EC EYES RULES FOR GRADUAL LAUNCH OF BROADBAND OVER POWER LINE

The EU’s e-communications regulatory framework is technology neutral, an EC FAQ says. It says PLC networks are usually in place and are licensed under energy rules, and PLC is an electronic communications service that can be offered based on a general authorization, without need for individual licenses. However, the EC said, those offering PLC must comply with technical rules on electromagnetic interference and emissions.

While interference was a bigger issue with earlier PLC technology, the EC remains concerned about it, it said. That’s why most European Union member states “favor a controlled rollout,” it said. Member states’ attitudes toward the technology “appear to be changing,” the EC said. Where in the past they were “very cautious to strongly negative” about PLC, acceptance of gradual deployment is emerging, it said. Germany, Spain and Finland now offer PLC service commercially, and there are tests in other EU countries.

The EC said it could support the rollout of PLC with a non-binding recommendation of steps member states should take to ensure harmonized technical and regulatory conditions are applied, including conditions designed to limit potential interference issues. (The draft recommendation under discussion wasn’t available at our deadline.) In the long run, however, it said, issues should be resolved by adopting product standards and harmonizing them under the so-called EMC directive. The European Union backs PLC research via the Open PLC European Research Alliance (OPERA), which is supporting this month’s summit in Brussels.

The issue with PLC is to “enable the coexistence of as many services as possible in the public interest, thereby finding the right balance between the interests of deploying new broadband networks by telecommunications operators, and possible restrictions brought to radio-users,” COCOM said in a Jan. working document. Experience with PLC in several countries shows that the “level of radiated emission is not negligible and that a risk of local interference exists,” it said. But because PLC deployments are still so limited and few complaints have been registered, “no clear conclusions can be drawn” on the size of that risk, COCOM said. It’s generally acknowledged that any solution must be at the EU level, COCOM said. Its role would be to clarify any EC recommendation and ask European standards bodies to develop technical specifications for PLC, COCOM said.

Last month, a joint working group of the European Telecom Standards Institute (ETSI) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) shipped a first draft of technical specifications to the EC, said PLCforum Assn. member Marcel Graber, of Swiss ISP Bluewin. The document focuses on electromagnetic emissions from access power line communications networks, and specifies limits and methods of measurements for conducted and radiated disturbances, he told us. It will be attached to the EC’s PLC recommendation and “is therefore of great importance,” Graber said. But he said it will be published only if CENELEC and ETSI approve it.

European telecom regulators discussed the draft recommendation at an April meeting. “There were differences in views on the permitted emission levels,” European Regulators Group conclusions said. The EC “stressed the importance of reaching an agreement so that the PLC market can start developing,” and urged that interference problems be addressed case by case, the conclusions said.

Finland’s Communications Regulatory Authority has just taken on a dispute between an energy company and a cable TV network operator that claims PLC is causing “severe disturbances,” said Senior Advisor Olli Mattila. “Could take time before this is solved,” he said.