Ambient Corp. responds to ARRL`s "frivolous" BPL Interference complaint

Ambient Corp. respond to ARRL`s "Frivolous" BPL Interference Complaint !!!!

February 14,2006


James Burtle, Chief
Office of Engineering and Technology
Federal Colninunications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, S. W.
Washington, D.C. 20554

RE: Interference Complaint, Ambient Corporation
Broadband Over Power Line System at Briarcliff Manor, NY
(ET Dkt NO. 04-37)

Dear Mr. Burtle:

This is in response to the letter addressed to you and others at the FCC, dated January 5,2006,
fioin Christopher D. Iinlay, on behalf of ARRL.
As the FCC can document fiom its records, Ambient Corporation ("Ambient") has been
conducting testing at a site in Westchester County, NY pursuant to FCC granted Part 5
Experimental authorizations, most recently pursuant to its experimental license, WD2XEQ. The
purpose of this testing, as is evident from our prior filings, has been to develop proprietary
technology to enable broadband access to high speed Internet services and utility applications via
broadband over power line technologies.
Under the framework of its Experimental License, Ambient continues to develop and test
methods for enhancing the performance of its BPL systems and to monitor and adjust the
parameters of its test facilities to be responsive to the concerns of the amateur radio operators
consistent with its obligations under its Experimental License.
Ambient is continuing testing operations on underground distribution plant in the Westchester
County area in addition to on-going testing of overhead plant.

Ambient has made advances in its software and hardware to develop new generations of products
which fully address all applicable regulatory requirements. It is continuing to make
improvements in compliance with applicable radiated emission limits upon power-up following a
fault condition or during start-up operation after a shut-off procedure, to immediately restore
previous settings.

As previously reported to the Commission, Ambient has developed capabilities to notch out
signals on Amateur bands, demonstrating significant advancements in its technology over the
relatively short time period of its test program. These bands include the following Amateur
Radio bands: 80,40, 30,20, 17, 15, 12 and 10 meters: 3.5-4 MHz, 7-7.3 MHz, 10.1-10.15 MHz,
14.0-14.35 MHz, 18,068 -18,168 MHz, 21-21.45 MHz; 24,890-24,990 MHz, and 28.0-29.7
MHz. Also, the Ambient frequency plan was modified to comply with excluded bands of
operations according to Table 1 of the FCC Part 15, Subpart G Rules.
On January 27,2006, Ambient personnel made EM1 measurements at several locations in
Briarcliff Manor, NY. The results show that contrary to ARRL claims, the “notching” in the
majority of amateur bands is in place. It also discovered that due to a software error, incurred in
recent upgrades, the “notching” in 18.068 - 18.168 MHz was shifted to the low edge, so,
necessary corrections were immediately implemented.
Ambient is continuing to design for the 2nd generation technology and periodically is upgrading
its software and hardware. These upgrades will provide much better capabilities for clean and
effective “notching”, compared to the current design equipment. In order to protect against
possible unanticipated software or hardware problems while its transition to Znd generation
technologies is taking place, Ambient personnel have implemented new procedures to ensure
that adequate notching is in place going forward.
Ambient also put in place last November procedures to give prior notification to and to consult
with public safety users in the areas where it has deployed its Experimental test systems
including in areas like Briarcliff Manor where it has been conducting longstanding trials under
its Experimental License.
In response to ARRL’s frivolous complaint that somehow Ambient is in violation of Condition #
7 in its Experimental License, Briarcliff Manor is clearly not a “new city.” Contrary to ARRL’s
claims, notifications with respect the location of Experimental operations are covered under the
specific terms of its Part 5 license, not Section 15.615 of the FCC’s rules. In any event, ARRL
already has access to the extensive data which the FCC compiled regarding Ambient’s
experimental operations in the Briarcliff Manor area.
We strongly object to ARRL’s arguments claiming that all signals from power line sources
adjacent to our Access BPL system which ARRL has detected in its testing automatically must
be considered “harmful interference” as defined in Section 15.5 of the FCC’s rules.

Finally, we also urge the FCC to deny the ARRL Petition for Reconsideration filed February 7,
2005 and to dismiss its recently filed companion pleading, Petition for Issuance of Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and for Amendment of Regulations, filed October 18,2005. It
seems self evident that ARRL is attempting, by making filings with respect to our experimental
operations, to halt or at least to discourage the efforts of companies like Ambient to develop and
to deploy advanced technologies in compliance with the FCC's new access BPL rules. The fact
that ARRL disagrees with significant aspects of the FCC's current rules does not justify this
improper use of the FCC's complaint procedures.
We request that the FCC dismiss or deny ARRL's January 5 letter for all of the reasons
presented here.


Respea;tfully submitted,

GEORGE Y. WHEELER

cc(by electronic mail):
Christopher Imlay (b fi tpc. aol . com)
Julius Knapp (julius.knapp@fcc.gov)
Joseph Casey (j oseph. caseyafcc. gov)