foreshadows rollout in Quito European BPL trials

European powerline trials have included -

Finland

Vantaa Power (2001): trial in apartment block: abandoned after regulator says interference too severe Kuopio Energia and Vantaan Energia (2003): precinct trial abandoned 2005? Austria

Tirol (2002) TIWAG trial: abandoned Neuenkirchen (2002) EVN trial: abandoned Linz (2003) Linzstrom trial: litigation by regulator France

Courbevoie, Levallois-Perret, Nanterre and Rosny sous Bois (2002): Syndicat Intercommunal de la Priphria de Paris pour l'Electricit et les Rseaux de Communication (SIPPEREC) and Electricit de France (EDF) trial involving 1,500 homes Paris (2003): EDF trial outer Paris (2006) SIPPEREC and EDF trial Spain

Saragoza (2003) Endesa trial Madrid (2003) Iberdrola trial Barcelona (2003): Endesa trial Seville (2000) Endesa trial UK

Manchester (1997) United Energy trial: abandoned Crieff (2005) Scottish Power trial: regulator OFCOM says "is not and cannot be ... compliant" Winchester (2003) Southern Electric trial: aimed for 1,000 customers, reportedly only 50 signed up The Netherlands

Arnhem (2001) Nuon trial: Dutch utility Nuon ceases access BPL trial in 2003 as "uncompetitive", with no further action Ireland

Tuam, Galway (2003): small-scale trial , 15 customers in 2004, "unable to overcome noise on overhead networks", "due to complexity of installation of LV equipment along the street rollout abandoned Germany

Mannheim (2002): PowerPlus Communications trial, primarily underground lines Dresden (2002) Dusseldorf (2002) E.ON trial: abandoned, with E.ON commenting "the technology is too complicated and costly to deploy" Offenbach (2002) Norway

Stavanger (2001) Lyse Tele trial Switzerland

Solothurn (2004) inhouse BPL: regulator OFCOM says interference is outside acceptable limits Iceland

Reykjavik (2001) Reykjavik Energy 'Raflina' project: uses local fibre network Elsewhere

Latin and Central America

Mexican state power utility CFE trials in Mrida, Monterrey and Mexico City (2001) Asia

Singapore (2003): no further action as "uneconomic" after three pilots

recent developments

Consistent with comments in preceding pages of this note, recent news for Access BPL enthusiasts in Australia and overseas has not been good.

In September 2005 Tasmanian utility Aurora Energy launched what was variously characterised as Australia's first commercial BPL-to-the-home trial or even "The world's first large-scale trial". (The latter claim might surprise people who had read of overseas activity.)

The exercise - involving Mitsubishi, AAPT and Datafast - initially involved 500 households in an upmarket part of the city. A spokesman stated

I believe that it's probably the first time we'll see broadband delivered to the masses .... We'll be able to provide a whole range of new services. Broadband will be a real option that customers have. As

the new player we do definitely have to provide very competitive pricing and no doubt we'll raise the bar on both pricing and capacity.

Aurora's partner Datafast said

This is not a technical trial - the technology works. This is the first stage of a commercial roll-out. ... The commercial trial launched today will run for approximately nine months - initially with customers in Hobart and then extending to other parts of the state

Immediate responses were underwhelming, with criticisms that the offering was overpriced rather than competively priced and was subject to unusually low traffic limits.

Tim Gaden for example commented

TasTel claims the new BPL technology can offer Internet access at up to 200Mbit/s, significantly faster than the speeds reached by ADSL2 and 2+ technology. However, the actual speeds offered during the trial are much slower. The fastest priced BPL plan offered by TasTel is only 4Mbit/s and includes only 2GB of data for $79.95/month. (It offers a 12Mbit/s plan, "price on application"). The slowest plan is 256/64 and includes an astoundingly small 20MB of data, which includes uploads. An additional network access charge will also be levied, although it is being waived for the trial, which could last twelve months

Others claimed that the technology was flawed, pointing to an audio recording that elegantly demonstrated RF interference problems with access BPL in Tasmania. (Links to overseas recordings are here). Some forecast greater interference problems as the trial progressed, expanding from a precinct where much of the powerline was underground.

Others - such as the author of this page - simply questioned the business case, commenting that although the technology can be made to work there are uncertainties about competitiveness of a large-scale implementation on a commercial basis. Aurora shortly thereafter announced it would be concurrently trialling other technologies, with for example fibre-to-the-home.

In November 2007 Aurora CEO Peter Davis announced that the Access BPL trial would cease, with Aurora concentrating on optic fibre activities and selling its 72% stake in telecommunications retailer Tastel.

Davis admitted the utilicom model had been disappointing, commenting that Tastel "certainly it hasn't been a good money-making exercise for Aurora". The announcement appears to have

reflected a recognition that commercial rollout of Access BPL in Tasmania, if authorised by ACMA, would not be viable.

The Aurora BPL announcement in 2005 was followed shortly by news that major US utility PPL had abandoned its LeHigh Valley BPL trial as uncompetitive, reportedly because its pool of potential customers 1.3 million Pennsylvania electricity customers was "too small".

Elsewhere in the US TXU announced "an agreement to transform TXU Electric Delivery's power distribution network into the nation's first broadband-enabled Smart Grid". The background brief for that announcement claims that the technology has "No Potential for Interference" and features a quote by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Pat Wood:

It's my hope that a year from now boards of directors and shareholders and customers are all asking utilities, 'Why aren't you in BPL?'

The answer to that question might have been 'because BPL isn't commercially viable', an answer underscored in April 2010 when Manassas - still touted as the leading US BPL deployment, announced that it was abandoning its BPL project. At that time Manassas had a grand total of some 520 participants, a figure at odds with recurrent glowing predictions that BPL was about to sweep the nation and conquer the world. Other trials had earlier been quietly abandoned, a contrast to the hoopla with which they had been inaugurated.