Will BPL Interfere With In-Plant Radio Networks?

Broadband over power line (BPL) is a technology that allows Internet data to be transmitted over utility power lines. In order to utilize BPL, a subscriber installs a small modem similar to DSL or cable service, and plugs it into any ordinary AC wall outlet in any room. The modem then provides an Ethernet connection to a computer or home network. Radio signals carrying digital data are coupled onto the power line at a local utility substation in the area. These signals travel along the power grid and are then distributed into homes or offices. BPL has also been tested and proven to be capable of providing Voice over IP (VoIP) and Video on Demand (VoD) services. BPL is also known in some countries as PLT. It can also be referred to as Broadband Power Line Carrier, or just PLC.

Bob Landman, of H & L Instruments has been monitoring this technology and its potential effect on process and SCADA networking. The most significant problem so far has been that BPL appears to have real interference issues with amateur radio, and potentially, with 892.xx radio networks, such as WiFi, WiMax, and Zigbee.

Landman posted on the SCADAnet mailing list today this communique from ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League, the controlling body of amateur radio):

==>NEW ARRL PETITION SEEKS TO RESOLVE BPL STANDOFF

Not all BPL systems are created equal. Some have far less potential to
interfere with Amateur Radio than others. That's the rationale behind a
petition the ARRL filed this week, asking the FCC to modify the Part 15 BPL
rules it adopted a year ago and sharply reduce BPL's interference potential.
In exchange, the League said it would withdraw its still-pending Petition
for Reconsideration in the BPL proceeding, ET Docket 04-37. The ARRL says
its suggested rule amendments--which take into consideration recent
advancements in BPL technology--will "resolve unsettled but substantial
interference issues" affecting Amateur Radio and other HF users.

"It is no longer the case that all BPL systems inherently radiate high
levels of RF energy on amateur allocations on overhead medium-voltage power
lines," the ARRL said. "Thus, not all BPL architectures have similar
potential for harmful interference to the Amateur Radio Service (and to
other licensed services). Some have inherently greater potential for
interference, as currently configured, than others."

The problematic systems, the League said, are those that make use of the HF
spectrum on unshielded overhead medium-voltage lines. BPL systems such as
those using DS2 or Main.net technology that lack fixed, permanent notches in
the ham bands, the ARRL noted, have been among those involved in
interference cases. "As detailed in ARRL's Petition for Reconsideration in
this proceeding, "this has resulted, in field tests and in deployments, in
substantial, extremely difficult-to-resolve incidents of interference to
fixed and mobile Amateur Radio facilities," the League said.

The ARRL said the FCC "has assisted not at all, or imperceptibly, in these
cases, and the BPL system operator has either been uncooperative or unable
to resolve the interference."

The League said its proposed additional regulations would permit those BPL
architectures that are "benign," while discouraging "first-generation
interference-causing BPL configurations, unless the latter modify their
systems in certain minor aspects." A "benign" system, the ARRL noted, would
not apply HF signals on overhead medium-voltage lines and would include
fixed, permanent notches in the amateur bands.

Among the several BPL system designs that implement BPL without creating
harmful interference to amateur operations, the ARRL specifically cited the
Motorola Powerline LV BPL system. Motorola's system doesn't use
medium-voltage power lines, and it has been designed to preclude
interference to ham radio and other licensed services.

For several weeks, ARRL and Motorola have cooperated in a BPL test stand at
W1AW that has operated successfully without significant interference to
Amateur Radio. The League also cited BPL systems by Current Technologies,
IBEC and Corridor Systems as being among those that meet the additional
requirements it's proposing. Current Technologies' BPL deployment in the
Cincinnati, Ohio, area, for example, does not make use of medium-voltage
lines for transmission of HF signals and utilizes the HomePlug notching
protocol. Limited testing, the ARRL said, indicates that, as a result, the
interference potential "is minimal relative to Amateur Radio facilities."

Incorporating three elements into the BPL rules adopted last year would
essentially resolve all issues that the ARRL and the Amateur Service have
with access BPL, the League said: Prohibiting all access BPL systems from
using Amateur Radio allocations (except the five channels at 5 MHz, which
the current HomePlug system architecture does not notch); prohibiting access
BPL systems from using HF bands on medium-voltage power lines; and measuring
signal decay from access BPL systems using a more accurate 20 dB/decade
extrapolation factor rather than the 40 dB/decade factor the current rules
support.

Adopting its proposals, the League said, would result in a more robust
product that meets the Commission's stated goals of accommodating BPL as an
additional broadband option while protecting licensed radio services. "The
present BPL rules achieve the first of the goals, but they are woefully
inadequate to meet the second," the ARRL said.

"It is the Commission's obligation to recognize and utilize this opportunity
and to amend its rules to protect licensed radio services for the first time
in this proceeding," the ARRL concluded. "It can be done without significant
system redesign by any BPL provider."


A copy of ARRL's petition is on the League's Web site.


While ARRL's issue is strictly protection of the ham bands, it is clear that because of the propinquity of high voltage lines and transmission mains to most industrial process plants this is a significant potential problem for the growth of radio networks for process automation as well as SCADA and amateur radio.

What do YOU think?

Walt

ISA Executive Director Status

Research Triangle Park, NC (23 October 2005) -- ISA is in the final stages of negotiations to name an Executive Director after a comprehensive search for an experienced professional who can lead the organization into the future. ISA President Don Zee noted, “Our Search Committee has made remarkable progress on a very aggressive timeline in identifying several qualified candidates. We are now finalizing discussions with an exciting and dynamic prospect. I expect that we will be in a position to announce our new Executive Director within the next few weeks.” ISA’s Executive Director will assume responsibilities for the global operations of the organization and will be a leading spokesperson for automation professionals.

It appears that ISA is having more problems than anticipated in acquiring a replacement for the redoubtable Rob Renner. The "unshakeable target" was to have the new Executive Director in place by the start of the President's Meeting...which clearly did not happen. Rumor has it that at least one of the short list candidates has declined the post. Gee, I wonder why??

Walt

Kevin Roach and the Rockwell Software Vision

I had not seen Kevin Roach since he left GE to become Vice President of Rockwell Software. In fact, as I reminded him, I had a long-arranged phone interview with him the day he resigned at GE, and he blew me off.

Kevin is one of the very smart people in automation, and it is always good to hear him talk about his vision, which has been remarkably consistent, whether he is at GE or Rockwell. His vision, of course, is of realtime manufacturing: a single unitized control schema, from the plant floor to the enterprise.

At Rockwell, he intends to achieve his vision using a services architecture called Factory Talk. Exactly how this differs from other services architectures, like Archestra, System 800XA, and so on, he tried very hard to make clear, but as near as I could tell, it involved being Rockwell and therefore better. This will be a big marketing challenge: differentiation of Factory Talk from the rest of the architectures.

Kevin showed a great slide from IBM, which looked like an etch-a-sketch on drugs and said that this was the best and clearest description of manufacturing processes he'd seen. Yeeeech. I know he's right, but you have to see this slide to believe it.

At least 40% of IT budgets are spent on integration...building the interfaces between applications...Roach noted.

One of the biggest problems is that projects are not pre-thought how to declare a win. Often there are no benchmarks or KPIs that allow you to declare victory and go home.

He drew the familiar cloud diagram of the "space north of the plant and south of the enterprise." This is the "holy grail" space, because it is the part of manufacturing where automation (in the broadest sense) can grow.

And, where companies like Rockwell can grow, without killing themselves against SAP, IBM, and the Big Consultants like Accenture.

So, Kevin's plan for Rockwell Software is to deliver an integrated suite of plant-wide information software. It is not an accident that this is also John Berra's plan at Emerson, Mike Calliel's plan at Invensys, Jack Bolick's plan at Honeywell, and so on and so forth. Companies like Rockwell understand that they need to become services providers as well as equipment providers, and the tea leaves say that the money will be spent in the integration of the plant floor to the enterprise, and not on the plant floor in the next few decades.

Roach noted that RA has made over a $100 million investment in Factory Talk so far.

He proclaimed that the cloudscape he wants to penetrate is full of little tiny companies that simply can't cut it with multinational end user companies, and that only companies as big as Rockwell, et al, would be able to make this market, and make it go. He reminded us that he was a student of Jack Welch at GE, and told the story of Welch being told that "GE had lost the Internet war." Welch replied, "Heck, we haven't even showed up to the ballpark yet."

Now, said Roach, it is time for the big players to bat aside the little guys and take the market.

As he proposed a standards-based architecture, he also commented that "you'll never get the performance of a system design from loose-coupled applications on a common standards backbone." We are to understand that he means Archestra and System 800XA, and the OPC/.NET architectures. Paul Studebaker, Editor of Plant Services asked him about this obvious contradiction, and didn't really get an answer.

Rockwell, as it has for its hardware Encompass partners, will lift its software skirt for a new set of partners, similar to Encompass, in a program to be announced at a later date (Q2 2006).

One of Rockwell's very useful thought exercises was to divide the manufacturing world into sets of interactive disciplines...vertically, rather than horizontally...and by doing so, making the "chasm" between the plant and the enterprise disappear. Nice idea. Going to steal that, Kevin. Thanks.

Another very interesting idea is to begin embedding data management in lower level hardware. "You'll start to see stuff like an embedded 'microhistorian,'" Roach remarked.

Rockwell is partnering with anyone and everyone who can help them either stave off competitive threats from ABB, SAP/Lighthammer, or whoever. With IBM, they've created an as-yet unreleased product called Factory Talk Integrator, which will be released next year. This, Roach said, would enable the Rockwell Software architecture to easily interface with SAP, IBM and other Enterprise systems.

Bottom line, can Rockwell transform itself from an automation hardware company into a services and software company that also makes a lot of hardware? Sure it can. If it wants to, and it certainly looks like it wants to.

What do YOU think?

Walt