ARLA/CLUSTER: Parlamento britânico discute moção sobre PLC

[Pedro Ribeiro]

Foi publicada no site oficial do parlamento britânico a transcrição da 
discussão da moção proposta à dias sobre a necessidade de uma posição 
governamental e regulamentar mais pro-ativa no campo dos PLC

> Power Line Technology Devices
>
> Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now 
> adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
> 7.7 pm
>
> Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con): It is a pleasure to 
> introduce this timely and important debate in the House. Hon. Members 
> who are intrigued by the title will perhaps read the first paragraph, 
> so I should sum up the debate by highlighting my concern, and that of 
> many organisations: Ofcom, and indeed successive Governments, have 
> adopted a reactive approach to the increasing interference from power 
> line technology devices. We urge the Government to take a more 
> proactive approach.
>
> The area that I represent could be deemed to be the home of radio 
> communication. Milton Keynes, which includes the famous code breakers’ 
> base Bletchley Park, was integral in intercepting enemy messages 
> during the second world war. The city is surrounded by listening 
> stations—one of which, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Hanslope 
> Park, continues to protect our country to this day.
>
> Radio is paramount not just in preserving national security; nor is it 
> merely the preserve of outposts around Milton Keynes. Across the 
> world, such technology remains essential to all communication. The 
> spectrum is invaluable in so many ways: to television, radio, mobile 
> phones, the emergency services, the military and security services, 
> hospital pagers, pilots’ landing systems, and many more.
>
> Shortwave radio has proven time and again to be a vital back-up when 
> other communication systems crash in the aftermath of natural 
> disasters or terrorist attacks. For example, radio was used in the 
> immediate aftermath of the attack on New York on 9/11, and in 2005 
> radio was used to co-ordinate the relief effort following Hurricane 
> Katrina. However, there are fears that the efficiency of radio 
> communication is being jeopardised by the development of new 
> technologies, specifically those known as power line telecommunication 
> devices. PLTs use a home’s mains electricity wiring to route internet 
> and television around a household without using a data cable. As 
> electricity wiring was not designed to carry radio signals, an 
> unwanted by-product—interference—is emitted. That rasping hiss has the 
> power severely to disrupt radio communication.
>
> GCHQ, the BBC, the Civil Aviation Authority and even NATO are some of 
> the bodies that have spoken out about PLTs’ power to interfere with, 
> and therefore impede, their highly essential work. We and our 
> constituents might never have heard of PLTs or the noise they emit, 
> but every single one of us is affected by, and relies on, radio, so 
> this debate is relevant to us all.
>
> As I said, PLT devices use the radio spectrum to send data signals via 
> mains electricity supplies, and tend to come in the form of large 
> mains plugs that can share the internet between computers or 
> high-definition television between rooms, providing an alternative to 
> lots of cables in the home. Most commonly they are provided by BT 
> Vision packages, and it is estimated by the regulator Ofcom that there 
> are about 1.8 million pairs of the equipment in use. In fact, the UK 
> is one of the biggest users of in-home PLT devices in Europe. As mains 
> wiring was not designed for carrying radio signals, PLTs cause it to 
> leak radio signals into the air. All appliances
>
> 18 May 2011 : Column 468
>
> leak interference to some extent, but when electric wiring is used to 
> carry broadband, the levels of interference become a significant problem.
>
> I have met constituents who are experts in the field. They can walk 
> down the street with a radio and pinpoint which households are using 
> PLT devices just from the noise emanating from the buildings. We are 
> talking about the pollution of the 21st century. In previous 
> centuries, we have fought smog with campaigns for clean air, and now 
> we are seeing a battle for clean airwaves. My constituents are not 
> alone in their concerns. As I said, there is a chorus of consensus on 
> this issue. The Civil Aviation Authority has expressed concerns about 
> the threat posed to its instrument landing systems. One briefing note 
> states:
>
> “The CAA is concerned that interference originating from the 
> legitimate operation of PLT could adversely impact aeronautical 
> critical systems. Furthermore, it appears that should this occur, it 
> may not be possible to resolve in a timely and safe manner.”
>
> Even if the effects of the PLT are mitigated—I will come to that 
> later—the probability of interference is reduced to 1%, which might 
> sound low, but in aeronautical terms it is still a significant safety 
> risk. The threat posed to aircraft safety by radio interference has 
> been taken very seriously in the past. For example, in October 2009, 
> in my neighbouring constituency of South West Bedfordshire, Ofcom paid 
> a visit to 12-year-old Nickie Chamberlain in Leighton Buzzard. His TV 
> booster aerial, which was faulty, was emitting interference that 
> caused pilots at nearby Luton airport to complain. Ofcom acted quickly.
>
> Even NATO has investigated the effects of PLTs on its equipment. One 
> report states that the noise coming from PLT devices
>
> “has the potential to cause problems for military HF (high frequency) 
> radio communications and communication intelligence in all NATO 
> countries”.
>
> The Radio Society of Great Britain has been highlighting concerns 
> about PLTs’ unwanted noise for 10 years. It clearly states that
>
> “it will not be possible to recover the damage done to the spectrum 
> unless action is taken very quickly”,
>
> and that this “invaluable natural resource”—the spectrum—
>
> “is being consigned to history”.
>
> The BBC has also commissioned investigations into the effects of PLT 
> devices. The most recent, published in March, described the “tearing” 
> sound of the PLT, which at best was annoying and at worst made a 
> broadcast programme incomprehensible.
>
> However, the most damning indictment so far has come from GCHQ, which 
> deemed PLTs
>
> “likely to cause a detrimental effect to part of the core business of 
> this Department.”
>
> In a statement issued on 10 March, it concurred with others’ view that 
> the interference from these devices
>
> “was likely to pose a safety of life risk”.
>
> It concluded that PLTs
>
> “should not be available for sale/use within the EU”.
>
> However, when I asked, in a written question, for the Minister’s 
> opinion on that statement, I was informed that it had, intriguingly, 
> been withdrawn. Just as PLTs have an odd effect on surrounding radios, 
> the issue has had a curious effect on the associated authorities. GCHQ,
>
> 18 May 2011 : Column 469
>
> as I said, expressed an unequivocal stance on the issue, but then 
> withdrew it. Ofcom, too, is behaving rather strangely.
>
> All electronic devices must adhere to the essential requirements—the 
> Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2006—which are based on the 
> European electromagnetic compatibility directive. Ofcom was advised in 
> a report it commissioned by ERA Technology in September 2008 that:
>
> “It is considered that the Ethernet Power Line Adapters do not meet 
> the Essential Requirements of the EMC Directive; emissions could 
> potentially cause interference to communications equipment.”
>
> However, Ofcom maintains that PLTs are not in breach, because it has 
> investigated 227 complaints, and all but one have been resolved by BT 
> engineers. There are, however, many problems with this methodology. 
> First, these are isolated cases and small-scale investigations. 
> However, the report bases findings on results from scientific 
> experiments in the controlled conditions of electromagnetic 
> compatibility test laboratories.
>
> Secondly, as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, complaints 
> tend to represent the tip of the iceberg. If one receives 10 
> complaints about an issue, they are likely to be indicative of scores 
> of other qualms. Thirdly, what has happened shows that Ofcom is taking 
> a reactive and not a proactive approach. Rather than heeding its own 
> commission’s report, which says that PLTs do not comply with the 
> directive, and then seeking out breaches, it is relying on people to 
> approach the regulator. Why is Ofcom judging PLTs’ compliance not by 
> the results of scientific experiments, but by the number of complaints 
> that it has received? What other industry would prove the regulatory 
> compliance of its products in that way?
>
> The crucial point for my constituents is that Ofcom says that there 
> are no relevant standards when it comes to PLTs and that it is waiting 
> for the EU to formulate a “harmonised standard”. The Minister recently 
> told me in answer to a parliamentary question:
>
> “The Regulations do not set specific levels of 
> interference”.—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1199W.]
>
> However, there is a standard: EN 22022, which is listed under the EU 
> electromagnetic compatibility directive—or EMC directive—for 
> controlling interference from data communication products such as PLTs.
>
> Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): The hon. Gentleman has mentioned 
> health and safety on a number of occasions in his presentation to the 
> House this evening. Does he see local government as having an 
> enforcement role in responding to health and safety issues?
>
> Mark Lancaster: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that perhaps 
> the Minister will address when he winds up.
>
> The EN 22022 standard includes a threshold that has been agreed 
> internationally for decades, and the ERA test report said that PLTs 
> exceeded it. In fact, the acceptable level of interference was 
> surpassed by 30 dB. I am told that that equates to 1,000 times the 
> interference power that any other domestic product is permitted. Why 
> are we waiting for a new standard when there is already one in place?
>
> 18 May 2011 : Column 470
>
> Another problem is that Ofcom is basing its stance on the current 
> situation, not future projections. However, the interference caused by 
> PLTs is set to get worse, for various reasons. First, more and more 
> people will sign up for television and internet packages that use 
> PLTs, which are set to figure highly in the YouView package due to be 
> launched next year. One report, which I will discuss shortly, 
> estimates that the number of PLT users per square kilometre will 
> increase from 159 in 2010 to a massive 703 in 2020. Secondly, as 
> different PLT manufacturers compete to provide better services the 
> interference will get worse, because they will be using a greater part 
> of the spectrum. They are already veering into the very high frequency 
> range, which has reportedly increased interference. Thirdly, PLT 
> devices are being discussed as a way of communicating information 
> about energy usage as part of smart grid technology, or as a way of 
> providing data-linking between appliances around a house.
>
> Ofcom’s stance on PLT devices is also at variance with the conclusions 
> of a report that it commissioned PA Consulting Group to undertake in 
> June 2010. Ofcom claims that the current situation is acceptable 
> because there are fewer complaints, in spite of a higher uptake of PLT 
> units. Conversely, however, the PA report said:
>
> “there will be a high probability of interference to some existing 
> spectrum users…if PLT device features do not change from those 
> currently implemented”.
>
> PA recommends that in future, inference will be staved off only if 
> devices are manufactured with mitigating features such as power 
> control. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether that 
> has been put in place. PA also says:
>
> “notches in the VHF aeronautical radio navigation bands should be 
> mandated”.
>
> Does the Minister know whether that has taken place? If mitigation is 
> so essential, what does Ofcom propose to do about devices that are 
> already in use—the ones that are circulated second hand or 
> manufactured abroad, none of which will have mitigating technology? 
> The PA report warns:
>
> “it should not be assumed that the existing installed base is 
> traceable or could be updated to incorporate these features”.
>
> Moreover, what investigations have taken place into the efficacy of 
> notching, considering that it is disputed whether this technique 
> actually works? The Radio Society of Great Britain says that these 
> technologies are “unproven” and that
>
> “in the home their effectiveness in reducing interference to radio 
> services will be much reduced”.
>
> I would like to know whether the Minister has liaised with his 
> colleagues heading up the excellent Digital Britain initiative. The 
> current fibre-to-the-cabinet broadband upgrades that are being rolled 
> out—some in my constituency, which is very welcome—share part of the 
> same spectrum as PLTs. A report by the European Telecommunications 
> Standards Institute showed that PLTs can interfere with this new 
> technology. BT may well be rolling out products that do not work 
> alongside each other.
>
> The problem is not without precedent. Every time a new technology is 
> introduced, it impacts on existing technology, not least in the world 
> of radio communications. In the early 1890s, spark transmitter radios 
> were all the rage, until the cacophony became overpowering and 
> legislation had to be introduced. Fifty years later, when cars and 
> televisions were new and exciting inventions,
>
> 18 May 2011 : Column 471
>
> people’s television pictures could be distorted by the spark plugs of 
> a passing car. Soon after, suppressors were introduced for all cars.
>
> In 2011 we are replete with electronic devices. We want to do 
> everything faster, and simultaneously. We want to watch our 
> high-definition televisions while surfing the net and using our smart 
> phones. The radio waves are crowded, competing with one another. We 
> have an electromagnetic compatibility directive that has hitherto kept 
> interference in check. The Department says that the directive does not 
> specify acceptable interference levels, but the standards that it 
> lists do, and experts in the field have been using them for many 
> decades. The aforementioned ERA report shows that PLTs inherently 
> breach that threshold.
>
> Ofcom seems to place great importance on the fact that the complaints 
> have been received from users of shortwave broadcasts and hobby radio 
> users, but the security services can pick up the shortwave broadcasts 
> of terrorists, pilots use shortwave broadcasts to help them to land 
> their aircraft, and ships have sent distress signals half way across 
> the world using these frequencies. We need to clear the way for such 
> essential radio messages to be made or traced, and not allow their 
> paths to be blocked by radio pollution.
>
> Will the Minister acknowledge that this is an issue of great concern? 
> Will he promise to base his stance on PLTs not merely on the number of 
> current complaints, but on the results of scientific experiments, on 
> the conclusions of expert reports based on well-established 
> interference limits, on the strength of feeling from experts in the 
> field, and on the projections for the future number and usage of these 
> devices? Will he also instigate some form of market surveillance? 
> Instead of reacting only to individual complaints, will he initiate a 
> holistic assessment of the proliferation of PLTs? Will he reconsider 
> the fact that there are thresholds in place for interference, and that 
> PLTs currently do not meet those standards? Finally, will he liaise 
> with other Departments to press for category 5 broadband cables to be 
> installed in all new homes as standard? This whole issue strikes me as 
> a result of short-termism, with homes having to be retrofitted with 
> technology. There is no reason why we should not plan ahead and create 
> a suitable data infrastructure, rather than continuing with unsuitable 
> piggybacking on existing technology.
>
> 7.22 pm
>
> The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 
> (Mr Mark Prisk): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton 
> Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) not only on securing this important 
> debate but on his highly informed speech. I will try to respond to the 
> specific points that he has raised, but perhaps it might help the 
> House if I first set out some background on power line technology 
> products, the Government’s policy on this matter and the potential 
> impact for the radio spectrum.
>
> The main applications of power line technology are in home 
> networking—we are all familiar with local area networks—as well as 
> smart metering, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, and 
> home automation. This is a global technology, responding to consumer 
> demand, and we see it being used not only here in the UK but in the 
> rest of Europe, in the United States and in Australia. The use of PLT 
> enables the increased
>
> 18 May 2011 : Column 472
>
> delivery of digital services, including broadband access, smart 
> metering, and television services from companies such as BT. One of 
> the practical benefits of PLT is that it frees the user from a fixed 
> location.
>
> It is acknowledged that as PLT moves to higher frequencies, above 30 
> MHz, there is increased potential for interference, although as my 
> hon. Friend pointed out, this is the case not just with PLT but with a 
> wide variety of new and emerging electronic systems. Experiments by 
> the BBC indicate there is some potential for localised interference. 
> In practice, however, the evidence from people using the devices 
> suggests that this problem is negligible. There are 1.8 million 
> devices in service in the UK, but the number of complaints has been 
> confined to a couple of hundred over the past three years. I shall 
> turn to those in a moment. It is worth bearing in mind that those 
> complaints are centred on a specific group of users, principally hobby 
> radio amateurs, including those using citizens’ band radio. That is 
> not to say that this group is not important, but it suggests that the 
> nature of the problem is confined. The experience in the UK is 
> reflected elsewhere. For example, following complaints in Germany, the 
> authorities investigated the situation, but declined to ban any 
> products. In Austria, following a product challenge brought by the 
> official regulator, the courts rejected the claim of non-conformity.
>
> In common with most electronic products sold in the UK, power line 
> technology equipment is required to comply with the Electromagnetic 
> Compatibility Regulations 2006, which are based on the European 
> electromagnetic compatibility directive of 2004. The essential 
> requirements, which I know the House will want to understand, are that 
> PLT equipment, to quote that regulation,
>
> “shall be designed and manufactured, having regard to the state of the 
> art and good engineering practice, so as to ensure that the 
> electromagnetic disturbance generated does not exceed the level above 
> which radio and telecommunications equipment or other equipment cannot 
> operate as intended.”
>
> The current regulations, as we have heard, do not set specific levels 
> of interference; rather, they set objectives to ensure that properly 
> designed radio systems will operate when other electrical equipment, 
> such as PLT apparatus, is in use. The regulations are trying to remain 
> flexible as this technology develops and adapts. Equally, not imposing 
> a mandatory fixed standard allows the regulatory environment to adapt 
> as experience of the use of this new technology emerges.
>
> My hon. Friend referred to EN55022, and I am sure most Members are no 
> more familiar with it than many Ministers have been over the years. 
> Let me explain that, following discussions between the European 
> Commission, member states and the industry, it was agreed that this 
> standard could not apply to PLT equipment for a variety of technical 
> and administrative reasons. The Commission has therefore asked the 
> European standards organisations to adopt an appropriate standard. 
> Until such time as a standard is available—it is logical that it will 
> affect both the UK and the wider markets in which British 
> manufacturers work—manufacturers will need to design products that 
> meet the objective, taking into account key issues such as the extent 
> of knowledge, the requirements of other users of the spectrum—an 
> important principle—good engineering practice and the state of the 
> art. This does mean that, for a period, there will be a lack of 
> absolute certainty as to what is acceptable. Let me be clear, however, 
> that should products be placed on
>
> 18 May 2011 : Column 473
>
> the market that do not meet the objectives of the regulations—in other 
> words, they cause unreasonable interference—those manufacturers should 
> expect enforcement action to be taken.
>
> Let me explain how enforcement works before coming on to the specific 
> issues about GCHQ and others. In the United Kingdom, enforcement of 
> protection of the radio spectrum for radio amateurs is now the 
> responsibility of Ofcom, while the BBC is the relevant enforcement 
> authority for interference to commercial broadcasts. Ofcom takes a 
> proactive approach to its enforcement role, but it can take action, 
> like any regulator, only where non-compliance can be shown.
>
> As my hon. Friend has already stated, in June last year Ofcom 
> commissioned an independent study, “The Likelihood and Extent of Radio 
> Frequency Interference from In-Home PLT Devices”, better to understand 
> the technical aspects behind its impacts. The study broadly concluded 
> that, provided that PLT equipment entering the market continues to 
> advance technologically—this is the key point—there will be a 
> “negligible” probability of interference to the majority of spectrum 
> users in the coming 10 years. We all need to bear in mind that these 
> advances in technology are often driven by consumer demand, as my hon. 
> Friend rightly pointed out, and by the desire to produce more 
> energy-efficient and therefore cheaper devices.
>
> Mitigation techniques include fixed notching—limiting transmission to 
> a part of the radio spectrum; smart notching—an automated scanning of 
> the spectrum for free space; and power saving. In response to concerns 
> raised by amateur radio users, including CB, their bands are subject 
> to fixed notching. As the use of PLTs and higher frequencies becomes 
> more common, this situation might be revised and additional mitigation 
> techniques such as smart-notching could well become more prevalent and 
> be applied more widely. This is likely to coincide with the 
> development of a European standard.
>
> Let me deal now with complaints. Between July 2008 and March this 
> year, Ofcom received 228 complaints that were attributed to PLT 
> devices. To be fair, this needs to be seen in the context of about 1.8 
> million pieces of PLT equipment supplied here. All the complaints 
> about PLT have been referred to the supplier for resolution and all 
> except one have been resolved. Furthermore, I am advised that all the 
> complaints were received from hobby radio amateurs. Ofcom rightly 
> points out that amateur radio licensees do not have an absolute legal 
> right to an absolutely “clean spectrum”. It is also worth noting that 
> the number of complaints received over the last 12 months has been 
> significantly less than during the previous 12 months—from 147 down to 
> 53—even though, as my hon. Friend said, there has been an increasing 
> rate of supply of this equipment.
>
> My hon. Friend mentioned his constituent in the Bedford area. 
> Reference to problems caused by television aerial boosters serves to 
> remind us that many products in common use do cause problems. In this 
> instance Ofcom was able to take prompt action, which I think is a sign 
> that it is not being merely reactive.
>
> Let me now deal with more serious issues relating to GCHQ and the 
> Civil Aviation Authority. The GCHQ statement was issued by a staff 
> member without proper authority, and contained inaccuracies. It has 
> therefore
>
> 18 May 2011 : Column 474
>
> subsequently been withdrawn. I am advised that the statement does not 
> reflect the position of GCHQ, which has informed my Department that 
> PLT is not currently affecting its capability.
>
> The CAA has now specifically stated that it does not endorse or 
> support the comments in the withdrawn GCHQ statement to which my hon. 
> Friend referred. I accept that it is important to safety in aerospace, 
> which he rightly mentioned, for all potential risks to be considered 
> carefully, and the Government are clear about that. The CAA tells me 
> that at present it has no evidence that a problem exists, but this is 
> a new technology, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the CAA intends 
> to undertake further testing as the higher-frequency products emerge 
> on the market.
>
> When I looked into the issue in preparation for the debate, I was 
> encouraged to learn that the Ministry of Defence, the police and the 
> fire and rescue, ambulance, coastguard and lifeboat services have all 
> reported no complaints about interference. That breadth of evidence 
> seems to me to support the conclusion that the problem is limited to a 
> particular group of people. It is not a case of complacency; it is, as 
> I know my hon. Friend will understand, a case of trying to judge the 
> proportion of the risk.
>
> My hon. Friend raised the important question of co-ordination in the 
> context of the development of category 5. The Digital Britain team 
> emanated largely from my Department, and we have close links with it 
> as well as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the 
> Department for Transport. Ofcom tells me that it regularly consults 
> all the relevant public and private stakeholders, including GCHQ, the 
> CAA and the Radio Society of Great Britain.
>
> My hon. Friend asked whether category 5 broadband cables would be 
> installed as standard practice in all new homes. I am advised that 
> that initiative was part of the programme of the Digital Britain team. 
> It must be said that although dedicated cabling may be the best 
> engineering solution, it is not generally practicable to install it in 
> existing homes without significant cost or disruption. For new build 
> and rewiring it may make sense, but the rising cost of copper may make 
> it prohibitively expensive.
>
> As with all potential sources of interference in the radio spectrum, 
> users, especially those with the potential to affect security and 
> safety-critical systems, we take our responsibilities seriously. The 
> current regulatory regime is more flexible than some users may wish it 
> to be, but that is for a good reason. As I have said, it must be able 
> to adapt to changes in technology and its use. The Government intend 
> to monitor the situation carefully, principally via Ofcom. Ofcom will 
> continue to address any complaints that arise, but so far it has 
> concluded that the technology complies with the requirements of the 
> legislation, and that the few instances of difficulty should be dealt 
> with on a case-by-case basis.
>
> While the Government will continue to pay attention to the concerns of 
> complainants, we believe that a ban on PLT products would be wholly 
> disproportionate. Let me put it simply: our approach is to be vigilant 
> in monitoring the situation and proportionate in enforcement.
>
> Question put and agreed to.
> 7.35 pm

original em: 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110518/debtext/110518-0004.htm#11051896000002
fonte: SGARN - http://www.southgatearc.org/news/may2011/plt_debate_text.htm

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
QRA: Pedro Ribeiro // Callsign: CR7ABP // GRID Locator: IM58mr
QTH: São Francisco, Alcochete, Portugal
Homepage: http://www.qrz.com/db/CR7ABP
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
# HAM operation very limited by class 3 rules until April 2012  #
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=