FCC Says "Sorry but no cigar!" to ARRL

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] ]FCC ADOPTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON BROADBAND OVER POWER LINES TO PROMOTE BROADBAND SERVICE TO ALL AMERICANS

Washington, DC - As part of its ongoing efforts to promote access to broadband services for all Americans and to encourage new facilities based broadband platforms, the Federal Communications Commission today generally affirmed its rules for Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) systems while maintaining safeguards against harmful interference to existing radio services. If harmful interference does occur, the Commission will take appropriate action to remedy the situation. Today’s decision was adopted in response to a number of petitions for reconsideration of the BPL rules established in October of 2004.
In the Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) adopted today, the Commission again acknowledged the significant benefits of Access BPL, reaffirmed its commitment to address interference issues, and reemphasized that the Part 15 rule changes were made to ensure that Access BPL operations do not become a source of interference to licensed radio services.

Specifically, the MO&O by the Commission:

- Affirms its rules regarding emission limits for BPL, including its determination that the reduction of emissions to 20 dB below the normal Part 15 emissions limits will constitute adequate interference protection for mobile operations;

- Denies the request by the amateur radio community to prohibit BPL operations pending further study and to exclude BPL from frequencies used for amateur radio operations;

- Denies the request by the television industry to exclude BPL from frequencies above 50 MHz;

- Affirms the July 7, 2006 deadline for requiring certification for any equipment manufactured, imported or installed on BPL systems, with the proviso that uncertified equipment already in inventory can be used for replacing defective units or to supplement equipment on existing systems for one year within areas already in operation;

- Affirms the requirement that information regarding BPL deployment must be provided in a public database at least 30 days prior to the deployment of that equipment;

- Adopts changes regarding protection of radio astronomy stations by requiring a new exclusion zone and amending consultation requirements for these stations; and

- Adopts changes to provide for continuing protection for aeronautical stations that are relocated.

- Denies the request by the aeronautical industry to exclude BPL operating on low-voltage lines from frequencies reserved for certain aeronautical operations;

- Denies the request by the gas and petroleum industry to be considered as public safety entities;

Action by the Commission, August 3, 2006, by Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 06-113). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell. Separate statements issued by Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Tate, and McDowell.

ET Docket No. 04-37 and 03-104.

Office of Engineering and Technology Contact: Bruce Romano (202) 418-2124; Anh Wride (202) 418-0577.

Comment by Michael Copps:

Quote[/b] ]Even as we seek to encourage BPL – as I stated when we issued our initial order two years ago – we must also ensure that its providers protect existing spectrum users from interference. This applies with special force to amateur radio operators whose skills and dedication once again proved so valuable in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Amateur radio serves the public interest in so many ways that we must be always mindful of its needs. I believe today’s Order strikes an acceptable balance between protecting existing users and providing BPL an environment conducive to innovation and to getting on with the job of deployment. But we should be ever alive to the reality that the unexpected often happens and unforeseen consequences are as often the rule as they are the exception. That’s why the Commission must be available and positioned to respond to interference complaints with alacrity. Amateur operators shouldn’t have to wait for months to get complaints resolved—they deserve better.

Posted without comment.


Links to info:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A2.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A3.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A4.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A5.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A3.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A4.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A5.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A1.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A2.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A3.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A4.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266773A5.txt

[kf4lne]

Quote[/b] ]- Denies the request by the aeronautical industry to exclude BPL operating on low-voltage lines from frequencies reserved for certain aeronautical operations

Now that the FCC feels that BPL is low enough on the interference scale to deny everyones request for protection will everyone STFU with their gloom and doom over BPL? TV, utilities and avaition services were denied their requests, these groups throw a lot of money at the FCC and tend to have deep pockets and the FCC still denied their requests. What makes anyone think the FCC is going to do anything special for a group who gets their spectrum for what amounts to free? just because the FCC dumbed down the question pool to a level fit for a retarded monkey doesent mean that we as licensed amateurs can't find a way to deal with the potential BPL noise. better yet, lets all just sit back and wait for a plane to fall out of the sky because some kids porn download just happened to be on the same frequency as ATC, that will put a quick stop to BPL.

[N2RJ]

Putting the interference issues aside for a minute, does anyone actually think BPL is a good technology? #

I would much rather have fiber to my house than s**tty BPL. #Verizon has been rolling out fiber to homes and on that pipe can offer 30 mbps broadband internet, telephone service AND many channels of high definition cable TV. #

They can't even get a full megabit proper out of BPL for the internet connection alone, and without the use of expensive repeaters deployed ever so often.

Why go backwards and implement this dinosaur technology?

[KI4NGN]

Well, I am probably in a minority and will thus get slammed, but I am not against BPL. It seems that most are against it for the potential RFI problems. I'm against anything that causes interference, not that might cause interference.

Suppose that people came out vehemently against amateur radio because it 'might' cause interference? Though technological advances have reduced ARS caused RFI by improving home electronics, it is still possible and must be addressed when it occurs.

I know that BPL has been demonstrated to cause RFI. I agree 100% that this needs to be addressed, but to suggest that the only solution is to ban BPL is pretty narrow minded. Again consider it from the perspective of an ARS op causing interference. Should amateur radio be banned because of RFI generated by some ops? Of course not. The interference is dealt with on a case by case basis. Why must it be different for BPL?

I will agree with the idea of a ban if it is proven that BPL cannot be implemented without causing interfence, but I've never seen a discussion that proves this. BPL was given a trial here in Raleigh, and it was abandoned. RFI was a consideration, but I think only from the perspective of considering cost versus gain: Weigh the cost of installing the system, reducing or eliminating RFI, and the services that could be offered, against what was already available to the market area. Conclusion was that it was not worth it.

It's easy to discount BPL in urban areas. BPL doesn't make much sense to me in city or town settings, not with the cable and fiber technologies that are available. But rural areas? I have relatives, including a sister, who live 10-20 miles outside of the Greensboro, NC city limits. As many years as cable has been around, it is still to this day not available to them, nor are any fiber lines, and they're too far from the switch for DSL. Technologies (for internet access) available to my sister are dial-up and satellite. Dial-up is of course very slow, and satellite can be unreliable in bad weather.

MH mentioned he'd rather have fiber to his house. Of course! My sister would love it too! Do you think that you just call Verizon and ask them to please install fiber to your house? Sure, they'd be happy to spend a several hundred thousand dollars getting fiber out to you and your neighbors, and they'll get right on it! After all, they'll start making money off of it in just a few decades. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I'm against any technology that will inherently and without prevail cause RFI. I am not against any technology that will improve the internet access availability for many people just because it might cause interference, or because the FCC may be lax in enforcement when it does.

Mike, Raleigh NC

[KI4ITV]

Not to worry. The power companies will invest billions in this rather slow technology only to have it die a slow death and eventually have to charge you more to pay for their mistake.

[KS4VT]

Probably one of the reasons the FCC didn't come down so hard on BPL is there have been manufacturers that have developed equipment that doesn't interfere with the amateur HF band, Motorola is one of them.

What the FCC needs to do is to tighen up the type-acceptance on BPL equipment to meet or exceed the new designs, not use Part 15 R&R's for BPL, and to come down hard on those who deploy systems that cause interference, like the one deployed by ComTek.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (KI4ITV @ Aug. 06 2006,04:29)]Not to worry. #The power companies will invest billions in this rather slow technology only to have it die a slow death and eventually have to charge you more to pay for their mistake.
You hit the nail on the head!

Right now the best thing to do is to write your state regulatory commission a nice letter outlining the poor service levels BPL will provide and requesting that they require any power company implementing this product to do so only as a pay-as-you-go type investment. It should *NOT* be considered as part of the general rate base and paid for by all subscribers. There are services like wi-max on the horizon that will work better, require lower investment, and will actually outlive its depreciation life.

tim ab0wr

[kf4lne]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Aug. 05 2006,23:49)]Quote[/b] (KI4ITV @ Aug. 06 2006,04:29)]Not to worry. The power companies will invest billions in this rather slow technology only to have it die a slow death and eventually have to charge you more to pay for their mistake.
You hit the nail on the head!

Right now the best thing to do is to write your state regulatory commission a nice letter outlining the poor service levels BPL will provide and requesting that they require any power company implementing this product to do so only as a pay-as-you-go type investment. It should *NOT* be considered as part of the general rate base and paid for by all subscribers. There are services like wi-max on the horizon that will work better, require lower investment, and will actually outlive its depreciation life.

tim ab0wr
Its too bad the average person doesen't have any clue about any of this and most people will only see the benefit of the broadband being available in places they claim its not. I don't like the idea of having to pay a higher kWh rate so the power company can use that money to build a network to provide a service I have no need for. I already pay through the nose for power anyway. The idea of writing a letter of oppisition to the regulatory agency is great but far too few people will take the time to or even know whats going on to write a letter opposing BPL. You are exactly right, power companies will raise rates or somehow spread the overall cost of installing BPL to all their customers rather than the ones who want to subscribe to the service. BPL isn't so much a concern of interference as it is a concern of higher energy costs to pay for the system-wide upgrades that many power companies will have to o just for the service to work. At this point there isn't much we as users of the spectrum can do to stop BPL, but maybe if the word spreads that the potential exists for increase rates to cover the costs of deployment then maybe enough people will raise enough hell to get that issue looked into and curbed before it gets started. I am not in any way in suppport of BPL, there are far better solutions available for broadband where none exists. I have broadband here and I am easily 20 miles from the nearest cable HSD and according toe verizon i am too far from available DSL service, but for an initial investment of $300 for the hardware and installation I have my broadband via satellite.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]Not to worry. The power companies will invest billions in this rather slow technology only to have it die a slow death and eventually have to charge you more to pay for their mistake.
I work for one that isn't.
They're actually thinking about going the wireless route to compete with the phone and cable companies. It seems we own a large number of very high towers (for our microwave comms system) that would be just dandy for the wireless ISP application.

BPL will die of it's own lack on economic advantage. They can't compete with cable, DSL and wireless. Anybody else happen to notice when the city of Chicago announced it's city wide broadband access plan that BPL wasn't on the list?

Anybody else also happen to notice that this is about the third or fourth time in a row that the vaunted ARRL lobby has had their hat handed to them? The "only game in town" is impotent.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Aug. 06 2006,05:53)]Well, I am probably in a minority and will thus get slammed, but I am not against BPL. It seems that most are against it for the potential RFI problems. I'm against anything that causes interference, not that might cause interference.

Suppose that people came out vehemently against amateur radio because it 'might' cause interference? Though technological advances have reduced ARS caused RFI by improving home electronics, it is still possible and must be addressed when it occurs.

I know that BPL has been demonstrated to cause RFI. I agree 100% that this needs to be addressed, but to suggest that the only solution is to ban BPL is pretty narrow minded. Again consider it from the perspective of an ARS op causing interference. Should amateur radio be banned because of RFI generated by some ops? Of course not. The interference is dealt with on a case by case basis. Why must it be different for BPL?

I will agree with the idea of a ban if it is proven that BPL cannot be implemented without causing interfence, but I've never seen a discussion that proves this. BPL was given a trial here in Raleigh, and it was abandoned. RFI was a consideration, but I think only from the perspective of considering cost versus gain: Weigh the cost of installing the system, reducing or eliminating RFI, and the services that could be offered, against what was already available to the market area. Conclusion was that it was not worth it.

It's easy to discount BPL in urban areas. BPL doesn't make much sense to me in city or town settings, not with the cable and fiber technologies that are available. But rural areas? I have relatives, including a sister, who live 10-20 miles outside of the Greensboro, NC city limits. As many years as cable has been around, it is still to this day not available to them, nor are any fiber lines, and they're too far from the switch for DSL. Technologies (for internet access) available to my sister are dial-up and satellite. Dial-up is of course very slow, and satellite can be unreliable in bad weather.

MH mentioned he'd rather have fiber to his house. Of course! My sister would love it too! Do you think that you just call Verizon and ask them to please install fiber to your house? Sure, they'd be happy to spend a several hundred thousand dollars getting fiber out to you and your neighbors, and they'll get right on it! After all, they'll start making money off of it in just a few decades. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I'm against any technology that will inherently and without prevail cause RFI. I am not against any technology that will improve the internet access availability for many people just because it might cause interference, or because the FCC may be lax in enforcement when it does.

Mike, Raleigh NC
I read your entire post and while I commend your cause for wanting to keep an open mind, there are several things you either ignored or weren't aware of.

BPL is essentially the transmission of data, essentially RF, over long, unshielded, untwisted metal cables. Tell me something. Your connection between your radio and antenna - is it shielded or unshielded? Why are you not simply putting a piece of electrical wire between your rig and your antenna? The answer is because it's lossy and even if you match the line with a "tuner" your signal will radiate all over the place from your transmission line and very little of it will reach your antenna because your line will act like an antenna. That is essentially BPL. Power lines are very lossy, and as a result they need to deploy repeaters every so often, and because the wires are out in the open, they essentially act like an antenna and radiate signal.

This does not even take into account the fact that many powerlines have problems in them. Broken/damaged/worn insulators and corroded connections already cause RFI all by themselves. In addition they waste electricity and are a fire hazard. Imagine putting BPL on that to add to the problems.

There is no question that BPL causes interference. This is why the power companies wanted the limits on Part 15 raised, so that BPL could qualify under part 15, by changing the law! That is like a perv avoiding a statutory rape charge by lowering the age of consent to 12.

As for comparing it to interference caused amateur radio operators, there is no comparison. An amateur radio station, if properly installed, will not cause interference. An amateur who cares about staying on the air will ensure that he does not cause RFI, often at his own expense. Only a LID will ignore reasonable RFI complaints.

Telephone/TVI is also often caused by insufficient shielding/RFI abatement measures built into equipment. That is not the case with BPL. BPL will interfere with properly shielded equipment, and there is no amount of split beads and/or high/low/bandpass filters that can cure the problem.

As for fiber to the home, it's long overdue. Verizon and others are finally getting off their butts because of competition by the cable companies. But it's way overdue. The technology has been around for years now. We also paid over the years over and over with telephone taxes for fiber upgrades, only to get outdated technology like DSL shoved down our throats. In other words, it's 2006. Many homes should have already been equipped with fiber, and a large part of the copper wiring should have been decommissioned. "they'll make money off it in a few decades?" Hello, they've been paid over and over for it already. They borrowed money from the American public for it already many times over. Now it's time to deliver.

Another thing - you complain that deploying fiber costs money. Who exactly is going to pay for each BPL repeater on the pole? Unlike the propaganda you hear from the power companies, BPL isn't a magic technology that requires no or minimal infrastructure. BPL requires repeaters on the pole every so often.

BPL is also no solution for rural America. Again, you have to deploy repeaters ever so often. That is not going to happen. Costs too much. Rural America is once again used as a broadband political football and they're still stuck with dialup. Is that really fair?

[WB2WIK]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I think where I am, if the power company offered BPL right now, for free, nobody would sign up for it because everybody already has broadband access using stuff they're completely satisifed with, and it doesn't cost much. In fact, DSL costs just slightly more than ordinary dial-up phone service, and cable access adds only a small fee to the existing television service because with a "package deal," they offer deep discounts.

I remember in about 1997 paying hundreds of dollars to have an ISDN line installed, and then paying about another $100 a month to use it. Times have changed a lot since then.

Unless urban area (major pop centers) residents subscribe to help pay down the cost of implementing BPL, I doubt it will sustain itself. The rural prospective customers are spread out over millions of square miles, but don't represent a large enough number; same logistics problem as DSL and cable providers have now.

I guess we'll see what happens.

[W0LC]

Was there ever any doubt about BPL and the FCC? Powell prostituted himself to get this out there and now everyone will be affected by it in some fashion.

Best thing to do when experiencing RFI from it, turn your beams at it and run full legal limit and tear up the ISP connections.
Afterall, writing, documenting with the FCC doesn't do any good.

Last resort, buy a chain saw and cut the pole in two.

BPL makes about as much sense as going back to 8-track tapes.

[KI4NGN]

First, believe it or not I do understand how BPL works. Second, the reason that they wanted a regulation change was so that they wouldn't have to spend extra money for more sophisticated systems that eliminate the RFI problems. They were trying to get the rules changed to reduce their capital expenditure. Not exactly a new phenomenom in business.

In all honesty I don't see BPL being around long if the capital investments are made for WiFi systems.

I wasn't thinking of the cost of the BPL systems, but, let's see: they make a capital investment and might try to recoup that from their current service customers. Gee, that would be a novel idea, wouldn't it? A company making capital investments and then trying to get it back from their customers....who'd have thunk it.

Fiber has been around for many years now. I moved into my home when it was new and Bellsouth let me know that I had fiber right up to my property. And do you know what it was good for? Nada. The best they have been able to offer me has been DSL (a copper based technology!) And that was only offered after years in the house when they finally upgaded the switch so that it could transport DSL over the fiber.

Laying it all out, announcing all of the plans, is just great. Tell me about it when it is up and running.

I'm not expressly for BPL, but for anything that will provide better access for people. I personally believe that BPL is not a long term solution, but it may help some people in the short term (years) and stimulate the competition in the long term.

One poster said that BPL is not the answer because repeaters have to be installed. Yes, of course they do, but is it far easier to install those repeaters than it is to run hundreds of miles of fiber.

Quote[/b] ]BPL will die of it's own lack on economic advantage. They can't compete with cable, DSL and wireless.

I've already said as much when I said it doesn't make much sense in the urban world. However it can provide service where this is no cable, DSL, and wireless. It may have a relatively short life, but there are still many thousands if not millions of people out there, non-city dwellers, who don't have any alternatives. BPL could be a niche. I don't think it is perfect, or even very good.....but someone on dialup might think it wonderful!

Mike

[N2RJ]

Powell is a digital freebander who just loves part 15 devices.

First Wi-Fi now BPL. I bet in Powell's world they'll do away with licensing of radio spectrum completely and it'll be a free for all.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Aug. 06 2006,17:37)]I'm not expressly for BPL, but for anything that will provide better access for people. I personally believe that BPL is not a long term solution, but it may help some people in the short term (years) and stimulate the competition in the long term.
But will BPL provide that? Look at where they're deploying BPL. Manassas, VA. Cedar Rapids, IA. Raleigh, NC

None of these areas are what I'd call rural.

"Rural broadband" and "broadband for all americans" is a smokescreen. BPL companies will deploy BPL where it is most profitable - i.e. in the cities and the burbs, which are already served by cable and DSL and now fiber.

Quote[/b] ]Fiber has been around for many years now. I moved into my home when it was new and Bellsouth let me know that I had fiber right up to my property. And do you know what it was good for? Nada. The best they have been able to offer me has been DSL (a copper based technology!) And that was only offered after years in the house when they finally upgaded the switch so that it could transport DSL over the fiber.

Laying it all out, announcing all of the plans, is just great. Tell me about it when it is up and running.

It's no secret that the phone companies have been trying to avoid deploying fiber. Notice that they only get serious about it when the cable company starts offering voice over IP telephone service. Nevermind that all of these years that the phone companies have lobbied the Government to increase taxes your telephone service to fund fiber deployments which have not happened. Instead, they stick us with dinosaur technologies like Damn Slow Line. The technology is here. It should have been here a long time ago.

Quote[/b] ]One poster said that BPL is not the answer because repeaters have to be installed. Yes, of course they do, but is it far easier to install those repeaters than it is to run hundreds of miles of fiber.

That would be me.

The problem is not only initial cost. It is maintaining all of those repeaters. Due to the lossy nature of a BPL signal, the repeaters have to be spaced relatively close together. This means more units in the field to service and hence higher failure rate.

Couple that with the fact that they are also in close proximity to high voltage. They are active components, and hence would not be as reliable as a passive component such as a piece of fiber optic cable. You light one end and it goes for quite a long distance before needing a repeater. Less infrastructure to maintain, lower failure rate. In fact fiber should virtually last forever if buried underground, provided someone doesn't dig them up. They will be at least more reliable than powerlines if placed on poles.

The choice for international connectivity is fiber. That's because undersea fiber optic cable is just a "set and forget" thing.

[ka5s]

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

The fat lady hasn't even laced up her corset.

It was unlikely that the petitions for reconsideration would be granted. However, in seeking relief from actions a government agency takes, it is necessary to request all the administrative relief the system contains before a court can step in.

BPL deployed under the conditions reported in the M&O is almost certain to generate harmful interference as defined by the Radio Treaty. Treaties -- as some here have complained about -- override other laws of the United States.

Interesting times!


Cortland
KA5S

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KI4ITV @ Aug. 06 2006,07:29)]Not to worry. The power companies will invest billions in this rather slow technology only to have it die a slow death and eventually have to charge you more to pay for their mistake.
Absolutely right with one exception:

Not to worry. The power companies will say that they have invested billions in this rather slow technology only to have it die a slow death and eventually have to charge you more to pay for their "mistake."

I'm going to really enjoy the bloodletting in the winter and spring of '08. Especially when the political appointees are out of their jobs.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Aug. 06 2006,15:37)]I'm not expressly for BPL, but for anything that will provide better access for people. I personally believe that BPL is not a long term solution, but it may help some people in the short term (years) and stimulate the competition in the long term.
You may be happy if a cell tower was built in the yard across the street, but many of your neighbors would be up in arms. It gives better access, right? Get 'er done!

[w7lpn]

Maybe the FCC is smart enough to realize this ain't going anywhere because it's poorly developed technology and has a marginal chance of spreading to the point of becomming a real problem. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[W0LC]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Aug. 07 2006,10:54)]Maybe the FCC is smart enough to realize this ain't going anywhere because it's poorly developed technology and has a marginal chance of spreading to the point of becomming a real problem. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I seriously doubt the "FCC is that smart". They only see $$$, not reality. The facts have been presented to them repeatedly and they can only do what generates $$ in their pockets. Afteral, amateur radio is a hobby group. They have little to no use for us so why bother supporting us let along listen to factual information about the harmful effects of BPL.

Yes, the FCC has gone down some interesting but harmful roads. RF IDs, BPL just to mention a few.

[KD6NIG]

I don't see anything in this order protecting BPL from Ham radio users.

I have a funny feeling that in affected areas, the only way to recieve communications will for them to 'burn through' the interference.

I wonder if any legal limit amp manufacturers quietly tacked support onto this.

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Aug. 06 2006,09:37)]Fiber has been around for many years now. I moved into my home when it was new and Bellsouth let me know that I had fiber right up to my property. And do you know what it was good for? Nada. The best they have been able to offer me has been DSL (a copper based technology!) And that was only offered after years in the house when they finally upgaded the switch so that it could transport DSL over the fiber.

Laying it all out, announcing all of the plans, is just great. Tell me about it when it is up and running.
It's up and running. (http://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fios/root/package.asp)

[KI4NGN]

Not in my area it's not. Their web site won't even accept my Raleigh address to tell me whether or not their service is available for me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif